Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection - IAEI Florida Chapter

You are not logged in. [Log In] IAEI Florida Chapter » Forums » Code Discussion » NEC Forum » Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection

Florida Chapter Officers

BOD Chairman
Nelson Montgomery
President
Dan Prater
1st Vice President
Ted Licitra
2nd Vice President
Mark Deegan
3rd Vice President
Richard Wheelus
Chaplain
Vince Dellacroce
Secretary
Joe DuPriest
Treasurer
Eric L Wasser
Parliamentarian
Tim Wright

Top Posters (30 Days)

Bryan Holland	14
Nick Sasso	3
inspector32513	3
Ruben Rocha	3
Paul J Cameron	3
ronwampler	2
Joe L. DuPriest	1
DickWidera	1
SOwings	1

Google Search

Today's Birthdays

No Birthdays

Page 3 of 3

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#6359 - 06/11/09 06:34 PM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: John Desjardins]
Ruben Rocha Senior Member Registered: 05/24/00 Posts: 762 Loc: Lutz,FL	Originally Posted By: John Desjardins They aren't going to be able to get away from this. R4101.7.2 Installation. Pumps shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Because the NEC is a National Standard pump manufacturers will require GFCI protection to be inline with the NEC. The Commision can change the Code all they want however they CAN NOT require deviation from the Manufactures installation Instruction. I've run into this many times. Not just Electrical. If the manufacturers Installation Requirements are greater then the Code they must be installed by the MII. That is why I ALWAYS require all equipment documentation before any inspections. If you don't you can find yourself behind the 8 ball! John, I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement. Since most jurisdictions require listed equipment, and the installation guideline is part of the listing. How can someone get around the GFCI protection if it is part of the listing, regardless if there is an exception in Florida and it was never added in 2008. What would you do if we were under the 1996 NEC and the install sheet required gfci protection? I guess it will become a call from the building official. _________________________ Webmaster IAEI Florida Chapter
Top

#6360 - 06/12/09 12:06 AM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: Ruben Rocha]
Nick Sasso Post-A-Holic Member Registered: 11/08/01 Posts: 1438 Loc: West Palm Beach	Hey guys, the Florida Building Commission makes total sense on this issue, because everyone knows that the electrical for a commercial pool is far more dangerous than the electrical for a residence. WAY TO GO 'FELLAS! They should keep screwing with the electrical code until there is an accident. Then after the accident, they can go retroactive and abolish the amendment, and adopt the NEC as written. Until then, the prority is to coddle the pool contractors. "Waaaaaaaaahhh. Waaaaaaaaaaahh. We don't wanna do it............." I'm sure this is the result of some very smart "engineers" on the commission and not the electrical tac. The tac voted to adopt as written. This is probably the result of a civil engineer, or several, or a building official with no electrical experience, applying their superior intelect and knowledge. If an electrical engineer voted for this amendment then I will eat my pouch. If the manufacturer's instructions require it and it's not there you can be sure I'm writing a RED TAG. If my building official says they don't need it then he can PUT IT IN WRITING. If I ever get the chance to act as an expert in a law suit where there was no GFCI protection, than rest assured I will make mincemeat out of that contractor (your liability insurance rates will triple) and the jurisdiction as well. I should be so lucky. And no, it's not a call from the building official - to violate 110.3(b) on purpose because the commission is not smart enough to know the difference. ns Edited by Nick Sasso (06/12/09 12:11 AM) _________________________
Top

#6361 - 06/12/09 09:35 AM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: Nick Sasso]
Bryan Holland Secretary Registered: 10/05/04 Posts: 1598 Loc: City of North Port	NICK SASSO FOR PRESIDENT !!!! The good news is that pool owners can no longer get their hair, fingers, and bodies stuck on and in water inlet covers. Flows and suction has been reduced to help prevent drowning. Baby barriers / alarms must be installed and the pool must be empty at final electrical inspections to protect the homeowner..... BUT..... We are going to allow them to be electrocuted when as little as 6mA of leakage current flows on the frame of the pool pump. What's wrong with this picture??? Edited by Bryan Holland (06/12/09 10:22 AM) _________________________ Bryan P. Holland, MCP
Top

#6362 - 06/12/09 10:35 AM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: Bryan Holland]
John Desjardins Mechanic Member Registered: 08/07/03 Posts: 306 Loc: Body=NC, Head & Heart=Florida	Bryan, Do you not agree with what I said about the manufactures Installation Instructions?
Top

#6365 - 06/12/09 02:51 PM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: John Desjardins]
Bryan Holland Secretary Registered: 10/05/04 Posts: 1598 Loc: City of North Port	Yes John. I completely agree with your postings. _________________________ Bryan P. Holland, MCP
Top

#6378 - 06/15/09 03:52 AM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: Bryan Holland]
gfretwell Unregistered	"Pool has to be empty on the final electrical" ??? How do you do that? They will pop out of the ground if they don't have water in them around here. It is either going to be brown water or blue water. You also need to fill the pool immediately after plastering it to keep the plaster from cracking and you can't install the underwater lights, ladders, rails etc until it is plastered. Something sounds wrong with that sequence. The "final electric" is the pool final here, or at least it was in 2004 when I did mine. The electrical inspector does it all. They wanted the pool blue before they came out.
Top

#6379 - 06/15/09 08:58 AM Re: Rule 9B – 3.047, GFCI Protection [Re: ]
Bryan Holland Secretary Registered: 10/05/04 Posts: 1598 Loc: City of North Port	Here is one commentary on the issue I was able to find online: Quote: FBC adopts 2008 NEC, exempting GFCI requirement on residential pools FSPA President Alan Cooper, "This epitomizes what our government relations program is all about. Further, it is an excellent example of the importance of having a swimming pool contractor on the FBC." On Tuesday the Florida Building Commission (FBC) held a final rule hearing on glitch rule 9B-3.047, which encompassed a number of proposed changes to the 2007 Florida Building Code (the code). Most important to the pool industry was the 2008 NEC discussion. In April the FBC voted to adopt the 2008 NEC, but exempt the GFCI requirement on residential pools. However, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and others received word of this action and were in attendance on Tuesday. Testimony from a NEMA representative and an electrical contractor asked the FBC to reverse their original decision and adopt the 2008 NEC in total. Representatives from FSPA and other groups provided testimony to rebut the NEMA claims and encourage the FBC to stand by their original decision. Larry Brown, FSPA Central Florida member and electrical contractor for Mid Florida Pools, did a superb job rebutting the NEMA testimony. In addition, comments were made to the FBC by UPSA members. To sum up the discussion, Commissioner Ken Gregory spoke to his fellow Commissioners asking them to vote down a motion to adopt the 2008 NEC in its entirety. The FBC agreed with him and the testimony the pool industry provided, ultimately voting down the motion 16-6. The original decision to adopt the 2008 NEC except for the GFCI requirement on residential pools withstood. Also note that the FBC voted to incorporate into the glitch rule the 64E-9, F.A.C., public pool code revisions. Read this story in its entirety in the July issue of Florida Pool Pro (sm). _________________________ Bryan P. Holland, MCP
Top