Electrician installed no GFCI breaker for new tub. Should I be worried?

[phonedave]

Absolutely! Some disconnects are truly that, a device that completes the circuit can be removed. They are put in my pocket until I'm done. Can never forget to put it back because the repair has to be tested, so in it goes. The combo disconnect/GFCI boxes all have a hole in the catch. I will either use a small combination lock, or if I can't find that, a zip tie. Its up to me, and any worker, to provide our own safety.

Yes, most of the time there is a way to prevent accidental energization of the circuit, but since the code does not require it, it is technically up to code not to have a way to prevent it.

Lock Out / Tag Out is a big thing in telecommunications plant too, especially in the COs, but it used to be in the field as well, especially in the days of pulp cable and breakdown sets.

 

[JamesW]

Just because I can see it from the hot tub, does not mean I am going to notice somebody turning it on when I have my head stuck in the equipment bay.

You have to pay attention to your surroundings so someone does not sneak up on you.

You can put some sort of bell on the customer so you can hear them sneaking up on you.

Maybe bring a dog that you can use to watch for intruders while you work.

In any case, you can lock it or tape it off to be safe.

 

[JamesW]

Just because I can see it from the hot tub, does not mean I am going to notice somebody turning it on when I have my head stuck in the equipment bay.

Also, if you’re that worried about the customer sneaking up on you to flip on the breaker, you probably need to have a conversation with them; maybe something like this:

“Look, Mr. Customer, I know that you are planning to try to sneak up on me to flip on the breaker while I am working, but I am going to have to ask you not to do that.”

Maybe you can have them sign an agreement not to do that.

Maybe have your helper keep an eye on them to tell you when they are sneaking up on you.

Also, I never said that just because you could see the disconnect, that you did not have to lock out or tag out.

Even if you lock out and tag out the customer can still cut the lock off with bolt cutters and flip the switch.

So, you can’t keep your head buried in the cabinet for hours at a time listening to hard rock like AC/DC or Led Zeppelin blaring in your headphones making you oblivious to your surroundings and the dangers lurking around every corner.

Also, it’s not just customers that can sneak up on you.

Pitbulls, clowns, beavers with rabies, polar bears, mountain lions, raccoons etc. can all sneak up on you and attack, so you can’t just be oblivious while working on the hot tub, you need to be vigilant like a bird looking for food.

 

[phonedave]

Also, if you’re that worried about the customer sneaking up on you to flip on the breaker, you probably need to have a conversation with them; maybe something like this:

“Look, Mr. Customer, I know that you are planning to try to sneak up on me to flip on the breaker while I am working, but I am going to have to ask you not to do that.”

Maybe you can have them sign an agreement not to do that.

Maybe have your helper keep an eye on them to tell you when they are sneaking up on you.

Also, I never said that just because you could see the disconnect, that you did not have to lock out or tag out.

Even if you lock out and tag out the customer can still cut the lock off with bolt cutters and flip the switch.

So, you can’t keep your head buried in the cabinet for hours at a time listening to hard rock like AC/DC or Led Zeppelin blaring in your headphones making you oblivious to your surroundings and the dangers lurking around every corner.

Also, it’s not just customers that can sneak up on you.

Pitbulls, clowns, beavers with rabies, polar bears, mountain lions, raccoons etc. can all sneak up on you and attack, so you can’t just be oblivious while working on the hot tub, you need to be vigilant like a bird looking for food.

Not sure where you are going with this.

My point is, having a code that just states the disconnect must be "visible from the spa" is poor code writing.

The code does not say that there must be some easy was of disconnecting the spa at all times - so that negates the usefulness for emergency responders. I can put the disconnect behind a locked chain link fence (in fact there are provisions for it in the code). That means first responders can come and "see" the disconnect but perhaps not use it. All fine by the code, but useless for a first responder.

Having it visible from the spa, but with no actual way to lock it out, makes it pretty much the same has having the disconnect in the breaker panel from a maintenance standpoint. A passerby can easily turn it on. I would say the chances of a customer going out to the garage or down to the basement, opening the panel and flipping the dedicated hot tub breaker is pretty much the same as flipping the one I can "see" from the hot tub.

So what is the point of this code. If the reason is indeed to protect first responders and maintenance people, then it needs to be written better. Otherwise it just provides added cost.

 

[Methuselah]

Not sure where you are going with this.

My point is, having a code that just states the disconnect must be "visible from the spa" is poor code writing.

The code does not say that there must be some easy was of disconnecting the spa at all times - so that negates the usefulness for emergency responders. I can put the disconnect behind a locked chain link fence (in fact there are provisions for it in the code). That means first responders can come and "see" the disconnect but perhaps not use it. All fine by the code, but useless for a first responder.

Having it visible from the spa, but with no actual way to lock it out, makes it pretty much the same has having the disconnect in the breaker panel from a maintenance standpoint. A passerby can easily turn it on. I would say the chances of a customer going out to the garage or down to the basement, opening the panel and flipping the dedicated hot tub breaker is pretty much the same as flipping the one I can "see" from the hot tub.

So what is the point of this code. If the reason is indeed to protect first responders and maintenance people, then it needs to be written better. Otherwise it just provides added cost.

When I work home outlet replacement or the like if my rugrat is asleep I'm not going to wake him to tell him, and same for expecting my wife to come home while I'm working (esp. if I'm outside), I usually put a piece of making tape over the turned off breaker with "NO!" written on it. I reckon what I'm trying to say is anything you do is probably better than nothing, and, the main reason I do the tape thing is so that I don't forget if it's back on, since I'll remember if I removed the tape...

Horse now officially dead

 

[JamesW]

I usually put a piece of making tape over the turned off breaker with "NO!" written on it.

That works as long as you don't put the tape on upside down.

 

[Cuajinais]

Hello Everyone. First post here. I got my hot tub installed 2 weeks ago so I’m new to all this. I went through the same issues as OP where my electrician first installed wrong gage wire, then no GFCI. But this was his 1st hot tub job so I did not hold it against him and we re-did everything correctly. I’m just glad I like to read everything in the manual and even codes. Here is my theory of why the electrical code requires the disconnect to be between 5’ to 50’ from spa and in line of sight:

It is not for LOTO. It is to hopefully shut down the spa quickly in case of suction entrapment. From Wikipedia:

Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act - Wikipedia

“In June 2002, Graeme was stuck to a hot tub drain by suction. Efforts by her mother to free her were unsuccessful and when two men eventually were able to free her (postmortem), the drain broke from the force. Although Graeme drowned, her official cause of death was "suction entrapment due to a faulty drain cover". Following Graeme's death in June 2002, her mother, Nancy Baker, began work to advocate pool and spa safety. She began lobbying Congress to pass legislation to require anti-entrapment drain covers as well as other pool and spa safety devices. EISA was introduced to Congress on January 12, 2007 and signed into law on December 19, 2007 by President George W. Bush.”

“Between January 1985 and March 2002, there were 147 confirmed, recorded suction-entrapment incidents, according to Consumer Product Safety Commission records. 51 of those were hair entanglement, 79 body or limb entrapments (including three eviscerations), four mechanical (jewelry, etc) and 13 unknown. Of the 147 incidents, 36 resulted in deaths.[11] While the first documented case is unclear, lawyer John Edwards points to a case in 1974.[9]

According to the National Safety Council (NSC), 172 children under the age of 15 drowned in pools or spas between Memorial Day and Labor Day in 2010. An additional 180 children under the age of 15 were injured. The NSC is further calling for increased vigilance by parents and pool/spa owners. They suggest precautions such as four-sided fences for pool/spa areas, alarms on all doors accessing pool/spa areas, heavy duty pool covers, anti-entrapment drains and close supervision of children near pools/spas.”

And so on our 1st day of use I gathered up the family, explained entrapment drownings (I omitted the evisceration part because it makes me sick to even think about), and showed them where the disconnect is and how to operate it. Anyway that’s my theory for the line of sight requirement.

 

[SJPoe]

This thread seems to have veered off into a debate on the finer points of Code requirements and the always enjoyable pastime of interpretation gymnastics.

Electrician did not add GFCI or disconnect

They should have. There is no other answer here.
You shouldn't use the spa until it is protected via a GFCI.
Whether that GFCI is in the main panel or a subpanel, or a spa disconnect box near the spa itself is really just arguing code interpretation.

I find it hard to believe a licensed electrician didn't install one.
I'm guessing they didn't pull a permit either ?

I installed a spa panel, with the gfci breaker in it, in view of the spa, wired back to the main panel regular breaker. The subpanel with the breaker was about $100. My family's lives are worth more than that.

 

[1poolman1]

Hello Everyone. First post here. I got my hot tub installed 2 weeks ago so I’m new to all this. I went through the same issues as OP where my electrician first installed wrong gage wire, then no GFCI. But this was his 1st hot tub job so I did not hold it against him and we re-did everything correctly. I’m just glad I like to read everything in the manual and even codes. Here is my theory of why the electrical code requires the disconnect to be between 5’ to 50’ from spa and in line of sight:

It is not for LOTO. It is to hopefully shut down the spa quickly in case of suction entrapment. From Wikipedia:

Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act - Wikipedia



And so on our 1st day of use I gathered up the family, explained entrapment drownings (I omitted the evisceration part because it makes me sick to even think about), and showed them where the disconnect is and how to operate it. Anyway that’s my theory for the line of sight requirement.

VGB and LOTO are completely different concepts and requirements. Line of sight is so the service person doesn't get killed and always has been for that purpose. That has been code required for virtually any high-voltage appliance that might need to be de-energized while working on it. That includes a spa, pool pump, heat-pump, A/C system, or any other item where the re-energizing a circuit may cause harm.
LOTO is a newer requirement. In California first, 1982. OSHA in 1989.

If the disconnect is far enough away, but still visible, by the time you notice an issue might be happening and get to the disconnect, its too late, and the damage is already done. VGB disconnects, vacuum-breakers, pumps, etc. are to actuate almost immediately upon an event, usually in less than a second..

 

[Cuajinais]

VGB and LOTO are completely different concepts and requirements. Line of sight is so the service person doesn't get killed and always has been for that purpose. That has been code required for virtually any high-voltage appliance that might need to be de-energized while working on it. That includes a spa, pool pump, heat-pump, A/C system, or any other item where the re-energizing a circuit may cause harm.
LOTO is a newer requirement. In California first, 1982. OSHA in 1989.

If the disconnect is far enough away, but still visible, by the time you notice an issue might be happening and get to the disconnect, its too late, and the damage is already done. VGB disconnects, vacuum-breakers, pumps, etc. are to actuate almost immediately upon an event, usually in less than a second..

Sorry but this is incorrect. LOTO does not require line of sight from the place where work is being performed to the place where the hazard is de-energized. If that were the case, 95% of maintenance jobs in industry could not be performed and civilization would grind to a halt. That is precisely why LOTO was implemented, because it is impossible to have line of sight from hazard to de-energization location in the vast majority of instances. We can agree that the GFCI is required for LOTO, but only because the GFCI breaker box provides a tongue that enables a service person to place a LOTO padlock on it to prevent tampering while work is being done. See images. Once you have the GFCI breaker box closed with the LOTO padlock on it, you can rest assured that it will not be energized while work is being done. No line of sight required. It would be unsafe to have to rely on periodically looking at the breaker box while being engrossed in work to ensure one’s safety. That is why Lock Out Tag Out requires a special padlock with a single key in existence (on the person doing the work).

So why is there a line of sight requirement? I have no clue, but my theory is to be able to shut down the pumps quickly if something goes awry. This is called an E-stop (emergency stop) in industry and is a very common requirement, usually in the form of a large red button.

 

[1poolman1]

Sorry but this is incorrect. LOTO does not require line of sight from the place where work is being performed to the place where the hazard is de-energized. If that were the case, 95% of maintenance jobs in industry could not be performed and civilization would grind to a halt. That is precisely why LOTO was implemented, because it is impossible to have line of sight from hazard to de-energization location in the vast majority of instances. We can agree that the GFCI is required for LOTO, but only because the GFCI breaker box provides a tongue that enables a service person to place a LOTO padlock on it to prevent tampering while work is being done. See images. Once you have the GFCI breaker box closed with the LOTO padlock on it, you can rest assured that it will not be energized while work is being done. No line of sight required. It would be unsafe to have to rely on periodically looking at the breaker box while being engrossed in work to ensure one’s safety. That is why Lock Out Tag Out requires a special padlock with a single key in existence (on the person doing the work).

So why is there a line of sight requirement? I have no clue, but my theory is to be able to shut down the pumps quickly if something goes awry. This is called an E-stop (emergency stop) in industry and is a very common requirement, usually in the form of a large red button.

View attachment 519629View attachment 519630

You're absolutely correct about the difference between LOTO and line of sight, and it was never mentioned as being the same. If you worked regularly with this type of equipment you would realize that. Not sure where the argument is coming from. Line of sight is so I, as the service person, can monitor the equipment remaining de-energized while doing my best to not get killed. LOTO is for when I can't monitor that same thing. You can never turn the power off faster than it can hurt or kill. Entrapment from pump suction was never its purpose as 1) those requirements are for all high-voltage/hazardous work and 2) that hazard was barely acknowledged until about 30 years ago and not addressed by Congress until 15 years ago.

 

[Armor77]

Sorry but this is incorrect. LOTO does not require line of sight from the place where work is being performed to the place where the hazard is de-energized. If that were the case, 95% of maintenance jobs in industry could not be performed and civilization would grind to a halt. That is precisely why LOTO was implemented, because it is impossible to have line of sight from hazard to de-energization location in the vast majority of instances. We can agree that the GFCI is required for LOTO, but only because the GFCI breaker box provides a tongue that enables a service person to place a LOTO padlock on it to prevent tampering while work is being done. See images. Once you have the GFCI breaker box closed with the LOTO padlock on it, you can rest assured that it will not be energized while work is being done. No line of sight required. It would be unsafe to have to rely on periodically looking at the breaker box while being engrossed in work to ensure one’s safety. That is why Lock Out Tag Out requires a special padlock with a single key in existence (on the person doing the work).

So why is there a line of sight requirement? I have no clue, but my theory is to be able to shut down the pumps quickly if something goes awry. This is called an E-stop (emergency stop) in industry and is a very common requirement, usually in the form of a large red button.

View attachment 519629View attachment 519630

This was part of the Spa package i had recently installed along with 50amp breakers on the panel. Very good quality GFCI box that works, and as another fail safe i shut the breakers off as well when i work on the tub. Code in Can is no electrical within 3m of the tub period, and outlets within that footage must be gfci protected, so i had to get electrician to add a 2 gfci's to the wall plugs as those are part of the functionality of the Pergola but legal and within code.