"DaveG" wrote in message news:ztVxb.342553$HS4.2924994@attbi_s01...
"Mark or Sue" wrote in message
news:HzAxb.242106$9E1.1311955@attbi_s52...
I don't believe this is always the case. If the spa has no underwater
light,
and this is a branch circuit and not a feeder, then a GFCI is not
required.
Its always a good idea, but not required. The rest of DaveG's information
is
correct -- spa disconnect must be no closer than 5', but must be within
sight of the tub (which means 50' or less and you can see it).

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you. A GFCI breaker is required
for any spa.
Even our whirlpool tub in our bathroom has to be put in on a GFCI protected
outlet.
And that tub has no lite. I'd think that any power outside of the dwelling
would need GFI protection to meet code.
If you spa has no lite, then you may use romex to power to the spa. If the
spa has a lite, then you are not allowed to use romex, and the entire run of
line must be in conduit.


I went back and reads parts of NEC 680. I'm confusing some of the insulated ground rules with the
GFCI rules. In general, I'd say you're right, in that 680.44 requires that tub/spa "outlets" be GFCI
protected. I would expect the disconnect to be the outlet if it is not cord-and-plug connected.
There is an exception for spas that are part of a pool (which is the type I have), and for spas that
have heaters greater than 50A at 240V.

Also, just about all cord-and-plug connections for pools, tubs, spas, etc must be GFCI protected --
explains the whirlpool tub.

--
Mark
Kent, WA