If there is a legitmate neutral in addition to the the equipment ground and the GFCI is wired up to handle it, then there's no reason why you can't pull control voltage off the 240V circuit.

A straight 240 V circuit has 2 hots and a ground (3 wires).
A 120/240 V circuit has 2 hots, a ground AND a neutral (4 wires).
As long as you have a neutral present you can place 120 V loads between either hot and neutral (groundED conductor).

The problem occurs when someone tries to use the groundING conductor in place of a neutral (groundED) conductor.
This can result in anything tied to the ground becoming energized.

And to answer your question.... it is entirely possible the inspector didn't know any better.

There are (IIRC) three seperate 240V circuits to the pool from the main panel. I do not believe there is a 240V neutral...but I will double check. But there are also a couple of 120V circuits pulled from the panel that do have a neutral. He may have used one of those neutrals. Would that create a multi-wire circuit?

I just read what I wrote...and I realized that a neutral is a neutral, isn't it? It doesn't matter for what circuit it was originally intended. As long as it is a true neutral, it would be ok in this case. Correct? But it does create a Multi-wire circuit? I believe that is what he has done.

No you can not filch a neutral from another circuit. The breaker only measures the hot wire current. If you add the neutral to another circuit it is possible for the neutral to carry more current than the hot and become overloaded not tripping the breaker.
If no neutral was present then the proper thing to do would be to put in a 240/24 transformer instead of a 120/24 transformer.

In addition to the safety issues JOED points out, the GFCI will certainly trip if you make connections to circuits outside of the one the GFCI is protecting.

In that scenerio is there an overload protection for the 120v line? Would the 120v have to be run with the same wire size as the one feeding the 240? And would any fixture on the 120 have to have the same rating as the 240?

I am beginning to believe normel here. This inspector didn't have a clue...because I'm sure there isn't a neutral for the 240V circuits.

"If no neutral was present then the proper thing to do would be to put in a 240/24 transformer instead of a 120/24 transformer"

That is exactly what we're going to do joed. End of problem.

I need to post a photo here and show you guys something you will not believe. The ground wire from the pool light is connected to another ground wire in the timer box WITH A SCOTCHLOK!!! I kid you not. Now remember...this light HAD to be installed during construction of the pool and thus HAD to be inspected. This passed!! I wouldn't use Scotchloks to wire a car stereo! I'm tempted to call the city of Chandler and have them look up the original inspector and show them what he passed. Amazing.

Cobra, the questions you ask suggest that you know some about premises wiring, but are not an electrician by trade. Also you frequently offer advice to other questioners. But tell us why you would, or could, as an inspector, refuse to accept a Scotchlok as an acceptable method of connecting branch circuit equipment grounding conductors. Maybe I can learn more about this. Tell us what is the code-acceptable method. Or if not, we could prevent others from being misled about proper splicing methods.

Since Scotchlok is a 3M brand name that is applied to many different connectors maybe a little clarification is in order.

Did you ever figure out where the original electrician got the "neutral"? Did he use one from another circuit? Or is he using a ground?
I don't understand how the GFCI didn't trip if he was doing either of those.

Are you sure this isn't a 120/240v circuit and is already wired properly like ron and brick said in their first posts?

You will notice the OP said nothing about a GFCI on the circuit in question, and if the pump motor is hardwired, there probably isn't one.

normel, you are correct. There is no GFCI. All pumps are hard wired.

The neutral he used was on one of the 120V circuits. Absolutely true.

Bus driver, click the link below for a Scotchlok. One of the worst inventions ever created. Handy, yes. But the source of more issues and problems than you can ever imagine. I don't care if they are legal or not. Any competent technician would never, ever use them.

I frequent this site every day. I love the information it gives. I am not a licensed electrician. I do have a very good idea of what is going on when it comes to electricity, but I am by no means an expert. That's why I ask a lot of questions that many here answer intelligently and willingly. I NEVER offer advice to anyone that I am not 100% positive I am sure is safe and compliant. Even then I will qualify that with a remark to wait for a licensed electrician to chime in.

Bus driver, over time, I have come to accept your sarcastic and condescending remarks as just being you. I actually find humor in many of them. But it really does seem like you feel slighted that a DIY is taking money out of your pocket by doing something himself. But you do make valuable contributions to this site and you definitely seem to know your business. For that, all of us "non-pros" are grateful. I have an engineering, physics, and mathematics education. I have taught automotive computer systems to techs for years. (try working with CAN/LAN automotive systems for a while) So while I haven't earned the right to have a piece of paper that says I'm an electrician, (I'm not even close) I do have a good basic knowledge. I love some of your complicated circuits you build...they are fascinating. I don't know the NEC. I don't know why you guys do some of the things you do. I want to know these things. You and others provide that thirst for knowledge and it's greatly appreciated. However, if you feel I am a hazard to this site, I will most definitely bow out gracefully. But quite honestly, I don't believe I have ever offered advice to anyone in a hazardous way. Ever. I usually just ask questions that many of you pros are willing to answer. Brickeyee, normel, and many others...your input is invaluable. Thank you.

Here is a link that might be useful: Scotchlok

Just to clarify...I may have been misleading in my original post regarding the use of a Scotchlok. It indeed may be legal. I just don't know. What I DO know is how poor a connector they are. They work loose, have a habit of the cover popping open, (the one in our box is open...which exposes the connection blade) and make minimal contact with the conductors that is easily corroded and can work loose. Just a horrible splicing device.

I do confess that I did not look at the link. So you are meaning the IDC connectors. My opinion of them is not very high. But the Scotchloks I often use are, in my sole opinion, as good as is available- period. I have encountered inspectors who interject their personal preferences into the things that they accept and reject with regard to electrical inspections. They soon are moved out of such positions. I simply want correct information for those involved in premises wiring- period. I was for a time also a volunteer fireman and saw first hand the tragedies involved. Often unexplained fires are blamed on electrical problems and I did not always agree with such conclusions. But bad wiring can cause fires. Of all the things deliberately incorporated into buildings, electricity can kill and destroy as quickly as any of those things and quicker than most. Bad roofing can be a problem and an inconvenience, but it does not present the hazards of bad wiring. So if it appears that I am a summa cum laude Graduate of the Dennis Rodman Charm School, so be it. Only people who are alive are insulted. Good wiring helps them stay that way longer.

Here is a link that might be useful: Scotchlok spring connectors

You need to look at my link bus driver. Your linked product isn't even close. You are going to be amazed at what it is, and you of all folks should be appalled at it's use.

The rest of your post are points well taken.

I think calling the IDC connectors "Scotchloks" is unfair and misleading. Several manufacturers make a product so similar that they are distinguishable as to specific manufacturer only by almost-microscopic examination. The wire nuts that are called Scotchloks by the folks I know are unique in appearance and performance. And they cost more. Properly installed, they rarely can be removed with bare hands. Superior performance, good for machinery that vibrates.

from wiki:
Wire-Nut[1] is a registered trademark of Ideal Industries for a product technically known as a twist-on wire connector.

also from wiki:
The 3M corporation manufactures a variation on the twist-on wire connector that is sold under their trade name of Scotchlok.

from 3M's website:
50 years ago, 3M introduced the industryÂs original insulation displacement connector - the Scotchlok Connector UR. Today, with increased demand for high-speed and highbandwidth networks, the complete series of 3M connectors and tools has evolved again.

3M makes a dozen products they call "Scotchlok". Twist on wire connectors, IDCs, even stuff strictly for auto use is tagged as a "Scotchlok". I don't know which product first used the name.

What an electrican thinks of as a Scotchlok may be completely different than what a comm guy thinks of it as.

Referring to any product by its commonly used brand or trade name; whether it be Scotchlok, Wirenut, Crescent wrench, or Kleenex; is subject to (mis)interpretation.

Not related, but I was installing a ceiling fan a couple of weekends ago and picked 3 wire connectors out of my odds and ends supply. They turned out to be Scotchloks, uh, I mean "3M Scotchlok electrical spring connectors, red". They must have been 40 years old because they came from my father's stuff.

cobraguy, IDCs are "insulation displacement". Did they snap that IDC down on a bare ground wire? If so, that's wrong. Otherwise, its probably OK if they used a connector rated for the voltage and wire size.

Here is a link that might be useful: Scotchlok anniversary story

You can find the type of connector I'm talking about at Homer's, Lowe's, etc., and just about all automotive parts stores. They are not what I would call a true IDC connector...although that may be what they actually are. What you do is open the connector, lay the wire you want to splice into through the connector, and the wire you are adding next to it. They you use a pair of pliers to squeeze a thin blade down through the connector that slices through the insulation of both wires and makes contact...barely...by touching the sides of each wire. These are also originally designed to be used with stranded wire as solid wire will tend to bend the blade. After you squeeze the blade, you flip the plastic top back over the top of the blade. If you haven't used one before, you won't understand what I've described. But believe me, no self respecting technician would ever use these. In the automotive world...which these were designed for...they are the cause of more problems than you can imagine. They make a poor connection and they don't hold up. But since they are so easy to use to tap a ciruit, they sell tons of them. I've seen "techs" install stereos, nav units, etc at their shops and use them for all connections they can on customer cars...yet when you look at the installation they did on their own vehicle, you won't find one anywhere.

"squeeze a thin blade down through the connector that slices through the insulation"

You have described an insulation displacement connector exactly.
They are used to save from having to strip the wire.
While more than adequate for low current applications, the contact area is VERY small. Few are actually rated for 120 V which normally requires an insulation rating of ~600 V and sufficient contact area to prevent overheating.
In many cases even on automotive type circuits it is easy to have current density problems with them.
A 60 W bulb on 12 V pulls ~5A.

As is the case with practically everything else in the electrical field, misuse of insulation displacement type connectors is common and a major source of problems. I frequently see the "blue" IDC used in automotive applications. The "blue" is sized for #14 wire and is frequently used on both larger and smaller wire. They are seldom installed with the recommended tool, which means that the contact fingers are frequently driven into the wire at an angle rather than straight down as they are supposed to be. This not only results in a poor connection but often cuts some of the wire strands. The tool used often deforms the housing which is why the cover doesn't stay closed.

A correctly installed IDC makes a gas tight connection - one that doesn't corrode. Looking under a truck with back end lighting issues often reveals a common "trailer plug" installed with a #14 sized IDC on #16 wire. This has allowed moisture to get in and corrode the wire. This wire has, of course, not been anchored and bounces around and is in direct line of tire spray - hardly the intended use of the connector nor a reasonable situation for drawing a conclusion as to whether the connectors are suitable for their intended use.

I guess my point is don't bash something because you see it used incorrectly nearly 100% of the time. I had occasion to use a bunch of these in a controller modification when my prefered items for doing the job weren't available. The equipment is working just fine 27 years later.

The IDC connectors are sometimes used in the manufacture of lighting fixtures which have have multiple lamp sockets. Each such socket would be low amperage. I have experienced no problem with them in that application. Yes, the Scotchlok spring-type twist-on connectors have been around for over 40 years. I know of none better.