ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues recepts in tub area

Why not install the tv on the other side of a glass window that cuts it off from the tub area. there is no way a person in a tub should be able to operate any controls on the tv. Only a remote.

Alan, I think you brought up a good point. 680.71 does refer to hydromassage tubs. Non-hydromassage tubs don't necessarily have to be allowed to comply with this section.

Most hydromassage tubs I see have all metal and water isolated from contact to ground due to plastic water piping. (not sure if a current could actually travel through the water to metal though)

Whereas standard tubs I see are typically piped in directly using copper. Although the increased use of PEX may change this too.

If you are in a tub that is isolated from ground by plastic piping methods, what are your chances of getting shocked while in the tub?

Steve- Look at 406.8(C) That is the rule for tubs and 680.72 taking you there. No receptacles in the tub space. And it has been determined that for conventional wisdom the foot print of the tub and up to the ceiling is the tub space.

Steve when I read your post a second time, I guess I don't clearly understand your point. But for informational purposes you are required to bond all metal piping systems and metal parts in contact with the circulating water. This makes on think that metal is the trigger that has us bonding.

We all know that water conducts electricity (normally) but the '05 code makes it clear that if the water supply is non-metallic it doesn't require even the fauset to be bonded.

My question is now, what do we bond to? Since we often have double insulated pumps requireing no bonding, what are we really doing with our bond wire? With a pool, we know we tie to the EGC of the circuit if it's a double insulated pump.

[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 01-28-2007).]

Steve, this is one area where electricity seems to defy the laws of physics. I'm not saying that physics is wrong, but rather suspect that 'more needs to be known.'

I am thinking of the little shocks most of us have received ... while wearing rubber soled shoes, and standing on a fiberglass ladder. I'm just not comfortable assuming the lack of a conductive path.

Yet, I think it's just a matter of time before electricity enters the bathing area. Heaven alone knows what appliances will be invented that, in a few years, we just won't be able to do without.

I am a bit stumped on what approach to take. I see the GFI as a place to start ... but not the final answer.

George-One point I was trying to make is that a standard tub does not have to be allowed to comply with 680.71 because it is not a hydro-massage tub. This may be a moot point if the 'tub area' in regards to recepts is the foot print of the tub. But, 680.71 is only important if you have ahydro massage tub in a room that is not a bathroom since all recepts in bathrooms need to be GFCI anyways.

In regards to the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, I don't think I was really trying to make a point as much as bring actual reality of different scenarios into the conversation.

If you have, for instance, a tub faucet that is isolated from ground due to plastic piping, why would anyone want to run a bond wire from the faucet to a grounded portion of the electrical system? Wouldn't this increase the chance of shock, not reduce it?

Finally, I am not ultimately satisfied with the definition of 'tub area' as it pertains to receptacles. A clear definition as when describing where pendant fixtures are not allowed would be less confusing.

Reno, I'd be willing to bet you never had an electrical current travel through your feet wearing rubber sole shoes standing on a fiberglass ladder. I've surely bumped my elbow into the steel bar joists and been zapped, or been dead locked on a 120v ckt because there was a tiny hole in the piece of tape on my strippers. What the results would be if you dropped your radio in a tub that is isolated from ground, I am definitely not sure and don't want to find out, but I've got a feeling you may not get seriously shocked if at all.

One other thing--I quite often have electricians bond the motor of a tub to the copper water piping that feeds the unit (all units I have seen then have plastic circulation piping). This is wrong as you are now using the water pipes as an EGC. I quite often have to tell them to remove this. The motor is already bonded using the third wire (ground) in the cordset.

Only if the tub has isolated metal piping should it be bonded to the motor. But then again if it is isolated metal piping, why would you want to increase the possibility of it becoming a path to ground? Seems backwards to me.

Steve,

Section 680.74 requires all metal piping systems in contact with the circulating water to be bonded together. This means under the tub. There is no problem with parallel paths in the grounding conductor path. In fact the more the merrier.

Earl if you read what Steve was saying closely you will find you pretty much said the same thing.

The copper supply pipe is not part of the circulating water so there is no need to connect to it.

That said I don't see it as doing any harm, they are both already connected together at the service so connecting to it again will limit potential between parts.

Steve said:


I think the point that should be made is that "area" is to broad a term and I like "space" being the term used with respects the tub as a more definitive term. We do have cases where a HMBT is installed in a room other than a bathroom and the wiring in this other than bathroom only has to comply with the requirements of the non-bathroom needs. This is a tough call because the code doesn't address it. I've inspected just such an installation and there were no questions when I "suggested" to the contractor that he GFCI protected the receptacles within 6 feet of the tub.

iwire-the only problem is I don't see copper water piping listed under 250.118. If you bond the motor to the supply piping, you are using it as an EGC, right?