Bath receptacle in bathtub space???

[quogueelectric]

any good electrician

any good electrician

Would have put it in the granite backsplash horizontally. Why make it easy on anyone??

 

[acrwc10]

Would have put it in the granite backsplash horizontally. Why make it easy on anyone??

Ya my favorite :grin: looks alot nicer then in the mirror.

 

[frizbeedog]

Original posting from:
Occupation:
Inspector

Hey, You're an inspector. Are you going to make this guy move this? It looks soooo nice. You have a lot to consider here.

 

[mistermudd]

That is why I asked, not an easy call for me. I realize what a pain this could be to correct.

 

[quogueelectric]

Technically speaking

Technically speaking

It is not directly over the tub it is over the tub platform. BTW what IS to the left of the sink??

 

[iwire]

NEC 406.8(C) Recept. shall not be installed within or directly over a bathtub or shower stall.

Tough call, but IMO it's not over the tub so it's legal.

It's not a shower so it is not within a shower and it is not directly over the tub.

 

[infinity]

It is not directly over the tub it is over the tub platform.

I agree, it's code compliant where it is. Moving it a few inches into the mirror won't change much.

 

[electricmanscott]

I agree, it's code compliant where it is. Moving it a few inches into the mirror won't change much.

I too agree. I don't see a problem where it is.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Wow I just read the whole thread and thought I was the only one who thought it was code compliant. I am glad to see others who agree.

Mistermudd, I believe you have the correct call so show the inspector the rule and see what he/she says.

 

[wirebender]

Wow I just read the whole thread and thought I was the only one who thought it was code compliant. I am glad to see others who agree.

Mistermudd, I believe you have the correct call so show the inspector the rule and see what he/she says.

Me, too, Dennis. I didn't want to say it was compliant because my pajamas are not flame retardant.

 

[M. D.]

I'm in the not a violation camp as well

 

[dnem]

No one said it would be safer, just code compliant.

We have a building code rule in Ohio that states:

[Ohio Building Code] OBC 101.3 [101.4 in 2005] says, ?The rules of the Board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose.? . The chapter one Commentary [online at www.com.state.oh.us/dic/d...axback.htm under the #414 link] on Commentary page #14 says, ?The building official must promote the purpose of the code and make reasonable ? factual, justifiable, documented, rational, sound, sensible ? interpretation of the provisions of the code. . Liberal interpretation should never be used as a method to approve or sign off on non-compliant work.?

If I conclude that moving the plug will not make it a safer installation [you would still be within 6' of the tub and the same cords would still reach], then I see it as my job to look for the liberal interpretation.

Having said that, I think a good case can be made for the interpretation that the word "stall" [406.8(C)] applies to the shower and does not clearly and irrefutably apply to the bathtub section of the sentence.

David

 

[hillbilly]

406.8(C) Bathtub and Shower Space.
Receptacles shall not be installed within or directly over a bathtub or shower stall.

If a Leprechaun was taking a bath in that tub, jumped up on the outer edge and looked directly over his head what would he see?
A receptacle.

That must mean that the receptacle is directly over the tub.....over the outer edge yes, but still over the tub.


Violation?....(In my opinion)....Yes

steve

 

[dnem]

If a Leprechaun was taking a bath in that tub, jumped up on the outer edge and looked directly over his head what would he see?
A receptacle.

When he "jumped up on the outer edge" he would be jumping out of the tub. . Does the rule apply to the tub and the deck or to just the tub alone ? . It's still an interpretation even when using a Leprechaun.

David

 

[lpelectric]

The temptation would be very high for a young kid to plug a radio in while bathing. Alleviating these potential hazards is one sure way of minimizing the potential for such shock hazards from developing in the first place. Common sense, that elusive force only awarded a few, should come into play here if at all possible. :smile:
I would look for an alternative that meets the spirit of the code, yet enhances safety.

 

[M. D.]

The temptation would be very high for a young kid to plug a radio in while bathing. ....

same could be said for this...

 

[hillbilly]

When he "jumped up on the outer edge" he would be jumping out of the tub. . Does the rule apply to the tub and the deck or to just the tub alone ? . It's still an interpretation even when using a Leprechaun.

David

You're right , it's just a interpretation....kinda like...

If I wash the bathtub, I don't plan on washing the tub and then the deck, I plan on washing the tub (the deck is part of it).

They're not sold seperately.

Just my opinion
steve

 

[charlie b]

I go along with the "not over the tub, so not a violation" point of view. Also, in case you wish to call it the other way, is there an option for the HO to simply have the receptacle removed? Is there, for instance, another receptacle on the other side of the sink?

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

What's the penny for? A bribe, perhaps?

 

[cschmid]

ahh read the whole post about how it is or is not a violation..hard call if it is violation just pull the receptacle out and put a blank on it..if it is a double sink there is one at other end anyway..I would also say that it would not be safer to put it in the mirror and if it was my mirror I would have fit if it was in it..not why I put big mirror in..It was so the misses and I could..............ooops off track..Just blank it off and be done you are in a no win situation when it comes to the cash..