Receptacle by tub

[tonype]

I realize that this topic has been beat around for some time (especially with respect to interpretation of the definitions); however, here is 1 more photo to add to the collection. My opinion is that this should not have been approved (home is ca. 2005). Just looking for more opinions.

 

[infinity]

What code section would you cite to disapprove this?

 

[tonype]

What code section would you cite to disapprove this?

406.8(C) (if my past notes on this are correct)

 

[tonype]

What code section would you cite to disapprove this?

Based on reading prior posts there is alot of interpretations - I also understand the argument, based on the wording, that allows this. Guess I am trying to figure out the logic.

 

[infinity]

I agree with you. The 2011 NEC has that requirement in 406.9(C).

 

[cadpoint]

Just for giggles what's to the left of the basin?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Now we can use Charlie's words if you want and you can say that 406.9(C) does not state that the receptacle cannot be installed where located in the pic because that is not directly over the tub and it is not within the tub space.

Now-- INTENT--- my guess is that this is not compliant and I would bet most inspectors would turn it down. As the NEC is written the receptacle is not allowed over the tub- IMO that is in the ceiling over the tub -- or within the tub that would be in the actual tub itself. Now I am sure this is not what they mean but IMO this could use clarification as to what is really intended.

Suppose that wall was 3' back? 2' back ?????

 

[Dennis Alwon]

He is a very similar install. The fixture to the right is the tub and the one to the left is the sink.

 

[cadpoint]

This is were the designer showed it!

I frankly go with the Shower or Tub and it's tiles are a footprint of said subject, IE breaking a plain there of, off the tub edge this foorprint would be straight up from the edge.

I can't go with you Dennis.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

This is were the designer showed it!

I frankly go with the Shower or Tub and it's tiles are a footprint of said subject, IE breaking a plain there of, off the tub edge this foorprint would be straight up from the edge.

I can't go with you Dennis.

As I stated I don't go with me either. Just stating how the NEC reads to me. My problem is when you have a tub surround and there is 2 or 3' from the wall to the tub edge. Why would that not be compliant when the receptacles can be 2" off the edge of the tub over that vanity.

 

[John120/240]

I realize that this topic has been beat around for some time (especially with respect to interpretation of the definitions); however, here is 1 more photo to add to the collection. My opinion is that this should not have been approved (home is ca. 2005). Just looking for more opinions. View attachment 7783

I will assume the recptacle is on the right side of the stud. Move it to the left side & you are

good. You could move it to the next stud to the left however that puts the recptacle in the

mirror. They do cut holes in the mirror for this situation.

 

[Smart $]

Now we can use Charlie's words if you want and you can say that 406.9(C) does not state that the receptacle cannot be installed where located in the pic because that is not directly over the tub and it is not within the tub space.

IMO, it does say it cannot be installed where it is located in the pic. It says "within or directly over a bathtub or shower stall". The key word here is stall. The words bathtub and shower only serve to limit the type of stall. IMO, the receptacle is within the bathtub stall.

Suppose that wall was 3' back? 2' back ?????

So by what criteria do we establish what is and isn't a stall....??? :slaphead:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

IMO, it does say it cannot be installed where it is located in the pic. It says "within or directly over a bathtub or shower stall". The key word here is stall. The words bathtub and shower only serve to limit the type of stall. IMO, the receptacle is within the bathtub stall.


So by what criteria do we establish what is and isn't a stall....??? :slaphead:

And my opinion is that it does not clearly say this. Is the wall a bathtub or shower stall?

 

[Little Bill]

IMO, it does say it cannot be installed where it is located in the pic. It says "within or directly over a bathtub or shower stall". The key word here is stall. The words bathtub and shower only serve to limit the type of stall. IMO, the receptacle is within the bathtub stall.


So by what criteria do we establish what is and isn't a stall....??? :slaphead:

How many times, if ever, have you heard the term "bathtub stall"?
IMO, the description is for two different items, either a bathtub, or a shower stall. I don't think they meant "bathtub stall" or "shower stall". I think they mean just what it says, a bathtub (stop) or shower stall.

 

[Smart $]

And my opinion is that it does not clearly say this. Is the wall a bathtub or shower stall?

I think it cleary says within or over the stall. What isn't clear is how we determine what is or isn't a stall? In most cases, it's not hard to determine. But I can imagine some that would be.. just as I know you can.

 

[Smart $]

How many times, if ever, have you heard the term "bathtub stall"?
IMO, the description is for two different items, either a bathtub, or a shower stall. I don't think they meant "bathtub stall" or "shower stall". I think they mean just what it says, a bathtub (stop) or shower stall.

I can see your perspective and cannot discredit it.

However, if we go with your interpretation, the requirement reduces to "Receptacles shall not be installed within a bathtub."

Hmmm... :slaphead:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I can see your perspective and cannot discredit it.

However, if we go with your interpretation, the requirement reduces to "Receptacles shall not be installed within a bathtub."

Hmmm... :slaphead:

That was exactly my point earlier. In the tub or over the tub- on the ceiling. I cannot even guess the intent here.

 

[Little Bill]

I can see your perspective and cannot discredit it.

However, if we go with your interpretation, the requirement reduces to "Receptacles shall not be installed within a bathtub."

Hmmm... :slaphead:

You left out the "directly over" part.

 

[hurk27]

I believe the code should have had a definition and diagram like they did for closet lights 410.2 for years this has been interpreted as the rim of the actual tub as the boundary,
Funny that 2002 was the first cycle to include this requirement as the 1999 NEC only had a requirement for switches, but it did have this receptacle requirement in 550 for trailers if the receptacle wasn't GFCI protected if it was protected by a GFCI it was allowed above the tub go figurehmy:

1999 NEC 550-8(b)No receptacle shall be required in the area occupied by a toilet, shower, tub, or any combination thereof. If a receptacle is installed in such an area, it shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I will assume the recptacle is on the right side of the stud. Move it to the left side & you are

good. You could move it to the next stud to the left however that puts the recptacle in the

mirror. They do cut holes in the mirror for this situation.

Forgive me for using your post to make a point, but it is applicable. This exemplifies the ridiculousness of the NEC.

Assuming the receptacle is non-compliant where it is, how does moving it 2 inches make it suddenly a much safer location? Is it any less within reach of the tub's occupants? Do electrons drip out of the outlet and fall straight into the water? :lol:

If it is safe 2 inches over, then why is it not safe where it is at? If it is not safe where it is at, then why does it become safe 2 inches over?

Come to think of it, it's OK to have an outlet this close to a tub, but you can't have a light fixture above the tub, because someone might change the bulbs while bathing.
:jawdrop: