bath tub spa

Status
Not open for further replies.
In general no, unless it part of the instructions used to obtain the listing of the tub.
 
Yes, the EGC in the branch circuit is all that you'll need. Even pools, which have far more restrictive requirements, do not require a bonding conductor to be run back to a panel.
 
bath tub grounding

bath tub grounding

ferrarotomvfjr said:
does a tub with jets and heater need a seperate ground ran to the tub?
Click to expand...
680.74 Bonding yes. Only if there conductive surfaces, metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts in condact with the circulating water.
 
ferrarotomvfjr said:
thats what i thoght. I normally just bond the equipment
Click to expand...


Using the EGC in the branch circuit is all that required for a hydromassage bathtub, unless the piping used to circulate the water is metallic. I've never seen a tub with anything but plastic piping used to circulate the water.
 
infinity said:
In general no, unless it part of the instructions used to obtain the listing of the tub.
Click to expand...

I would read the instrutions. I have seen many that rquire a bonding conductor no smaller than a # 8
 
infinity said:
Using the EGC in the branch circuit is all that required for a hydromassage bathtub, unless the piping used to circulate the water is metallic. I've never seen a tub with anything but plastic piping used to circulate the water.
Click to expand...

Not to keep dragging this up, but I still don't read 680.74 the same as you do. I read that section as requiring metal piping systems (copper supply lines that constitute a piping system) and all grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water to be bonded together. I don't read that section as requiring the metal piping system to be in contact with the circulating water.

If they are talking about the piping on the tub being bonded to the pump motor, why wouldn't the manufacturer bond the motor and the piping at the factory?

Again I feel this is a moot point due to the fact that I never see metal piping systems installed in a residence anymore, just PEX.

Where is the flaw in my thinking?

Chris
 
raider1 said:
Not to keep dragging this up, but I still don't read 680.74 the same as you do. I read that section as requiring metal piping systems (copper supply lines that constitute a piping system) and all grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water to be bonded together. I don't read that section as requiring the metal piping system to be in contact with the circulating water.

If they are talking about the piping on the tub being bonded to the pump motor, why wouldn't the manufacturer bond the motor and the piping at the factory?

Again I feel this is a moot point due to the fact that I never see metal piping systems installed in a residence anymore, just PEX.

Where is the flaw in my thinking?

Chris
Click to expand...


Around here metal piping for hot and cold water are still the norm.

If you read the section again the word and connects the two parts together. Meaning that the metal piping systems and metal parts of the water circulation system. They are not two separate requirements. In fact you could reverse the two things in the sentence and it would still have the same meaning. All grounded metal parts and all metal piping systems in contact with the circulating water.
 
Lets look at another sentence for example.

Jack and Jill with the red hair need to go to the store.

Does this sentence mean that Jack has red hair also or does Jill alone have red hair? Can I reverse the sentence and say "Jill and Jack with the red hair need to go to the store." and have it still mean the same thing?

Here is the sentence in 680.74 again:

"All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water shall be bonded together....."

I am going to confer with someone that is an english major and see if the way I have always read this is wrong. (I am the first to admit that my grammer is horrible:D)

I really am trying to see it the way you and some of the others are seeing this.

Chris
 
raider1 said:
Lets look at another sentence for example.

Jack and Jill with the red hair need to go to the store.

Does this sentence mean that Jack has red hair also or does Jill alone have red hair? Can I reverse the sentence and say "Jill and Jack with the red hair need to go to the store." and have it still mean the same thing?

Here is the sentence in 680.74 again:

"All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water shall be bonded together....."

I am going to confer with someone that is an english major and see if the way I have always read this is wrong. (I am the first to admit that my grammer is horrible:D)

I really am trying to see it the way you and some of the others are seeing this.

Chris
Click to expand...

I'm no grammar major but if you pick apart the sentence like this:

1. (All metal piping systems) and (all grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water) shall be bonded together.

It would be referring to all metal piping systems, but only the metal parts in contact with the circulating water.

If you pick it apart like this:

2. (All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts) in contact with the circulating water shall be bonded together.

Now you are including the condition of (in contact with the circulating water) on the metal piping systems. Do we bond to metal gas lines that may be in the area?

If they had removed the second 'all' from the sentence:

All metal piping systems and grounded metal parts in contact with the circulating water should be bonded together.

In that case I think it would mean my first example by applying the condition ONLY to grounded metal parts in contact with...

In conclusion I believe that the correct way to read it is the second example.
 
I guess my contention would be that for the "in contact with the circulating water" to apply to the "All metal piping systems" there should be a comma before "in contact with the circulating water". For example, here is how I think the sentence should read if the metal piping system was to be included in the "in contact with the circulating water":

"All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts, in contact with the circulating water, shall be bonded together using a copper bonding jumper, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG solid."

But again I am no english major.

Chris
 
Trevor, I tend to disagree with you. There are two components being discussed here, and if both are present, they must be bonded together. The two components are:

1) metal piping systems, and
2) grounded metal objects in contact with circulating water.

Why would the code apply to the piping system that circulates the water? That would be in a product standard, not the NEC. If the plumber uses copper to plumb the house, that is covered by the NEC, because obviously a product standard can't govern what the plumber does. The product standard can, however (and does), govern the factory assembled components of the hydromassage tub. Why would a listing agency list a product if the installer had to bond all of its factory pieces together?
 
raider1 said:
I guess my contention would be that for the "in contact with the circulating water" to apply to the "All metal piping systems" there should be a comma before "in contact with the circulating water". For example, here is how I think the sentence should read if the metal piping system was to be included in the "in contact with the circulating water":

"All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts, in contact with the circulating water, shall be bonded together using a copper bonding jumper, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG solid."

But again I am no english major.

Chris
Click to expand...

This.

ryan_618 said:
Trevor, I tend to disagree with you. There are two components being discussed here, and if both are present, they must be bonded together. The two components are:

1) metal piping systems, and
2) grounded metal objects in contact with circulating water.

Why would the code apply to the piping system that circulates the water? That would be in a product standard, not the NEC. If the plumber uses copper to plumb the house, that is covered by the NEC, because obviously a product standard can't govern what the plumber does. The product standard can, however (and does), govern the factory assembled components of the hydromassage tub. Why would a listing agency list a product if the installer had to bond all of its factory pieces together?
Click to expand...

And this.

Therefore I am in disagreement with my own comment. However I stand by what I said about English majors.
 
Last edited:
Here is the action that lead to the 2005 version.

________________________________________________________________
17-183 Log #732 NEC-P17 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( 680.74 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Gary Siggins, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Comment on Proposal No: 17-152
Recommendation: The Panel Statement regarding the rejection of proposal
17-152 indicated they believed a double insulated whirlpool bath pump provided
an increased level of safety. Although this is the case for above ground
storable and non-storable swimming pool pumps, I believe it is not the case
with whirlpool baths utilizing double insulated pumps. The pump designs and
their installations are different.
Whirlpool bath pumps are not accessible by the bathtub occupants and are
required by UL 1795 to have their live parts above the mounting service in the
event of a leak. They are also required to have their internal metal parts that
might become energized in a failure (the motor shaft in particular) isolated
from the water. An internal failure of the motor would not produce the same
hazards as an outdoor storable pool unit that is accessible and may have wet
surfaces. The grounding of internal dead metal parts, therefore, is not needed.
Due to the requirements on the double insulated bathtub pumps and their
mounting in UL 1795, the text from 680.74, ?and providing a means for
grounding internal nonaccessible, non-current carrying metal parts? should,
therefore, be deleted.
Substantiation: Present text requires substantial modification of the pump
motor without an overall increase in the safety of the complete whirlpool bath.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise 680.74 to read as follows:
680.74 Bonding. All metal piping systems and all grounded metal parts in contact
with the circulating water shall be bonded together using a copper bonding
jumper, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG solid.
Panel Statement: The need for bonding in a bathroom differs from the need
for bonding in a pool area. Electrical equipment of a hydromassage bathtub is
not accessible to users of the tub. Only parts that can cause a voltage gradient
in the bathtub need to be bonded. Section 680.74 has been concisely reworded
to require the bonding of only the parts that present a risk of creating voltage
gradients in the hydromassage bathtub. The panel?s action on 17-183 supersedes
the panel?s action on ROP 17-153.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
Click to expand...
 
Here is what the action mentioned from my previous post supersedes.

17-153 Log #3079 NEC-P17
(680-74)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc.
Recommendation:
Add the following sentence:
The means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non-current carrying metal parts shall be an equipment grounding conductor run with
the power-supply conductors in the case of units supplied with a flexible cord, or a grounding terminal in the case of units intended for
permanent connection.
Substantiation:
The present version of UL 1795, as reflected in the general information for Guide Card NCHX, clearly permits hydromassage bathtubs to
be manufactured with nongrounding plug configurations. This is inconsistent with the long history of DI procedures in this article. See,
for example 680.31. It is also inconsistent with a close reading of this section. The DI motors, per listing instructions at NCHX, are
forbidden to be bonded (and properly so). However, 680.74 only removes the bonding requirement on a showing of a means for
grounding internal, noncurrent-carrying metal parts. A motor with a two-wire cord has no means for grounding such parts. Therefore, by
the process of elimination as applied to 680.74, it must be bonded. But it would violate 110.3(B) (and important safety considerations)
if a field bonding connection were made. Catch 22.
The language in 680.74 clearly was taken from 680.31 and intended to be in the same spirit. This proposal will force a revision in UL
1795 so that these motors are equipped with 3-wire cords (or a grounding connection if the manufacturer chose to provide for a
permanent connection). This proposal does not require the cord-and-plug connection (as in the case of 680.31) but it might be
entertained by Code-Making Panel 17. A grounding terminal in the same vicinity as power connections may defeat the safety objectives
of the DI system, but the testing laboratories should probably be the judges of that. DI hydromassage pump motors are in routine
production with no provisions for grounding the internal, inaccessible parts. An internal failure would produce the same hazards as an
outdoor storable pool unit, given the proximity of grounded, wet surfaces. If Code-Making Panel17 actually intends that two-wire
connections are permissible, then it should originate a panel proposal to rewrite this section to remove the conundrum just
demonstrated in the previous paragraph.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top