Hot tub diconnect location

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Dennis I am not trying to bust your chops and argue with you on this.
I realize you are not trying to bust my chops. I just don't what else to say to convince you that a disco is a switching device. To me it is pretty clear with or without a definition of switch. I feel like I presented my case and you have not accepted it. That's cool but I don't see where you have made a strong case for your position. A disco switches the power-- it is as simply as that for me.

When you said a snap switch is moot, I don't understand-- what do you think 680.22(C) is talking about?
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
I realize you are not trying to bust my chops. I just don't what else to say to convince you that a disco is a switching device. To me it is pretty clear with or without a definition of switch. I feel like I presented my case and you have not accepted it. That's cool but I don't see where you have made a strong case for your position. A disco switches the power-- it is as simply as that for me.

When you said a snap switch is moot, I don't understand-- what do you think 680.22(C) is talking about?
Well let's look at it from the standpoint of the written word.

680.22 is the heading of permanently installed pools. That could be a stadium pool for all we know.

680.22(C) talks " Switching Devices"
I look in the definition section of the code book Article 100 section II and it tells me only to use that particular terminology when using equipment at 600v nominal. That portion of the code book specifically states " the following definitions are applicable only to parts of the article specifically covering installations and equipment operating at over 600 volts, Nominal"

Hey I don't know what the Authors really intended here. It could be they were concerned about HID fixutures or something else High voltage in a arena installation. The Author used a phrase reserved for 600v terminology. Wall switches I think are covers on another code section.


To tell me I have not made a strong case is your opinion. In lieu of any substantiation that I am reading the code book incorrectly that is the way I see it. I am not being arbitrary at all. It took 3 code cycles to get it where it is today. What was behind all that.

I really would like for someone to chime in on those points.

Thanks
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
So you did not answer my question-- what switches is 680.22(C) talking about.

Remember outdoor hot tubs must be installed as a permanent pool, section I & II, except where modified in section IV. That means the disconnect must be as section II states.

You keep bringing up the section II in defnitions as defining a switch for 600V. The first sentenence says that the definitions are intended to applywherever the terms are used in the code--- however...

This does not mean that a disconnect is not a switch. It is only stating that those definition may apply elsewhere but they are more appropriately applied to over 600V.

Also, if you read switching devices you can see that a disconnect means is a type of switching device-- this is in definition Part II. Does that mean it is not a switching device in circuits under 600V?

Anyway, as I said before others must have felt the way you do so the 2008 code clarified it. Now to you that means the 2005 permits less than 5'. I say it never did and 2008 just clarifed the situation.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Yes ,I indeed answered your question as to what switches are being referred to in 680.22(C)

I will repeat myself again
1) Section (C) refers to "SWITCHING DEVICES"

What is a "switching device"
2) The definition is in Article 100 section II , and that definition does not apply to equipment of voltages less than 600v.
The first sentence say's
" The preceding definitions are intended to apply whereever the terms are used throughout this code. the following definitions are applicable only to parts of the article specifiacally covering installations ooperating at over 600 volts, nominal. "

The word Preceding mean " Before" "prior" earlier" NOT AFTER.

3) The code section does not say "Switch" it says "SWITCHING DEVICE"

So it does not matter that one could consider a disconnecting means as a switch. Because it only applies "if" the "Switching device is 600v nominal"
So it has NO relevance that under Article 100 II that a switching device could be considered a disconnect. It clearly states " YOU CANNOT USE THAT DEFINITION" for any other portion of the code. For that matter you cannot use those definitions in any other portion of the code.

No one is saying you cannot use the term "Switch" What that section says is that If the term called out is " switching device " then in order for that to mean a disconnect it must operate at 600v.

What is the problem here!!!!

Now if someone were to show me the history of that code we could understand better. I don't know where to find that information.

I would hope that someone else please would chime in.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I agree with sparky.
If the term swiching devices is that "A term" Then the use of that term can only be associated with equipment installtions with voltages over 600 volts. And would not apply to a required disconnect rated at 240 volts.

However I would like to know what the authors intent was also.

Ed
 

LEO2854

Esteemed Member
Location
Ma
A dico is a switch, Post changes nothing and for safety i would keep it in easy to get at spot. I tend to go overboard on hot tubs but had a niece die because of one. Hot tubs often mean stupid drunk adults and water and electric do not mix.
That is for sure:roll:
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Sparky I am done... you obviously are getting bent out of shape on this. Do what you want.

BTW, You did not answer the question. Defining switching device for over 600V makes no sense in reference to hot tubs. What you are saying is to ignore that section as I doubt there are any hot tubs rated over 600V.

You believe what you need to and if it makes sense that the code does not consider a disconnect a switch then so be it. We will have to differ on the meaning of this.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
BTW, You did not answer the question. Defining switching device for over 600V makes no sense in reference to hot tubs. What you are saying is to ignore that section as I doubt there are any hot tubs rated over 600V.

You believe what you need to and if it makes sense that the code does not consider a disconnect a switch then so be it. We will have to differ on the meaning of this.

That is correct the term " switching device" does not apply to a HOT TUB installation of 240v. The section that contains " switching device" is written for Swimming pools. There could be 600v in a commercal installation of a pool that could exceed 600v like certain ballast and stuff. Look I did not write the code. The code was so awful that it was changed in 2008.

What I don't get is that you state
"You keep bringing up the section II in defnitions as defining a switch for 600V. The first sentenence says that the definitions are intended to applywherever the terms are used in the code--- however..."

When I show you that you mistated the words you still fail to answer the question and won't budge from you position.
My one and only concern here is that with reading all sections properly what does the code say. That's it!

 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
That is correct the term " switching device" does not apply to a HOT TUB installation of 240v. The section that contains " switching device" is written for Swimming pools. There could be 600v in a commercal installation of a pool that could exceed 600v like certain ballast and stuff. Look I did not write the code. The code was so awful that it was changed in 2008.

What I don't get is that you state
"You keep bringing up the section II in defnitions as defining a switch for 600V. The first sentenence says that the definitions are intended to applywherever the terms are used in the code--- however..."

When I show you that you mistated the words you still fail to answer the question and won't budge from you position.
My one and only concern here is that with reading all sections properly what does the code say. That's it!

I have accepted that I read the first sentence incorrectly-- maybe not publicly but here it is.

Now look thru the code and you'll find that every section that is applicable has a section for Over 600V. If section 680.22(C) applied to over 600V then it would have had a section for it.

Now, given that the 2008 code states clearly that the disco must be at least 5' from the inside wall of the tub you are still insisting that in 2005 it was legal. IMO, 680.22(C) comes into play there and , again, the 2008 has clarified that.

I also think that the use of switching device was a bad terminology. I hear what you say I just think that was not the intent. I cannot imagine a hot tub with 600v although a pool is possible, I guess. Then again there would be a section for it in Over 600V. There is not so I must assume that it applies to 6ooV or less.

Again, I hear what you are saying but to install a disco less than 5' from the tub knowing that the 2008 states it clearly is a mistake. I know you would have never gotten that passed in this state in 2005.

I thought I was done but I am now-- I think...:D
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Thanks Dennis,
I would hope that someone with acces to the boards intent would chime in. I don't want to beat this one to death i'd just like to know. The just don't make stuff up at the NEC there is always lots of discussion.
I have been in code/test writing classes and when you have a panel of 10 guys a lot is thrown around.

Thanks
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Sorry that I came in late on this one as I was as sure as anyone that the answer was cut and dry.

After looking into it though I find that Sparky may have a point. In the 2002 analysis of changes article 680.12 says "....and eliminates the specific distances as to the location of the disconnect."

Now I might debate that you could try to use 680.41 except that it does not apply to single family dwellings.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Sorry that I came in late on this one as I was as sure as anyone that the answer was cut and dry.

After looking into it though I find that Sparky may have a point. In the 2002 analysis of changes article 680.12 says "....and eliminates the specific distances as to the location of the disconnect."

Now I might debate that you could try to use 680.41 except that it does not apply to single family dwellings.
So then I wonder why the need to make all the changes since then. What happend was there a lot of electrocutions? I personally don't have a problem with the 5' rule.
I just don't work well with "because I said so" I need to know why!

Sparky

Where do you find the analysis of a code?
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
OK I may have to go back on what I said. Now that I've read 680.22(C) I would have to agree that the disconnect needs to be 5' from the pool. What I don't like is why it doesn't say it in 680.12 or why 680.12 doesn't reference 680.22(C).
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
What I don't like is why it doesn't say it in 680.12 or why 680.12 doesn't reference 680.22(C).
That is because it is not a switcing devce as defined by the code!

about the term " switching device"
I read in Article 100 section it is a term and it's definitions are only reserved for installations over 600v. It would be a fact that this is true because it is written as such. To make any other dertermination I would think would be an opinion.

sure a disconnect " could be considered a switch, However the " fact is that the code specifically states the Term and its definition only apply to voltages over 600.

The choice of words may have been wrong. But the fact is what is actually written wron or right.

then there is the statement: In the 2002 analysis of changes article 680.12 says "....and eliminates the specific distances as to the location of the disconnect."

Please look at Article 100 sections I and II.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
OK, I, like Dennis, don't disagree with what you are saying and I would bet that if you got into court that a good lawyer could tear this to pieces, but, and again like Dennis, I think someone just used bad terminology.

I started to say in a PM to you that I just figured that someone was trying to show how smart they are and throw out a term that was unnecessary.

The definition for switching device has nothing to do with it being over 600 volts, but in your defense it does say at the begining of Article 100 II that "Whereas the preceding definitions are intended to apply wherever the terms are used throughout this Code, the following definitions aer applicable only to parts of the article specifically covering installations and equipment operating over 600 volts nominal." And Switching Device is not in the preceding definitions.

And I do see where in the 2008 that they have now defined that the switch is to be 5' away.

So to summarize, I can see the court case in my head and the "expert" witness who is reading out of the wrong code book is showing where you're wrong, but I can see where a jury might go with you if you could show that you were following the code at the time of the install.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
I can see the court case in my head and the "expert" witness who is reading out of the wrong code book is showing where you're wrong, but I can see where a jury might go with you if you could show that you were following the code at the time of the install.
If I did do an installation such like this and it did go to court I would object to the 2008 book being referenced as to what the Law at the time was as it is irrelevant to what happens afterwords in law making. It could only help define what fault or loop hole the law has.

Any how I am really not concerned about spa tubs. I brought this up because it was a perfect example of a code discrepancy and interpretation. I wanted to clarify the way WE are supposed to read the code.

As far as the TERM " Switching device" goes any of the definitions relating to that term are FACTUALLY not Relevant to any installation under 600v.
That is what is written and however wrong it was worded that is the case.

I just heard the other day that the Heath Care bill could be in jeopardy if a someone finds an illegality in any one section of the Bill. This is because the Authors by failure or design left out the usual clause " If any portion of this document is found to be unconstitutional or illegal the remaining portions remain in effect as though the offending portion never existed.

This is Lawyer 101 , They knew what they were doing. My contracts have such a clause. It was a deliberate mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top