light over tub

[rasmithircgov.com]

Re: light over tub

Here in Fl. the FBC says floors and walls shall be contructed of smooth corrosion resistant and nonabsorbant water resistant materials of a hieght of 70". So I can see taking the hieght in concideration. But nowhere in the NEC does it concern itself with hieght. Now if we look at switch requirements around a tub nowhere in the code does it say a distance away from a tub it has to be. This to try to establish an area at said location horizontally.
404.4 Switches shall not be installed within wet locations in tub or shower spaces unless installed as part of a listed tub or shower assembly. I was looking at all this to try to find a more specific area of dampness. Within tub or shower area.
So what is within, how far away is it? Is it the innerwall of the tub, the outside wall of the tub? So I would suggest right or wrong the code in itself with its vagueness is opening this up for interpitation and if the inspector wants it rated for damp or wet it is up to him only because of the vagueness of the code itself and hopefully all are concistant in that juresdiction.

[ August 05, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: rasmithircgov.com ]

 

[mrc080]

Re: light over tub

Does the shower ring itself make the can light houseing not in a wet location?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: light over tub

Dad gum it. I'm going back over to Netscape...

Ddduplicate.

[ August 11, 2005, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: light over tub

I agree with iwire, this represents abuse. If the UL lists a piece of equipment, that's doing the AHJ a favor by doing the testing professionally and independently. When an AHJ decides that he/she is better informed than the UL, and determines by glancing over a piece of equipment (a very scientific method) that he disagrees with the UL, he/she really ought to explain themselves a bit.

Originally posted by rasmithircgov.com:
Here in Fl. the FBC says floors and walls shall be contructed of smooth corrosion resistant and nonabsorbant water resistant materials of a hieght of 70". So I can see taking the hieght in concideration. But nowhere in the NEC does it concern itself with hieght.

But it does, in several locations, including the section in question, 410.4. Under 8' is a damp location, above is dry. If subject to shower spray, then it's wet.

So I would suggest right or wrong the code in itself with its vagueness is opening this up for interpitation and if the inspector wants it rated for damp or wet it is up to him only because of the vagueness of the code itself and hopefully all are concistant in that juresdiction.

You have a point about the switch issue, but in this can dispute, the code is clear but for one point: 410.4 doesn't include "recessed cans" in the list, so they aren't addressed, in a way. However, the listing of the can takes care of it.

To answer the last post, the listing clarifies the type of trim that can be used in a given location. Look closely at the label inside the can, or the literature associated with the can.

 

[websparky]

Re: light over tub

Hi Bob,

Here in MA we have an amendment that requires the inspector must accept listed equipment, they have zero latitude on that.

So in MA, you actually erase

90.4 Enforcement.
This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.............

??

Please share a link to the amendment. I would be interested in reading the wording.

Thanks!

 

[petersonra]

Re: light over tub

I don't see how the inspector being required to accept listed equipment affects this chunk of the code. The inspector is NOT the AHJ. He is only the agent of the AHJ.

The AHJ is the agency that decided (very rationally I might add) that listed equipment can be used in accordance with its listing.

 

[websparky]

Re: light over tub

Here in Ohio the AHJ is the Chief Building Official and the Building Commissioner of the local city.
Each city has the authority of the AHJ mentioned in the NEC.

 

[websparky]

Re: light over tub

Also, as an Inspector, you have the full power of the AHJ you represent. If your AHJ desides that it is a "wet" location, then it is a "wet" location.

 

[petersonra]

Re: light over tub

Originally posted by websparky:
Also, as an Inspector, you have the full power of the AHJ you represent. If your AHJ desides that it is a "wet" location, then it is a "wet" location.

thats true, however, the agency that is the actual AHJ can also set rules their agents have to abide by.

 

[apauling]

Re: light over tub

Without getting into the issue of whether an open bulb recess can is acceptable in this situation, I take it that a listed (for this application) trim will suffice to make the area above the rock a DRY, not even damp, location. Otherwise all recessed outlets in wet locations with listed trims are not acceptable. No more penetrating the building envelope as the AHJ can now say that the listed trims are unacceptable, at least following the above logic.

There is no provision in the building codes for inaccessible areas in walls and ceilings to be continually damp.

paul

 

[infinity]

Re: light over tub

Also, as an Inspector, you have the full power of the AHJ you represent. If your AHJ desides that it is a "wet" location, then it is a "wet" location.

So back to the original post, does anyone think that a recessed fixture over a tub, (not a shower) is a wet location, or did the inspector goof?

 

[apauling]

Re: light over tub

I would want to see what the listing said in toto; as an inspector, i have been tricked a couple of times by partial descriptions, with important details left out.

If splash and spray and moist air can bypass the bulb and enter the space adjacent to the can through the slots or imperfect seal at rock surface, i would assume no, unless proven otherwise. This would create a helth hazard.

paul

 

[redfish]

Re: light over tub

So back to the original post, does anyone think that a recessed fixture over a tub, (not a shower) is a wet location, or did the inspector goof?

He goofed.

 

[pierre]

Re: light over tub

Take a look a the last sentence of the '05, and it will help to give direction to your question of "wet" location over a tub/jacuzzi.


410.4(D) Bathtub and Shower Areas.

"Luminaires (lighting fixtures) located in this zone shall be listed for damp locations, or listed for wet locations where subject to shower spray."

This makes it easy for inspectors:
I say the fixture "OVER" the tub/jacuzzi is not in a wet location.

 

[pierre]

Re: light over tub

"The NEC is designed to give the AHJ (usually the inspector) a great deal of power and latitude."

THIS IS SO NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[iwire]

Re: light over tub

"The NEC is designed to give the AHJ (usually the inspector) a great deal of power and latitude."

Originally posted by pierre:
THIS IS SO NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with you Pierre, IMO the NEC is designed to provide a constant, unchanging set of rules, unless an amendment is made.

If as Dave said that the local inspector is the AHJ and can make interpretations at will we might as well throw the NEC in the trash.

[ August 12, 2005, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: light over tub

Originally posted by websparky:

Here in MA we have an amendment that requires the inspector must accept listed equipment, they have zero latitude on that.

Please share a link to the amendment. I would be interested in reading the wording.

Thanks!

Here's a thread that Bob posted the amendment.

It prompted me to write a proposal, which can be found in the "Proposals" section of the Forum.

 

[iwire]

Re: light over tub

Thanks George I missed Dave's post.

But I want to comment on it's wording.

MA Amendments

90.4. Revise the first paragraph to read as follows:

90.4 Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the authority enforcing the Code and exercising legal jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority having jurisdiction of enforcement of the Code shall accept listed and labeled equipment or materials where used or installed in accordance with instructions included with the listing or labeling. The authority shall have the responsibility for deciding upon the approval of unlisted or unlabeled equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.

Please note that the amendment uses the term "authority enforcing the Code"

That is the local inspector and is not to be confused with the AHJ which as best I can find out is Board of Fire Prevention Regulations which is where I would go if I want an interpretation.

MA Amendments

90.6. Revise to read as follows:

90.6 Interpretations and Appeals.

To promote uniformity of interpretation and application of the provisions of this Code, interpretations may be requested from the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations. Requests for interpretation shall be in the form of a question that can receive a ?Yes? or ?No? answer. This in no way supersedes the right of any individual who is aggrieved by the decision of an Inspector of Wires to appeal from that decision to the Board of Electricians? Appeals in accordance with M.G.L. c. 143 ?3P. The Board of Fire Prevention Regulations shall, upon the request of the Board of Electricians? Appeals, render interpretations to the Board of electricians? Appeals.

It is customary to revise this Code periodically to conform with developments in the art and the result of experience, and the current edition of the Code shall always be used.

I find the first words of our 90.6 "To promote uniformity of interpretation and application" to be very important.

The State does not want each City or Towns inspector making their own rules.

 

[allenwayne]

Re: light over tub

We had a problem with an inspector regarding progress open trims with listed wet location halogen bulbs .Mind you this is 400 homes later.
The only difference in the standard trim and the listed shower trim is a foam gasket on the back of the can trim.
He refused to pass finals until he had ul paperwork that showed these were listed.Opened a box showed him the paperwork and it was signed off.
This was the same inspector that wanted puck light trans. in a seperate box than switch leg and vented :roll:

 

[haskindm]

Re: light over tub

"The NEC is designed to give the AHJ (usually the inspector) a great deal of power and latitude."

THIS IS SO NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you possibly say this?
Read 90.4
The AHJ "interprets the rules", "decides on the approval of equipment and materials", grants special permission, and "May waive specific requirements in this code or permit alternative methods...." That is tremendous authority, power, and latitude. That is why that it is crucial that the AHJ is a competent, qualified person. If he is not the system does not work. You may not like it, but the NEC practically gives the AHJ a "blank check". If you are not confident that the inspectors in your jurisdiction are capable of handling the tremendous responsibility, power, and authority that the NEC gives them you need to work on having someone else appointed as the AHJ.
Also look up the word APPROVED in article 100. It says that approved means "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction". In the post that started this thread, the inspector did NOT APPROVE the fixture. If the inspector is the AHJ, it does not matter whether the area over the tub is dry, wet, damp, or under water - the fixture has not been approved for that location. If the inspector is not the AHJ, then the electrician needs to find out who the AHJ is and ask for a ruling.