sub panel for Hot Tub

Status
Not open for further replies.
In fact, looking at this again has got me thinking: The EGC of a hydromassage bathtub cord in editions prior to the 2005, should have been an #8. The receptacle was electrical equipment. It should have been connected to the pump seperately with a #8. Or perhaps Charlie's Rule is tricking me.
Click to expand...

Anybody have a thought on this? I can't figure that everybody misread the '02 680.74 the exact same way, that the EGC of the cord was undersized this whole time according to this code.

But I can't see the hole in that train of thought, either. :(

Edit: Everybody else seeing the UBB code too? :eek: :confused:
 
Last edited:
wireman3736 said:
The #8 is required for bonding to keep everything at the same potential, it has nothing to do with the equipment grounding conductor that runs back to the panel,
Click to expand...
Although we apparently are permitted to let the #8 bond between the disconnect and the spa-pak do double duty as the EGC.
 
georgestolz said:
Edit: Everybody else seeing the UBB code too? :eek: :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes: you've misplaced the beginning bracket on the end-quote tag, right after the smilie: it's between the end-bold and end-size tags. In fact, if you don't mind my saying it, that small font is kinda hard to read.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, why would parts not readily touched by the user be required to be bonded equipotentially? I think that's perhaps part of the reason jacuzzi tub's cords have never been #8. Maybe? :confused:
 
georgestolz said:
[/SIZE][/FONT]
that the EGC of the cord was undersized this whole time according to this code.
:
Click to expand...

George you posted an ROP that showed where hydromassage tubs no longer are required to have their internal grounded metal parts bonded.

Prior to 2005 the pumps on on these tubs had to have a provision to bond those internal parts to other grounded metal parts and metallic piping systems associsted with the tub. They were never required to have a # 8 equipment conductor. They were to be bonded to the other metal parts with a #8
 
wireman3736 said:
I don't see nothing about the grounding conductor for a feeder in 680.25 having to be copper, only the branch circuit feeding the actual equipment requires #12 copper minimum , In the hand book the informational wording says that the grounding conductors can be copper or aluminum.
Click to expand...

I agree if this is treated as a "feeder" that AL. can be used to the sub panel.
however , If a cable assembly is used it will have to be in some sort of raceway though.
 
M. D. said:
I agree if this is treated as a "feeder" that AL. can be used to the sub panel.
however , If a cable assembly is used it will have to be in some sort of raceway though.
Click to expand...

"Say, is this a barn or a stable?"

"If you look at it, it's a barn; if you smell it, it's a stable."

'Well, then let's just look at it." ~ The Marx Brothers
 
M. D. said:
They were never required to have a # 8 equipment conductor. They were to be bonded to the other metal parts with a #8
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

NEC-2002 680.74 Bonding. All metal piping systems, metal parts of electrical equipment, and pump motors associated with the hydromassage tub shall be bonded together using a copper bonding jumper, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG solid. Metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation and providing a means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non?current-carrying metal parts shall not be bonded.
Click to expand...
How (technically) does the receptacle not have to be bonded with an #8?
 
georgestolz said:
How (technically) does the receptacle not have to be bonded with an #8?
Click to expand...

The receptacle is part of the premise wiring system it is not associated with hydromassage tub.

Now before you say of course it is associated with the tub realize a line of demarcation must be drawn or you will be bonding the panel supplying the receptacle, the meter supplying the panel etc.
 
Bob I agree with you in general , but If the receptacle outlet was installed in a metal box , say a surface mounted 4" square, I would say that the metal box would have to be bonded even though it is associated with the wiring system.

If the receptacle is in a plastic box with a non metallicc face plate there is nothing to bond.
 
iwire said:
The receptacle is part of the premise wiring system it is not associated with hydromassage tub.

Now before you say of course it is associated with the tub realize a line of demarcation must be drawn or you will be bonding the panel supplying the receptacle, the meter supplying the panel etc.
Click to expand...

I like that answer. It works for me. :)
 
M. D. said:
Bob I agree with you in general , but If the receptacle outlet was installed in a metal box , say a surface mounted 4" square, I would say that the metal box would have to be bonded even though it is associated with the wiring system.
Click to expand...

You could ask and I would probably do it without complaint but I don't think you can force it with a code cite.

JMO, Bob
 
In 2005 I would agree in, 2002 we don't agree

NEC-2002 680.74 Bonding. All metal piping systems, metal parts of electrical equipment, and pump motors associated with the hydromassage tub shall be bonded together using a copper bonding jumper, insulated, covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG solid. Metal parts of listed equipment incorporating an approved system of double insulation and providing a means for grounding internal nonaccessible, non?current-carrying metal parts shall not be bonded.

I believe the the metal box is associated metal parts of electrical equipment.
It is associated with the tub and part of the wiring system .
 
M. D. said:
It is associated with the tub and part of the wiring system .
Click to expand...

That is the thing to decide.

Is it associated with the tub?

That is certainly up for grabs if it is or if it is not.

If we say that the receptacle is associated with the tub so is the panel enclosure suppling the circuit and so on.

Both are inaccessible to the user of the tub.

Has any inspector been requiring or any electrician been required to bond the device box with 8 AWG?

I have not seen it but I have very little contact with these tubs, almost none actually.
 
I guess the only question for those using the 2002 code book is,,... Would the
4" square be considered metal parts of electrical equipment. I think it is metal electrical equipment

There is no doubt that it has an association with the tub, it is not part of the tub but it does relate to it.

As far as the receptacle, with a plastic box and non metallic plate the only exposed metal is the plate screw I would love to see a #8 connected to that.
The panel is not in the area and therefore no bonding required , we are creating equipotential for an area that includes the hydro -tub , how big an area depends on the AHJ I guess.

Bob I think most of what you said has been put in the wording of the 2005 code, those metal parts are no longer required to be bonded , why? not much touch potential , I assume.
 
M. D. said:
I guess the only question for those using the 2002 code book is,,... Would the
4" square be considered metal parts of electrical equipment. I think it is metal electrical equipment

There is no doubt that it has an association with the tub, it is not part of the tub but it does relate to it.

As far as the receptacle, with a plastic box and non metallic plate the only exposed metal is the plate screw I would love to see a #8 connected to that.
The panel is not in the area and therefore no bonding required , we are creating equipotential for an area that includes the hydro -tub , how big an area depends on the AHJ I guess.

Bob I think most of what you said has been put in the wording of the 2005 code, those metal parts are no longer required to be bonded , why? not much touch potential , I assume.
Click to expand...


I thought that this thread was about a hot tub not a hydromassage tub. A hydromassage tub does not require an equipotential anything, other than the water circulation system.
 
Yes a hot tub in a single family dwelling, when I asked my original question, I was looking for some kind of an exception to run cable to feed a 2 position panel with a 50 amp gfci 2 pole breaker at the tub to also act as the disconnect, since the gfci breaker at the tub I believe would be considered a feeder I didn't understand why I would be required to run the feeder in conduit but thats the way I see it written. I know of many that do it this way, (run an ser or romex from a 2 pole 50 at the panel and install a hot tub kit with a 2 pole 50 gfci breaker at the tub), I have to admit :oops: that I have run it this way before and thought it was acceptable, after reading some posts from this site I have changed my mind. I was just looking for exceptions but I don't think there are any. I guess if the gfci breaker at the tub could be considered a Branch circuit instead of a feeder then I could run cable. Are there any opinions on any exceptions to either? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top