# 680.42(C) dwelling unit hot tub wiring



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

Now that, 680.42(C) now permits any Chapter 3 wiring method (with a min. 12 AWG copper EGC 
that is insulated or within an overall jacket) to be used in the interior of any dwelling unit or 
associated building for the supply to an outdoor spa or hot tub, has anyone given any thought to the possibility of developing a UF cable that contains an insulated copper equipment grounding conductor? To me, this seems like a great idea that would allow one to wire the outside hot tub connections with UF vs a method containing an insulated equipment grounding conductor. IN my experience, the UF cable is tough enough to prevent corrosion and is far superior than just insulation on a single conductor.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I agree UF is a hearty wire method mga

One would think UF alone would suffice for tub/pools.

So why doesn't it? why do we end up in a raceway outside?

Perhaps the underlying _theory_ of the EGC being isolated from any external influence is applicable ?

To where _direct burial_ UF (even if it acquired an iso-EGC) is seen as vulnerable ?

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

May I ask what code you are referring to? Chapter 3 wiring methods have been allowed for many code cycles however there has been a few changes.

NM cable is allowed because the equipment grounding conductor is enclosed within the sheathing. No need for UF inside the building. Once you leave the building you cannot use UF cable.-- look at 680.25(A)(1). Keep in mind the exception in the 2014 NEC in that section should be deleted as it is an errata


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

For dwelling units,I believe the limitation to UF cable is the insulated equipment grounding requirement. I did find out that southwire does manufacture UF cable with insulated equipment grounding conductors. Is there another reason one couldn't use UF cable besides the insulated equipment grounding conductor requirement?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> For dwelling units,I believe the limitation to UF cable is the insulated equipment grounding requirement. I did find out that southwire does manufacture UF cable with insulated equipment grounding conductors. Is there another reason one couldn't use UF cable besides the insulated equipment grounding conductor requirement?


You keep going back to the insulated ground when the code states insulated or enclosed equipment grounding conductor. 680.42(C) Enclosed does not need to be insulated if it is within a cable assembly but this is just for inside the dwelling


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

FYI:
Southwire

55:05:68 14-2 CU UF-B W INSULATED GROUND
55:05:71 14-3 CU UF-B W INSULATED GROUND
55:05:69 12-2 CU UF-B W INSULATED GROUND
55:05:72 12-3 CU UF-B W INSULATED GROUND
55:05:70 10-2 CU UF-B W INSULATED GROUND
55:05:73 10-3 CU UF-B W INSULATED GROUND

Thank you for your interest in our products. We also appreciate the business. 


The exception for enclosed equipment grounding conductor in cable assemblies only applies to the interior wiring...I am talking about exterior applications from the exterior hot tub disconnect to the hot tub itself. There one must have an insulated equipment grounding conductor. This UF cable with insulated equipment grounding conductor would meet all 2014 codes according to Southwire for residential hot tub applications.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> The exception for enclosed equipment grounding conductor in cable assemblies only applies to the interior wiring...I am talking about exterior applications from the exterior hot tub disconnect to the hot tub itself. There one must have an insulated equipment grounding conductor. This UF cable with insulated equipment grounding conductor would meet all 2014 codes according to Southwire for residential hot tub applications.


Got you but I don't see how uf would comply. 680.42 states that a spa outside must comply with Parts I and II of art. 680. Art. 680.25 (A)(1) does not allow UF


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

2014 NEC:

680.42 Outdoor Installations.
A spa or hot tub installed outdoors shall comply with the provisions of Parts I and II of this article, except as permitted in 680.42(A) and (B), that would otherwise apply to pools installed outdoors.

The only requirement I saw is the Insulated equipment grounding requirement. I see nothing else there that would prevent UF's use with an insulated equipment grounding conductor...do you?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> The only requirement I saw is the Insulated equipment grounding requirement. I see nothing else there that would prevent UF's use with an insulated equipment grounding conductor...do you?


What year code are you using? Did you reference the articles I stated.


Yes, I do see where UF cannot be used and I cited the art. 680.25(A)(1). Read my other post


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

unless I am missing something, the article you quoted does not have anything to do with the branch circuit for the Hot Tub:
Feeders
These provisions shall apply to any feeder on the supply side of panelboards supplying branch circuits for pool equipment covered in Part II of this article and on the load side of the service equipment or the source of a separately derived system.
(A) Wiring Methods.
(1) Feeders.
Feeders shall be installed in rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit. The following wiring methods shall be permitted if not subject to physical damage:
Liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit
Rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit
Reinforced thermosetting resin conduit
Electrical metallic tubing where installed on or within a building
Electrical nonmetallic tubing where installed within a building
Type MC cable where installed within a building and if not subject to corrosive environment

This is a branch circuit not a feeder.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> This is a branch circuit not a feeder.


My bad it is for feeders however look at 680.21(A)(1). Where does it allow UF? Yes you have to use section II


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

Yes, that is what I came up with also for the only reason UF would not be allowed because it is not specifically mentioned in 680.21(A)(1)...this make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. A hot tub is not a pool and is completely different construction. I'm not sure if there was a proposal out there to solve this problem.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> Yes, that is what I came up with also for the only reason UF would not be allowed because it is not specifically mentioned in 680.21(A)(1)...this make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. A hot tub is not a pool and is completely different construction. I'm not sure if there was a proposal out there to solve this problem.


A hot tub can be as dangerous as a pool so the cmp do not want a wiring method that could easily be cut and loose a equipment grounding conductor. In conduit it is safer.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

In this State, one must stub up and stub down with PVC conduit into the earth 18" below grade or burial depth according to table 300-5, whichever is less, to protect conductors and cable entering and emerging from the ground. Therefore, when the UF comes up directly under the hot tub in a sleeve of PVC, where, in the real world, is the danger?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> In this State, one must stub up and stub down with PVC conduit into the earth 18" below grade or burial depth according to table 300-5, whichever is less, to protect conductors and cable entering and emerging from the ground. Therefore, when the UF comes up directly under the hot tub in a sleeve of PVC, where, in the real world, is the danger?


You are looking at one situation. You have to look at the entire picture simply because it is impossible to write code for every possibility. If you sleeve the entire run in pvc obviously it is not and issue but if it goes in the ground there is always a possibility someone will cut it either shovel, earth settling or whatever. The NEC tries to error on the side of safety. 

If you want to use UF then go ahead. It will probably work forever but if something does happen it will be on you. I prefer to cover my arse.

We can argue similar things for many parts of the code.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

Which is why the UF cable with insulated equipment grounding conductor wiring method should be allowed for dwelling units unless exposed to physical damage. Not to allow something that would be safe in 99 out of 100 situations is unlogical and biased. The AHJ should be left to make a determination if that 1 in a 100 case needs another wiring method. Just my opinion of course and I welcome yours...Thank you for all your input!!!


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

mgawat said:


> Which is why the UF cable with insulated equipment grounding conductor wiring method should be allowed for dwelling units unless exposed to physical damage. Not to allow something that would be safe in 99 out of 100 situations is unlogical and biased. The AHJ should be left to make a determination if that 1 in a 100 case needs another wiring method. Just my opinion of course and I welcome yours...Thank you for all your input!!!


If it hasn't already been done you could have the distinction of being the first one to write a proposal to allow UF as a recognized wiring method. 

Give us an idea how you would substantiate your proposal and perhaps we could critique it in the interest of making it stronger.

Just to clear the air a bit on the powers of the AHJ... The AHJ *does not* have the authority to waive specific code requirements. He/She would have the option, in several places throughout the NEC, to give "special permission".

That being said, a Building Code Board of Appeals (will vary State to State) would have the right to allow alternative methods as long equivalent safety objectives were met. This would require the AHJ to give you an adjudication order and you file the appeal.

Pete


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

mgawat said:


> Yes, that is what I came up with also for the only reason UF would not be allowed because it is not specifically mentioned in 680.21(A)(1)...this make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. A hot tub is not a pool and is completely different construction. I'm not sure if there was a proposal out there to solve this problem.




What is Charlies Rule ?




Pete


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

pete87 said:


> What is Charlies Rule ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Charlie's rule was written by Charlie Beck (Charlie B) over at mike holt forum. Here it is-- it is about interpreting the NEC



> It doesn't say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say. If by chance you are an instructor, it doesn't say what you have been saying, and if you’re an author, it doesn’t say what it’s intended to say.
> 
> Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, don't ask anyone what is says and don’t think it says what you want it to say.
> 
> Go back and read it again and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time. If you don’t like what it says, then get involved and try to change it. In the process, you might find out that what it says, it should be saying…


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This insulated vs isolated EGC is confusing :001_huh:

680.21(A)(1) states wiring methods to be _'insulated'_ , mentions a number of raceways , but i'm not reading _'isolated'_ ?

By my interpretation , UF in raceway _with _an insulated green EGC _(elliptical pipe fill Or sleeving considered)_ would meet code.

~CS~


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

I can't say why... but some hot tub manufacturers, in their written installation instructions, require a full sized EGC (this is to be read as larger than the NEC requires per 250.122)

110.3(B) is the prevalent code section even though the nec would allow a 10awg conductor to serve as the EGC.

Pete


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Well ok, the EGC is _really important_ to them Pete. In fact i see an '11 change in 680.21(A)(5) dictating _'not smaller than #12'_ for cord & plug connections

before that, 680.21(A)(4)claims chp3 methods in a dwelling are ok, as long as the egc doesn't leave the cable sheath

So is the intent that the pool branch cir not be made into JB's ? EGC's not _'mixed'_ with other branch cir's?


Am i confusing myself, and should i just go back to debating AGW's new world order ?


~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> Well ok, the EGC is _really important_ to them Pete. In fact i see an '11 change in 680.21(A)(5) dictating _'not smaller than #12'_ for cord & plug connections
> 
> before that, 680.21(A)(4)claims chp3 methods in a dwelling are ok, as long as the egc doesn't leave the cable sheath
> 
> ...


I don't think it matters if the equipment grounding conductor is spliced for pool motors however it would matter for pool lights. There is all sorts of special needs when it comes to lighting in the pool. I am not sure why they still use pool lights rather than use a fiber optic light where the equipment is remote to the pool. Seems a lot safer to me.


----------

