Thread: Safety Glazing at Tub Location?

Greetings to all.

This question is similar to what John Arnold asked in a prior post.

Does the windows in the attached picture have any exemption from be safety glass? The builder is stating that the distance from the tub to the window ledge allows this exemption. I disagree as one could easily slip and fall into the window area but would be interested in your opinions.

Thanks,
Rick Hurst

Similar Threads:

• Pool Safety Links
• Safety Glazing
• Make pool safety a priority - Orlando Sentinel
• Recent drowning calls remind us of child pool safety - AZFamily (subscription)
• 2,953 Archived Environmental, Pests, Health and Safety Posts

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Greetings to all.

This question is similar to what John Arnold asked in a prior post.

Does the windows in the attached picture have any exemption from be safety glass? The builder is stating that the distance from the tub to the window ledge allows this exemption. I disagree as one could easily slip and fall into the window area but would be interested in your opinions.

Thanks,
Rick Hurst

K.I.S.S. response: No! NO! NO!!!



NO WAY, NO HOW! Absolutely NOT!

I don't think there can be any dispute that both windows are within five feet of the floor. They are certainly aren't five feet above the walking surface platform which is continuous between the tub and the intersecting walls which both contain glazing facing the bathtub.

The water's edge is certanly within three feet from the facing glazing, and clearly does not exceed 60 inches horizontally to the glazing. There is NO wall or other enclosure, guard, etc. between the glazing facing the tub. (same for the mirror btw).

I grabbed a 2009 IRC Glazing citation, simply because it was handy (all of 2009 IRC R308, but specific to the "tub" question)

Originally Posted by IRC, 2009 edition

R308.4 Hazardous locations. The following shall be considered specific hazardous locations for the purposes of glazing:



5. Glazing in enclosures for or walls facing hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches (1524 mm) measured vertically above any standing or walking surface.

Exception: Glazing that is more than 60 inches (1524 mm), measured horizontally and in a straight line, from the waters edge of a hot tub, whirlpool or bathtub."

Note that's 60 (sixty) inches NOT 6 (SIX)!!! That's 1524 mm or 152.4 cm, NOT 152.4 mm or 15-1/4 cm. Sixty inches - as in 5 (five) FEET (not inches!!!) horizontally from the water's edge (inside wall of tub, in this case).

BTW, that mirror (glazing) looks to be well within five feet from the inside wall of the tub (water's edge) as well - also required safety glazing if afixed as no interviening wall, guard, etc. from TUB.

Commentary (rant, etc.):


There is no interviening wall, etc. The "tub" has been set into continuous platform which contacts both the intersecting walls, each contining glzing (both of which I might add, are operable) and exceed minimal size exceptions.


Plus the idiot constructed a platform which is standing surface, so even if the tub were not present - the glazing location would still be considered harzardous due to its proximity (elevation-wise) to a standing or walking surface.


Before any nay-sayer claims the corner platform section below the glazing is not a standing surface, the glazing is not fixed - it is operable, and one cannot operate same without standing (okay if you're tall with long arms you might be able to lower and close the upper sash from kneeling position - but that's still a standing surface) there.

The windows must be cleaned. The window treatments operated to afford privacy, even IF the tub is NEVER used. The lowest elevation of glass in relation to the floor - or in this case the unguarded glazing & unguarded, accessible, standing surface platform, still requires it.


The glazing is in a hazardous location IT must comply with federal regulations and the code.



The 'builder' is full of baloney. NO WAY is that five feet from the inside wall of the tub!

Perhps he's got his electrical tub/shower "zone" mixed up with his glazing-hazardous locations tub/shower/body of water zone, but he's still full of baloney!

-end of rant.

Sorry I went berserk highlighting just the generic bathtub portions of the citation quoted above -- I didn't even LOOK to see that it was not "just" a soaker tub but a hydromassage tub, AND outfitted with a hand-held SHOWER WAND & diverter! However, the highlighted portions and the sub-section in its entirety still apply, as do my (ranting) commentary.

I usually look at the whole picture before I start a reply, must be slipping (or sleeping) 'on the job'.

P.S. it is absolutely 100% illegal for that portable lamp to be on that platform (or any part of same device, to anywhere within proximity of the tub or shower zone) if connected to or supplied by any electrical energy source.

Gosh, I truly detest builders' (or most anyone's) "designers", "decorators" & "stagers"!

Thank you Mr. Watson. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and the references.

Rick Hurst

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

(same for the mirror btw).

BTW, that mirror (glazing) looks to be well within five feet from the inside wall of the tub (water's edge) as well - also required safety glazing if afixed as no interviening wall, guard, etc. from TUB.

The mirror is exempt from that requirement as it meets the exception in R308.3:
- R308.3 Human impact loads. Individual glazed areas, including glass mirrors in hazardous locations such as those indicated as defined in Section R308.4, shall pass the test requirements of Section R308.3.1.
- - Exceptions:
- - - 1. Louvered windows and jalousies shall comply with Section R308.2.
- - - 2. Mirrors and other glass panels mounted or hung on a surface that provides a continuous backing support.
- - - 3. Glass unit masonry complying with Section R610.

The receptacle that the lamp is plugged into is in a questionable location regarding being allowed or not allowed. I agree with Watson in this case - that the receptacle should not be there as it is in the tub zone, however, there are many who would argue, and have previously argued, that the receptacle is not in the tub zone as the tub zone is not well defined (the NEC does NOT well define the tub zone, which leads to discussions about things like that receptacle).

Likewise, there is no specific prohibition in the NEC regarding that lamp ... sure, it is dumb, stupid, careless, and idiotic to place it there, and, if one was not addressing MINIMUM code, the lamp would have, does not have, any place being near that tub, but the code ... the code is MINIMUM and does not specifically address stupid, careless, or idiotic things such as that ...

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

P.S. it is absolutely 100% illegal for that portable lamp to be on that platform (or any part of same device, to anywhere within proximity of the tub or shower zone) if connected to or supplied by any electrical energy source.

Gosh, I truly detest builders' (or most anyone's) "designers", "decorators" & "stagers"!

Is that a Misdemeanor or a Felony? It might not meet "Code" but we do live in the USA and last time I checked it was not "illegal" to put a lamp next to a tub or for that matter anywhere in your home. I don't think the code police are going to put the cuffs on anyone.

The outlet does make so convenient to plug in your hair drier.
Nothing like a soak while you do your hair. Well maybe not you Scott .

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Sorry I went berserk highlighting just the generic bathtub portions of the citation quoted above -hower zone) if connected to or supplied by any electrical energy source......

Gosh, I truly detest builders' (or most anyone's) "designers", "decorators" & "stagers"!

You did good HG. But what is very interesting is that most bathrooms would fail this standard. e.g., window over tub.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Likewise, there is no specific prohibition in the NEC regarding that lamp ... sure, it is dumb, stupid, careless, and idiotic to place it there, and, if one was not addressing MINIMUM code, the lamp would have, does not have, any place being near that tub, but the code ... the code is MINIMUM and does not specifically address stupid, careless, or idiotic things such as that ...

The "Code" DOES SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT that portable luminaire AND ANY PART THEREOF, IN THAT LOCATION.

The "Code" DOES VERY SPECIFICLLY DEFINE the TUB(shower) zone.

Cord connected luminaires (portable, fixed, dropped, flush, or otherwise, lights, lamps, etc.) nor any part thereof are prohibited anywhere within three feet horizontally and 8' above the rim of a tub when a combination tub/shower is in the "bathroom".

The KEY is in the definitions, the UL Standards for which such devices are listed, understanding the categoriztion of such devices, and of course the ability to apply language describing spacial relationships; and of course understanding the NFPA style guide, and the construction of the NEC.

See: NEC 100 definitions,

NEC 110.3,

NEC 410 Luminaires, Lampholders, and Lamps.

NEC 410.1 Scope

"410.1 Scope. This article covers luminaires, portable luminaires, lampholders, pendants, incandescent filament lamps, arc lamps, electric-discharge lamps, decorative lighting products, lighting accessories for temporary seasonal and holiday use, portable flexible lighting products, and the wiring and equipment forming part of such products and lighting installations.


NEC 410.10(D) (tub/shower 'zone')

410.10(D) defines a 'bathtub and shower zone' that extends 3 ft (0.9 m) horizontally beyond the tub rim or shower receptor and 8 ft (2.4 m) vertically from the top of the bathtub rim (flood rim of the tub) or shower stall threshold.

Prohibited within this 'zone' are:
Hanging or pendant luminaires
Lighting track
Paddle (ceiling) fans
Cord-connected luminaires


The pictured area contains BOTH a tub (hydromassage with shower wand too) AND a lavitory. Thus there can be no dispute the pictured is a bathroom (area) as defined by the NEC.

3 feet out and 8 foot above - the "zone" prohibiting same is all encompasing with out an interviening wall or enclosure.

Add to that restrictions regarding hydromassage tubs further restricting location & proximity of both receptacles & corded electrical products.

Furthermore there is a hand-held shower wand - making the entire area "subject to water spray" - therefore the entire 'zone' is WET one.

There have actually been scores (if not hundreds) of prosecutions & convictions for felony homicides (even the negligent & reckless disregard variety) for having done same. There is no exception or excuse even if power source is supposedly GFCI protected - the 'protection' can fail to function. The pictured portable luminaire is not a wet location device, not even damp location device - regardless it is ILLEGAL to place it there if energized.

R.G. might recall particular case in point from AC, NJ which didn't even involve death, but significant injury, due to the combined stupidity of a decorator/stager, a marketing exec., and an "interior designer".

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The "Code" DOES SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT that portable luminaire AND ANY PART THEREOF, IN THAT LOCATION.

The "Code" DOES VERY SPECIFICLLY DEFINE the TUB(shower) zone.

Cord connected luminaires (portable, fixed, dropped, flush, or otherwise, lights, lamps, etc.) nor any part thereof are prohibited anywhere within three feet horizontally and 8' above the rim of a tub when a combination tub/shower is in the "bathroom".

The KEY is in the definitions, the UL Standards for which such devices are listed, understanding the categoriztion of such devices, and of course the ability to apply language describing spacial relationships; and of course understanding the NFPA style guide, and the construction of the NEC.

See: NEC 100 definitions,

NEC 110.3,

NEC 410 Luminaires, Lampholders, and Lamps.

NEC 410.1 Scope

"410.1 Scope. This article covers luminaires, portable luminaires, lampholders, pendants, incandescent filament lamps, arc lamps, electric-discharge lamps, decorative lighting products, lighting accessories for temporary seasonal and holiday use, portable flexible lighting products, and the wiring and equipment forming part of such products and lighting installations.

NEC 410.10(D) (tub/shower 'zone')

410.10(D) defines a 'bathtub and shower zone' that extends 3 ft (0.9 m) horizontally beyond the tub rim or shower receptor and 8 ft (2.4 m) vertically from the top of the bathtub rim (flood rim of the tub) or shower stall threshold.

Prohibited within this 'zone' are:
Hanging or pendant luminaires
Lighting track
Paddle (ceiling) fans
Cord-connected luminaires

You are correct on this one as the term "portable luminaires" was added to the 2008 NEC, it was not included in previous versions - my error.

Chalk one up for the Watson.

I see you have not addressed the mirror which you stated was required to be safety glass and I pointed out was not required to be safety glass ... but I expected that from you.

Perhaps my opinion and rationalization is a little too logical but... Assuming architectural plans were drawn and ultimately approved by the AHJ ... Despite aspects of the tub relative to the (non-safety) glazed windows and electrical outlet not being in compliance to applicable codes, by way of approval the AHJ has accepted their placement as conforming and thereby largely overriding the codes, cited. I accept and agree that there are safety issues which should be brought to the attention of the potential buyer, builder and seller, in the OPs assessment but to say non-conforming issues are 'illegal' takes home inspections to a whole different level - especially when their 'illegality' has been over-ruled, so to speak by the AHJ.

If the OP is a building inspector acting on behalf of the AHJ, he has every authority to raise the issues and cite applicable codes for remediation. Distinctions must be made between something being criminally 'illegal', civily negligent and/or non-code compliant and where, if any, their respective paths cross.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

You are correct on this one as the term "portable luminaires" was added to the 2008 NEC, it was not included in previous versions - my error.

Chalk one up for the Watson.

I see you have not addressed the mirror which you stated was required to be safety glass and I pointed out was not required to be safety glass ... but I expected that from you.

I have no need to rehash the entirety of your incorrectly implying that federal regulations nd specifications apply to the glazing discussed.

The gentleman from Minnesota and myself went three plus pages with you on this subject before, you continued to "not get it" and STILL do not "get it". (the thread where you also continuously insisted the ONLY safety glass was tempered as well as you were pointed to the standard and the federal regulations over and over).

If you are unable to locate that most complete thread where you continued to stick your virtual foot in your mouth let me know. I'll point you to it when I return, but by this time you should be able to search the forum for your own amusement.

Mr. Hurst was more than satisfied with the ON TOPIC discussion. You're welcome to start your own discussion thread anytime.

By the way the "shower/tub zone" description hsn't chnged much regarding the CLEAR 3-ft out and 8 ft bove in SEVERAL code cycles.

I need a new spring for my "a" key. There's several "aaaayes" missing above.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I see you have not addressed the mirror which you stated was required to be safety glass and I pointed out was not required to be safety glass ... but I expected that from you.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I have no need to rehash the entirety of your incorrectly implying that federal regulations nd specifications apply to the glazing discussed.

Totally different question at hand, and, the other posts or your response were incorrect too, but no need to keep rehashing your refusal to support and document what you state when shown that you are incorrect.

You stated:

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

(same for the mirror btw).

BTW, that mirror (glazing) looks to be well within five feet from the inside wall of the tub (water's edge) as well - also required safety glazing if afixed as no interviening wall, guard, etc. from TUB.

I posted the code which exempts the mirror, you have not provided support for your stating that the mirror is required to be safety glazing too.

Yes, we have been through this many times before, and you CONTINUE to not support your statements when shown that they are incorrect or to admit that they are incorrect. YOU have done this MANY TIMES in the past and YOU continue to do this now, so, as I said: "I expected that from you. " and you did exactly as I expected.

YOU SIMPLY CANNOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE INCORRECT ... YOU IGNORE ALL REQUESTS FOR BACKUP DOCUMENTATION (there is none, so of course you cannot provide it) ... and YOU NEVER ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES ...

It is simply the way Watson operates: when shown that he is incorrect, he ignores it and eventually it drops by the wayside until the next time it happens ... and then the cycle repeats itself - as it is now.

First, Watson is incorrect ... then Watson denies being incorrect ... then Watson simply ignores requests for supporting documentation ... and Watson remains incorrect but thinks he gets away with it ... then he starts the cycle all over again ... and we are supposed to believe him every time he posts something and take it as truth and fact.

No "PECK" it is YOU who are incorrect, YET AGAIN.

You're ZERO for FOUR now - and yet another swing and a miss.




THIS IS THE THREAD (where you make a total FOOL of yourself) regarding safety glazing and indoor mirrors in hazardous locations:

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...above-tub.html


For the interested reader - the Gentleman from Minnesota (Ken Rowe) and I, patiently tried to explain to PECK (who has NO CLUE what the referenced Standards and Regulations ARE actually, which are referenced in the various editions of the IRC and IBC regarding glazing or safety glazing).He was wrong then, and he's wrong now (although he's slightly reversed himself in the interim, he's STILL GOT IT ALL WRONG!!!).

SEE: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...above-tub.html



Reader, the referenced thread is long, and difficult to follow if you are not keenly aware of the DISTINCTIONS with a difference. Also keep in mind the IRC references are for a different edition (prior to 2009, IIRC we were using 2006 - If you require link to the various editions free access on-line, let me know). Although the section has been recodified and re-writen for the 2009 edition - peck hasn't actually read through what he's presently cut and pasting EITHER. He doesn't understand the subject - not one iota.

He doesn't realize the snipped subsection & exception he's snipping is NOT an excpetion to safety glazing for the hazardous location -- it is merely an exception to the standard TESTING required under another section for clear glazing in not upon, i.e. exposed 2 sides, for same - i.e. an exemption for a force test which is inppropriate for indoor mirror safety glazing - which is organically coated (the continuous backing which is losely referenced in the snippet - but is more carefully cited - by STANDARD in the exception to the prior subsection which is referenced in the snippet -- which goes back to the CPSC and CFR regulations for same).

Again, SEE: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...above-tub.html

THE Thread referenced above gets on point here, interesting at Post 11, where Peck ALMOST has it half-right (but still more thn half wrong). He self destructs soon thereafter when Ken carefully explains in simple language how indoor mirrors are safety glazed and that this does NOT include the use of tempered glass.

K.R. explains what that "continuous backing" means at post 16, and PECK SELF-DESTRUCTS beginning Post 19.

If you read carefully you'll see PECK completely ignore the language he quotes and inserts words and fictitous requirements which don't exist. He also ignores every bit of every code section he cites.If you're really interested in the subject...enjoy the read. Peck never admits he's wrong - but hs contradicted himself repeatedly on this nd the former forum on the subject. He apparently has permnent glitch (like a skip in an LP) that causes his needle to jump every time - but never to the same place.

Obviously its over his peck head, and his "needle" (LP skipping reference) is broken and his "turn table" is off-balance and belt is worn (LP reference again).

Ignore ALL of Peck's erroneous and disinformation on this thread. If you're interested in the requirements for mirrored glass in hazardous locations indoors - see the referenced discussion thread, again, a clickable linke is:

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...above-tub.html

Meanwhile - I'm off-duty for a few weeks. Happy Father's Day, in advance for those of you who are....

And to Mr. Hurst, you are most welcome, and most sorry that Peck had to poop on your thread.

Generally builder's model homes and spec homes aren't finalled until sold, especially if used as site-offices as well. Haven't known a developer to pay full assessed property taxes on a unit, lot, or improved parcel, either (ever).Rare indeed that a builder "decorates" or stages, other than a set of "models", or a "spec" property.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

No "PECK" it is YOU who are incorrect, YET AGAIN.

You're ZERO for FOUR now - and yet another swing and a miss.

Watson,

You are again ignoring the part where YOU stated that the MIRROR was also required to be safety glass.

Do you NOT GET IT? YOU ... STATED ... THAT ... THE MIRROR ... WAS REQUIRED TO BE SAFETY GLASS.

That was an INCORRECT AND UNTRUE statement.

GET IT YET, WATSON? YOU WERE WRONG.

If you still think you were not wrong, then post supporting documentation for your statement ... it really is that easy. However, you have chosen to NOT provided such documentation, which can only be taken as you knowing that YOU WERE WRONG ... to quit dancing around the mulberry bush and just come clean ... ADMIT IT.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The mirror is exempt from that requirement as it meets the exception in R308.3:
- R308.3 Human impact loads. Individual glazed areas, including glass mirrors in hazardous locations such as those indicated as defined in Section R308.4, shall pass the test requirements of Section R308.3.1.
- - Exceptions:
- - - 2. Mirrors and other glass panels mounted or hung on a surface that provides a continuous backing support.

If that mirror was hung or mounted in front of an opening through the wall, then that mirror would be required to be safety glass ... HOWEVER ... being as that mirror would either be mounted or hung on a solid covered drywall wall surface THAT MIRROR IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SAFETY GLASS.

Get it Watson? You said that mirror was required to be safety glass ... however, that mirror is not required to be safety glass.

Concentrate Watson, concentrate ... think about THIS THREAD and YOUR POSTS IN THIS THREAD stating that the mirror is required to be safety glass.

You have been called out on that statement, either put up supporting documentation for your statement or go crawl back in your rat hole until you learn to admit when you are wrong.

Watson, I will leave the whimpering and mis-direction to you in your efforts to ... yet again ... avoid admitting when you are wrong. When you grow up and can admit when you are wrong you can remove the dunce cap, leave the chair in the corner and rejoin civilized society.

(sigh) I've had enough of Watson, and I'm sure that every here has had enough of this futile discussion trying to get Watson to admit when he is wrong ... it is unfortunate that he repeats this crap so often (every time he is wrong, which is rather frequently) ... if Watson replies I will do my best to try to ignore the funny man with the dunce hat sitting in that chair over in that corner.

Rick,
The solution to replacing the glass is to install fixed plexiglass over the window unit. This was accepted as a solution. May work in your Jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Rick,
The solution to replacing the glass is to install fixed plexiglass over the window unit. This was accepted as a solution. May work in your Jurisdiction.

Garry,

If the owner/client finds that acceptable, and if the owner/client is okay with blocking the ventilation from the window (looks to be single/double hung through the shades), and if the attached is designed to resist the load of someone falling against it (personally, I would not make that decision), then Plexiglas of the appropriate thickness/strength might work - but I would not make the call to tell them how thick it needs to be or how it should be attached.

On another issue shown in that photo, and maybe this discussion can continue without Watson continuing his rant on a non-applicable code section section (I have avoided pointing that out previously, but it is yet another of his errors, the receptacle outlet was under discussion, the code Watson ranted on about is only applicable to luminaires) - the receptacle is shown in a location which is allowed by code but which could lead to unsafe uses (such as that lamp being plugged into it).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The receptacle that the lamp is plugged into is in a questionable location regarding being allowed or not allowed. I agree with Watson in this case - that the receptacle should not be there as it is in the tub zone, however, there are many who would argue, and have previously argued, that the receptacle is not in the tub zone as the tub zone is not well defined (the NEC does NOT well define the tub zone, which leads to discussions about things like that receptacle).

At most, by the minimum code, if one were to determine that the receptacle outlet was located in a wet location, then a wet location cover would be required for the receptacle, but the code would allow the receptacle to remain in that location.

The receptacle outlet in that location is a good example of why the NEC states: (bold and underlining are mine)
- 90.1 Purpose.
- - (B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

The receptacle outlet installed in that location is considered to meet "essentially free from hazard", however, the attractive nuisance aspect of that receptacle outlet lead the occupants to believe it was 'safe' to plug that table lamp into it ... and it is the table lamp which is is the unsafe item, the receptacle is just an encouraging means to achieve that level of being unsafe.

Orgniclly coated/backed (laminated in a different way) glass is yet another form of safety glazing.

Tempered glass is yet another form of safety glazing.

Laminated glass is yet another form of safety glazing.

I did not say the mirror was required to be "safety glass".

Peck again mischaracterizes what has been said by others, misapplies the code in this area, and continues to mis-fire on the subject.

The exception he cites is not an exception for the meeting the prescribed glazing options for the prescribed and proscribed hazardous area - it is merely an exception to meeting a performance test prescribed for various other forms of safety glazing when one is utilizing organically coated glass (mirror continuously backed as prescribed by the standards & federal regulations).

Again, the interested reader can refer to the linked thread mentioned above and the citations, references and links described therein.

The electrical code has been specific and clear regarding prohibition on cord and portable lighting in the shower zone for many code cycles. It has always refered to listed devices, the language, defined terms, have changed (example change over to more inclusive term "luminaire" as opposed to "light fixture", "portable lamp", etc. and use/redefining of "lamp" or "lampholder" and componant parts - not a "whole"). The only blade-supplied electrrified lighting device allowed in the zone has and remains - one that does not have a cord - of any type. Been around since the "zone" was defined, more than a decade ago. The Standards to which such devices are listed has always restricted their use in "the zone".

"I did not say the mirror was required to be "safety glass"."



[QUOTE=H.G. Watson, Sr.;200045]...
The water's edge is certanly within three feet from the facing glazing, and clearly does not exceed 60 inches horizontally to the glazing. There is NO wall or other enclosure, guard, etc. between the glazing facing the tub. (same for the mirror btw).


BTW, that mirror (glazing) looks to be well within five feet from the inside wall of the tub (water's edge) as well - also required safety glazing if afixed as no interviening wall, guard, etc. from TUB.

Peck,

I am not wrong, you are, plain and simple.

There is no intervening wall or other form of enclosure between the pictured hydromassage bathtub equipped with shower wand and the mirror contining wall or the pictured windows IN the walls facing the tub/shower.

All wall surfaces facing the shower-equipped tub are within five feet out and up.

These surfaces ARE the enclosure and/or within the prescribed and proscribed HAZARDOUS zone by the code.

The code envokes ANSI Standard & CFR are applicable. The Code with the exception you cited provides ONLY for a prescribed exception for MEETING the Impact test sampling (four times) for organically coated/backed mirrored surfaces which is outlined in the Standard & the CFR (CPSC regs.).

The principal differences between the CPSC's 16 CFR 1201 standard and the ANSI Z97.1 (2004) standard relate to their scope and function.

The CPSC standard is not only a test method and a procedure for determining the safety performance of architectural glazing, but also a federal standard that mandates where and when safety glazing materials must be used in architectural applications and preempts any non-identical state or local standard. In contrast, ANSI Z97.1 is only a voluntary safety performance specification and test method. It does not attempt to declare when and where safety glazing materials must be used, leaving those determinations up to the building codes and to glass and fenestration specifiers.

The CPSC reqires the installation of safety glazing materials meeting 16 CFR 1201 only in storm doors, combination doors, entrance-exit doors, sliding patio doors, closet doors and shower and tub doors and enclosures. which are sold or incorporated into what is sold or built.

Other than that, meeting CPSC's requirements is necessary only when and if a building code authority or other jurisdiction adopting safety glazing laws specifically mandates that safety glazing comply with the CPSC standard, 16 CFR 1201 -- and most building codes DO.

ANSI Z97.1, as a voluntary standard, applies only when, where, and if it is adopted by a building code authority or is specified in the approved plans and specifications of the architect, building contractor, or other glass specifier.

The language you snipped is solely as to the TESTING of SPECIMENS as otherwise required for mirrored surfaces organically coated (continuous backing) when 16 CFR 1201 is envoked - sample specimens are otherwise required to be impact tested to abide by same) it is an ammendment to the adoption/incorporation of same (16 CFR 1201) into the IRC.

Test Specimens
For impact testing, the CPSC requires only one specimen of each nominal thickness be submitted for testing and specifies it must be the largest size the manufacturer produces up to a maximum sixe of 34" x 76".

ANSI Z97.1 requires that four specimens of each nominal tickness and size must be impact-tested. The manufacturer has the option of testing either 34" by 76" ( +/= 1/8-inch) specimens or the largest size it commercially produces less than 24" x 76", but with a minimum size of 24" x 30".

CPSC standard has no performance tests for plastics or for bent glass.

ANSI Z97.1 has specific tests for both.

The CPSC standard does not prohibit the use of ordinary annealed glass in hazardous locations as long as it passes the appropriate impact tests, consistent with the concept of a performance based impact test. (Thick, heavy annealed glass is likely to pass the CPSC 18-inch drop-height and 48-inch drop-height impact tests for Category I and II locations). ANSI 97-1-2004 contains an express limitation on annealed glass: "Monolithic annealed in any thickness is not considered safety glazing material under this standard."

Asymmetrical Glazing Material
The CPSC standard requires all asymmentrical glazing materials to be impacted on both sides of each specimen and then evaluated under the pass-fail criteria. There is no exception.

ANSI Z97.1 requires that, with the exception of mirror glazing, all asymmetrical glass specimens must be impacted on both sides: two on one side and two on the other. With respect to mirror glazing products using reinforced or non-reinforced organic adhesive backing, all four specimens must be impacted only on the non-reinforced side "and with no other material applied."

Impact Categories or Levels

The CPSC standard has two distinct impact levels or categories, Category I and Category II, and specifies which defined hazardous location must contain Category II safety glazing mateirals and which may use Category I glazing materials. Glazing material successfully passing the impact test of a 48-inch drop height, a 400 foot-pound impact, is classified as "Category II" glass. Glazing material passing the 18-inch drop height, a 150 foot-pounds impact, is classified as "Category I" glass.

ANSI Z97.1 has adopted three separate impact categories or classes, based upon impact performance. ANSI Z97.1's Class A glazing materials are comparable to the CPSC's Category II glazing materials, passing a 48-inch drop height test, and its Class B glazing materials are comparable to the CPSC's Category I glazing materials, passing the 18-inch drop height test. ANSI Z97.1 also has a product-specific Class C impact test, a 12-inch drop height test, applicable only for fire-resistant glazing materials.

Pass-Fail Impact Crieteria

The CPSC standard, like the ANSI standard, offers alternative criteria for evaluating whether a test specimen passes the impact test. The CPSC standard considers the specimen a pass if a 3-inch diameter solid steel ball, weighing 4 lbs., will not pass through the opening when placed on the horizontal specimen for one second. ANSI also uses the 3-inch sphere measure, but does not require the sphere be a steel ball or specify the weight of the 3-inch sphere. It does require the sphere not pass freely through the opeing when a fource of 4 lbs. is applied to the sphere while the specimenis in a vertical position. There is no time element associated with this alternative.

A second alternative pass-fail criterion under the CPSC standard involves weighing the 10 largest particles selected within five minutes after the impact test -- they must weigh no more than the equivalent weight of 10 square inches of the original specimen. The ANSI standard has an identical criterion, except it also includes product-specific qualifications applicable solely to selecting the 10 largest particles of tempered glass and offers a formula for determining the weight of 10 square inches of the original specimen.

The CPSC standard has no separate pass-fail impact crieteria for the scenario in which the glass specimen separates from the frame after the impact and breaks or produces a hole in the glass. The ANSI standard has a special criterion for that scenario -- to pass, the glass is subjected to the same 3-inch sphere measure or to the weight criterion for the 10 largest particles.

The CPSC standard involves impact-testing of only a single specimen of each nominal glass thickness. Accordingly, if that specimen passes, all glass of that type and thickness is deemed to pass. Under the ANSI standard, four specimens of eah type, size, and thickness must be impact tested, and if any one of the four specimens fails, there is a failure of that specific type, thickness, and size.

Labeling

The CPSC standard, with one exception, does not require labels on safety glazing materials. Organic coated glass, tested for environmental durability from one side only, must be labeled, according to the CPSC standard: It must have a permanent label on the coating stating, "Glaze This Side In," and must contain a "message" remaining on the glass until installation stating, "See Permanent Label For Important Mounting Instructions."

The CPSC statute, 15 U.S.C. sect. 2063, requires the safety glazing manufacturer to issue a certificate of compliance, certifying its glass conforms to the requirements of the 16 CFR 1201, either Category I or Category II. The CPSC standard permits (but does not require) this certification.

The Code does not require permanent indication or labeling with one exception.

The Code envokes the CPSC statute and standard, with the exception that it does not require "testing" or organically coated (continuously backed) mirrored surface glazing in this hazardous location.

ANSI Z97.1 is not part of the Code. It is envoked by the glass specifier.
Seems Jerry might have reveiwed the CAD notes on plans so often they have "incorporated" ANSI Z97.1 into the Building Code, and thus as decades long between them, being Plans reviewers and New Construction Code Inspectors (Code Enforcement Inspectors) has FORGOTTEN (or never grasped) that ANSI Z97.1 is envoked by a glass specifier, NOT the Building Code.

16 CRF 1201 is and has been the "law of the land", it is manditory, Federal Law.

"Safety glazing" is the term of art. Your use and application of the words "safety glass" and what constitutes same, or how to apply the requirements and the code language, is erroneous, incorrect, and ignorantly in opposite to the IRC, the CSPC standard & regulations, and the ANSI standard of subject topic.

Since this has been discussed several times before, and you seem arrogantly resistant and insist on retaining ignorant misconceptions, in addition to your misuse and mispplication of the code language - I conclude you are intentionally misdirecting or cognitively/psychologically compromised, and therefore won't waste my time explaining the "why" you are so very wrong, any further.

You're wrong. Your use of colored fonts, and repeated twisting of words, attributing statements to others which were not made (you change words, mis-characterize what is said, etc.) intentional, malicious, and serves no purpose except to confuse those who don't know any better, in your vain attempts to hide your failures (bury in b.s.).

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Peck,

I am not wrong, you are, plain and simple.

(blah-blah-blah)

You're wrong.

Watson,

Not only are you wrong, you have no idea what is currently being discussed, nor even to whom - or to what - you are replying.

Safety glazing includes but does not exclusively denote safety GLASS .Naw, I was responding in two parts to your post from over a week ago (while I was away).Seems Rick C, also doesn't 'get' that Safety glazing includes orgnically coated glass - continuously backed glass (i.e. for mirrors), as well as non-silica based glazing (acrylics, plexi's, non-'glass') - and that the 'glass' itself for many "safety glazing' mirrors is not "safety glass", for continuously backed or orgnically coated mirrors, i.e. not tempered, laminated, etc.). Glazing includes other than "glass".

I am at a loss to see where a 'shower stall/enclosure' - as described by Mr Watson - factors into this equation for the purpose of receptacle placement. Installing a shower wand at a tub does not convert the tub to a shower, any more than installing one at a bidet. Unless of course you enclose the bidet and use it as a shower pan. Though the receptacle may be hazardous to some extent, I don't see it as being any more so than one properly located and GFCI protected above a vanity sink.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Safety glazing includes but does not exclusively denote safety GLASS .Naw, I was responding in two parts to your post from over a week ago (while I was away).Seems Rick C, also doesn't 'get' that Safety glazing includes orgnically coated glass - continuously backed glass (i.e. for mirrors), as well as non-silica based glazing (acrylics, plexi's, non-'glass') - and that the 'glass' itself for many "safety glazing' mirrors is not "safety glass", for continuously backed or orgnically coated mirrors, i.e. not tempered, laminated, etc.). Glazing includes other than "glass".

Like I said ...

Watson,

Not only are you wrong, you have no idea what is currently being discussed, nor even to whom - or to what - you are replying.

You are not only out of touch with reality ... you are out of touch with your reality.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

I am at a loss to see where a 'shower stall/enclosure' - as described by Mr Watson - factors into this equation for the purpose of receptacle placement. Installing a shower wand at a tub does not convert the tub to a shower, any more than installing one at a bidet. Unless of course you enclose the bidet and use it as a shower pan. Though the receptacle may be hazardous to some extent, I don't see it as being any more so than one properly located and GFCI protected above a vanity sink.

Because it is a BATHTUB and shower zone - and there is a bathtub there.

What I need to keep in mind is that if there is a bathtub with a lavatory next to it, but which is 6" from the tub, and the lavatory is a standard 18" lavatory, and that lavatory *is required to have* a receptacle within 3 feet of it ... and the tub zone extends out 3 feet horizontally and includes the lavatory area ... that the *required* receptacle for the lavatory IS NOT ALLOWED to be within 12" of the side of the lavatory which is furthest from the tub.

That means the receptacle outlet for the lavatory is going to be *at least* 12" from the far side of the lavatory, but *must be within* 36" from that side of the lavatory, which leaves as 24" wide area within which the receptacle is allowed/required to be located.

I see this as a BATHTUB only, not a Bathtub and shower zone. There is no enclosure, no curtain, nothing - other than a hand-held shower wand, probably installed for hairwashing, which converts or amends the tub to a shower (zone). I don't see anything in the NEC which defines a stand alone tub as a tub and shower zone. Assuming this is a tub ONLY and not tub and shower could not the receptacle be used for some other bathroom appliance (elctric shaver etc)? Furthmore, the receptacle may be switched, potentially rendering it non-operational if the tub is in use. Of course the switch/receptacle would have to be manually turned off, rendering it potentially more dangerous to an unsuspecting user. In any event the AHJ has the final say and it looks like they already have, in this instance.

Originally Posted by Ian Page

I see this as a BATHTUB only, not a Bathtub and shower zone. There is no enclosure, no curtain, nothing - other than a hand-held shower wand, probably installed for hairwashing, which converts or amends the tub to a shower (zone). I don't see anything in the NEC which defines a stand alone tub as a tub and shower zone. Assuming this is a tub ONLY and not tub and shower could not the receptacle be used for some other bathroom appliance (elctric shaver etc)? Furthmore, the receptacle may be switched, potentially rendering it non-operational if the tub is in use. Of course the switch/receptacle would have to be manually turned off, rendering it potentially more dangerous to an unsuspecting user. In any event the AHJ has the final say and it looks like they already have, in this instance.

Maybe this will help clear the requirement/restriction up for you: (bold and underlining are mine)
- 410.10 Luminaires in Specific Locations.
- - (D) Bathtub and Shower Areas. No parts of cord-connected luminaires, chain-, cable-, or cord-suspended luminaires, lighting track, pendants, or ceiling-suspended (paddle) fans shall be located within a zone measured 900 mm (3 ft) horizontally and 2.5 m (8 ft) vertically from the top of the bathtub rim or shower stall threshold. This zone is all encompassing and includes the space directly over the tub or shower stall. Luminaires located within the actual outside dimension of the bathtub or shower to a height of 2.5 m (8 ft) vertically from the top of the bathtub rim or shower threshold shall be marked for damp locations, or marked for wet locations where subject to shower spray.

The first "and" means that the section is applicable to bathtub AND shower areas, not that it is applicable only to bathtub w/shower areas, otherwise it would not be applicable to 'shower only' areas by your way of thinking.

You will notice the rest of the references to bathtub and shower areas are all "or" references, and as such the section is applicable to bathtub areas, bathtub w/shower areas, and shower only areas.

Also, that code section applies only to the "portable luminaire", not to the receptacle. The receptacle is covered to a lesser restriction here:
- 406.8 Receptacles in Damp or Wet Locations.
- - (C) Bathtub and Shower Space. Receptacles shall not be installed within or directly over a bathtub or shower stall.

Thank you Jerry, your explanation and reference(s) makes the inappropriate placement of the luminaire understandable. Nevertheless, when performing inspections I am not so concerned with removable or portable devices/appliances as they probably will not convey with the property. In this case, it is highly unlikely that the lamp, not being a fixture, will remain with the property. Even if it did, I rarely make comment concerning plugged in fixtures. I would, however, comment on the receptacle placement if hazardous. IMO, the NEC provides for some subjectivity in this case and, if the placement passes muster with the AHJ, then short of identifying the questionable receptacle placement as potentially hazardous (but no more so than one placed over a sink/vanity), it's basically a non-issue for me, assuming GFCI protected.