Is a hot tub governed by section 702?

[RF Lighting]

I had a call today from a colleague regarding the installation of a supply to a new hot tub.

It is an external tub sat on a flagged piece of land in the garden.

In your opinion, does this fall within the remit of section 702 “swimming pools and other basins”

I can’t see any wording which explicitly includes or excludes hot tubs from the scope which reads:
702.11 Scope
The particular requirements of this section apply to the basins of swimming pools, the basins of fountains and the basins of paddling pools. The particular requirements also apply to the surrounding zones of these basins.
In these areas, in normal use, the risk of electric shock is increased by a reduction in body resistance and contact of the body with Earth potential. Swimming pools within the scope of an equipment standard are outside the scope of these regulations.
Except for areas especially designed as swimming pools, the requirements of this section do not apply to natural waters, lakes in gravel pits, coastal areas and the like.

 

[securespark]

A hotly debated topic between me and a few other sparks!

They said no because the scope does not mention hot tubs specifically, I said yes because you could say that a hot tub was like a paddling pool.

However, an external location may make it difficult or impossible to comply with the requirements.

 

[RF Lighting]

It’s a shame there’s no disambiguation for what they class as a “paddling pool”

In my opinion it is no different in terms of electrical safety from a swimming pool, as you are generally bare foot and wet when using it, which is why the additional requirements exist due to the additional risk(s)

 

[JohnW2]

In my opinion it is no different in terms of electrical safety from a swimming pool, as you are generally bare foot and wet when using it, which is why the additional requirements exist due to the additional risk(s)

For what it's worth, my opinion, too.

Anything containing water (and which involves electricity) in which people may be partially immersed surely comes within the spirit of the regulation - and, despite secure's colleagues, I'm very surprised that anyone (other than a really "by-the-literal-word-of-the-regulations Jobsworth") could possibly think otherwise! Do they really believe that the combination of electricity and people partially immersed in water can become more safe (less dangerous) because of the non-comprehensive wording of a regulation?

Kind Regards, John

 

[plugwash]

"Swimming pools within the scope of an equipment standard are outside the scope of these regulations." would seem to indicate to me that if the hot tub is a self-contained piece of equipment, presumably made to some equipment standard that it would be out of scope.

 

[JohnW2]

"Swimming pools within the scope of an equipment standard are outside the scope of these regulations." would seem to indicate to me that if the hot tub is a self-contained piece of equipment, presumably made to some equipment standard that it would be out of scope.

Does it not indicate that it is "a hot tub made to some equipment standard", rather than a "swimming pool within the scope of a [presumably swimming pool-specific] equipment standard".

As I recently wrote, it seems to me to be ridiculous to distinguish, in terms of electrical safety, between hot tubs and swimming pools (or anything remotely similar).

In any event, it wouldn't surprise me if the 'relevant equipment standards' contained more demanding requirements than BS7671, so the bit of BS7671 you quote might be anything but a 'let out'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

Is a hot tub a small swimming pool?

Figure 702.2 looks a lot like a hot tub.

 

[JohnW2]

Is a hot tub a small swimming pool?

... or is a (heated) swimming pool a large hot tub?

As I keep saying, whatever one calls them they are both things containing water in which semi-naked human beings will be at least partially immersed - so, if there is 'associated electricity', I don't see how the safety considerations can/should differ.

The pedantic amongst us might, of course, say that a hot tub is very rarely going to big big enough for an adult human to 'swim' in, but I'll leave them to their pedanticism.

What I would say, which I suppose is really the point highlighted by your OP, is that hot tubs are now so relatively common that one would have expected/hoped that BS7671 would have come to mention them specifically by now, hence removing the need for any uncertainty, discussion or debate!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

I think I could have just about swam in the hot tub in Pamukkale hotel, but never saw anyone trying, but I would say they are a bath. But more dangerous electric wise due to the minerals mainly calcium found naturally in Pamukkale but added with British versions. But again the English as in Pamukkale they are Natural waters even when directed into a bathing area. Not sure what is not Natural water? I am trying to think of man made water, not taking the wee wee but trying to work out what Natural waters are. Not a lake as they are listed as being different thing.

So I would say may be the question is what is a hot tub, and it is clearly a bath, OK large bath where more than one can use it, but it must be a bath.

There is clearly a difference between 701 and 702, so if you can't define if 701 or 702 the questions is do you take most restrictive or least restrictive. Out doors boundaries and fences must be considered, if you install a hot tub does it need to be 2.5 meters or 3 meters from a boundary fence? As you can't control what next door does.

But BS 7671 is not law, so more down to what you think is safe. I suspect this is a set up for a photo shoot, but I wonder what anyone does with that water after, it is a lot of water, if I had one of those emptying it would flood a house lower down the hill, since on a water meter not really going to happen, but in a garden clearly nothing electric should be when it is emptied will get wet.

 

[blup]

Contrary argument

702.11 doesn’t include hot tubs. It’s scope is specifically limited to swimming pools, basins of fountains and basins of paddling pools. The spirit of the legislation can’t magically bring hot tubs within its remit.

That doesn't prevent good practice applying and would presumably be a defence to bad workmanship or worse charges.

Blup

 

[plugwash]

Does it not indicate that it is "a hot tub made to some equipment standard", rather than a "swimming pool within the scope of a [presumably swimming pool-specific] equipment standard".

Calling a hot tub a paddling pool or a fountain basin seems more of a stretch than calling it a swimming pool.

A hot tub sold as a self-contained unit must surely be within the scope of at least one equipment standard.

So the way I read it either a hot tub is a swimming pool in which case, I would expect a self contained hot tub would be a "Swimming pools within the scope of an equipment standard" and thus out of scope, or a hot tub is not a swimming pool in which case it's outside the scope for not being a swimming pool. Either way my reading is a self-contained hot tub sold as a peice of equipment (rather than one built on site from seperate components) seems to be out of scope.

In any event, it wouldn't surprise me if the 'relevant equipment standards' contained more demanding requirements than BS7671, so the bit of BS7671 you quote might be anything but a 'let out'!

The place that seems to be a bit of a hole is that the equpment standard would presumablly only cover the pool itself, not other electrical equipment in the vicinity.

 

[blup]

"All electrical work should comply with BS 7671. There are no specific requirements for electrical installations associated with hot tubs in BS 7671. However, where a hot tub is located outdoors in the open air, for example, a garden, IET Guidance Note 7 Special Locations recommends that the requirements of Section 702 (swimming pools and other basins) should be applied."

Domestic electrical supplies to hot tubs (theiet.org)

Blup

 

[JohnW2]

Contrary argument ... 702.11 doesn’t include hot tubs. It’s scope is specifically limited to swimming pools, basins of fountains and basins of paddling pools. The spirit of the legislation can’t magically bring hot tubs within its remit.

As I've said, it is both unfortunate and unsatisfactory that the regs do not explicitly deal with "hot tubs" - which, as so often, leaves us with little option but to apply common sense.

Indeed, particularly given that Section 701 of the regs is all about locations containing "bath tubs" (which, in use will usually contain hot water), I'm not particularly sure what a "hot tub" actually is. For example, is this "hot tub" a "hot tub" or a "bath tub", or what? (unless I'm missing it, I see nothing in 702 which says that it only applies to 'outdoor' things) ...

As I keep saying, in terms of common sense (aka the 'spirit' of the regs), it seems obvious to me that any container designed to be filled with water in which people will be at least partially immersed should be treated the same, in relation to electrical safety, regardless of what it is called. Is that not the case?

Kind Regards, John

 

[blup]

I suspect we would reach the same conclusion albeit by different routes. But a professional electrician has to be clear whether a hot tub falls within section 702 or not. If not - is he bound, and to what extent - by the guidance quoted?


Blup

 

[JohnW2]

I suspect we would reach the same conclusion albeit by different routes. But a professional electrician has to be clear whether a hot tub falls within section 702 or not. If not - is he bound, and to what extent - by the guidance quoted?

I would say that it is impossible for an electrician "to be clear" about that, given that the regulations themselves are not "clear" - so, as I've said, I think that, unsatisfactory though it is, one has to use one's own judgement (whether called 'common sense', 'the spirit of the regs' or whatever').

'Guidance' from sources other than the regs themselves (even if produced by the authors of the regs) does not really help to tell one what is intended by the (unclear) regulations.

The suggestion that, because hot tubs are not explicitly mentioned as being within the scope of 702 means that the requirements of 702 do not apply is, I would have thought, the 'most dangerous' of the possible assumptions. In the absence of clarity in the regs, is not the (pragmatically) 'safe'/'conservative' approach to assume that 702 does apply to hot tubs, even though it does not say that explicitly?

Kind Regards, John