At least they put in a drain line

Hey, I’m impressed, they put in a drain line, so of course water would NEVER reach the outlet. Oh yeah, did I mention the rain line was clogged.

It was quite impressive.

Electrical outlet in pond resized.jpg

Looks like if the water could reach the outlet you could also have a cross-connection with the water faucet too:D :shock:

Looking at the stain in the concrete it looks like that drain must be going somewhere. That is right on the waterline.

So…lets see…lets gets some opinions on this “Fountain”…view NEC 680 part I and part V and lets hear it shall we…( Educational Moment )

Hmmm…guess it is not for a pump as I dont see no stinking PUMP cord…lol

Opps…forgot to add additional comments…lol

Paul, this is only the second time I have made this recommendation:

“Recommend that the outlet, outlet cover, box and ALL wiring be removed to prevent accidental activation of electricity. Additionally, recommend that the electrician that installed this potentially fatal contraption be located, shackled and slapped immensely amongst the head and shoulders”

lol…some are silent on this one…thehehehe

Read Art.680 Part I and then Part V…we will assume this fountain is not common with a pool. So after reading Part I and Part V of the NEC…is this receptacle location a violation?

Lets hear it guys…and we will assume it is GFCI protected already

It is a 682. Artifically made body of water. The receptacle needs to be GFCI and 12" above the maximum water level (datum plane) 682.15 The EGC needs to be #12 copper minimum and insulated (NEC2005). Prior to that it would only be required to be GFCI (dwelling/outdoors).

Ahhh…so what makes you say it is not a fountain governed by 680 part V…gregter…

Are you sure the intent of 682 is to cover fountains…or ponds and the like.

Per Mike Holt:

Article 682 covers:

**New article covers the wiring in and adjacent to natural **or artificial bodies of water not covered by Article 680.

[FONT=Wingdings]n[/FONT]**Lakes, streams, ponds, rivers. **
[FONT=Wingdings]n[/FONT]**Aeration ponds, fish farm ponds, storm retention ****basins, sewage treatment ponds, and irrigation channels. **

Also keep in mind Art. 682 did not exist prior to 2005 NEC…so could be under 2002 NEC as well, so lets let the original posted tell us…is this a Fountain Location or one of the above…

Observation - I would assume it is a fountain because the piece to the left of the picture is a center spray assembly for a fountain. It has multiple tears and is usually the center piece of a fountion so I would not think Art 682 would apply here…

BTW, guys I hate to ruin your assumptions, but this was also not GFCI protected.

I think at a certain point 680 and 682 overlap. Are there fish in it?

Yes, it is stocked with electric eels.

lol…lol…doubt he was inspecting a Hatchery…lol…it not being GFCI only points to that violation…

You can debate the NEC interpretation all day, the point is you have an electrical outlet (gfci or not, doesn’t matter) a few inches from A BODY OF WATER! Common sense tells you to move it, don’t need to waste your time reading the NEC rules.

And thats your opinion…is it any less safe than a receptacle near a tub…are you planning on openg the plug and play in the fountain. Basically we can find a hazard in anything.

We use washing machines with water in it plugged diectly into a plug…again perfectly fine for an HI to point out safety concerns to make clients aware of issues but not being code officials or some authority that establishes safety guidelines which the NEC does with panels of EXPERTS…but make me move t i would say prove why i have too…make it GFCI and in-use it…i agree not the best location but i cringe over worse things.

Also…Electrical people like myself come here to bring our views of the NEC which is a minimum safety standard when dealing with Electrical Installations…As HI’s you have every right to point out safety concerns…so you make them aware of the receptacle and it’s hazards being near water and not GFCI protected…BUT…you have no authority to have it moved so your job is to make them aware of it and to remember te risk in their daily lives but moving that receptacle would not be very easy…just being NEAR water does not qualify anything in its own…being an alarmist effects business…make them aware of your concerns and that they should GFCI protect it…and your job is done…i would not say they have to move it…but agree or not its my opinion.
The NEC is a minimum safety standard…YOU cant discount its wisdom for safe electrical installations from industry experts…we do many things in life that condemns common sense .

Good point Paul. We have receptacles next to kitchen and bathroom sinks all the time. NFPA seems to think GFCI is all that in necessary to protect the user.
I was willing to exact the most restrictive code avalible (682) and I was spanked for it.
If this is a fountain you only need GFCI and the location of receptacles or other equipment is not specified as long as they are not “underwater”.

Spanked ya…Who spanked ya fella…lol…You are AWESOME and keep me THINKING all the time…because sometimes i push things WAY out there in the rhelm of thinking and LOVE bouncing things off people like you…heck I spend my whole life being spanked…

I loved the Art. 682 reference…why because it MADE me go look…and I know more about Art 682 directly BECAUSE of YOU my friend…I cant put a price on that…you are a GREAT teacher…

682 is thought provoking. The equipotenial ground plane under equipment will get you thinking.
The scope can also start conversation since they use the “not limited to” language. Is an underground aquefer a natural body of water? If so a submersible well pump would trigger 682.
Actually just trying to get all those golf course lakes and koi ponds in compliance will take more time than most AHJs want to think about this new rule.