Thread: Non GFIC next to toilet

Saw this today and I what to make sure it's right. Non GFCI outlet next to toilet (near the floor), but conected to switch on wall. Is this right or should it be a GFIC outlet. Thanks in advance for your input.


DSC05120.JPG

Similar Threads:

• one way to shim a toilet
• Toilet clearances
• Toilet Fatality
• Toilet venting
• in the toilet... Help

Did you test it to see if it is GFCI protected?

Yes I did test it and it was a non GFCI outlet. And the switch on the wall did turn the outlet on and off.

There is a 6ft. circle around a water source, Any elecrical outlets within that zone must be protected by a GFC! device.

From te 2006 IRC
E3802.1 Bathroom receptacles. All 125-volt, single-phase,
15- and 20-ampere receptacles installed in bathrooms shall
have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Donald Farrell

There is a 6ft. circle around a water source, Any elecrical outlets within that zone must be protected by a GFC! device.

Donald, sorry, but that statement is not accurate.

Well this one was not GFCI protected. Was just wondering if there was an exception because it was wired to a switch. Did not look safe to me. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Donald Farrell

There is a 6ft. circle around a water source, Any elecrical outlets within that zone must be protected by a GFC! device.

No there isn't.

If the 15 or 20 amp 120 volt receptacle outlet is in the bathroom ... it needs to be GFCI protected.

What may be confusing the original poster is using the term GFCI receptacle - that typically refers to a receptacle which has a built-in GFCI, and the code only requires the receptacle to be GFCI "protected", which could even mean a GFCI breaker is protecting the entire circuit.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

I see a tub outside of this room. Does the toilet area meet the NEC definition of a bathroom?

Good question
A bathroom that has a separate area for the toilet.
Nothing in that room except the toilet.

This has nothing to do with that question
WHY would someone install a SWITCH controlled receptacle in a toilet room?

Originally Posted by Donald Farrell

There is a 6ft. circle around a water source, Any elecrical outlets within that zone must be protected by a GFC! device.

PLEASE be careful making blanket statements like this. Be SURE you are correct. This is wrong on several levels.

- "Water source" is NOT a term used in the NEC (or anywhere else I know of).

- The 6' rule only applies to certain areas with sinks. Many areas, like bathrooms, outdoors, garages and shed, crawl spaces, etc, are all encompassing.

- It's not "any electrical outlets". For the most part, only 15 and 20 amp, 120V receptacles need to be GFI protected. Some areas require GFI protection for lighting outlets or pother receptacles, but this is rare.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

I see a tub outside of this room. Does the toilet area meet the NEC definition of a bathroom?

While I do agree, this could be up to interpretation. A stall with just a toilet, contained within a bathroom, could very easily still be interpreted as part of the bathroom.

I would make this interpretation myself. NO reason at all not to have GFI protection there. Especially with something this new.

I agree Petey, but think back to the early AFCI requirements where the closet was considered outside the bedroom.

Let me add some clarification. The receptical was not GFCI protected in any way. In the other room there was two sinks and a tube. In the room with the toilet, behind me when I took the picture, was a shower.

I would like to thank all of you for your replies. I great appreciate the information and knowledge that is share on the site. What a great resources.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

I see a tub outside of this room. Does the toilet area meet the NEC definition of a bathroom?

I appreciate the query and I am not making any assumptions on your personal perception of that statement, however; it's a bathroom.

It appears to be newer construction which could be newer built or newer remodeled.

So the pre-existing, non-conforming (grandfathered) contention would not be valid.

Regardless of any of the above, it requires GFCI protection.

Unfortunately, I encounter a significant number of people that spend an inordinate amount of time creating all sorts of similar scenarios to circumvent the code as well as that which is logic and common sense as it relates to personal safety and protection of the inhabitants, often family, of a particular premises.

That statement is not meant to be an accusation of anyone posting here, just a statement of fact.

One of the most common of these scenarios is the contractor or homeowner that contends that a particular space in the home is an office and therefore does not require AFCI protection.

210.12 does not categorically state office in the spaces requiring such protection.

It does state "or similar areas."

It is incumbent upon the AHJ to interpret the above denoted to include offices as similar areas.

Same as this situation.

A seperation between the toilet and the tub does not constitute a seperation from the toilet being considered within the bathroom.

Also, just to put it out there, GFCI receptacles are required to be Tamper Resistant per 406.11.

The code states receptacles and does not provide the adjective description GFCI.

Does that mean that GFCI receptacles are not required to be T/R?

My response to such contentions is: "Why do they manufacture T/R GFCI receptacles?"

Excuse the rambling rant but it annoys inspectors when people continually waste our time by creating scenarios to circumvent code and/or common sense.

I think everyone is trying to interpret the exact wording of a code instead of applying common sense. Someone could plug in a portable radio or hairdryer and set it on the edge of the tub. How about a plumber working with power tools, etc, etc.? I would recommend installing the GFCI, regardless of the wording of the code, that way if they do not install it, and someone gets zapped, they can't blame you because your report called it out as unsafe and recommended install a GFCI. Look at the INTENT of the code; to protect someone from electric shock in a wet area.

Ken, as an HI you can suggest whatever you feel will enhance safety. However a code inspector cannot look at intent. They can only enforce the words that are in black and white. If it does not meet the definition of a bathroom because it lacks one of the required elements the GFI protection is not needed and cannot be required. You may not like it but the inspector cannot require the code to be exceeded.

BTW, OSHA would require the use of a GFI for a tradesmen as it would be considered a construction site.

Also it is still possible for someone to receive a shock even if protected by a GFI. As long as almost all the current returns on the neutral the device will not trip.

DSC05120.JPGDuring an inspection have you ever removed a toilet tank lid an flushed the toilet only to find water shooting up out of the fill valve all over the place. Or the shut-off valve & the supply line leaking. Forget codes it needs to be GFCI protected.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

I see a tub outside of this room. Does the toilet area meet the NEC definition of a bathroom?

Yes.

The separate toilet room is part of the bathroom. Just like a closet id part of the bedroom it is in.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes.

The separate toilet room is part of the bathroom. Just like a closet is part of the bedroom it is in.

Thanks, Jerry. I'm sure people can find ways to shock themselves silly while sitting on a toilet. Also the switch does nothing to reduce the hazard.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Thanks, Jerry. I'm sure people can find ways to shock themselves silly while sitting on a toilet. Also the switch does nothing to reduce the hazard.

People may not have to be creative or dumb to find a way to shock themselves. The outlet was most likely installed so that a toilet seat with all the bells and whistles (heater, fan, spray nozzles, etc) could be plugged in, as fitted in 80% of Japanese homes. Typically they take 500W to 800W when working and cost a similar number of dollars. Some have lids that open automatically when you approach the toilet, and wireless remote controls.

The requirement for GFCI may be noted in manufacturers specs, e.g. http://www.totousa.com/Portals/0/Pro...W573_SW574.pdf calls for a "GFCI Outlet Min 12" off floor... needs to have 120V 10amps". The cord is on the left side.

In any case, I would definitely not want to put my butt on such a toilet seat if the electrical supply to it was not GFCI protected, and would advise that the outlet should be protected even though no electrically-connected seat has been installed yet.

By the way, I wonder how long it takes for savings on toilet paper to pay for the seat?

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

I agree that if you had an accessory that required GFCI protection for an receptacle adjacent to a toilet then it must be provided. The question raised in post #8 was presented because if the toilet in the photo is not in a bathroom then it would not require GFCI protection according to the NEC.

Unless it was outside, right?

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

if the toilet in the photo is not in a bathroom

I'm trying to think of a toilet which would not be in a "bathroom", do you have an example you could give?

I've seen old homes in Coral Gables and Coconut Grove which had 'Gardener's toilet room', but like every good sanitary practice, there would be a place to wash your hands too ... oh, yeah, that would be the sink ... and would make it a "bathroom".

If I found a toilet with no sink nearby, that would be worthy of being written up in the report (not that it would be corrected, but it should be reported nonetheless).

NEC definition of Bathroom--An area including a basin with on or more of the following: a toilet, a urinal, a tub, a shower, a bidet, or similar plumbing fixtures.

Don't get to hung up on "room" in bathroom. Room changes what we are talking about. It is an area we are talking about, so the separation by walls and/or doors does not matter. Definitely needs 210.8(A) GFCI protection..

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I'm trying to think of a toilet which would not be in a "bathroom", do you have an example you could give?

I've seen old homes in Coral Gables and Coconut Grove which had 'Gardener's toilet room', but like every good sanitary practice, there would be a place to wash your hands too ... oh, yeah, that would be the sink ... and would make it a "bathroom".

If I found a toilet with no sink nearby, that would be worthy of being written up in the report (not that it would be corrected, but it should be reported nonetheless).

Toilet in the laundry room, but with no laundry sink. I know it's weird, but I've seen it a few times, I call it a laundry room with a toilet, and I recommend a GFCI if there's an outlet handy.

Originally Posted by Richard D. Fornataro

Also, just to put it out there, GFCI receptacles are required to be Tamper Resistant per 406.11.

Well.....only in places in which TR receptacles are required. You make it sound like ALL GFIs are required to be TR, which they are not.

Not all GFIs fall under the requirements of NEC 406.12.