Measurement with door

[Fladude38]

I agree, it'd be nice to hear from the inspectors.

The thing about these requirements, including as AFCI, is whether the requirement actually limits receptacle location by stating a 'room' by its title [or inclusion using a catch-all item like 'and similar areas'].

Where the requirement doesn't mention a room by title limit the location to the room, it should state elsewhere or within the requirement how the measurement should be taken. I think it's realistic to measure via the shortest possible route a cord can be routed between end points. To think one should measure as x-rays travel... that would just be utterly unrealistic. To think the requirement excludes adjacent room locations is just reading more into the requirement than is actually there.

I'd personally like to see a revision of this in the 2017 or directly from the code panel with their determination, hearing what inspectors have to say is useless at best, like any of us, whatever they say is subjective. As the one guy already alluded to, cost and other factors don't come into consideration when throwing their weight around as someone with "Authority".

I think its intention is clearly described in the handbook " This change in
Code language ensures that tubs and showers in dwelling units
will have the same requirements for GFCI protection of receptacles,
regardless of what THE ROOM is called."

Its clearly stating that it is in regard to the "Room" the fixture is being housed.

Also, with the new rules, if that was the intention than it would also apply to ANY receptacle located within 6' from a bathroom, Outdoors, Kitchens, Laundry rooms, sinks (Not currently required in other divided rooms) and the like. Basically, 70% of the entire house would be required to be GFCI protected.

The intention (Lets say) in a bathroom is to protect the bathroom, if it was to protect the people from any capabilities from using other receptacles from being used in the bathroom than it would be required to be 6' from said room. Its not, its the room. Just as the handbook clarifies the intention, to ensure GFCI protection in the room to which the fixture is installed.

 

[Smart $]

@Fladude38

The thing about walls is they don't [typically] have openings or cracks through which a cord can be routed, whereas a door does, even when it is closed [typically], not to mention when it is open.

Outdoors is already covered, so including inside doors to exterior is moot because the requirement for outdoors is just that. It is not within 6' from outdoors. Another way to look at it is outdoors is just another big 'room' or area. Thi goes back to the debate premise: Does the requirement limit location, and if so, how?

The Handbook commentary is just that and not enforceable.

With the new rule it is not any receptacle within 6' of the bathroom. It is any receptacle within 6' of a bathtub or shower stall. Bathroom sink was already covered in previous editions. There is no limitation to room... and I think that's where the Handbook commentary stems from... but the commentary actually covers that in "regardless of what THE ROOM is called."... which includes bathtubs and shower stalls in the bathroom and receptacles that are not.

 

[Fladude38]

@ Smart $.

I see your point and most inspectors will agree with it, but like I said earlier, this is subjective and neither will be right or wrong till it is clarified.

Here is something similar that makes me believe what I believe. Its old but the same principal applies.
"(7) Wet Bar Countertop Receptacles. GFCI protection is required for all 15A and 20A, 125V receptacles that serve the countertop surfaces, located within 6 ft of the outside edge of a wet bar sink. Figure 16

Author?s Comment: GFCI protection is not required for receptacles not intended to serve wet bar countertop surfaces, such as refrigerators, ice makers, water heaters or convenient receptacle that do not supply counter top surface.".
From ( http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/NEC-HTML/HTML/GFCIProtection4Personnel~20020105.htm )

So, since its not intended for use in the room which the tub or what have you is located, but is intended for use in said room this rule should apply just as much as receptacles at ground level are intended for countertop use but still within 6'.

Trust me, I see what you are saying but the intent is what's missing here and nothing any of us say means anything till its clarified.

 

[Smart $]

...

Trust me, I see what you are saying but the intent is what's missing here and nothing any of us say means anything till its clarified.

Actually I trust you in this respect. :happyyes:

With that said, it would not surprise me to learn an inspector interprets the requirement as any receptacle within a 6' bubble, regardless of obstruction or another inspector overlooks a receptacle in another room but within 6' shortest route for a cord.

 

[hurk27]

I deviated an residential dwelling electrical plan for not providing GFCI protection on a receptacle located in a master bedroom, which was within 6 ft. of the edge of a bathtub (located in the master bathroom). It did not show a door.

He stated they would install a bathroom door and that would be hung so that it swing out (into the bedroom). Therefore the measurement should be taken starting from the receptacle and measuring around the open door (door will open 180? laying flat against the bedroom wall, covering over the receptacle).

This would decrease the 6 ft. measurement by 2 ft. (one foot over to the edge, and one foot back), allowing only a remaining four foot cord for measurement. Therefore the receptacle would no longer be within six-foot of the edge of the bathtub. I agreed and accepted the receptacle without GFCI protection.

However as this is a new code requirement, I thought I might ask for other opinions. As far as I know, it's never been discussed (that I know of) but the measurement is taken with the door in consideration, is it not? Or should it be straight-lined, ignoring the door?
--
2014 NEC: 210.8(A)... "(9) Bathtubs or shower stalls -- where receptacles are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside edge of the bathtub or shower stall."

I really hope your not trying to enforce the 2014 NEC here in Indiana, Indiana has not adopted the 2014 or the 2011 as we are still on the 2008 as referenced in the Indiana electrical code 2009, I spoke with John Hibner a couple weeks ago and he told me that with all that is going on that it will be a while before the state building commission will start planing as to what to adopt, so for now much is left the same including the deletion of 210.12 for AFCI's out of the Indiana's code requirements, you do know you have to follow the IEC as adopted by the state, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to adopt anything that is in conflict with the IEC except for smoke detector requirements, which we left up to local jurisdictions because of the many different building methods in each area that we could not have covered in the state's building code.

So in essence the 2014 requirement you posted about is null and void and unenforceable as per state law.

Any questions about this I'll send you a PM with John Hibner's (Our state's building commissioner) AHJ contact info who is great about helping inspectors clear up this confusion.

Also here is a link to the last adopted code changes we made for IEC 675.17 for the 2008 NEC and they are still in effect and have to be enforced as written here in the state of Indiana.

Indiana code changes to the 2008 NEC known as the IEC 675.17 PDF

 

[Fladude38]

Actually I trust you in this respect. :happyyes:

With that said, it would not surprise me to learn an inspector interprets the requirement as any receptacle within a 6' bubble, regardless of obstruction or another inspector overlooks a receptacle in another room but within 6' shortest route for a cord.

LoL! I agree, most will considering how its worded with no listed exceptions or listed intent.

 

[north star]

= ( & ) =

"The walls may not either, so you're going to include anything in a 6' radius regardless of walls?"

Walls are [ typically ] permanent in nature, whereas doors are not !.
If the wall is not permanently installed and can be moved, then yes,
...I would still measure the shortest distance !

Please cite a code section that I should not !

= ( & ) =

 

[Little Bill]

Maybe the intent for measurements was the same as for receptacles within the area of a pool.

680.22(A)(5)

(5) Measurements. In determining the dimensions in this
section addressing receptacle spacings, the distance to be
measured shall be the shortest path the supply cord of an
appliance connected to the receptacle would follow without
piercing a floor, wall, ceiling, doorway with hinged or sliding
door, window opening, or other effective permanent barrier.

 

[hurk27]

6 feet is the standard human's wing span.

Nope the requirement is about the common length of appliance cords, which is also the reason behind the 6'/12' wall space rule for general habitable rooms except kitchens where it is shorten to 2'/4'.
Simply we do not want an appliance plugged into a non-GFCI receptacle that can be sat on or near a tub of water that can fall in the tub, but we also can't stop people from just using an extension cord so the best we can do is to make sure that a GFCI protected receptacle is located close by so maybe they won't use an extension cord from a non-GFCI receptacle, which was also the reason for requirement of outside receptacles on both front and back of a house, or within 20' of a pool.

With the above said if the bathroom already has a GFCI protected receptacle located within the bathroom it is not likely that they would run a cord out of the room to a bedroom receptacle, the whole reason for requiring having a receptacle available in the bathroom was this exact fact.

I believe this was brought about because it has become common to locate whirlpool type bath tubs or hot tubs in the bedrooms and or the concept of open type bathrooms located within the bedroom or just off it, I don't believe it was ever meant to include receptacles in the bedroom or hallway when the bath is a walled off room with a door that is separate from the bedroom or hallway, but as was said the wording has made this a difficult code to correctly interpret.

We also must understand that the code also includes open concept rooms as a separate room even when there is not a door, we see this when applying requirements for dinning rooms, laundry room located in a basement or kitchen, no where does the NEC state a that a door or even a doorway or even a wall has to be used for a room to be separated from another, the area is just defined by it's use or purpose of that area.

 

[Fladude38]

Maybe the intent for measurements was the same as for receptacles within the area of a pool.

680.22(A)(5)

(5) Measurements. In determining the dimensions in this
section addressing receptacle spacings, the distance to be
measured shall be the shortest path the supply cord of an
appliance connected to the receptacle would follow without
piercing a floor, wall, ceiling, doorway with hinged or sliding
door, window opening, or other effective permanent barrier.

This is what the argument is going to be till the intent is actually given, and inspectors who like to throw their weight around will say exactly what North Star said just to waste contractors time and money while completely negating any reasonable intentions until such time its actually clarified.

 

[north star]

= ( & ) =


Intentions cannot be enforced, but adopted [ codified ] standards can !

I would like to be able to not waste my time inspecting something
not installed to the adopted code [ standard ], and then having to
justify my position to keep my job, because [ some ] contractor
either doesn't know the legally adopted code, or believes that the
adopted code is not to their liking, or because "they have been
doing it that way for 30 plus years", or "they don't make me do it
in X X X jurisdiction, ...why are you making me do it ?"


= ( & ) =

 

[hurk27]

Maybe the intent for measurements was the same as for receptacles within the area of a pool.

680.22(A)(5)

(5) Measurements. In determining the dimensions in this
section addressing receptacle spacings, the distance to be
measured shall be the shortest path the supply cord of an
appliance connected to the receptacle would follow without
piercing a floor, wall, ceiling, doorway with hinged or sliding
door, window opening, or other effective permanent barrier.

This is what the argument is going to be till the intent is actually given, and inspectors who like to throw their weight around will say exactly what North Star said just to waste contractors time and money while completely negating any reasonable intentions until such time its actually clarified.

But that is just it, the NEC has always treated any doorway as a effective barrier as they do not want cords run through them, putting a GFCI protected outlet outside of a doorway with the intent a cord would run through it would go against all the rules that have been put in the NEC to stop people from doing this practice, it has always been known that closing a door on a cord is not a very good idea as it can damage the cord, even if the door is a little off the floor the cord can still get pinched in the jam or closed on it, there are many requirements to have receptacles available within a room that has a doorway to keep this from being done, but this requires someone to use a little common sense and a little history of why these codes were put in the NEC to understand the thinking behind this requirement which I tried to explain in my last post, the above referenced code by Bill is just one example of the NEC providing a requirement to keep people from running cords through doorways as well as removing the likelihood of extension cord use, all simply by providing a receptacle within a closed in room, and in the case of a bathroom with a door the requirement is for a GFCI protected receptacle, this is so that since there is already a receptacle in the room that it would be not likely that a person would try to run to a receptacle farther away or in this case through a doorway.

Again this is why this code was only put in the NEC for open concept bathroom or when they locate a tub in a bedroom and there is no doorway

 

[david]

VI. Pools and Tubs for Therapeutic Use

680.62 Therapeutic Tubs (Hydrotherapeutic Tanks).
Therapeutic tubs, used for the submersion and treatment of patients, that are not easily moved from one place to another in normal use or that are fastened or otherwise secured at a specific location, including associated piping systems, shall conform to Part VI.

(E) Receptacles. All receptacles within 1.83 m (6 ft) of a therapeutic tub shall be protected by a ground-fault circuit interrupter.

Without any guidance or restrictions on how to measure all means all

does receptacles wirhin 6ft include all of them?

 

[GerryB]

I really hope your not trying to enforce the 2014 NEC here in Indiana, Indiana has not adopted the 2014 or the 2011 as we are still on the 2008 as referenced in the Indiana electrical code 2009, I spoke with John Hibner a couple weeks ago and he told me that with all that is going on that it will be a while before the state building commission will start planing as to what to adopt, so for now much is left the same including the deletion of 210.12 for AFCI's out of the Indiana's code requirements, you do know you have to follow the IEC as adopted by the state, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to adopt anything that is in conflict with the IEC except for smoke detector requirements, which we left up to local jurisdictions because of the many different building methods in each area that we could not have covered in the state's building code.

So in essence the 2014 requirement you posted about is null and void and unenforceable as per state law.

Any questions about this I'll send you a PM with John Hibner's (Our state's building commissioner) AHJ contact info who is great about helping inspectors clear up this confusion.

Also here is a link to the last adopted code changes we made for IEC 675.17 for the 2008 NEC and they are still in effect and have to be enforced as written here in the state of Indiana.

Indiana code changes to the 2008 NEC known as the IEC 675.17 PDF

After reading this post I looked at the OP's profile and it said "plan reviewer" and he is from Indiana. If they are on 08 as stated this whole post is ridiculous and the eventual electrician will probably ignore it completely. The new section the op is talking about would apply to a recent job I did, a 3rd floor bedroom with a tub in one corner. No walls, no sink, shower or toilet, just a tub on a tiled portion of the floor. (I know, a little weird) So in that case, GFI within 6 feet, plus arc fault.

 

[GerryB]

Not to belabor a point, had an inspection today and ran the contents of this post by him. Master bath, less then 6 feet from tub around door opening to another receptacle, does it need to be a gfi. As I said we are on the 2011 cycle. If it is some kind of 2014 change, he never heard of it. His exact words were,"never would have entered my mind".

 

[Smart $]

Not to belabor a point, had an inspection today and ran the contents of this post by him. Master bath, less then 6 feet from tub around door opening to another receptacle, does it need to be a gfi. As I said we are on the 2011 cycle. If it is some kind of 2014 change, he never heard of it. His exact words were,"never would have entered my mind".

Yes, it is a change (addition) in 2014 edition. Not required under 2011.

 

[Knightryder12]

But that is just it, the NEC has always treated any doorway as a effective barrier as they do not want cords run through them, putting a GFCI protected outlet outside of a doorway with the intent a cord would run through it would go against all the rules that have been put in the NEC to stop people from doing this practice, it has always been known that closing a door on a cord is not a very good idea as it can damage the cord, even if the door is a little off the floor the cord can still get pinched in the jam or closed on it, there are many requirements to have receptacles available within a room that has a doorway to keep this from being done, but this requires someone to use a little common sense and a little history of why these codes were put in the NEC to understand the thinking behind this requirement which I tried to explain in my last post, the above referenced code by Bill is just one example of the NEC providing a requirement to keep people from running cords through doorways as well as removing the likelihood of extension cord use, all simply by providing a receptacle within a closed in room, and in the case of a bathroom with a door the requirement is for a GFCI protected receptacle, this is so that since there is already a receptacle in the room that it would be not likely that a person would try to run to a receptacle farther away or in this case through a doorway.

Again this is why this code was only put in the NEC for open concept bathroom or when they locate a tub in a bedroom and there is no doorway

I concur hurk27. I am in full belief that a door is a permanent barrier.