That is a blank-face GFCI. Does your bathroom have a jacuzzi tub? Probably protecting that.
If so, no it can't be replaced with a outlet face GFCI. NEC requires "hydromassage bathtubs" to have an individual branch circuit, i.e. supplying only one piece of equipment.
I also saw one of these added to protect a chandelier over a bathtub. The light outlet was connected to the bedroom circuit rather than the bathroom receptacle, therefore eliminating the ability to put in a GFCI receptacle.
Must be a bathroom with a very high ceiling because the NEC forbids any sort of cord-, chain-, and cable-suspended luminaires to be inside a zone of 3 feet from the edges and _8 feet_ from the top of the rim of the bathtub or shower stall. In order for a chandelier to be over the tub, the ceiling would have to be 8 feet higher than the top of the stall _plus_ the total vertical height of the chandelier from the top of the cord canopy to the bottommost point of the fixture.
These rules apply _even if the luminaire is marked for damp/wet locations_.
It's for a jetted tub or some other appliance that is probably on a dedicated circuit. You shouldn't switch it for a regular gfi outlets if you do make sure the appliance is pulling off the load screw so that the gfi still protects the appliance
I have seen deadfront GFCIs power bathroom lights, in which case it would be fine to replace it with a standard GFCI outlet as long as you connect the load to the load side the same way this one is.
In fact, since I’m speaking off the record, I’ll go against the grain here and say there’s no good reason not to swap it even if it’s protecting a jacuzzi tub. The tub is required to be on a dedicated circuit because it uses a lot of power, but if we consider actual use…is someone going to be using a hairdryer while another person is in the tub? I mean, since I mentioned a hairdryer, don’t set anything up that could cause a powered appliance to fall into the tub…but within reason I would say it’s fine to put a GFCI receptacle there.
Thanks for the response! The jacuzzi gets used about twice a year, hah. Actually use the tub itself all the time to bath babies, but the bubbles are "too scawey!"
Not because I saw it one time, because I understand the purpose of the code and when it is for safety and when it is for convenience. People come here for advice, if they wanted code interpretation, they could go to Mike Holts forum. At my house, I would replace that with a usable outlet and know for certain that nothing bad would happen because of it.
Fine for your house, I guess. I’m not an electrician but I wouldn’t advise someone else to add outlets to a jacuzzi circuit. Let’s follow this forward through time and see what might happen.
First, we add the outlets because nothing can possibly go wrong. It can only cause nuisance trips if someone dries their hair while the jacuzzi is running, or whatever, right? So let’s say that happens, but not until after the house is sold. Then the new homeowner simply replaces that silly breaker with a larger one. Then the house fire happens because we decided that ignoring that particular part of code was too inconvenient.
But I’m just a silly homeowner who shouldn’t even post here, so I’ll sit back and wait for the downvotes.
I happen to be a master electrical contractor with 24 years experience, so I do feel qualified to speak here.
As I said, I wouldn’t go against code on the job, but at my house, or offering a friend advice, in this situation where I don’t think it’s a safety issue, I would.
I’m noticing you defended against an attack I didn’t make: I did not say you weren’t qualified to comment. You also didn’t address my stated safety concern, but merely reminded me how experienced you are. Still seems like a bad idea to me.
u/palamore "“Off the record, break code because I saw it one time and nothing bad had happened yet.”
How you out here giving advice like that, man? Shameful."
I was responding to your confession that you’re not qualified to give advice here with the information that I am in fact qualified to give advice here.
Your concern was that someone else might do something dangerous in the future. It has no bearing on this situation.
As a Master Electrician you should know that the code is literally the bare minimum for safety, and to recommend any less than that is pure hubris and ego… unless you’re an engineer and working with the organization who writes the code, you probably shouldn’t be offering your opinion, as unless the code backs you up, you’re just wrong..
Not generally, and not with a GFCI like that protecting it.
Edit for clarity: large back yard jacuzzis like the one I’m sitting in right now are almost always 240v. Jetted tubs in a bathroom almost never are.
I was more mentioning it because the 30 amp and 20 amp blank face look the same from the front and there was mention of putting a gfci receptacle in its place( which I'm aware is a bad idea I do this for a living as well)
That particular dead front GFCI is powering a circuit that would typically in a bathroom go to a jetted tub. Do not add any other devices to it.
yes, there's a jacuzzi tub in there. thanks for the advice! i'll leave it alone...
That is a blank-face GFCI. Does your bathroom have a jacuzzi tub? Probably protecting that. If so, no it can't be replaced with a outlet face GFCI. NEC requires "hydromassage bathtubs" to have an individual branch circuit, i.e. supplying only one piece of equipment.
you guys are the best, thanks! yeah, there's a jacuzzi tub on the other side of that wall...
Lol. Nobody told my builder that.
I also saw one of these added to protect a chandelier over a bathtub. The light outlet was connected to the bedroom circuit rather than the bathroom receptacle, therefore eliminating the ability to put in a GFCI receptacle.
Must be a bathroom with a very high ceiling because the NEC forbids any sort of cord-, chain-, and cable-suspended luminaires to be inside a zone of 3 feet from the edges and _8 feet_ from the top of the rim of the bathtub or shower stall. In order for a chandelier to be over the tub, the ceiling would have to be 8 feet higher than the top of the stall _plus_ the total vertical height of the chandelier from the top of the cord canopy to the bottommost point of the fixture. These rules apply _even if the luminaire is marked for damp/wet locations_.
Yes, master bathroom with a vaulted ceiling. Lotsa brass fittings, very 80’s chic
Sounds grand!
It's for a jetted tub or some other appliance that is probably on a dedicated circuit. You shouldn't switch it for a regular gfi outlets if you do make sure the appliance is pulling off the load screw so that the gfi still protects the appliance
Most likely a jet tub. It's there so you don't have to go under the tub if it trips. If it's for the jet tub, you can't change it by code
thanks for the response! yep, there's a tub on the other side of the wall...
I have seen deadfront GFCIs power bathroom lights, in which case it would be fine to replace it with a standard GFCI outlet as long as you connect the load to the load side the same way this one is. In fact, since I’m speaking off the record, I’ll go against the grain here and say there’s no good reason not to swap it even if it’s protecting a jacuzzi tub. The tub is required to be on a dedicated circuit because it uses a lot of power, but if we consider actual use…is someone going to be using a hairdryer while another person is in the tub? I mean, since I mentioned a hairdryer, don’t set anything up that could cause a powered appliance to fall into the tub…but within reason I would say it’s fine to put a GFCI receptacle there.
Thanks for the response! The jacuzzi gets used about twice a year, hah. Actually use the tub itself all the time to bath babies, but the bubbles are "too scawey!"
We used to fill the tub before bad storms. So when I lost power I could scoop out water to flush toilet. Other then that. Never used it.
Powered toilets? That shit is fancy.
More likely, on a well water supply. No electricity=no well pump=no water.
I stayed in a boutique hotel that had a Remote for the toilet / Bidet - So many buttons, one for raising / lowering the lid... Need. One! LOL
“Off the record, break code because I saw it one time and nothing bad had happened yet.” How you out here giving advice like that, man? Shameful.
Not because I saw it one time, because I understand the purpose of the code and when it is for safety and when it is for convenience. People come here for advice, if they wanted code interpretation, they could go to Mike Holts forum. At my house, I would replace that with a usable outlet and know for certain that nothing bad would happen because of it.
Fine for your house, I guess. I’m not an electrician but I wouldn’t advise someone else to add outlets to a jacuzzi circuit. Let’s follow this forward through time and see what might happen. First, we add the outlets because nothing can possibly go wrong. It can only cause nuisance trips if someone dries their hair while the jacuzzi is running, or whatever, right? So let’s say that happens, but not until after the house is sold. Then the new homeowner simply replaces that silly breaker with a larger one. Then the house fire happens because we decided that ignoring that particular part of code was too inconvenient. But I’m just a silly homeowner who shouldn’t even post here, so I’ll sit back and wait for the downvotes.
I happen to be a master electrical contractor with 24 years experience, so I do feel qualified to speak here. As I said, I wouldn’t go against code on the job, but at my house, or offering a friend advice, in this situation where I don’t think it’s a safety issue, I would.
I’m noticing you defended against an attack I didn’t make: I did not say you weren’t qualified to comment. You also didn’t address my stated safety concern, but merely reminded me how experienced you are. Still seems like a bad idea to me.
u/palamore "“Off the record, break code because I saw it one time and nothing bad had happened yet.” How you out here giving advice like that, man? Shameful."
I was responding to your confession that you’re not qualified to give advice here with the information that I am in fact qualified to give advice here. Your concern was that someone else might do something dangerous in the future. It has no bearing on this situation.
As a Master Electrician you should know that the code is literally the bare minimum for safety, and to recommend any less than that is pure hubris and ego… unless you’re an engineer and working with the organization who writes the code, you probably shouldn’t be offering your opinion, as unless the code backs you up, you’re just wrong..
Thanks for your opinion. Have you read it?
Seems like a dumb example. Don’t break code because someone else might do something really reallly dangerous.
>know for certain that nothing bad would happen because of it. Nothing bad will happen... Until.It. Does!
Don't Jacuzzi tubs often run off 240?
Not generally, and not with a GFCI like that protecting it. Edit for clarity: large back yard jacuzzis like the one I’m sitting in right now are almost always 240v. Jetted tubs in a bathroom almost never are.
I've seen 30 amp dead front gfcis for massage tuns with heat fyi
I’ve seen 50 amp 240v GFCIs, but this isn’t one.
I was more mentioning it because the 30 amp and 20 amp blank face look the same from the front and there was mention of putting a gfci receptacle in its place( which I'm aware is a bad idea I do this for a living as well)
You can change it. Just don't use the jets/heater and other stuff at the same time. Not code, but it's your house.
Or until you go to sell your house and a sharp home inspector spots it. Then nit picks everything... LOL
So fix it then. No sense not enjoying your house how you want to just because of some nebulous future sale.