Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • romex jockey
    replied
    Originally posted by peter d View Post
    I have suggestion for the device manufacturers. Make an AFCI/GFCI and switch combination device for disposals that can be mounted in a device box above the counter. That way, the protection is located at the point of use for easier troubleshooting and resetting.
    you missed your calling Pete, coulda made a stellar manufacturing rep, all the cmp seats would be buying you lunch.....brews...etc etc....~RJ~

    Leave a comment:


  • peter d
    replied
    Originally posted by kwired View Post
    There are GFCI/switch combinations out there. AFCI needs to protect the entire circuit (most the time anyway) and would still need an AFCI breaker.
    I know but I'm talking about one without a receptacle. Just the GF/AF functions and a switch. This device would be good for refrofits.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by peter d View Post
    I have suggestion for the device manufacturers. Make an AFCI/GFCI and switch combination device for disposals that can be mounted in a device box above the counter. That way, the protection is located at the point of use for easier troubleshooting and resetting.
    There are GFCI/switch combinations out there. AFCI needs to protect the entire circuit (most the time anyway) and would still need an AFCI breaker.

    Leave a comment:


  • peter d
    replied
    I have suggestion for the device manufacturers. Make an AFCI/GFCI and switch combination device for disposals that can be mounted in a device box above the counter. That way, the protection is located at the point of use for easier troubleshooting and resetting.

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulMmn View Post
    If 'readily accessible' is the issue, wouldn't a dead front gfci mounted on the side of the cabinet (or some cabinet), feeding the outlet under the sink meet the requirements??
    Topic of thread isn't about accessibility of the GFCI, it is about how far from sink can the receptacle be before it is no longer required to have GFCI protection, and whether the cabinet and/or cabinet door becomes a barrier in determining this distance.

    Originally posted by jap View Post
    I think they "should" require the reset for the GFI to be in the same area as the Garbage disposal.
    NO way. Option to put it there is OK, but do not require it there.

    Leave a comment:


  • jap
    replied
    I think they "should" require the reset for the GFI to be in the same area as the Garbage disposal.

    It would require someone to at least look under there to see if any other odd thing might have happened, such as a frayed cord or the like, to make it trip out instead of just assuming, without looking at the Garbage disposal at all.


    JAP>

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulMmn
    replied
    Originally posted by jap View Post
    Not readily accessible for who? ... It's not like the cabinet door below the sink is screwed shut, or, a padlock on it that's only accessible by certain individuals. JAP>
    Of course, if the cabinet door has a 'child-proof' (resistant) latch, no adult will be able to open it! (:

    Leave a comment:


  • jap
    replied
    Originally posted by don_resqcapt19 View Post
    Because all most all inspection authorities say it is not readily accessible.
    Not readily accessible for who?

    Inspectors are not the ones in the kitchen when a GFI might trip, and, if they were, if the garbage disposal didn't work, the first place they'd probably look for a problem would be under the sink for a reset button or where it's plugged in.

    So what's the big deal about having to reset it under there?

    It's not like the cabinet door below the sink is screwed shut, or, a padlock on it that's only accessible by certain individuals.

    Just seems odd of why it needs to be "readily" accessible.

    JAP>

    Leave a comment:


  • don_resqcapt19
    replied
    Originally posted by jap View Post
    Why not?

    JAP>
    Because all most all inspection authorities say it is not readily accessible.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulMmn
    replied
    If 'readily accessible' is the issue, wouldn't a dead front gfci mounted on the side of the cabinet (or some cabinet), feeding the outlet under the sink meet the requirements??

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by nysprkdude View Post
    IMO, if the receptacle is within 6 feet of the sink, no matter how you measure it, it should be GFCI protected. IF the origin of the rule as it pertains to 6 feet is specified because boom boxes, etc. have a 6 foot cord, then it is conceivable that some dullard could plug his radio into the receptacle while working under the sink. It has been my experience, that the majority of times that an individual dies from a 120VAC shock is when they cannot get away from it. I would certainly surmise that lying on one's back under the sink would not be conducive to recoiling from such a 120V contact.

    Since it is under the sink and assuming the first contention above is correct, I would not allow for the use of a GFCI receptacle because it does not meet the definition of "Readily Accessible."

    Article 100 Definitions.

    Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible) Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspectionswithout requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to actions such as to use tools, to climb over or remove obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

    Most cabinets under residential kitchen sinks are crowded with the disposal itself and a myriad of cleaning products, etc., that would require removing depending on the location of the receptacle. If one needs to merely open the door to access the receptacle and such access is not impeded by the above reiterated, then a GFCI receptacle would be acceptable.

    Just one inspector's opinion.

    People commonly use the phrase "YOLO - you only live once." I maintain that "you live every day....you only die once."

    Risk of shock when under said sink working in the cabinet is quite different when there is all non metallic plumbing, non conductive floors, etc. vs when there is metallic plumbing, conductive floors, etc.

    There are many other "what if's" one could apply also ultimately leading to why not just GFCI everything.

    I guess I can't speak for everyone, but why plug the radio in under the sink when you likely have many other places in the kitchen to do so? A trouble light or other tool you intend to use under sink, is more understandable.

    Leave a comment:


  • augie47
    replied
    We had a Code Making Panel member at one of our meetings and, as don states, the intent of the change according to the CMP panel member was to address areas within 6 ft of the sink but on the other side of a walk-thru door such as in a bedroom, not a cabinet "doorway".
    It being an outlet in the kitchen, AFCI would be required. It would seem to me economically one would just use a dual function breaker and avoid the controversy.

    Leave a comment:


  • nysprkdude
    replied
    GFCI PROTECTION FOR DISPOSAL UNDER SINK

    Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    I don't see how that can be clearer. IMO, the receptacle under the sink does not need to be gfci protected assuming this is a dwelling.
    IMO, if the receptacle is within 6 feet of the sink, no matter how you measure it, it should be GFCI protected. IF the origin of the rule as it pertains to 6 feet is specified because boom boxes, etc. have a 6 foot cord, then it is conceivable that some dullard could plug his radio into the receptacle while working under the sink. It has been my experience, that the majority of times that an individual dies from a 120VAC shock is when they cannot get away from it. I would certainly surmise that lying on one's back under the sink would not be conducive to recoiling from such a 120V contact.

    Since it is under the sink and assuming the first contention above is correct, I would not allow for the use of a GFCI receptacle because it does not meet the definition of "Readily Accessible."

    Article 100 Definitions.

    Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible) Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspectionswithout requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to actions such as to use tools, to climb over or remove obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

    Most cabinets under residential kitchen sinks are crowded with the disposal itself and a myriad of cleaning products, etc., that would require removing depending on the location of the receptacle. If one needs to merely open the door to access the receptacle and such access is not impeded by the above reiterated, then a GFCI receptacle would be acceptable.

    Just one inspector's opinion.

    People commonly use the phrase "YOLO - you only live once." I maintain that "you live every day....you only die once."

    Leave a comment:


  • kwired
    replied
    Originally posted by ramsy View Post
    Maybe it's just me. Never found one in resi fuse box in last 10 years.
    How many 2-pole resets have you installed, and where, much less 3-pole?
    For residential - mostly just for a hot tub when it comes to needing 2 pole. Certainly isn't prohibited if you wanted to use it on a MWBC.

    2017 NEC has situations where a 3 pole GFCI can be required. Those that do a lot of commercial kitchens likely are seeing it a lot, or are opting to hardwire some things where possible that used to be cord and plug connected.

    Leave a comment:


  • romex jockey
    replied
    Originally posted by david View Post
    Not sure how the test/ reset being accessible effects anything as far as GFCI protection of a Rec. goes.
    Imho, there's more than one consideration, which is confusing to me

    Accessibility (210.8, 210.12) became more prevelant , so digging under a sink to find the gfi became an issue.

    422.16 (B) , addresses specific appliances , all of which insist on accessibility

    Part III of 422 goes on about disconnecting them all , 110.25 w/in sight. This ends up w/422.33 (&430 ) allowing a male cord cap said duty.

    Then 422.34 seems to blow it all away

    ~RJ~

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X