Hand dryer GFCI in public restroom

Status
Not open for further replies.

VinceS

Senior Member
Per 210.8(B) Other Than Dwelling Units.

I have specified GFCI CB's for each circuit the hand dryer is on. The hand dryers require a 20A circuit each, per MFR installation guidance. The restroom I have specified is frequently subject to standing water & flooding. The hand dryers are to be installed within 4 feet of a 2 large multiuser sinks.

In order to save cost the potential customer was told GFCI's were not required. Are there any loopholes to avoid the cost of the ground fault circuit, without incurring liability for this install?
 
Last edited:

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
210.8(B) is for receptacles. Unless your hand dryers plug in I know of no GFCI requirement.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Why would you have liability if it is wired to code. The GFCI is mainly required for protection of equipment that may get plug in. Thus the requirement for receptacle protection. If the hand dryer is installed properly there should not be an issue.
 

jwjrw

Senior Member
Why would you have liability if it is wired to code. The GFCI is mainly required for protection of equipment that may get plug in. Thus the requirement for receptacle protection. If the hand dryer is installed properly there should not be an issue.

If the manufacture says you need one you would. I dont imagine they would but look at the instructions.
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
If the manufacture says you need one you would. I dont imagine they would but look at the instructions.

Agreed, there may be manufacturers installation instructions requiring GFCI protection for the hand dryer. (See 110.3(B))

Chris
 

VinceS

Senior Member
Thanks all...

Thanks all...

I will obtain the MFR's install guidance and this time look up the UL Whitebook ref's also.

I'm sure you all have seem those restrooms, which always have water on the floor. This is one of them.... There are thoughts of safely for personal using a device while standing in a puddle of water, and possibly exceeding the code, as it's the minimum standard...
 
Last edited:

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
I will obtain the MFR's install guidance and this time look up the UL Whitebook ref's also.

I'm sure you all have seem those restrooms, which always have water on the floor. This is one of them.... There are thoughts of safely for personal using a device while standing in a puddle of water, and possibly exceeding the code, as it's the minimum standard...
Proper grounding connections prevent shocks...GFCIs only limit the duration of the shock. Most of the code GFCI requirements apply to receptacles, because it is much more likely that the cord will lose its grounding conductor, than for the fixed wiring of the building to lose its grounding conductor.
 

jwjrw

Senior Member
Proper grounding connections prevent shocks...GFCIs only limit the duration of the shock. Most of the code GFCI requirements apply to receptacles, because it is much more likely that the cord will lose its grounding conductor, than for the fixed wiring of the building to lose its grounding conductor.

The code is not the minimum for saftey! It is the minimum for design. Every code cycle they try to find new ways to make it safer. Even if we hate arc faults or at least I do they are supposed to make it safer.
 

kbsparky

Senior Member
Location
Delmarva, USA
The code is not the minimum for saftey! It is the minimum for design. Every code cycle they try to find new ways to make it safer. Even if we hate arc faults or at least I do they are supposed to make it safer.

More likely they try to accommodate the lobbyists hired by the big manufacturers. Many code requirements have little to do with safety, and more to do with satisfying those same lobbyists, in the name of being safe.
 

btharmy

Senior Member
Location
Indiana
Never seen a hand dryer on a gfci breaker. Never even considered it as an option. If the equipment is properly grounded, installed according to the mfg specs then it is good. Consider the fact that it is intended to be used by people with wet hands. That is what it is designed for. I don't see a wet floor as an added hazard in this situation. Maybe a slip/fall hazard.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
The code is not the minimum for saftey! It is the minimum for design. Every code cycle they try to find new ways to make it safer. Even if we hate arc faults or at least I do they are supposed to make it safer.
It is my opinion that is it far more likely that the GFCI device will fail than the EGC within the fixed wiring of the building. I don't really see much, if any, increase in the safety of the hand dryer by adding a GFCI.
 

jwjrw

Senior Member
It is my opinion that is it far more likely that the GFCI device will fail than the EGC within the fixed wiring of the building. I don't really see much, if any, increase in the safety of the hand dryer by adding a GFCI.

I only stated that it may be required per manufacture and I was pointing out what you just said. The op said that the gfci would be better because the nec was the MINIMUM. I stated the nec was NOT a minimum for safety. I agree with you unless the manufacture wants it I would not gfi it either:)
 

jwjrw

Senior Member
I have to disagree, you have that backward, the NEC is the minimum required for safety, it is not a design manual.

Ok let me try this again. The code is written to safeguard persons and property. Every year they make changes that they feel make people safer. To me that means the code is designed for more than the minimum for safety. Its purpose is to make electrical installs safe. The op stated the nec was the minimum for safety. I know its not a design manual but the codes are designed to make it safe.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Ok let me try this again. The code is written to safeguard persons and property. Every year they make changes that they feel make people safer. To me that means the code is designed for more than the minimum for safety. Its purpose is to make electrical installs safe. The op stated the nec was the minimum for safety. I know its not a design manual but the codes are designed to make it safe.

I stand by what I said, the fact things can change from cycle to cycle does not change my view.

Check out 90.1(A), (B) and (C).:)
 

jwjrw

Senior Member
I stand by what I said, the fact things can change from cycle to cycle does not change my view.

Check out 90.1(A), (B) and (C).:)

I wasnt disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the op saying the nec is a minimum for safety.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
I was disagreeing with the op saying the NEC is a minimum for safety.
It is commonly expressed that way, and it will continue to be expressed that way. But let us not let language get in the way of communication. The intent of saying it that way is that (1) The NEC gives us the minimum number of things we have to do, and (2) It gives us those rules with the safety of the builders and the users in mind.
 

wawireguy

Senior Member
You are the designer on this so it's on you. Who cares if the customer wants to save money in their locker room on safety equipment. I think it's a excellent idea to GFI protect a (in all likely hood) metalic piece of equipment that will be constantly used in a wet environment by customers or employees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top