Garage door GFI

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Stolz

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Rick Christopherson said:
I did your search on several search engines, and with several variations....not a single story came up.

Can you find one single story of a person getting electrocuted while utilizing the outlet normally used for the door opener? I'm not talking about the other outlets in the garage, just the door opener.

You're missing the point. If instead of making the door opener outlet GFI, the code instead mandated the proper number of outlets in the garage in the first place, people would not be tempted to use an outlet that is otherwise inaccessible without a step ladder.
Click to expand...

Sorry, his name was Issac Lawrence.

http://www.google.com/search?q=isaac+lawrence

Check out the YouTube videos. Granted, there were other violations, but if the garage door were GFCI protected...
 
Rick Christopherson

Rick Christopherson

Senior Member
George Stolz said:
Sorry, his name was Issac Lawrence.

http://www.google.com/search?q=isaac+lawrence

Check out the YouTube videos. Granted, there were other violations, but if the garage door were GFCI protected...
Click to expand...
You're hanging your hat on a story where the main point was whether 14/2 versus 14/3 was used? The only way I can read that is that the garage was wired as a MWBC without a ground. So how does that apply to a discussion about GFCI on a properly wired garage door?

I take your posting as being deliberate sensationalism via omission of fact. If the hack electrician was going to wire a MWBC using 14/2, then he certainly wasn't going to consider whether it should be GFCI or not. The electrocution didn't happen because the boy encountered a conductor that was intended to be ungrounded, but because it was a conductor that was intended to be grounded, but wasn't grounded. Even if it was GFCI protected, this was clearly a case where the ground wire was hot. A GFCI would not have protected the boy, because a GFCI does not break the ground wire when it trips. The hot-on-ground condition would have remained even after a normal GFCI trip.

GFCI does not prevent injury when the circuit is miswired with hot and ground reversal!
 
Last edited:
S'mise

S'mise

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
No, never heard of nusance trips on a gdo. Besides, I thought a gfci is not required if it is a single outlet for a dedicated apliance.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Rick Christopherson said:
You're missing the point. If instead of making the door opener outlet GFI, the code instead mandated the proper number of outlets in the garage in the first place, people would not be tempted to use an outlet that is otherwise inaccessible without a step ladder.
Click to expand...


You are advocating a code change that would require many more devices, boxes, wire and labor in those 'million homes'. However you have said that the change in GFCI requirements was to sell more GFCIs and that bothered you.


Rick Christopherson said:
However, if that was the sole reason behind the change ($$$) then it would still be permitted to use a single (non-duplex) receptacle for the door opener without requiring gfci.

If there is close to a million homes built each year and nearly all of them have 1 maybe 2 door openers; how many new gfci devices are added just for the doors? That's a lot of money, and it paid for a lot of lobbying to get the rule implemented in code. That's why it is irritating.
Click to expand...

So you leave me perplexed in what you really would like.
 
Last edited:
T

Teaspoon

Senior Member
Location
Camden,Tn.
Gfci protection Is the best protection we have.And should not avoided.
Many home owners do not under stand the importance of this protection.
As far as gdo's .I have had no problems with them tripping gfci's.
 
Dennis Alwon

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
S'mise said:
We are on the 08 but still on 05 for residential. (MRC) When was GFCI requirments changed? 05?
Click to expand...

The '05 has an exception to allowed a single recep. or a duplex recep for two appliances located within a dedicated space for each appliance that, in normal use, is not easily moved from one place to another and is cord and plug connected. This outlet would not need gfci. In '08 that exception was deleted.
 
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Dennis Alwon said:
The '05 has an exception to allowed a single recep. or a duplex recep for two appliances located within a dedicated space for each appliance that, in normal use, is not easily moved from one place to another and is cord and plug connected. This outlet would not need gfci. In '08 that exception was deleted.
Click to expand...

Actually there was no requirement in the NEC for a single receptacle for a GDO since it wasn't readily accessible, 2005, 210.8(A)(2) exception 1

See "readily accessible" in definitions article 100

Just a small pointer, any receptacle that does not normally require GFCI protection does not require a single receptacle, such as receptacles for refrigerator, garbage disposal, micro-mate, etc...
 
Last edited:
Buck Parrish

Buck Parrish

Senior Member
Location
NC & IN
Buck Parrish said:
...
Or tell the home owner to keep handy an 8' long 2x2 with a nail pointing out the end of it, :)
Click to expand...
PHP:


I forgot this two by two should have a mini mag light taped to the end of it. :)


FWIW As for the single outlet. The box offices are selling freezers with alarms on them. The price is not significant.
 
tkb

tkb

Senior Member
Location
MA
tkb

tkb

Senior Member
Location
MA
Dennis Alwon said:
If you have to use a ladder then it is NOT readily accessible.
Click to expand...


I just reread the definition of Readily Accessible and change my opinion.
I thought it meant locked doors and ladders were acceptable.

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.
Click to expand...
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Well with the NEC deciding to have three definitions connected to the word accessible how can it be anything but clear? :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top