AFCI and GFCI Kitchens

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sam Nation

Member
Location
Evansville, IN, USA
210.8.6 requires GFCI where installed to serve the countertop surfaces. 210.12.A says all receptacles in dwelling unit kitchens shall be AFCI protected. So they are basically saying that all branch circuits in the kitchen shall be on a AFCI breaker whether countertop or serving a refrigerator or whatever. Am I interpreting these two articles correctly?
 
Pretty Close...

As you stated, 210.8(A)(6) requires the receptacles serving the countertop services to be GFCI protected. But don't forget 210.8(A)(7) that requires GFCI protection of any other receptacle within 6 ft of the outside edge of the kitchen sink. This may include receptacles in or adjacent to the kitchen that are not serving the countertop surfaces.

210.12(A) does require all of the 120V, 15A and 20A branch circuits supplying the kitchen to be AFCI protected, but you can use any of the (6) methods outlined in the Section.

In reality, you have two practical circuit configurations.

1. Install a dual-function (AFCI/GFCI) circuit breaker to your circuits supplying the kitchen and your all set.
2. Install a Combination-Type AFCI circuit breaker on the circuits supplying the kitchen and GFCI receptacles where required in or adjacent to the kitchen.

You may also chose to utilize a method employing an outlet branch-circuit type AFCI as another option. Just keep in mind that dual-function (AFCI/GFCI) receptacles do not exist on the market at this point in time.
 
mbrooke said:
Just wondering, what is the reasoning behind GFCI protection for the fridge?
Click to expand...

The fridge itself does not require GFCI protection, although it does not hurt anything to put in on a GFCI. It is a receptacle, which a fridge may be plugged into, within 6"of a sink that requires protection.

Don't you push your fridge out of the way to plug in a toaster?:)
 
I also failed to mention 210.8(D) for the kitchen dishwasher branch circuit GFCI requirement.

This particular Section may end up back in A422 instead of A210 and will perhaps include ALL dishwashers and not just those located in a kitchen once the 2017 NEC is said and done.
 
jumper said:
The fridge itself does not require GFCI protection, although it does not hurt anything to put in on a GFCI. It is a receptacle, which a fridge may be plugged into, within 6"of a sink that requires protection.

Don't you push your fridge out of the way to plug in a toaster?:)
Click to expand...

My point stated :lol: I cant see a 200lb plus fridge being moved out of the way to plug in a toaster cord that might not even reach off the counter to the back wall.
 
bphgravity said:
I also failed to mention 210.8(D) for the kitchen dishwasher branch circuit GFCI requirement.

This particular Section may end up back in A422 instead of A210 and will perhaps include ALL dishwashers and not just those located in a kitchen once the 2017 NEC is said and done.
Click to expand...

Over-kill, all overkill imo. :happysad:

As long as the EGC is intact, why would all dishwashers need a GFCI?
 
mbrooke said:
Over-kill, all overkill imo. :happysad:

As long as the EGC is intact, why would all dishwashers need a GFCI?
Click to expand...
Because of the end of life problems reported by one manufacturer in which a fault to ground too small to trigger a simple OCPD would still be large enough to start a fire.
 
The proponent of the accepted proposal that added GFCI protection requirements for dishwashers was able to provide CPSC verified stats indicating shock injury and electrocution death from residential-class dishwashers over the years. This was primarily due to end-of-life failures, the wet surface/floor conditions dishwashers are frequently in, and the conductive floors/surfaces dishwashers are located at.

The expansion of GFCI requirements in A210, A422 and elsewhere in the code is in response to shock and electrocution data provided by the CPSC and the CDC. The CPSC has stated that not even one death from a consumer electrical product is acceptable in the US. GFCI protection has been shown to be just about the most effective way to prevent shock and electrocution from consumer electrical products.
 
bphgravity said:
The proponent of the accepted proposal that added GFCI protection requirements for dishwashers was able to provide CPSC verified stats indicating shock injury and electrocution death from residential-class dishwashers over the years. This was primarily due to end-of-life failures, the wet surface/floor conditions dishwashers are frequently in, and the conductive floors/surfaces dishwashers are located at.
Click to expand...

Id argue there was a missing EGC due to incorrect installation. A Dishwasher with an EGC should not ever shock or become energized. Yes there is internal parts intentionally not grounded on some models like the water valve, detergent solenoid, ect, however any external parts are conductive back to the EGC.

Anyway are these stats available to the public?


The expansion of GFCI requirements in A210, A422 and elsewhere in the code is in response to shock and electrocution data provided by the CPSC and the CDC. The CPSC has stated that not even one death from a consumer electrical product is acceptable in the US. GFCI protection has been shown to be just about the most effective way to prevent shock and electrocution from consumer electrical products.
Click to expand...


GFCIs have proven this to true but mostly in cases where the appliance is 2 prong or direct contact with the hot conductor in say an damaged extension cord takes place. Unless water submersion occurs a metal frame appliance will never shock with a functioning EGC.

If people are being injured from metal framed appliances I can assume one of two:

1. Missing or open EGC which is most likely the result unqualified personnel.

2. NRTL standards need to be re-written.

In both cases tossing a GFCI will not solve the above. If anything if a person is unqualified enough to not hook up or skip an EGC who will say they will follow GFCI requirements?
 
bphgravity said:
The proponent of the accepted proposal that added GFCI protection requirements for dishwashers was able to provide CPSC verified stats indicating shock injury and electrocution death from residential-class dishwashers over the years. This was primarily due to end-of-life failures, the wet surface/floor conditions dishwashers are frequently in, and the conductive floors/surfaces dishwashers are located at.

The expansion of GFCI requirements in A210, A422 and elsewhere in the code is in response to shock and electrocution data provided by the CPSC and the CDC. The CPSC has stated that not even one death from a consumer electrical product is acceptable in the US. GFCI protection has been shown to be just about the most effective way to prevent shock and electrocution from consumer electrical products.
Click to expand...
The substantiation only implied a reduction in shocks. It did not provide any solid data or indicate that the data was supplied to the CMP separately from the proposal.
2-58 Log #2561 NEC-P02 ...
Substantiation: As the requirement for ground-fault circuit-interrupters (GFCIs) has been expanded throughout the NEC code, the amount of electrical shock incidents related to consumer products have continued to decline over time. Increased usage of GFCls within branch circuits of residential homes is a highly effective means of further reducing the potential for electrical shocks. CMP-2 should require GFCI protection on the dishwasher circuit.
Click to expand...
This is just another case of manufacturers pushing more costs on to the user, in place of designing a safe product.
 
bphgravity said:
The proponent of the accepted proposal that added GFCI protection requirements for dishwashers was able to provide CPSC verified stats indicating shock injury and electrocution death from residential-class dishwashers over the years. This was primarily due to end-of-life failures, the wet surface/floor conditions dishwashers are frequently in, and the conductive floors/surfaces dishwashers are located at.
Click to expand...

So basically the manufacturer knows there is a problem with their design, fixing it themselves would cut into thir profits so they asked the NFPA to make this poor design someone else's problem.

You don't see how screwed up that is?
 
The problem with appliances is that it is very hard to predict how it will be used, misused, and abused during it's life. And since there are ancillary conditions present with some appliances, the potential hazard is that much greater.

The manufacturer of boat hoists or marina equipment, for example, have to meet very stringent design and operational requirements of the associated product standard. Most of the time, this will prevent shock and electrocution to those using this equipment without the need for GFCI protection. The problem is the user and the associated conditions at and around this type of equipment. This is where GFCI protection fills in the safety gap.

So dishwashers, vending machines, drinking fountains, high-pressure spray washers, tire inflation and automatic vacuum machines are other examples of equipment with rather robust and stringent product standards that cannot fully predict the user and conditions of use. However, the likelihood of misuse, abuse and poor conditions are much greater for these particular types of equipment then most others found in the home and office. This is where GFCI protection fills in the safety gap.
 
The problems I see over and over is, a BX or greenfield whip not connected to the d/w with a fitting. The whip will be laying on the floor and wires just stuck through the KO. It seemed to me that it was appliance delivery guys or the GC's own guys finishing up the job that did this.
One time I saw the two wires stuck in the spring that closes the door.
Thanks
Mike
 
bphgravity said:
....

So dishwashers, vending machines, drinking fountains, high-pressure spray washers, tire inflation and automatic vacuum machines are other examples of equipment with rather robust and stringent product standards that cannot fully predict the user and conditions of use. However, the likelihood of misuse, abuse and poor conditions are much greater for these particular types of equipment then most others found in the home and office. This is where GFCI protection fills in the safety gap.
Click to expand...
In the case of the dishwasher rule, there is only one reason for the rule.

To protect the user from poorly designed equipment that may result in a fire at the end of the life of the equipment.

As I said, just another example of a manufacturer pushing responsibility off to the consumer in place of doing proper engineering design.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In the case of the dishwasher rule, there is only one reason for the rule.

To protect the user from poorly designed equipment that may result in a fire at the end of the life of the equipment.

As I said, just another example of a manufacturer pushing responsibility off to the consumer in place of doing proper engineering design.
Click to expand...

I agree with this-issue is though manufacturers will raise prices to fix known defects, arguing its justified by the added cost, much to the chagrin of the consumer. Of course the consumer already gets hit anyway when we have to band aid (gfci) the problem to compensate for these possible defects.

Then we have people that use the logic that the band aid for dishwashers is ultimately better, because the cost of a gfci is less than the cost of a fire that would destroy a house (and is maybe less than the reasonable fix for possibly defective equipment).

One thing is for sure- we're going to pay for "enhanced" safety, one way or another.:)
 
Last edited:
user 100 said:
I agree with this-issue is though manufacturers will raise prices to fix known defects, arguing its justified by the added cost, much to the chagrin of the consumer. Of course the consumer already gets hit anyway when we have to band aid (gfci) the problem to compensate for these defects.

Then we have people that use the logic that the band aid for dishwashers is ultimately better, because the cost of a gfci is less than the cost of a fire that would destroy a house (and is maybe less than the reasonable fix for possibly defective equipment).

One thing is for sure- we're going to pay for "enhanced" safety, one way or another.
Click to expand...

I forgot to add something does anyone remember the dishwasher manufactuer who had the fire problem that started all this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top