Accessible

[HabitatSteve]

1. Is a switched duplex receptacle (used for a low voltage plug-in lighting transformer) located in the cabinet under the kitchen sink (<6' from the stainless sink edge) required to be GFCI protected and if so, does that location meet the necessary accessible requirements? (All the usual cleaning supplies, etc must be removed to get to it.) Is this an AHJ determination?

2. Does the GFCI installed for a refrigerator (also <6' from the sink edge) meet the necessary accessible requirements if the refrigerator must be pulled out to get to it?

3. Does the duplex receptacle installed for a gas range (behind the range and <6' from the sink edge) need to be GFCI protected and does that location meet the necessary accessible requirements? If it makes any difference, the receptacle is unused because an electric range was (correctly) installed.

Have either of these changed from the 2014 NEC, 2017 NEC, or current 2020 NEC? There is some question as to which code will be applied to a very old, still open, city permit about to be inspected and closed.

These are located in a full kitchen. Code references would probably be helpful.

 

[Buck Parrish]

NEC 210 -8 (A) It's my understanding that In 2020 the code took the word door out of the equation. For example, if you have a bedroom where with the door shut. And the first outlet is still within six feet of the bath hall sink. That outlet would require gfci protection.

Your scenario still may be an AHJ call

 

[petersonra]

1. Is a switched duplex receptacle (used for a low voltage plug-in lighting transformer) located in the cabinet under the kitchen sink (<6' from the stainless sink edge) required to be GFCI protected and if so, does that location meet the necessary accessible requirements? (All the usual cleaning supplies, etc must be removed to get to it.) Is this an AHJ determination?

2. Does the GFCI installed for a refrigerator (also <6' from the sink edge) meet the necessary accessible requirements if the refrigerator must be pulled out to get to it?

3. Does the duplex receptacle installed for a gas range (behind the range and <6' from the sink edge) need to be GFCI protected and does that location meet the necessary accessible requirements? If it makes any difference, the receptacle is unused because an electric range was (correctly) installed.

Have either of these changed from the 2014 NEC, 2017 NEC, or current 2020 NEC? There is some question as to which code will be applied to a very old, still open, city permit about to be inspected and closed.

These are located in a full kitchen. Code references would probably be helpful.

210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel
shall be provided as required in 210.8(A) through (E). The
ground-fault circuit interrupter shall be installed in a readily
accessible location.

Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being
reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without
requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to take
actions such as to use tools (other than keys), to climb over or
under, to remove obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders,
and so forth.

IMO, a refrigerator or range is a substantial obstacle, and thus putting a GFCI behind a refrigerator or a range renders it not immediately accessible.

I am not so sure about something under a sink. If it is OK for a GFCI to be behind a locked door and still be considered immediately accessible, I don't see how it becomes not immediately accessible if there is no lock on the door.

Incidentally, IMO, the inspector is supposed to inspect according to what is present when he inspects, not what might be put there by a homeowner sometime down the road.

Can the receptacle behind the range be moved so it is more than 6 feet from the sink so it can be changed to a normal receptacle? When did the code change to require a GFCI for a refrigerator?

 

[Sea Nile]

Disclaimer: you don't have to retrofit previous installations to bring them up to current code. You only have to ensure repairs or new work is up to code.

1. Yes, and only the test button of the circuit is required to be readily accessible. you can't have a test button on the receptacle under the sink.

2. No, but the test button needs to be accessible, you cant have the test button on the receptacle.

3. No, if the receptacle was installed under a previous code and you haven't modified it, you don't have to do anything to it to bring it to the current code.

I am not an electrician, do not believe anything I tell you.

 

[petersonra]

Disclaimer: you don't have to retrofit previous installations to bring them up to current code. You only have to ensure repairs or new work is up to code.

1. Yes, and only the test button of the circuit is required to be readily accessible. you can't have a test button on the receptacle under the sink.

2. Yes, but the test button needs to be accessible, you cant have the test button on the receptacle.

3. No, if the receptacle was installed under a previous code and you haven't modified it, you don't have to do anything to it to bring it to the current code.

I am not an electrician, do not believe anything I tell you.

Where does it say this in the code?

I do think you could have the GFCI elsewhere and install a regular outlet in places requiring GFCIs to be accessible that might otherwise not be accessible.

 

[Sea Nile]

Where does it say this in the code?

I do think you could have the GFCI elsewhere and install a regular outlet in places requiring GFCIs to be accessible that might otherwise not be accessible.

I'm actually at work, but I've been binge watching Mike Holt videos. For GFCI protection i believe it's in article 210? But it's talking about the circuit. for example, the garage door opener must be GFCI protected, but it is allowed to be down stream of a GFCI receptacle or in a breaker. Whatever is protecting the circuit must be readily accessible. not the receptacle behind or under something that's protected by the upstream device.

 

[Sea Nile]

If I remember right, it's around 210.50 or somewhere in there.

 

[petersonra]

I'm actually at work, but I've been binge watching Mike Holt videos. For GFCI protection i believe it's in article 210? But it's talking about the circuit. for example, the garage door opener must be GFCI protected, but it is allowed to be down stream of a GFCI receptacle or in a breaker. Whatever is protecting the circuit must be readily accessible. not the receptacle behind or under something that's protected by the upstream device.

I am inclined to agree that if the device is a GFCI receptacle or other GFCI device, it is required to be readily accessible. A regular outlet wired to the output of a GFCI outlet or a GFCI CB is not a GFCI device.

 

[petersonra]

If I remember right, it's around 210.50 or somewhere in there.

210.8. But it does not say only the button has to be accessible.

 

[Sea Nile]

210.8. But it does not say only the button has to be accessible.

I'll take your word for it, and I apologize for commenting without my code book in front of me, but here is what I know.
The requirement for receptacles within 6' of a sink is that the receptacle be GFCI Protected. Not that there be a GFCI Protection device there. But I also know that a GFCI Protection device must be readily accessible. So as long as a readily accessible GFCI protection device is protecting the non-readily accessible receptacle then you are good. And if the location is a pre-existing set-up, and was installed to code back when the requirement didn't exist, and you are not modifying or servicing the installation. then there is no requirement that you retrofit it to bring it up to the most current code requirement.

I'm making the assumption that the test button will be built in to the GFCI protection device.. and assuming the reason the device must be readily accessible is because people need to be able to access the buttons. Or if it still can't be found in the code, then I'm sure it will be in the manufacturer's instructions that the device be in a readily available location.

 

[HabitatSteve]

Thanks everybody. It looks like I will have to wait for the AHJ inspection on a lot of this. It is an installation in So CA at my daughter's home, owned in part by me and my licenses are in Minnesota so I'm at the mercy of others. Permit for an addition taken out in 2020 when CA was on the 2014 code and only updated to the 2017 code recently. The addition is not yet completely finished and no final is done yet--over 2 years! Many 'unusual' electrical issues; and the project manager, general contractor, and electrician have not been very responsive. Does anybody know if I have any options if the city electrical inspector 'doesn't find' some of these things? I may not be here when he comes.

 

[petersonra]

And if the location is a pre-existing set-up, and was installed to code back when the requirement didn't exist, and you are not modifying or servicing the installation. then there is no requirement that you retrofit it to bring it up to the most current code requirement.

That may or may not be the case. Normally, if you do some minor work to an existing installation, you are not required to bring anything else up to current code. Usually there is some threshold at which you have to bring the whole thing up to current code.

For instance, if you mostly gut the kitchen and rewire it, you probably cannot leave in an existing receptacle to avoid putting in GFCIs. If you are just adding a single new circuit, only that circuit probably has to be done to current code.

 

[LarryFine]

Permit for an addition taken out in 2020 when CA was on the 2014 code and only updated to the 2017 code recently.

Only the code in effect at the time the permit applies, regardless of when the work is finished and/or inspected.

 

[romex jockey]

I'm done putting appliances that can't live on a gfci, on one.....

~S~

 

[jap]

I'm done putting appliances that can't live on a gfci, on one.....

~S~

Then how do you ever pass an inspection where gfi protection is required?

Jap>

 

[romex jockey]

Then how do you ever pass an inspection where gfi protection is required?

Jap>

We don't have anything plugged in Jap

After the bureaucrats leave, things get plugged in

Then the callbacks start......

~RJ~

 

[jap]

We don't have anything plugged in Jap

After the bureaucrats leave, things get plugged in

Then the callbacks start......

~RJ~

I guess I don't understand.

Generally it's not the appliance that requires the GFI protection, it's the location of the outlet where the appliance is going to be plugged in.

The GFI protection whether by a breaker or device should already be in place and inspected prior to anything being plugged in.

How can you be done plugging an appliance in where GFI protection is required regardless of whether or not they play nicely together?

JAP>

 

[romex jockey]

Yes, the installs are all in place for inspection Jap, but the appliances need not be present to pass, all that is required is that the install is to code , it's interface and functionality with any given appliance is not required to gain occupancy from the 'powers that be'

enter Mr appliance guy, who on my last commercial kitchen had to swap out multiple freezers , with multiple calls to manufacturers who claimed they could NOT live on a gfci. Dishwashers are an entire debacle in of themselves for the same reason, and i've seen my share of freeze ups due to afci's on resi-job heating units as well....

The bigger objective is, after the nrtl's allowed all these 3rd world appliances a pass, they were burning up. The CMP's remedy was to place them all on gfci's ,in lieu of tightening those standards.

That's resulted in a world of callbacks

~RJ~

 

[jap]

I'm with ya, but, we're all fighting the same battles, and, until something changes with appliance compatibility, I don't know of a way we'll ever be completely "done" with call backs as a result of appliances that don't play well with gfi or afcii protected outlets.

It's always going to be a dispute as to whether it's the outlet that's in question, or, the appliance.

Unless there's something obvious,9 times out of 10 we know which one the culprit is.

JAP>

 

[petersonra]

Yes, the installs are all in place for inspection Jap, but the appliances need not be present to pass, all that is required is that the install is to code , it's interface and functionality with any given appliance is not required to gain occupancy from the 'powers that be'

enter Mr appliance guy, who on my last commercial kitchen had to swap out multiple freezers , with multiple calls to manufacturers who claimed they could NOT live on a gfci. Dishwashers are an entire debacle in of themselves for the same reason, and i've seen my share of freeze ups due to afci's on resi-job heating units as well....

The bigger objective is, after the nrtl's allowed all these 3rd world appliances a pass, they were burning up. The CMP's remedy was to place them all on gfci's ,in lieu of tightening those standards.

That's resulted in a world of callbacks

~RJ~

I have seen no indication whatsoever that "3rd world appliances" are burning up at a rate that exceeds appliances made in first world countries. The problem is that the standards don't force the GFCIs and the appliances to live in peace.

GFCIs are a great idea. However, they have inherent problems with tiny amounts of leakage current that is present in just about everything due to filtering, among other things. You get enough 100 microamp leakages on a circuit with an undefined surge on startup to some higher value, and eventually you are going to have issues.