garage door opener

[geochurchi]

Hi All,is a garage door opener required to be on a GFCI circuit even though it is not readily accessible?
Geo

 

[tom baker]

depending on what edition of the NEC you are on...the exception for non readily accessible locations (such as behind freezers) was removed several code cycles ago. And any GFCI is required to readily accessible (see art 100 definition). So a CB or a GFCI recpt that feeds the door opener.

 

[infinity]

Hi All,is a garage door opener required to be on a GFCI circuit even though it is not readily accessible?
Geo

If it's not readily accessible, like on an 8' garage ceiling, then it cannot be installed in the ceiling.

 

[Little Bill]

Just to be clear, the garage door opener is required to be on a GFCI because it's in a garage. The GFCI just can't be on the ceiling. Have to feed it off an accessible GFCI.

 

[kwired]

Just to be clear, the garage door opener is required to be on a GFCI because it's in a garage. The GFCI just can't be on the ceiling. Have to feed it off an accessible GFCI.

To clarify even more, it is the receptacle that requires GFCI protection, if you don't have a cord and plug connected unit (most "non residential grade" units are hardwired) the need for GFCI is not an issue.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Hi All,is a garage door opener required to be on a GFCI circuit even though it is not readily accessible?
Geo

We install a dead front GFCI on the wall above the switches for the garage and then just put a standard receptacle on the ceiling.

 

[goldstar]

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this but this is another one of those "Code" requirements that the CMP's didn't give much thought to or were influenced by manufacturers to have included in a Code section. It goes along with installing a GFCI for a sump pump, sewer ejector pump, refrigerator, dishwasher, garbage disposal or any other appliance that would cause a major inconvenience for the end user.

Let's create a scenario - A mother comes home from food shopping with a load of groceries with her two infants in the car. It starts to rain and she hits the garage door remote in her car only to find that the GFCI tripped for whatever reason and the door won't go up, so she's now sitting in her driveway for X amount of time while the ice cream and other frozen foods are melting until the rain stops. I envision this GFCI being installed at the time of inspection and being removed afterwards (whether it be by an electrician or her husband).

Let's create another scenario - you have a sewer ejector pump on a GFCI circuit. You don't know that the GFCI tripped and you keep flushing and flushing until you have a crap storm in the basement. Anyone out there want to handle this service call ? How about calling one of the CMP members.

I think NJ excluded this requirement in their Rehab Code.

Go ahead - I'm ready to take the flak.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Goldstar-- of course that can happen but what is the likelihood of that scenario and where is the danger in that. The gfci is there because too many home owners put extension cords into those outlets and run freezers etc. This was not just looked at without thought going into it.

 

[goldstar]

Goldstar-- of course that can happen but what is the likelihood of that scenario and where is the danger in that. The gfci is there because too many home owners put extension cords into those outlets and run freezers etc. This was not just looked at without thought going into it.

Granted Dennis, that could happen. Why not require installing a single receptacle or break the tab off a duplex so that only one receptacle works for a garage door opener. That would make more sense to me than installing a GFCI receptacle or a dead front. And besides, in terms of general designs of residences, garages were never intended to have refrigerators or freezers residing in them. But we all know people do it all the time.

 

[kwired]

I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this but this is another one of those "Code" requirements that the CMP's didn't give much thought to or were influenced by manufacturers to have included in a Code section. It goes along with installing a GFCI for a sump pump, sewer ejector pump, refrigerator, dishwasher, garbage disposal or any other appliance that would cause a major inconvenience for the end user.

Let's create a scenario - A mother comes home from food shopping with a load of groceries with her two infants in the car. It starts to rain and she hits the garage door remote in her car only to find that the GFCI tripped for whatever reason and the door won't go up, so she's now sitting in her driveway for X amount of time while the ice cream and other frozen foods are melting until the rain stops. I envision this GFCI being installed at the time of inspection and being removed afterwards (whether it be by an electrician or her husband).

Let's create another scenario - you have a sewer ejector pump on a GFCI circuit. You don't know that the GFCI tripped and you keep flushing and flushing until you have a crap storm in the basement. Anyone out there want to handle this service call ? How about calling one of the CMP members.

I think NJ excluded this requirement in their Rehab Code.

Go ahead - I'm ready to take the flak.

Remember it isn't the garage door opener or the sump pump that requires GFCI protection, it is the fact there is a 15/20 amp 120 volt receptacle in a place mentioned in 210.8.

I think it was either 2005 or 2008 NEC that they removed all the exceptions for receptacles for "dedicated appliances". I think a big reason was they were finding many of the end users were finding out that particular receptacle wouldn't "nuisance trip" like the protected ones do, so they were plugging more then just the "dedicated appliance" into them and defeating the purpose of protecting people from electric shock risk.

Would you rather that mother in the car have to get out and get a little wet that one time to get into the house or would you rather see her get electrocuted by something in the garage because it wasn't protected by GFCI like it was supposed to be? She could just as easily been in the store and it started to rain before she went out to the car.

 

[goldstar]

Remember it isn't the garage door opener or the sump pump that requires GFCI protection, it is the fact there is a 15/20 amp 120 volt receptacle in a place mentioned in 210.8.

I think it was either 2005 or 2008 NEC that they removed all the exceptions for receptacles for "dedicated appliances". I think a big reason was they were finding many of the end users were finding out that particular receptacle wouldn't "nuisance trip" like the protected ones do, so they were plugging more then just the "dedicated appliance" into them and defeating the purpose of protecting people from electric shock risk.

I understand the reasons why. I'm looking at this from a "nuisance trip" point of view. How many times do you think a GDO is going to nuisance trip before her husband removes the GFCI and replaces it with a duplex receptacle ? I'm asking it in this specific way because I would bet that in 90% of the cases the husband is going to change out the GFCI rather think there's a GF problem with a GDO. A receptacle is a couple of $$ whereas a GDO is several hundred. From my experience they'll always take the cheap way out.

Would you rather that mother in the car have to get out and get a little wet that one time to get into the house or would you rather see her get electrocuted by something in the garage because it wasn't protected by GFCI like it was supposed to be? She could just as easily been in the store and it started to rain before she went out to the car.

OK. You've changed my scenario a bit but I'll bite. Tell me what in the garage could possibly become energized if the GDO has a ground fault problem ? Yes, if it starts to rain when the mother is still at the super market - that's the breaks. If the GD doesn't go up when she gets home and it happens on a regular basis she's not going to put up with that and will encourage her husband to do something unscrupulous.

All I'm suggesting is that we (our industry that is) come up with a better plan to solve this issue. Besides, how often have you seen a GDO develop a ground fault problem ? I don't think I've seen one yet.

 

[infinity]

Fortunately for us in NJ we can still use the exceptions for the GFCI rules prior to the 2008 changes that removed the exceptions. I have yet to hear of any NJ residents getting electrocuted by a sump pump receptacle that is not GFCI protected.

 

[tkb]

I don't see the point of requiring a GFCI on an overhead door opener.
The receptacle is in the ceiling and not accessible from the floor without a ladder.

I know it's a requirement, but what am I missing? I just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[kwired]

I understand the reasons why. I'm looking at this from a "nuisance trip" point of view. How many times do you think a GDO is going to nuisance trip before her husband removes the GFCI and replaces it with a duplex receptacle ? I'm asking it in this specific way because I would bet that in 90% of the cases the husband is going to change out the GFCI rather think there's a GF problem with a GDO. A receptacle is a couple of $$ whereas a GDO is several hundred. From my experience they'll always take the cheap way out.

OK. You've changed my scenario a bit but I'll bite. Tell me what in the garage could possibly become energized if the GDO has a ground fault problem ? Yes, if it starts to rain when the mother is still at the super market - that's the breaks. If the GD doesn't go up when she gets home and it happens on a regular basis she's not going to put up with that and will encourage her husband to do something unscrupulous.

All I'm suggesting is that we (our industry that is) come up with a better plan to solve this issue. Besides, how often have you seen a GDO develop a ground fault problem ? I don't think I've seen one yet.

When that husband is doing his honey-do projects in that garage and plugs his power tools into the ceiling outlet for the GDO that doesn't trip, is the kind of activity that prompted the code making panel to decide the ceiling outlet needs GFCI protection.

Owners have been removing "troublesome" GFCI's before those exemptions were removed from code and will continue to do so if it looks like a solution to them, whether they be in the garage, the basement, outside, in the kitchen won't matter. Most think they are a circuit breaker and have no idea what they actually do. I get calls about nuisance trips and they ask if they can put in a "bigger breaker" all the time.

 

[retirede]

garage door opener

I have a wood shop in my garage and also work on my own cars. All kind of stuff running on GFCI-protected circuits. A beer fridge there too.
I honestly cannot remember ever having a nuisance trip.
My point being is that I feel nuisance tripping is a pretty weak argument for not using or removing GFCI protection.
Now afci.....that's another discussion entirely.

ETA: I also have a trouble light reel mounted on the ceiling plugged into the garage door opener receptacle. A good reason to have that receptacle GFCI protected.

 

[kwired]

I have a wood shop in my garage and also work on my own cars. All kind of stuff running on GFCI-protected circuits. A beer fridge there too.
I honestly cannot remember ever having a nuisance trip.
My point being is that I feel nuisance tripping is a pretty weak argument for not using or removing GFCI protection.
Now afci.....that's another discussion entirely.

ETA: I also have a trouble light reel mounted on the ceiling plugged into the garage door opener receptacle. A good reason to have that receptacle GFCI protected.

You and I don't have compromised tool cords or extension cords, and when they get that way we do fix them. We also don't have crossed neutral and EGC's in any kind of rigged up equipment we have.

Until the handymen and DIY's learn what GFCI is all about they will continue to avoid using them whenever possible.

I have noticed in some places people will plug things into the "standard" receptacle and avoid using the GFCI receptacle, though they don't realize the GFCI is protecting the other receptacle as well.

 

[retirede]

You and I don't have compromised tool cords or extension cords, and when they get that way we do fix them. We also don't have crossed neutral and EGC's in any kind of rigged up equipment we have.

Until the handymen and DIY's learn what GFCI is all about they will continue to avoid using them whenever possible.

I have noticed in some places people will plug things into the "standard" receptacle and avoid using the GFCI receptacle, though they don't realize the GFCI is protecting the other receptacle as well.

Agree 100%
I wouldn't describe trips caused by those factors as nuisance trips. But as you say, they don't know any better.

 

[kwired]

Agree 100%
I wouldn't describe trips caused by those factors as nuisance trips. But as you say, they don't know any better.

IMO there is no such thing as a nuisance trip, the device trips for a reason.

But to the end user any trip is a nuisance trip, and when their item works while plugged into one outlet but trips when used on another one that is also a nuisance (to them).

 

[goldstar]

I think a big reason was they were finding many of the end users were finding out that particular receptacle wouldn't "nuisance trip" like the protected ones do, so they were plugging more then just the "dedicated appliance" into them and defeating the purpose of protecting people from electric shock risk.

If end users are smart enough to figure out that the ceiling receptacle is not GFI protected and then stupid enough to plug in appliances that would probably cause a GFI to trip, how can the CMP's prevent that ? If we look at the purpose of the Code :

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity. This Code is not
intended as a design specification or an instruction manual
for untrained persons.
(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.

There's nothing there that indicates the Code is intended to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. If we start down that road they'll end up GFCI and AFCI protecting everything. Just my opinion.

 

[kwired]

If end users are smart enough to figure out that the ceiling receptacle is not GFI protected and then stupid enough to plug in appliances that would probably cause a GFI to trip, how can the CMP's prevent that ? If we look at the purpose of the Code :

There's nothing there that indicates the Code is intended to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. If we start down that road they'll end up GFCI and AFCI protecting everything. Just my opinion.

we are already on that path though, not saying I agree with all the content of the code. Don't get me started on AFCI protection, it might be a good concept but they don't have the device made yet to accomplish that goal and are pushing what they currently have so they can get some return on what research and development they have so far The manufacturers of said devices have the code making panel wrapped around their finger.

GFCI protection, I have little issue with elimination of "dedicated outlets" and have seen refrigerators/freezers in garages or unfinished basements that were shocking people when there was component failures and maybe a compromised EGC in the cord that weren't on GFCIs, or even the appliance repair guy tells HO that the GFCI is the problem so they call me and I have to find the fault in the appliance. GFCI was simply doing what it was intended to do in that case. I was initially against the elimination of dedicated outlets not being GFCI protected until I had seen first hand a few failures that GFCI either did or could have protected people from shock hazards. That freezer of spoiled food because the power was lost is nothing compared to someone being electrocuted. If you want to know the freezer isn't cold buy some kind of alarm/monitor for it, there are other possible failures that can also make it not cold in there.

I also don't feel we ever really needed GFCI protection on drinking water fountains, don't think it hurts to have them but don't see the need for it to be required, extending commercial kitchen's to include all receptacles is somewhat questionable IMO, and the one that really takes the cake was the recent dishwasher in the dwelling unit. That trigger to require that one wasn't even about shock hazards.