GFCI Protection of Garbage Disposal Receptacle

[A/A Fuel GTX]

If you hard wire GD/DW then where is your means of disconnect?
All the way to the panel for the breaker?

The GD still would have a switch that could be the disconnect. The dishwasher could have a switch, a breaker lockout or if the dishwasher itself had a clearly marked "off" position as part of the unit, that would suffice.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

If you hard wire GD/DW then where is your means of disconnect?
All the way to the panel for the breaker?

No you can put a hp rated switch in the wall for both. Switch or GFCI,your choice.

 

[480sparky]

No you can put a hp rated switch in the wall for both. Switch or GFCI,your choice.

You can't use a GFCI for a disconnect...... it doesn't have an "OFF" marking.

 

[jrohe]

Thank you all for your replies. I agree that the receptacle under a sink would need to be GFCI protected and my company does this as a standard. However, we have had people argue with us that the receptacle is not required to be GFCI protected because it is located in the base cabinet while the outside edge of the sink is outside the base cabinet. Nevertheless, I have still required those who argue to put a GFCI receptacle in. Regardless of whether it is Code required or not, it is a good safety practice.

 

[jrohe]

The GD still would have a switch that could be the disconnect. The dishwasher could have a switch, a breaker lockout or if the dishwasher itself had a clearly marked "off" position as part of the unit, that would suffice.

In my interpretation, the switch serving the GD would serve as the disconnecting means.

For the dishwasher, a circuit breaker capable of being locked in the open position would only be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means if thecircuit breaker was located within sight of the dishwasher. A dishwasher is considered a motor-driven appliance, and subject to the disconnecting means requirements of 422.32.

In my opinion, most dishwashers being sold these days do not have a unit switch with a marked-off position, so the exception to 422.32 would not apply nor would 422.34.

You can't use a GFCI for a disconnect...... it doesn't have an "OFF" marking.

A GFCI receptacle would be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means per 422.33(A).

 

[480sparky]

...........A GFCI receptacle would be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means per 422.33(A).

The receptacle serves as the disconnect, not the GFCI "trip" button.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

You can't use a GFCI for a disconnect...... it doesn't have an "OFF" marking.

Not what I meant. Switch or GFCI protected receptacle.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

In my interpretation, the switch serving the GD would serve as the disconnecting means.

That's what I said.

For the dishwasher, a circuit breaker capable of being locked in the open position would only be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means if thecircuit breaker was located within sight of the dishwasher. A dishwasher is considered a motor-driven appliance, and subject to the disconnecting means requirements of 422.32.

I disagree. I say 422.31 (B) would be the correct reference.


A

 

[Cavie]

For the dishwasher, a circuit breaker capable of being locked in the open position would only be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means if thecircuit breaker was located within sight of the dishwasher. .

Lockout is required when the circuit breaker IS NOT WITHIN SIGHT and is a leagle disconect. If within sight, no lockout is required.You have it backwards.

 

[jrohe]

I disagree. I say 422.31 (B) would be the correct reference.

I will agree with you that 422.31(B) is a correct reference. However, I spoke with NFPA on this exact issue and I was told any appliance with a motor is considered a motor-driven apppliance and the requirements of 422.32 also apply if the motor is rated at more than 1/8 horsepower. Therefore, if a circuit breaker is to serve as the disconnecting means of a dishwasher with a motor rated more than 1/8 horsepower, it is required by 422.32 to be within sight of the motor controller and comply with the other requirements of part IX of Article 430. The motor controller is contained within the dishwasher.

Lockout is required when the circuit breaker IS NOT WITHIN SIGHT and is a leagle disconect. If within sight, no lockout is required.You have it backwards.

Per 422.31(B), I agree that lockout is not required if the circuit breaker is within sight from the appliance. Conversely, lockout is required if the circuit breaker is not within sight from the appliance. The point I was trying to make (and didn't do it very well) was that if the circuit breaker (whether that circuit breaker is lockable in the open position or not) is to serve as the disconnecting means for a motor-driven appliance where the motor is rated more than 1/8 horsepower, 422.32 requires it to be within sight from the motor controller.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I will agree with you that 422.31(B) is a correct reference. However, I spoke with NFPA on this exact issue and I was told any appliance with a motor is considered a motor-driven apppliance and the requirements of 422.32 also apply if the motor is rated at more than 1/8 horsepower. Therefore, if a circuit breaker is to serve as the disconnecting means of a dishwasher with a motor rated more than 1/8 horsepower, it is required by 422.32 to be within sight of the motor controller and comply with the other requirements of part IX of Article 430. The motor controller is contained within the dishwasher.

I have a hard time seeing a dishwasher as a motor driven appliance. The motor within is driving a pump and not a set of pulleys. Conversely, I do see a disposal as a motor driven appliance. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and just like AHJ's maybe the guys at the NFPA have verying opinions too. You just talked to the wrong guy

 

[jaylectricity]

I need to check the Massachusetts amendments because I routinely get passed on final inspections with receptacles inside the sink cabinet for the disposal and dishwasher.

I use a 20 amp circuit, and a 4" square box with a switch, duplex receptacle (with the tab cut) and a switch/receptacle combo mulberry cover.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I need to check the Massachusetts amendments because I routinely get passed on final inspections with receptacles inside the sink cabinet for the disposal and dishwasher.

I use a 20 amp circuit, and a 4" square box with a switch, duplex receptacle (with the tab cut) and a switch/receptacle combo mulberry cover.

In your case, the cords are the disconnecting means. You're good to go.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

I need to check the Massachusetts amendments because I routinely get passed on final inspections with receptacles inside the sink cabinet for the disposal and dishwasher.

I use a 20 amp circuit, and a 4" square box with a switch, duplex receptacle (with the tab cut) and a switch/receptacle combo mulberry cover.

The switch is an acceptable disconnect. The receptacle would have to be GFCI protected whether you switched it or not.

 

[jaylectricity]

The switch is an acceptable disconnect. The receptacle would have to be GFCI protected whether you switched it or not.

Right, but so far no inspector has required me to GFI the receptacle. I work in many different towns...you'd think that one of them would call me on it.

/I rarely pay attention to the MA amendments unless I get tipped off that they will help me
//bad, I know

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

The receptacle would have to be GFCI protected whether you switched it or not.

Not if it is in a kitchen. It is not a counter top receptacle.

 

[iwire]

Actually in a dwelling unit if it is not a kitchen and a wet bar location then any receptacle within 6' of the edge of the wet bar sink would need to be GFCI protected even under the counter top.

Chris

So if my wet bar sink in my dining room backs up to the wall seprating the space from the living room the outlets in the living room that are within 6' of the sink will need GFCI protection?

 

[iwire]

The receptacle serves as the disconnect, not the GFCI "trip" button.

There are GFCI devices marked with on and off.

 

[tomspark1]

So if my wet bar sink in my dining room backs up to the wall seprating the space from the living room the outlets in the living room that are within 6' of the sink will need GFCI protection?

Good catch. Structural seperation is a little different than a cabinet door, if I am under the sink for whatever reason I can still have contact with something I shouldn't. In a gray area like this I would err on the side of caution.

 

[juptonstone]

Article 210.8 (B) specifies that if the the location is "other than dwelling units" GFCI's shall be provided for Bathrooms,, kitchens, rooftops and outdoors. If this space does not meet the definition of any of the above... (e.g. kitchen) then 210.8 does not apply and bless you if you can find a single reference in the index on the page listed as 70-800 (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters - 2008 NEC) or in any of the associated articles, where it does apply. I would say, no... however, I would also ask the inspector who will pass/fail it. Inspectors aren't always right, but they have the power to make life miserable and is it worth the $15.00 for a GFCI to fail and then either contest the finding,or pay the re-inspection fee?