GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

[PaulMmn]

Not readily accessible for who? ... It's not like the cabinet door below the sink is screwed shut, or, a padlock on it that's only accessible by certain individuals. JAP>

Of course, if the cabinet door has a 'child-proof' (resistant) latch, no adult will be able to open it!

 

[jap]

I think they "should" require the reset for the GFI to be in the same area as the Garbage disposal.

It would require someone to at least look under there to see if any other odd thing might have happened, such as a frayed cord or the like, to make it trip out instead of just assuming, without looking at the Garbage disposal at all.


JAP>

 

[kwired]

If 'readily accessible' is the issue, wouldn't a dead front gfci mounted on the side of the cabinet (or some cabinet), feeding the outlet under the sink meet the requirements??

Topic of thread isn't about accessibility of the GFCI, it is about how far from sink can the receptacle be before it is no longer required to have GFCI protection, and whether the cabinet and/or cabinet door becomes a barrier in determining this distance.

I think they "should" require the reset for the GFI to be in the same area as the Garbage disposal.

NO way. Option to put it there is OK, but do not require it there.

 

[peter d]

I have suggestion for the device manufacturers. Make an AFCI/GFCI and switch combination device for disposals that can be mounted in a device box above the counter. That way, the protection is located at the point of use for easier troubleshooting and resetting.

 

[kwired]

I have suggestion for the device manufacturers. Make an AFCI/GFCI and switch combination device for disposals that can be mounted in a device box above the counter. That way, the protection is located at the point of use for easier troubleshooting and resetting.

There are GFCI/switch combinations out there. AFCI needs to protect the entire circuit (most the time anyway) and would still need an AFCI breaker.

 

[peter d]

There are GFCI/switch combinations out there. AFCI needs to protect the entire circuit (most the time anyway) and would still need an AFCI breaker.

I know but I'm talking about one without a receptacle. Just the GF/AF functions and a switch. This device would be good for refrofits.

 

[romex jockey]

I have suggestion for the device manufacturers. Make an AFCI/GFCI and switch combination device for disposals that can be mounted in a device box above the counter. That way, the protection is located at the point of use for easier troubleshooting and resetting.

you missed your calling Pete, coulda made a stellar manufacturing rep, all the cmp seats would be buying you lunch.....brews...etc etc....:happyyes:~RJ~

 

[peter d]

you missed your calling Pete, coulda made a stellar manufacturing rep, all the cmp seats would be buying you lunch.....brews...etc etc....:happyyes:~RJ~

I'd sooner set myself on fire than do that. :happyyes::lol:

 

[nysprkdude]

Risk of shock when under said sink working in the cabinet is quite different when there is all non metallic plumbing, non conductive floors, etc. vs when there is metallic plumbing, conductive floors, etc.

There are many other "what if's" one could apply also ultimately leading to why not just GFCI everything.

I guess I can't speak for everyone, but why plug the radio in under the sink when you likely have many other places in the kitchen to do so? A trouble light or other tool you intend to use under sink, is more understandable.

kwired,
I know that you have been a member for a long time so I respect your opinion as it pertains to this subject. I still maintain that if a GFCI receptacle is under a sink in a residential dwelling, it does not meet the definition of "readily accessible." Having said that, as an inspector for almost 20 years in a medium sized city, there isn't enough time in a day to reiterate the stupid things that I encounter on a daily basis that people do. It still baffles me as to the lack of intelligence by tenants as well as the lack of conscious by so-called electricians that results not only in code violations but direct hazards to life and property. Someday, electrical inspectors can collaborate on a book of the inane circumstances we encounter.

 

[nysprkdude]

Not readily accessible for who?

Inspectors are not the ones in the kitchen when a GFI might trip, and, if they were, if the garbage disposal didn't work, the first place they'd probably look for a problem would be under the sink for a reset button or where it's plugged in.

So what's the big deal about having to reset it under there?

It's not like the cabinet door below the sink is screwed shut, or, a padlock on it that's only accessible by certain individuals.

Just seems odd of why it needs to be "readily" accessible.

JAP>

As I routinely reiterate, "I didn't write the code, I am merely tasked with the responsibility of enforcing it." There are numerous code sections I disagree with as well as numerous mistakes identified in the 2014 NEC. Many have been corrected in the 2017 edition, some have not, but I work in a state where we are always a code cycle behind. How many inform electricians that "the code is the minimum." IMO, if you are working with a code that is 3 or more years behind and you perform to the minimum standard(s) of that code, you are rolling the dice as it pertains to a potential law suit.

 

[kwired]

kwired,
I know that you have been a member for a long time so I respect your opinion as it pertains to this subject. I still maintain that if a GFCI receptacle is under a sink in a residential dwelling, it does not meet the definition of "readily accessible." Having said that, as an inspector for almost 20 years in a medium sized city, there isn't enough time in a day to reiterate the stupid things that I encounter on a daily basis that people do. It still baffles me as to the lack of intelligence by tenants as well as the lack of conscious by so-called electricians that results not only in code violations but direct hazards to life and property. Someday, electrical inspectors can collaborate on a book of the inane circumstances we encounter.

I can live with GFCI under the sink being considered not readily accessible even if I have disagreements on that - NEC needs to make it's intent on this more clear somehow IMO. This is one of those things I agree should have fairly easy access to, but also isn't something that needs emergency access to, but as an installer if it is clear I can live with it even if I don't agree with it.

My bigger issue on this is the need for GFCI period. As I said earlier, you can throw all the "what if's you want out there, but if you are going to do that, why not require GFCI for "everything". Otherwise how many statistics are there for shock and electrocutions from an otherwise properly installed/maintained receptacle under the sink? I bet it is fairly low.

As I routinely reiterate, "I didn't write the code, I am merely tasked with the responsibility of enforcing it." There are numerous code sections I disagree with as well as numerous mistakes identified in the 2014 NEC. Many have been corrected in the 2017 edition, some have not, but I work in a state where we are always a code cycle behind. How many inform electricians that "the code is the minimum." IMO, if you are working with a code that is 3 or more years behind and you perform to the minimum standard(s) of that code, you are rolling the dice as it pertains to a potential law suit.

Us installers aren't rolling the dice, the AHJ is when it comes to being 3 years behind. Us installers are just following laws set for us, AHJ may have more immunity to some degree, especially from an individual lawsuit, but get large group together and even if they can't win any monetary award, there is more potential to get something done.

I don't know about how it works for you, but here next code isn't in the law books until it goes through State Legislature, so it sort of puts such issue on the Legislature and not the Electrical Division itself. So depending on how legislation goes, in a new code year the bill often won't even be introduced until March or April. All bills passed don't go into effect for 90 days unless there is an emergency clause attached to them, so we don't see adoption of new code until maybe June through September depending on when bill was passed. If bill gets any objections or hung up for other reasons, happened with 2008 NEC, it may not even make it in the current legislative session and may be another year before it gets visited again. We only used 2008 for maybe about a year and a half before 2011 was adopted in a fairly usual time frame.

 

[jap]

NO way. Option to put it there is OK, but do not require it there.

You're correct.

That was a bad choice of words on my part.

I think they "should" allow the reset to be under the sink

Not allowing it under there for the reasoning of not being "readily accessible" just seems to stem from laziness rather than any safety concerns.


JAP>

 

[kwired]

You're correct.

That was a bad choice of words on my part.

I think they "should" allow the reset to be under the sink

Not allowing it under there for the reasoning of not being "readily accessible" just seems to stem from laziness rather than any safety concerns.


JAP>

Not even laziness, stupidity is more like it.

The need for ready access to service disconnect in an emergency situation makes sense. How often is testing/resetting a GFCI an emergency?

It is still readily accessible from the appliance location with a disposer, dishwasher in adjacent space - that is more questionable, but then the dishwasher needing GFCI is another topic that makes no sense either.

 

[jap]

Not even laziness, stupidity is more like it.

The need for ready access to service disconnect in an emergency situation makes sense. How often is testing/resetting a GFCI an emergency?

It is still readily accessible from the appliance location with a disposer, dishwasher in adjacent space - that is more questionable, but then the dishwasher needing GFCI is another topic that makes no sense either.

That's why I questioned earlier "who" exactly are we making it readily accessible for, and, why?

JAP>

 

[romex jockey]

In reality, servicing.

code wide, an appliance needs a readily accesible disconnect (pigs, DW's ,trash compactors) can get away w/male cord caps

the ocpd could be DF ,in the basemnet of a single fam

~RJ~

 

[kwired]

In reality, servicing.

code wide, an appliance needs a readily accesible disconnect (pigs, DW's ,trash compactors) can get away w/male cord caps

the ocpd could be DF ,in the basemnet of a single fam

~RJ~

Non GFCI receptacle need not be readily accessible but is still the disconnecting means. NEC is fine with disconnecting means that is accessible at the location of equipment it disconnects even if it isn't readily accessible. For some reason it is deemed necessary to make GFCI's readily accessible. I see a possible inconvenience to some circumstances of needing to reset a GFCI, but don't see any general safety rule - I say general because safety may depend on what is supplied and how much danger is presented by loss of power - but that should be more of an issue with that equipment and it's use and not the general rules of NEC.

 

[peter d]

I really miss when I started in the trade in 1997. Things were so much simpler then.

 

[romex jockey]

Non GFCI receptacle need not be readily accessible but is still the disconnecting means. NEC is fine with disconnecting means that is accessible at the location of equipment it disconnects even if it isn't readily accessible. For some reason it is deemed necessary to make GFCI's readily accessible. I see a possible inconvenience to some circumstances of needing to reset a GFCI, but don't see any general safety rule - I say general because safety may depend on what is supplied and how much danger is presented by loss of power - but that should be more of an issue with that equipment and it's use and not the general rules of NEC.

I agree Kwired, and so what happens is, we are sparks are involved in kitchen design by default, as least as far as 'lectrical configuration. The last commercial one we did had a dedicated subpanel out of, but w/in sight. It was full of gfic ocpd's & lockable. My ahj was ok w/it....

I really miss when I started in the trade in 1997. Things were so much simpler then.

ah...well....one can never really go home Pete....~RJ~

 

[kwired]

I agree Kwired, and so what happens is, we are sparks are involved in kitchen design by default, as least as far as 'lectrical configuration. The last commercial one we did had a dedicated subpanel out of, but w/in sight. It was full of gfic ocpd's & lockable. My ahj was ok w/it....





ah...well....one can never really go home Pete....~RJ~

NEC specifically excludes lock/key from the tools one may need to gain access when it comes to "readily accessible" though.

Screwdriver is pretty universal tool, but a key can be more limiting - makes sense right?

 

[nysprkdude]

I can live with GFCI under the sink being considered not readily accessible even if I have disagreements on that - NEC needs to make it's intent on this more clear somehow IMO. This is one of those things I agree should have fairly easy access to, but also isn't something that needs emergency access to, but as an installer if it is clear I can live with it even if I don't agree with it.

My bigger issue on this is the need for GFCI period. As I said earlier, you can throw all the "what if's you want out there, but if you are going to do that, why not require GFCI for "everything". Otherwise how many statistics are there for shock and electrocutions from an otherwise properly installed/maintained receptacle under the sink? I bet it is fairly low.

Us installers aren't rolling the dice, the AHJ is when it comes to being 3 years behind. Us installers are just following laws set for us, AHJ may have more immunity to some degree, especially from an individual lawsuit, but get large group together and even if they can't win any monetary award, there is more potential to get something done.

I don't know about how it works for you, but here next code isn't in the law books until it goes through State Legislature, so it sort of puts such issue on the Legislature and not the Electrical Division itself. So depending on how legislation goes, in a new code year the bill often won't even be introduced until March or April. All bills passed don't go into effect for 90 days unless there is an emergency clause attached to them, so we don't see adoption of new code until maybe June through September depending on when bill was passed. If bill gets any objections or hung up for other reasons, happened with 2008 NEC, it may not even make it in the current legislative session and may be another year before it gets visited again. We only used 2008 for maybe about a year and a half before 2011 was adopted in a fairly usual time frame.

I agree with the notion that any liability on behalf of the state being behind in adopting the most recent code should not and does not impact the electrical inspectors. We can only enforce the code that has been adopted and we can only be held liable if one can prove that we were cognizant that an installation was improper and approved it regardless. All of our certificates sent subsequent to an approved inspection include a disclaimer that indicates that "inspections are visual only and we are not responsible for installations that are concealed...." It would not surprise me however; if a good attorney could take advantage of the fact that the NEC stipulates that the code requirements are "the minimum." Just for example, in NY, we are on the 2014 NEC where bathrooms are not required to be AFCI protected. I understand that I am "what if'fing" here and that no code exists that begins with "What if" but let's assume for the sake of argument that a rodent chews through the dedicated bathroom circuit which causes a fire with property or life loss. Subsequently, a lawsuit occurs and the electrical contractor who would be included because lawyers will sue everyone, is on the witness stand. The lawyer asks the question, "Was there a device that could have prevented the fire and the loss?" Of course the answer is yes, an AFCI circuit breaker would more than likely recognize this fault and de-energize the circuit. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a jury would not comprehend that the electrician performed the installation in accordance with the code being enforced by the state at the time of the installation? Would the contractor be found not liable for the same reason? In today's litigious society, I would appreciate the opinions of inspectors and electricians alike as it pertains to this scenario. I was concerned about this when I was a contractor and I continue to be concerned as an electrical inspector for the past 16 years. The next code may not be enforced until approved by the state but is performing to the minimum standard an acceptable defense for failing to utilize a device that does exist and is called for in the more recent code? Just a thought.

Everyone uses the term YOLO these days - you only live once. I contend the opposite. You only die once. You live every day.