Gfi on Dryer circuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter Furrow said:
I’d love to hear from the guy who tries to install a GFCI breaker for the dryer on a three wire system. The neutral to case connection for the three prong dryer cord May give that GFCI breaker a run for it’s money...but, hopefully these GFCI breaker requirements on dryers won’t be required in older homes. New installations will definitely require it.
But I could see Home inspector‘s implicating it on their Home inspection reports for home insurance policies.
Who knows, this might be the new spike in our industry. We may have to run New dedicated 4-wire dryer circuits with GFCI protection in older homes every time I Home inspector puts it on his report for a new buyer to get insurance..
Click to expand...
The neutral would have to be treated as an insulated conductor, as I was one given permission to do on an ATS/genny install that would have otherwise required the almost-impossible task of replacing 3-wire major appliance circuits with 4-wire.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I let you fight that one out with your inspector. Sure if your washer dryer is in your den is it a laundry area or a den? My bet is that a 240 dryer is going to need gfci in most instances.

Do you really need a definition for a laundry area. If you use the words to launder then it would only apply to the washer.
Click to expand...
I can be on board with the words "to launder" like you mentioned and only the washer makes it a laundry area.

If you have both washer and dryer in the den, you still have a laundry area it just happens to also be within the den IMO.

"Mud rooms" with laundry and bath were once fairly common thing around here, especially in farmhouses. You come in have a place to take off your dirty clothes, laundry is right there, plus you can shower in same room before entering the rest of the house. IMO any requirement that applies to laundry or bath also applies to such rooms. When such rooms were real common we didn't have many the current requirements. The 1500 VA laundry circuit was a requirement and GFCI for bath receptacles was a requirement, AFCI didn't exist yet. Today I would think an inspector would like to see one circuit to supply the laundry, one circuit to supply the bath receptacles, would be somewhat flexible on what other outlets in same room might be allowed on either of those circuits, and would require all receptacles to have GFCI protection and if 2020 NEC applies then that would include a 30 amp 120/240 dryer receptacle as well.
 
Peter Furrow said:
I’d love to hear from the guy who tries to install a GFCI breaker for the dryer on a three wire system. The neutral to case connection for the three prong dryer cord May give that GFCI breaker a run for it’s money...but, hopefully these GFCI breaker requirements on dryers won’t be required in older homes. New installations will definitely require it.
But I could see Home inspector‘s implicating it on their Home inspection reports for home insurance policies.
Who knows, this might be the new spike in our industry. We may have to run New dedicated 4-wire dryer circuits with GFCI protection in older homes every time I Home inspector puts it on his report for a new buyer to get insurance..
Click to expand...
Code wise that 3 wire dryer receptacle was compliant when installed. I would think NEC would have exception for those existing installations and maybe even specifically allow replacement of said receptacle with same type, but move the receptacle or extend the circuit I could see needing to change to current requriements.

Insurance could still ask you to upgrade to current codes if they wanted before they would accept you, or maybe even would take that one at a different rate unless you upgraded. Sort of no different than refusing to insure a home with an FPE panel, the thing was acceptable code wise when it was new but they still have the right to refuse taking the risk if they want to. They can also refuse to insure a home that has no smoke alarms or sprinklers if they want, or do so at different rates.
 
A Massachusetts amendment deletes this requirement. I took a 2020 code update class where the instructor said this requirement came from a fatality where the appliance delivery person put the cord on the dryer (actually a stove). They did it wrong. Put a hot wire on the ground terminal so the case was energized.
 
mkgrady said:
A Massachusetts amendment deletes this requirement. I took a 2020 code update class where the instructor said this requirement came from a fatality where the appliance delivery person put the cord on the dryer (actually a stove). They did it wrong. Put a hot wire on the ground terminal so the case was energized.
Click to expand...

So because one fatality the NEC changes. “ what ever we can do to save one life” which is a noble thing to do, but you must look at the whole situation. Appliance delivery person, probably a newbie, who did not use his God given mind to see H, W, G terminals. What happens if the installed GFCI fails ( because they do fail) and this same thing happens. Do we install two GFCI’s on the dryer/appliances circuit? People need to slow down and realize what they are doing not “we need to get to the next job”
 
hbiss said:
Nahh, that was just a convenient excuse for giving the complicit manufacturers guaranteed profits.

-Hal
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, when will we be required to AFCI the dryer circuit? We have to AFCI the laundry circuit for the 120 volt appliances. Why not the dryer?
 
mkgrady said:
A Massachusetts amendment deletes this requirement. I took a 2020 code update class where the instructor said this requirement came from a fatality where the appliance delivery person put the cord on the dryer (actually a stove). They did it wrong. Put a hot wire on the ground terminal so the case was energized.
Click to expand...
Massachusetts did not delete the DRYER GFCI requirement in 210.8(A)(10)

Massachusetts did delete 210.8(F) GFCI on Outdoor Outlets

I would agree the main reason for this change is appliance delivery personal installing cords on these appliances incorrectly. This is a widespread problem.
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Massachusetts did not delete the DRYER GFCI requirement in 210.8(A)(10)

Massachusetts did delete 210.8(F) GFCI on Outdoor Outlets

I would agree the main reason for this change is appliance delivery personal installing cords on these appliances incorrectly. This is a widespread problem.
Click to expand...
Woops. I was going from memory and goofed
 
mkgrady said:
A Massachusetts amendment deletes this requirement. I took a 2020 code update class where the instructor said this requirement came from a fatality where the appliance delivery person put the cord on the dryer (actually a stove). They did it wrong. Put a hot wire on the ground terminal so the case was energized.
Click to expand...
That could happen on a 4-wire installation, too.
 
So just maybe they should require residential appliances like stoves, ovens and dryers to have a factory installed cord with plug. Who hard wires these things anymore anyway? But that wouldn't make the GFCI breaker manufacturers any money. :cry:

-Hal
 
LarryFine said:
You're presuming the EGC would be properly terminated; I'm not.
Click to expand...
Same here, if someone landed ungrounded conductor on appliance EGC terminal, chances are they landed the EGC on some terminal that it wasn't supposed to go to as well. If they didn't remove the bonding jumper (becaue they didn't know what they were doing) and landing that ungrounded on the case will result in some high fault current whether the correct conductor is landed on neutral or not.

Then there is just those moments when you have some sort of brain failure. Today I was hooking up a GFCI receptacle, simple two wires line and two wires on load terminals, was the intent. Only had one wire left to land and realized I had about everything wrong and had no idea what I was thinking when I landed the first three. I don't remember exactly what I had but it went something similar to .... connected line side neutral first - think I had it on correct terminal, then I usually would land load side neutral next but for some reason landed line side hot on load side neutral terminal, then connected load side neutral to line side hot terminal and then when about to land the last conductor on remaining terminal suddenly realized it didn't go there, then looked and realized nothing was really correct about this. One of those days I guess. At least I caught it when I did, but I would have tested it when done and figured out something was not right anyway.
 
Are we sure it wasn't the one electrocution that happened to involve an AC unit that caused the general changes to 210.8 requiring all recpetacles that operate at 150 volts or less to ground and installed in areas mentioned (which for most part didn't change much other than now it is 150 volts to ground or less instead of just 15 and 20 amp 120 volts) as well as made them add 210.8(F)? I know I read a post one time that mentioned such an incident was responsible for the addition of (F), but kind of can believe it likely would also be responsible for the changing from what we had before on receptacles to 150 volts or less to ground.

The way I read things if the range receptacle is within 6 feet of the sink it too will need GFCI protection, or if you had a range in a garage or basement, or bathroom:unsure:

And so would any other 250 volt receptacle in a dwelling in areas mentioned in 210.8.
 
Greg1707 said:
The code has expanded the use of GFCI protection. Recent requirements were vending machines and dishwashers. Now the requirement has expanded to washers and dryers. If there truly were a need for this protection why has this not been addressed by the manufacturers of the appliances? If users are being injured by the appliances would it not drive the manufactures to improve the safety of their products?
Click to expand...
Why would the manufacturers improve their product when they can transfer their liability to the electrician? A failure of their product now is the problem of the electrician or manufacturer of the GFCI device if someone gets hurt!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top