Gfi outlet accessible in appliance garage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
FionaZuppa said:
i suspect the "appliance garage" 210.52c5 speaks of is a permanent type, like attached to cabinet installation and thus cannot be moved at all.
Click to expand...
I didn't know there was any other kind.
FionaZuppa said:
i think all it says is, that recept is not counted towards the required amount.
Click to expand...
But if you start there, and then look back at the rule saying kitchen countertop receptacles need GFCI, then since this one is not counted as a kitchen countertop receptacle, it does not need GFCI. Not so???



 
charlie b said:
The text appears in a paragraph for which the title has to do with spacing and location. But the words seem fairly clear to me that an appliance garage makes a receptacle "not readily accessible," which is the reason it can't be counted as one of the outlets required in the kitchen.
Click to expand...

not by std english grammar it does not.

the verbiage says this:
1) recepts that are deemed not readily accessible by an appliance fastened in place, shall not be counted towards the requirement
2) recepts in appliance garages, shall not be counted towards the requirement
3) recepts near sinks (not really sure what they mean by sink), shall not be counted towards the requirement
4) recepts for rangetops, shall not be counted towards the requirement
 
charlie b said:
I didn't know there was any other kind.
But if you start there, and then look back at the rule saying kitchen countertop receptacles need GFCI, then since this one is not counted as a kitchen countertop receptacle, it does not need GFCI. Not so???
Click to expand...
it's still a kitchen recept, but simply not counted within the requirement for how many and spacing.

when we say counted, we literally mean integer count, not the contrapositive "discounted", like "his remarks were discounted because he is not on the board of directors". the NEC rule is not discounting the recept as a kitchen recept, its just saying not counted in total or spacing requirements, as-if it simply does not exist, like adding zero, (4+4+0+0+0+0+0) the zeroes dont count, yet they are still there, etc.
 
charlie b said:
The text appears in a paragraph for which the title has to do with spacing and location. But the words seem fairly clear to me that an appliance garage makes a receptacle "not readily accessible," which is the reason it can't be counted as one of the outlets required in the kitchen.
Click to expand...

I think I just said that.

Maybe I'm thinking the OP is asking whether the GFCI in the garage is considered accessible for the purposes of testing said GFCI. Either way, I enjoy these types of threads as they can lead to better clarification of the Code.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I agree the appliance garage should not be an issue but I can see where an inspector can call you on it. Same is true under a sink where the gfci is shoved all the way in the back and you have to remove all the kitchen cleaners, sponges dishwasher detergent etc. It is an AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION call.
Click to expand...

I agree. Is the toaster "technically" an obstacle? Are the things under a sink "technically" obstacles? They may be to some inspectors. I myself would not reject it for non-compliance with readily accessible. Like you said, each AHJ is different. ;)
 
construct said:
I agree. Is the toaster "technically" an obstacle? Are the things under a sink "technically" obstacles? They may be to some inspectors. I myself would not reject it for non-compliance with readily accessible. Like you said, each AHJ is different. ;)
Click to expand...

is the recept behind a fridge readily accessible?

what about the recepts that are installed for washers and dryers?

since when are inspections done with appliances in-place?

this same question was also hashed out 3yrs ago on MH forums, 210.52 was also quoted back then too. 210.52 does not say that a recept in app garage is not readily accessible, it says recepts of XYZ cannot be counted, that's it. i see no reason to claim that a recept in a app garage, which you have to open and then maybe slide an appliance to the side, would be deemed not readily accessible.
see http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=61898
 
Last edited:
NEC needs to fix this coding issue.
lets say app garage does need to be GFCI, really no issue if you can tail off of another gfci recept that is plainly wide open to access. but lets say that one recept in the app garage needs to be its own gfci ckt and i put gfci ocpd in panel, but my panel is outside or inside and it has a lock on it. are any of the gfci's in the panel "readily accessible"? who knows, doesnt seem to be properly addressed in NEC codes. so why would an actual gfci recept in a app garage be any different than a ocpd in a locked panel? should it be different? why is testing a gfi recept any different then testing gfi ocpd? they both carry that same silly "press button weekly" saying.

from the other threads about same question, app garage is a small appliance recept, just use std recept there but downstream from some other gfi recept, etc.

if its a new wire pull, then use gfi ocpd.

problem solved.

but i still think gfi recept in a app garage is still readily accessible. we had this argument about having to climb fixed ladders to get to something. i thought such would deem it not readily accessible, i am wrong according to NEC. i think the "how much effort" test is valid, and AHJ's should be smart enough to run that test. but hey, if the app garage door gets stuck closed i guess getting to gfi buttons is not ez, just like if a fixed ladder falls off then getting to that disco 3 stories up is not ez.
 
Last edited:
tom baker said:
Not an issue. Please review the definition of Accessible, Readily
Click to expand...
exactly.
having to go hunt down a key needed to open the lock, then having to open a door, to get to gfi ocpd inside,............. is still readily accessible.

that scenario vs app garage? seems rather silly to say a gfi recept in the app garage is not readily accessible.

having to hunt down a key is like having to go in my garage to get a 6ft portable ladder so i can reach the disco that is mounted 10ft high on the wall, however, finding a key in most cases is way more difficult than getting the ladder ;)

readily accessible was based on use of tools, less keys. recall that having to walk up 20 flights of stairs with a door at each flight just to get to a disco..... is still readily accessible, even if the doors were locked and needed keys to open. how is that ok and a app garage is not? an app garage needs no tools to access. perhaps if the app garage door was on a garage door opener (motorized) and you needed to go find the remote opener, then perhaps that is a tool hindering ez access?

but just for clarity, 210.52 does not define recept in app garage as "not readily accessible".

NEC code needs some re-vamping in some areas, etc.
 
Last edited:
FionaZuppa said:
exactly.
having to go hunt down a key needed to open the lock, then having to open a door, to get to gfi ocpd inside,............. is still readily accessible.

that scenario vs app garage? seems rather silly to say a gfi recept in the app garage is not readily accessible.

having to hunt down a key is like having to go in my garage to get a 6ft portable ladder so i can reach the disco that is mounted 10ft high on the wall, however, finding a key in most cases is way more difficult than getting the ladder ;)

readily accessible was based on use of tools, less keys. recall that having to walk up 20 flights of stairs with a door at each flight just to get to a disco..... is still readily accessible, even if the doors were locked and needed keys to open. how is that ok and a app garage is not? an app garage needs no tools to access. perhaps if the app garage door was on a garage door opener (motorized) and you needed to go find the remote opener, then perhaps that is a tool hindering ez access?

but just for clarity, 210.52 does not define recept in app garage as "not readily accessible".

NEC code needs some re-vamping in some areas, etc.
Click to expand...
That is nothing new;)

Key thing kind of doesn't make sense, yet they specifically mention it as something they have exception for vs need for other tools.
 
This responds to post 22.
FionaZuppa said:
not by std english grammar it does not.
Click to expand...
I will continue to disagree. The parallel construction of the article only works when you associate the phrase “rendered not readily accessible by” to each of the five items that follow it. Otherwise, you are left with such nonsense as, “receptacle outlets appliance garages,” because the words don’t include, “receptacle outlets in appliance garages,” or “receptacle outlets behind sinks,” or “receptacle outlets on the wall behind the range.”

Here is how that sentence can be expanded, using the standard English grammar rule of parallel construction:

  1. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place . . .
  2. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliance garages . . .
  3. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by sinks . . .
  4. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by rangetops as covered . . .
  5. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances occupying dedicated space . . .
shall not be considered as these required outlets.



 
Last edited:
FionaZuppa said:
it's still a kitchen recept, but simply not counted within the requirement for how many and spacing.
Click to expand...
210.8 does not require GFCI for "kitchen receptacles." Rather, it requires GFCI in "kitchens - where the receptacles are installed to serve the countertop surfaces." In my view, this is open to the interpretation that the receptacle in the appliance garage is not installed to serve the countertop surfaces, but rather to serve one any only one item: the item that lives in that appliance garage. No other appliance would be plugged into that outlet. There would be other outlets that meet the spacing requirements to serve other appliances that are placed on the countertop.

I will concede that this is academic. If I design a kitchen that includes an appliance garage, I would put its receptacle on a GFCI. My choice would be to have it downstream of a GFCI serving the countertop, so that there would be no question of accessibility.

 
could i argue that your garage appliance (or whatever goes in the garage and uses that recept) sits on the countertop, it is not like an under cabinet microwave. thus, the garage recept is serving countertop surface because the item (whatever that may be) sits on the countertop.

the OP's Q was if its gfi it needed to be readily accessible, and is being told it is not readily accessible. gfi or not, that recept in appliance garage is readily accessible if i use other NEC verbiage examples.

210.52 only talks about what is or is not counted when it comes to number and spacing. 210.52 (to me, using English grammar proper) only says that the recept is not readily accessible if there is a permanently mounted appliance there, it does not say that a recept in a app garage is not readily accessible, etc.

what permanently mounted appliance means in terms of accessing a recept is beyond me. if my mixer is mounted to the wall right next to a recept, yet that recept is accessible like any other, it is marked as not readily accessible? makes no sense what-so-ever. perhaps they mean to say that such permanently mounted appliance makes the recept more like a dedicated recept and as such should not be counted?, but then again "dedicated" is usually used in context of ckt, not recept.
 
charlie b said:


Here is how that sentence can be expanded, using the standard English grammar rule of parallel construction:

  1. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place . . .
  2. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliance garages . . .
  3. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by sinks . . .
  4. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by rangetops as covered . . .
  5. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances occupying dedicated space . . .
shall not be considered as these required outlets.
Click to expand...

ah, i see you read it differently.
i have a good English grammar site i use to get clarity on bad English grammar. let me dig some and get back to this later.
 
i got some feedback from some English professors. my explanation was wrong for the most part.

here's what professors say:

Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by A, B, C, or D...
Click to expand...

but then followed by

It means that if A, B, C, or D makes an outlet inaccessible, that outlet does not count as one of the required ones.
Click to expand...

notice the word "if". how do you determine "if" A B C D is rendering recept non accessible? seems some other test is required to answer that "if" part.

so charlie b explanation is close.

charlie b said:
This responds to post 22.

Here is how that sentence can be expanded, using the standard English grammar rule of parallel construction:

  1. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place . . .
  2. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliance garages . . .
  3. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by sinks . . .
  4. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by rangetops as covered . . .
  5. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances occupying dedicated space . . .
shall not be considered as these required outlets.
Click to expand...
 
but read this one
http://www.homeownersnetwork.com/booktopic/receptable-installation/
they break it down like this (which was my interpretation too)
5. Do not include among the required kitchen countertop receptacles:
(a) receptacles located in appliance garages, and
(b) receptacles dedicated for a fixed-in-place appliance, and
(c) receptacles not readily accessible for use by small appliances.
Click to expand...
this makes logical sense considering the section it is written in, so maybe (maybe) this is what it is supposed to mean but the grammar chosen in 210.52 was poor, leading us to read it the other way.


wow weird.

this same question was debated by the same folks exactly (exactly) 6yrs ago today.
see http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=144841
 
Last edited:
charlie b said:
210.8 does not require GFCI for "kitchen receptacles." Rather, it requires GFCI in "kitchens - where the receptacles are installed to serve the countertop surfaces." In my view, this is open to the interpretation that the receptacle in the appliance garage is not installed to serve the countertop surfaces, but rather to serve one any only one item: the item that lives in that appliance garage. No other appliance would be plugged into that outlet. There would be other outlets that meet the spacing requirements to serve other appliances that are placed on the countertop.

I will concede that this is academic. If I design a kitchen that includes an appliance garage, I would put its receptacle on a GFCI. My choice would be to have it downstream of a GFCI serving the countertop, so that there would be no question of accessibility.
Click to expand...
The appliance garage with a receptacle inside in many ways is no different then having a receptacle inside any other cabinet - which are not allowed to be on the SABC's though the use of the types of appliances in a typical appliance garage are part of the reason the SABC's are required:huh:
 
FionaZuppa said:
How do you determine "if" A B C D is rendering recept non accessible? seems some other test is required to answer that "if" part.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with this. That will bring us back to the beginning. Does an appliance garage, or anything stored within it, render the outlet not-readily-accessible, in the context of the NEC definition of that phrase? I see that I had described that as being open to debate, in the similar thread from 6 years ago. I gather that it still is.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top