Kitchen/Bathroom GFCI accessibility requirements

S

spencert

Member
Location
California
Occupation
Homeowner/Engineer
Hey guys,
I'm an owner/builder with extensive electrical experience (father is retired industrial journeyman) in Southern California and I'm looking for feedback on the best way to handle a situation where I was failed on final due to GFCI receptacles not being installed even though dual function AFCI/GFCI breakers are present and were tested by the inspector to provide the required GFCI protection (they tripped). The inspector claims the "GFCI reset switch MUST be in the same room as the branch circuit protected" and that dual function AFCI/GFCI breakers don't meet the accessibility requirements. He referenced the definition for article 100 "readily accessible." I've appealed citing 422.6(B)1 that explicitly allows branch circuit overcurrent devices to provide the required GFCI protection and 240.24 that enforces that circuit breakers MUST be in a readily accessible location and my panels were previously inspected and approved by the AHJ therefore the breakers are readily accessible. The AHJ is still currently requiring installation of GFCI outlets in addition to the dual function AFCI/GFCI breakers installed the panels that have been proven to provide the required GFCI protection in the required locations. I should note that there are no published local amendments and the 2022 CEC has been adopted in its entirety.

I guess my question is more of a how to handle the situation. How can they simply ignore 422.6(B)? I believe that the 2022 California Electric Code explicitly allows the GFCI protection to come from the breaker, and there is no requirement that the reset switch "be in the same room" as the branch circuit. I've appealed, but per municipal code, I have to pay for a NFPA review. Should I just bite the bullet and pay to swap out breakers and install GFCI outlets to make the AHJ happy even though that in my opinion the current installation is code compliant and superior to GFCI receptacles? How would they handle a 240V branch circuit without a GFCI receptacle? I don't understand the argument. Safety has been proven on the branch circuit.

I understand the AHJ can "interpret" but this seems to be in black and white. Is there something I'm missing?

Thanks for your feedback!
 
We are allowing this question, the OP is asking for advice, not a "How To" question.

With that said, the inspector is making his own rules.
 
Ask what code section this "same room rule" is located in. Can't speak for your area but many places if they are going to give written rejection notice of any kind they generally must include what code sections are in violation in the notice.

Unless this is some small jurisdiction with basically one inspector, you need to go up in the chain of command if he won't listen to you. If it is one those one man inspector jurisdictions you probably have to just give in if you want to have it pass within short time as it could potentially be a long battle to change his mind.
 
spencert said:
I've appealed citing 422.6(B)1
Click to expand...
You cite the wrong law. There is no section (B) in 422.6

Inspectors use State adopted versions.
CA.Elec.Code adopts 2020 NFPA-70 thru 2025

CEC 210.8 applies to your branch Ckt.
CEC 100 Part I. “Accessible, Readily” is for reset buttons

Now your appeal needs photos of readily accessible reset button
 
You are correct, that was a typo. As these are small appliance circuits the inspector pointed me to 422.5 and then replied "
Hi,
Please see definition for readily accessible article 100.
Thank you"

I cited 422.5(B)(1) where it explicitly allows GFCI breakers to provide the required appliance protection and 240.24(A) where the breakers must be readily accessible. He's previously inspected the panels and found no issues so I said that means that the breakers are proven readily accessible. It seems he's redefining readily accessible to be whatever he'd like it to mean. And yes this is a small jurisdiction where he's been with the city for much longer than the building official and he performs all the building final inspections.

Are there any other arguments I could make? I don't want to push too hard as the homeowner but this seems clear that the spirit of the code is that GFCI breakers should suffice. The hang up seems to be the requirement that the reset be reached quickly and he claims that's at his discretion:
"Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to take actions such as to use tools (other than keys), to climb over or under, to remove obstacles, or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth."

I argued that its a 1900 sq ft house, the breakers are no more than 2 doors and 40' from any point, but he's adamant that only GFCI receptacles are acceptable.

Thanks!
 
spencert said:
failed on final due to GFCI receptacles not being installed
Click to expand...
Could inspector have said GFCI outlet, referring to Tamper Resistant outlet, per 406.4(D)(5)

If existing construction is missing EGC wiring, inspector also needs to see those stickers, per 406.4(D)(2)
 
ramsy said:
CEC 100 Part I. “Accessible, Readily” is for reset buttons
Click to expand...
Assuming CEC ends up with same rules as NEC for this, branch circuit breakers are supposed to be readily accessible as well. Nothing in NEC says the reset needs to be in same room as the protected branch circuit as was mentioned by the OP's inspector.
 
Just to close the loop on the breaker heights, I've attached a couple of photos. Both panels are 1 door and less than 40' from the kitchen. I guess the requirement to be "reached quickly" is being interpreted as same room. Sounds like I'm better off just bending to the request. Thanks for the feedback guys.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6491.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 12
  • IMG_6489.jpg
    IMG_6489.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 18
spencert said:
Just to close the loop on the breaker heights, I've attached a couple of photos. Both panels are 1 door and less than 40' from the kitchen. I guess the requirement to be "reached quickly" is being interpreted as same room. Sounds like I'm better off just bending to the request. Thanks for the feedback guys.
Click to expand...
I sure would not be changing anything. Reach out to the inspectors supervisor asking for a code reference that requires GFCI protection in the same room.

For our residential projects we seldom use GFCI receptacles for interior areas. Since most areas required AFCI protection we install DF breakers. Bathrooms and garages get GFCI or DF breakers.
 
Setting aside any complaints about AFCI technology....AFCI functionality is best started at the panel as it's job is to protect the wiring and that is best done starting at the source breaker and not the receptacble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top