? on 210.8(D)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Knuckle Dragger

Knuckle Dragger

Master Electrician Electrical Contractor 01752
Location
Marlborough, Massachusetts USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Do you think the writer of the NEC 2014 210.8(D) article's intent could be interpreted for cord connected only and exclude hardwired dishwashers from this article? If it is for both means of connection then why not GFCI protect the garbage disposer as well?
 
The addition of dishwashers in '14 code had to do with GE convincing the CMP that since their dishwashers could burst into flames and cause injury at the end of their serviceable life the best course of action would be code required GFCI protection for dishwashers. Other appliance manufactures have yet to come up with a similar, convincing argument.
 
The NEC should have limited it to GE DW's:D
I have been in the trade some 30 plus years and have yet to see a dishwasher burst into flames. Has there been a rash of them lately.:huh:
 
ActionDave said:
The addition of dishwashers in '14 code had to do with GE convincing the CMP that since their dishwashers could burst into flames and cause injury at the end of their serviceable life the best course of action would be code required GFCI protection for dishwashers. Other appliance manufactures have yet to come up with a similar, convincing argument.
Click to expand...


Are you sure about that. I assumed the cmp just wanted to keep it more in line with commercial kitchens. Since dishwashers are usually close to a sink I am thinking that they want the gfci protection on it to protect individuals from the possibility of the dishwasher getting energized and not tripping the breaker. The gfci will take that risk away.
 
It had a tumultuous entry into the code, with the following panel statement:

The submitter of the original proposal substantiates concerns that are valid. Dishwashers are appliances that utilize electricity and water with a resulting increased risk of electric shock.
Click to expand...

ActionDave was right in his recollection that it was GE that proposed both dishwashers and laundry areas, and laundry areas bore the explanation that appliances failed at end of life resulting in a shock hazard. The CMP provided their own substantiation to approve dishwashers without even that much substantiation.

GE's original substantiations could have been used for the following proposal:

"(D) On Earth. All outlets on earth shall have GFCI protection."

Substantiation: Every time we add more GFCIs to the code, shock hazards are reduced.

:happyno:
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
The NEC should have limited it to GE DW's:D
I have been in the trade some 30 plus years and have yet to see a dishwasher burst into flames. Has there been a rash of them lately.:huh:
Click to expand...
I have commented on this before, I think it should be a listing issue and not a code issue. If GE has a problem with their dishwashers, then maybe they need to fix that problem. CPSC should demand they recall all their defective units and/or provide a fix for the problem as well.

Dennis Alwon said:
Are you sure about that. I assumed the cmp just wanted to keep it more in line with commercial kitchens. Since dishwashers are usually close to a sink I am thinking that they want the gfci protection on it to protect individuals from the possibility of the dishwasher getting energized and not tripping the breaker. The gfci will take that risk away.
Click to expand...
Isn't one purpose of the equipment grounding conductor to lower voltage potential during a ground fault?? Another purpose is to provide a low enough impedance that operation of overcurrent protection will happen fairly rapidly which would then make the shock hazard go away.

GE made their problem become everyone's problem on this one.:(
 
kwired said:
Isn't one purpose of the equipment grounding conductor to lower voltage potential during a ground fault?? Another purpose is to provide a low enough impedance that operation of overcurrent protection will happen fairly rapidly which would then make the shock hazard go away.
Click to expand...

It is possible that the frame can be energized a bit without tripping a standard breaker esp if the equipment grounding conductor is compromised-- I think that is partly the concern
 
Dennis Alwon said:
It is possible that the frame can be energized a bit without tripping a standard breaker esp if the equipment grounding conductor is compromised-- I think that is partly the concern
Click to expand...
Well an EGC can be compromised on anything, so maybe we need GFCI for everything. Sorry but that is not the proper approach. I could understand that approach a little more if a cord and plug connected unit were all that required GFCI, but a hard wired unit has less chance of a failed EGC.
 
@kwired

We eagerly await your "public input" on your thoughts. Just make sure it is substantiated a bit more than what you personally feel.;)

To answer the original posters question (without my personal views) the intent was to protect the branch circuit to the dishwasher outlet. That's outlet, so direct wire or plug-and-cord would be covered under this requirement. Personally (here I do getting personal) I think any GFCI protection is good protection (not foolproof, but added protection).

But other than that I believe all bases have been covered, beaten well past the point of no return but covered none the less.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
@kwired

We eagerly await your "public input" on your thoughts. Just make sure it is substantiated a bit more than what you personally feel.;)

To answer the original posters question (without my personal views) the intent was to protect the branch circuit to the dishwasher outlet. That's outlet, so direct wire or plug-and-cord would be covered under this requirement. Personally (here I do getting personal) I think any GFCI protection is good protection (not foolproof, but added protection).

But other than that I believe all bases have been covered, beaten well past the point of no return but covered none the less.
Click to expand...
You better not participate in some of the AFCI discussions that happen here if you want personal opinions left out of the discussion.

Did you read the first sentence of the OP? He was asking for opinions of what the intent of the change was.

NEC is full of things that go against their stated purpose and seem to add more of it every code cycle. This is an issue that should have been taken care of by listing and not by the NEC.
 
@kwired

Um...I was kinda being more "tongue in cheekish" on the opinions thing. I am full of opinions my friend;)

P.S. I love a good AFCI Debate...look forward too it actually:angel:
 
it is purely amazing that we are mandated to install devices to protect a manufactuer from an inproperly designed product
 
Sierrasparky said:
it is purely amazing that we are mandated to install devices to protect a manufactuer from an inproperly designed product
Click to expand...

What's amazing is that the manufacturer isn't required to supply the device for installation. This could be such a simple fix - just like with hair dryers and pressure washers, the manufacturer should be required to provide a GFI cord on the product.
 
PetrosA said:
What's amazing is that the manufacturer isn't required to supply the device for installation. This could be such a simple fix - just like with hair dryers and pressure washers, the manufacturer should be required to provide a GFI cord on the product.
Click to expand...

@PetrosA

Well actually it would not matter who supplied it. The industry is going to see it paid for either by increasing the cost of the appliance or to the consumer directly by adding GFCI (not GFI) protection as stated. These components are not free, someone has to pay for them and adding it to the products will simply drive up the products as I am sure you are aware.

As with anything an issue was presented by the manufacturers and since the appliance people drag their feet on all development and advancements other than bells and whistles in most cases, the CMP felt that this was a great short term fix for something we hope the manufacturers will resolve on their own. Only time will tell but we have many things the NEC mandates but we have to assume wiser heads prevailed at the old CMP ROP and ROC process so we (electricians) will comply until which time someone provides substantiation that removes it. But I do understand your feelings on it and in no way belittling it my friend, just giving my thoughts on the issue.
 
Master, you sure are loosing me.


Here we clearly have a case where a manufacturer is trying to pass the costs of building a safe appliance onto other businesses.

Of course in the long run the consumer pays for it but the NEC should not be subsidizing a manafacturers costs of doing bussiness.

Can you show any substantiation that hard wired DWs where giving people shocks?


One other comment. The intent was not to protect the branch circuit, the intent was to protect the DW and the user. The GFCI device can be at the DW it does not have to be at the panel.

Here is what a director of NECA had to say about it.

Requirements for GFCI protection in dwelling unit kitchens have been expanded. A new subdivision (D), ?Kitchen Dishwasher Branch Circuit,? has been added to 210.8. Outlets supplying dishwashers are required to be GFCI-protected, which requires a GFCI-protective device installed at the origin of the branch circuit. The reason is related to different end-of-life failure modes and behavior of newer generation dishwashers as compared to the electromechanical units in the past. [ROP 2-5; ROC 2-29]?
Section 210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit ?Interrupter Protection?
- See more at: http://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/2014-nec-outlook-part-ii#sthash.35SIh67z.dpuf
Click to expand...




This is a poor reason to change the code.
 
iwire said:
Master, you sure are loosing me.


Here we clearly have a case where a manufacturer is trying to pass the costs of building a safe appliance onto other businesses.

Of course in the long run the consumer pays for it but the NEC should not be subsidizing a manafacturers costs of doing bussiness.

Can you show any substantiation that hard wired DWs where giving people shocks?


One other comment. The intent was not to protect the branch circuit, the intent was to protect the DW and the user. The GFCI device can be at the DW it does not have to be at the panel.

Here is what a director of NECA had to say about it






This is a poor reason to change the code.
Click to expand...

I eagerly await your new "public input" on getting this section changed. I did not state it was to protect the DW and indeed it can be at any location as long as it protected the outlet (cord and plugged or direct) itself which in turn indeed offers to protect the consumer. The statement is to "protect the outlets" and we all know what GFCI really is trying to protect...potatoes or potatos....well at least I understand and that's all I can accomplish with that statement;)
 
MasterTheNEC said:
@kwired

We eagerly await your "public input" on your thoughts. Just make sure it is substantiated a bit more than what you personally feel.;)

To answer the original posters question (without my personal views) the intent was to protect the branch circuit to the dishwasher outlet. That's outlet, so direct wire or plug-and-cord would be covered under this requirement. Personally (here I do getting personal) I think any GFCI protection is good protection (not foolproof, but added protection).

But other than that I believe all bases have been covered, beaten well past the point of no return but covered none the less.
Click to expand...

"tongue in cheek" statements(see post #14)....sorry iwire as I wont let it happen again sir...;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top