Is there any place that says a device GFCI has to be readily accessible?
I am thinking about a device that is feeding downstream outdoor receptacles at grade.
Can the GFCI be mounted in the soffit, out of reach to the user without a ladder?
I saw this today and I can't find a reason it isn't compliant. Lousy "design" tho.

A gfi located under/behind a whirlpool tub is not really redily accesable, but it is ok to install one there. Just so long as it can be gotten to it seems to me that it is ok.

Aren't GFCIs "controllers" (switches)?

Also the instructions require regular testing.

We do not install the GFCIs for whirlpools under the tub, we install 'faceless' ones in the wall beside the tub.






[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 12-02-2005).]

A GFCI can be a switch. As a gfci receptacle I would not say it is a switch. I see nothing that requires it to be readily accesible or any good reason that it must be.

For the record, I usually stick the tub's gfi across the other side of the bathroom, and feed another receptacle outlet under the tub with the first one. (this isn't the sinks gfi, thats another story). I am just saying is accepted practice to do it the other way around, and that requires sombody to remove the access panel cover to reset the gfi. To have to climb a ladder to reach a gfi as the original poster was wondering about - I can find no reason in the code book to prevent this.

Mike and Scott in your opinion the buttons that say "Test" and "Reset" are not switches?

Merriam-Webster

Read 404.8 again and notice it simply says switches.


Now take a look at the scope of 404


IMO the GFCI located up under an eve is a violation.


[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 12-02-2005).]

I knew this would be thought provoking. Simply to say switches must be readily accessible brings you to the switch inside an attic access. You usually need a ladder to get to that.
I would also not have too much trouble if the soffit mounted GFCI did not serve any "at grade" outlets (only soffit outlets) since you need a ladder to use it. It would still be a bad design.
In this case the GFCI serves the required "at grade" outside outlets but the control is not "at grade" if you trip it.
I like Bob's cite but I am see everyone wouldn't agree.

I don't think that GFCI buttons are used as switches. So I don't think it is a code violation.

On the otherhand one does need to reset them. So good practice would be to place them with good access.

I have to go with iwire....

Clearly GFCI are circuit breakers. That they are integral to a receptacle makes little difference. When they trip a non-electrician should be able to find and re-set them in reasonable time.

A circuit breaker that trips on faults instead of thermal overloads is still a breaker.

Circuit breakers are switches. They change state from on to off.

A light switch in the attic that controls an attic light while you're up there.... Not relevant.

I object to chaining GFCI around a house such that an upstairs bathroom circuit goes dead when a receptacle in the garage is tripped. To me that GFCI is not accessable. The homeowner ends up calling an electrician to reset the circuit. Who would know that the circuit was chained everywhere?

IMO, a ground fault receptacle is not a switch.

From the UL White Book

"Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (KCXS)...The "test" and "reset" buttons on the GFCI's are only intended to check for the proper functioning of the GFCI. They are not intended to be used as "ON/OFF" controls of motors or other loads unless the buttons are specifically marked "ON" and "OFF."

[This message has been edited by Tom (edited 12-02-2005).]

There is no requirement that GFCI receptacles be readily accessible. We've all had to spend serious amounts of time troubleshooting a dead circuit- only to discover a GFI buried in some obscure corner.

Some code changes have indirectly aproached this issue, by requiring dedicated circuits for different areas that also require GFI protection.

However, the code is famous for not "grasping the nettle", seeming to prefer that we do things in a roundabout way.

What is commonly done and passes often has little to do with what the code may require if you take the time to read the sections with an open mind it can be surprising.


I am well aware of that UL section. It does not change my opinion that GFCIs must be readily accessible.

Again read the definition of switch and the scope of 404.

JMO, and I will continue to install all my GFCIs readily accessible.

Bob

did you see a receptacle at grade level in the front and back of the house?
see article 210.52 (e) states you need a receptacle within 6.5 feet from grade.

In CT we reworded the NEC for hydromassage tubs to require the GFCI protection be located in a readily accessible location.

"Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means." Clearly, under the tub is accessible.

"Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth." Just as clearly, under the tub is not readily accessible.


The wording for switch locations in 404.8(A))says: "All switches and circuit breakers used as switches shall be located so that they may be operated from a readily accessible place." It doesn't say must be in a readily accessible location, only that you can reach them from the readily accessible location by extending your arm.
As far as height goes, there is no lower limit, only an upper limit. The wording of the code would allow foot operated switches, or could require one to lie on his belly to operate the switch.

422.16(A) allows the use of a flexible cord and receptacle for appliances.
422.33(A) makes it clear that the cord and plug at the motor location is considered an ACCESSIBLE disconnect.
680.71 requires GFCI protection, which can be located (except in CT) under the skirting, so long as it is accessible, but does not have to be readily accessible.

To answer the first post, if your GFCI is a circuit breaker, then, yes it must be in a readily accessible location according to 240.24(A), otherwise, in the soffit is OK, but not too wise.

To answer the post about GFCI receptacles being also "switches", I would have to disagree. The definition of "supplemental overcurrent protection" would better fit. (There being three components to overcurrent: short circuit, ground fault and overload.) A switch is meant to switch the current from on to off and on again, or one path to another.

Bob's take on the gfi as being a switch is very interesting. I would like to take some time to filter this concept through my brain for a while. I am already begining to bend, and think that you might be right as usual about this one also.

I believe the GFCI is NOT switch because if conductors inside the box are pigtailed only the the device will trip and the rest of the circuit will remain energized. Though I do agree that ALL GFCI receptacles should be readily accessible. This has been a heckuva thought provoking topic, for sure.

Hi all, first off never take anyones word for anything, including mine.

Read the code sections and make up your own minds.

This is what I see.

The scope of Article 404 states.


I look in article 100 and there is only definitions of certain kinds of switches not just the the word 'switch'

That being the case we have to use the common definition of switch which is


Without a doubt a GFCI contains a switch in the form of a relay and without a doubt the test and reset buttons are also switches.

My interest is in the test and reset buttons, the internal relay IMO is not in the scope of the NEC.

The test and reset buttons are IMO switches that must conform to 404.8

Let me ask this.

If we where talking about a large piece of machinery with a factory installed disconnect switch would you find it acceptable for that factory installed disconnect switch to serve as the disconnecting means if it was 10' in the air?

Why would the test and reset buttons be treated any differently?

JMO, Bob



[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 12-04-2005).]

Because the soffit GFCI is not disconnecting equipment for servicing, or replacement.

I have yet to see a GFCI that is listed for switching duty. By the nature of its designed and purpose, a person could use it as a switch, but it is listed as a recepticle.

The Leviton faceless GFI is indeed listed for use as a switch, it says "SWITCH" on the face and the red and black test and reset buttons are also marked "ON" and "OFF" that is a switch if I ever saw one!

Steener welcome to ECN.


Fair enough.

Can you show me where in 404.8 or anywhere in 404 that states it only applies to switches used as disconnecting means?

404.1 says All switches.

404.8 says All switches

Where does it say switches used as disconnecting means?

Bob


[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 12-04-2005).]

You can argue either way:
A GFCI is a switch
It disconnects the power - but then so does partially unscrewing a light bulb (8' up)

A GFCI is not a switch
It is not intended to be used as a regular means of connection and isolation (can not easily determine if power is connected or isolated based on the physical status of the switch (buttons)

Reading the same line that iwire was reading:


Make it pretty clear to me that 404.1 does _not_ apply to all devices which may possibly be used as switches.

In particular, the scope calls out 'circuit breakers were used as switches'. While a circuit breaker is clearly mechanically a switch, 404.1 only applies if the circuit breaker is used in a switching application.

I believe that the same point could be made for a GFCI. If it is used in an application to turn loads on and off, then IMHO it is a switch and 404 applies. If, on the other hand, it is used as a circuit protection device, then IMHO 404 does not apply.

If 404.1 applies to anything that could be used as a switch, then it applies to plugs, receptacles, and screw shell lamp holders, among other 'non-switch' devices.

-Jon

Winnie - I follow your logic to a point. But when a GFCI device says "Switch" on the device, It's a switch period. It's only when CB's are used as switches that 404 applies. Circuit breakers do not say switch on them. Receptacles do not say switch on them. Bulb holders do not say switch on them. Neither bulb holders or receptacles are switches.

OK, again I have to agree with Bob; I vote for the GFI being accessable, without having to remove an 'access panel' or using a ladder.

As to the jacuzzi tub, a single receptacle is installed under the tub, as it is a dedicated circuit, and a faceless gfi device is installed on a wall. Tubs with pump & heater, get two single recepts & two faceless
That is how it's done, and approved.

John

PS: Let me throw in the P&S combo device, gfi single recept and a sp switch on 1 yoke.
Anybody seen/use them??

BTW, after 4 years of AHJ in one town, I think I finally know all the locations for the GFI's, based on what EC wired the house.

Since we are all taking sides, I want to play on Winnie's team. I agree that 404.1 says: "circuit breakers used as switches". This in itself recognizes that a circuit breaker serves a different function (overcurrent and fault protection)unless it is installed for use as a switch. A GFI serves a different function (ground fault protection) unless it were installed to serve as a switch. I find it hard to believe that a GFI mounted in a soffit was intended for use as a switch.

And as HotLine 1 points out, P&S makes a combo unit: a GFI with a switch on the same yoke. If a GFI is a switch, then why do they make the combo unit with a switch attached?

Before I help start a firefight.....
I'm under the inpression that the P&S device is mainly intended to replace a switch/recept combo in 'old work', I can say I have not seen one installed.

Reason I brought one into the office was to do a 'show & tell'. One EC thought about wiring the switch to control the recept, and use it for the jacuzzi. (Hmmmm??)..

John

I'm not going to 'take sides' on this one in the sense of 'this is the correct answer'. I was trying to make a point along the lines of iwire's approach of 'this is a reasonable read of the code, go read it yourself'

Frankly I would _prefer_ an AHJ to be able to pull article 404 out and be able to say 'put that GFCI somewhere where a human can actually use it'.

If we presume that a GFCI is a switch, I believe that it is still reasonable to install a GFCI under the soffit or other high up location, under 404.8(A)Exception 3. Basically a high up, out of the way GFCI feeding equipment that is high up and out of the way is as reasonable as an inaccessible switch next to a bit of inaccessible equipment.

Under this interpretation, this same GFCI feeding downstream grade level receptacles would be a violation. The original post was about a pretty ugly design; GFCI that requires a ladder to get to, feeding receptacles at grade level. Given extension cords and wet, these GFCIs are likely to trip frequently.

-Jon

OK, I'm moving from Winnie's team to free-agent status. But I believe in the original post if the GFI were mounted in the soffit, it was not intended for use as a switch...actually, I'm not real sure what it would be intended for, but I'd guess maybe Xmas lights along the edge of the roof, making the use a receptacle.

The GFCI was mounted in the soffit because that was where he transitioned from the interior wiring method to plastic raceway. From there it went to a remote building with outlets at grade.