# 2014 NEC Changes



## Mike D (Sep 16, 2008)

210.8 Kitchen Dishwasher Branch Circuit- now required to be GFCI protected.

210.12 AFCI Expanded to include Kitchen and laundry rooms.

Damn. More money.


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

Mike D said:


> 210.8 Kitchen Dishwasher Branch Circuit- now required to be GFCI protected.
> 
> 210.12 AFCI Expanded to include Kitchen and laundry rooms.
> 
> Damn. More money.


And when they adopt the 2014 (or 2017) here guys will still be wiring houses for less than $2 per sq ft


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

You could look at it from another angle. Damn! More profit. :thumbup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

electricmanscott said:


> You could look at it from another angle. Damn! More profit. :thumbup:


More profit is needed to deal with more aggravation. :whistling2:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

The real trick is going to be how you comply with the code. Dishwasher must be AFCI and GFCI protected. Seems like you'd have to get creative.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

electricmanscott said:


> The real trick is going to be how you comply with the code. Dishwasher must be AFCI and GFCI protected. Seems like you'd have to get creative.



AFCI and GFCI receptacle in tandem?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

MTW said:


> More profit is needed to deal with more aggravation. :whistling2:


I see my kitchen remodel pricing increasing by $500 minimum and probably closer to $1k additional.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> The real trick is going to be how you comply with the code. Dishwasher must be AFCI and GFCI protected. Seems like you'd have to get creative.



AFCI breaker and plug the dishwasher into a GFI receptacle.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Deep Cover said:


> AFCI breaker and plug the dishwasher into a GFI receptacle.


So you will remove the DW to reset the GFI.. or have a cord hanging over the countertop..


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Sink base just like I do now


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Sink base just like I do now


Not code compliant.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> Not code compliant.


Why not


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> The real trick is going to be how you comply with the code. Dishwasher must be AFCI and GFCI protected. Seems like you'd have to get creative.



I'm sure the manufacturers will do the creative stuff for us, and sell us an AFCI/GFCI breaker.



































For $259. :whistling2:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

480sparky said:


> I'm sure the manufacturers will do the creative stuff for us, and sell us an AFCI/GFCI breaker.
> 
> For $259. :whistling2:


As long as Carlon makes it, I'll be happy.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MTW said:


> As long as Carlon makes it, I'll be happy.


Suppose the breaker isn't blue? :laughing:


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Contractors in my area (Ohio) shouldn't be too worried about the 2014 code... Ohio, in it's infinite wisdom, probably won't adopt it until around 2020. 

Ohio used to adopt the NEC every 3 years, as published, but politics have become involved and now we really have no clue when they will adopt the "next" edition.

Pete


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Suppose the breaker isn't blue? :laughing:


Pffffft...I'd never buy it then.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Pete m. said:


> Contractors in my area (Ohio) shouldn't be too worried about the 2014 code... Ohio, in it's infinite wisdom, probably won't adopt it until around 2020.
> 
> Ohio used to adopt the NEC every 3 years, as published, but politics have become involved and now we really have no clue when they will adopt the "next" edition.
> 
> Pete


Wisconsin is just now ready to switch to the 2011 we are being told. Nobody really has an exact date, but that is what they are saying at the code classes.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> Wisconsin is just now ready to switch to the 2011 we are being told. Nobody really has an exact date, but that is what they are saying at the code classes.


Yea.. nothing like being a few years behind..

Ohio, as I see it, will continue to delay adoptions as long as lobbyists control the decision.

Pete


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

I actually see it in reverse (but you probably know more than me about the adoption process). I see each code cycle, the cost of electrical work increasing to the point that homeowners would rather risk it and do the work without permits, whether it be themselves, a handyman, or a side job. I think they are stupid, but that is what is happening.

It also gives our state inspectors time to hear how these changes are going in states that do adopt the new code. Then they can make some "logical" amendments.

Then you have the recent issue of code requiring equipment that (arguably) hasn't been fully field tested [read:AFCIs]. We give it a little more time to have them work the bugs out. It's kinda like a new computer operating system. I won't by the newest Windows or update my iPhone until the unexpected consequences are worked out.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> I actually see it in reverse (but you probably know more than me about the adoption process). I see each code cycle, the cost of electrical work increasing to the point that homeowners would rather risk it and do the work without permits, whether it be themselves, a handyman, or a side job. I think they are stupid, but that is what is happening.
> 
> It also gives our state inspectors time to hear how these changes are going in states that do adopt the new code. Then they can make some "logical" amendments.
> 
> Then you have the recent issue of code requiring equipment that (arguably) hasn't been fully field tested [read:AFCIs]. We give it a little more time to have them work the bugs out. It's kinda like a new computer operating system. I won't by the newest Windows or update my iPhone until the unexpected consequences are worked out.


I have to agree with most of your statements. Ohio is attempting to adopt the newest edition of the codes based on a cost impact analysis.

The only shortfall in the logic is the persons doing the cost vs. safety analysis have no real understanding of electricity. I'm not advocating every change in the NEC but I think it prudent that, at the least, someone knowledgeable in electrical safety be part of the deciding factor. Unfortunately, It isn't that way here.

Pete


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> I have to agree with most of your statements. Ohio is attempting to adopt the newest edition of the codes based on a cost impact analysis.
> 
> The only shortfall in the logic is the persons doing the cost vs. safety analysis have no real understanding of electricity. I'm not advocating every change in the NEC but I think it prudent that, at the least, someone knowledgeable in electrical safety be part of the deciding factor. Unfortunately, It isn't that way here.
> 
> Pete


Maybe if the CMP weren't so heavily influenced by the manufacturers of the devices that are implemented by the changes, more people would consider taking the changes more seriously. Might even consider the safety aspect!:thumbsup:


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Little-Lectric said:


> Maybe if the CMP weren't so heavily influenced by the manufacturers of the devices that are implemented by the changes, more people would consider taking the changes more seriously. Might even consider the safety aspect!:thumbsup:


I will not engage in an argument over things I have no knowledge of (at least most times I won't) but how do you know,* for a fact*, that CMP members were influenced by manufacturers?

I can see where your opinion comes from but where is the proof? I'm one of those people that have no real life, so to speak of, and read a majority of the ROP's and ROC's and I just don't see the evidence. Edit to say; I was also not at the actual meetings. All I have knowledge of is what was printed for public scrutiny.

Pete


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Pete m. said:


> I will not engage in an argument over things I have no knowledge of (at least most times I won't) but how do you know,* for a fact*, that CMP members were influenced by manufacturers?
> 
> I can see where your opinion comes from but where is the proof? I'm one of those people that have no real life, so to speak of, and read a majority of the ROP's and ROC's and I just don't see the evidence.
> 
> Pete


We always bash the CMP's here.. seems more fun to pile on a common enemy.. :whistling2::laughing:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Sink base just like I do now





electricmanscott said:


> Not code compliant.





Dennis Alwon said:


> Why not


GFCI receptacle inside cabinet isn't readily accessible.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Mike D said:


> 210.8 Kitchen Dishwasher Branch Circuit- now required to be GFCI protected.
> 
> 210.12 AFCI Expanded to include Kitchen and laundry rooms.
> 
> Damn. More money.


It does not cost you any extra money...why fret?:no:


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

> 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.


I don't really see anything that would prohibit it in the definition (and it is the preferred method around here). Your best argument would be "to remove obstacles, but I don't see stuff in a cabinet as an obstacle.

It would be like telling a homeowner they can't put their coffee maker directly in front of a GFI.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> I will not engage in an argument over things I have no knowledge of (at least most times I won't) but how do you know,* for a fact*, that CMP members were influenced by manufacturers?
> 
> I can see where your opinion comes from but where is the proof? I'm one of those people that have no real life, so to speak of, and read a majority of the ROP's and ROC's and I just don't see the evidence. Edit to say; I was also not at the actual meetings. All I have knowledge of is what was printed for public scrutiny.
> 
> Pete


One example was the requirement for an AFCI receptacle that wasn't even mfg yet (at the time).


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

if you have to move it to get to electrical, i see it as an obstacle. i have some of my own so i know!:whistling2:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Little-Lectric said:


> One example was the requirement for an AFCI receptacle that wasn't even mfg yet (at the time).


There have been many rules that were effective 3 years after the code year. That is one of those rules, but there was not a requirement to use an AFCI receptacle. It was one of the options you had to provide the required AFCI protection.


----------



## SamoanThor (Oct 18, 2013)

We run our dishwasher with the disposal to a switch and then to the box so having a gfci switch would be a simple fix. A simple $25.97 fix compared to $0.69, based on Home Depot pricing. I'm sure our supply house rate is similar.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

RIVETER said:


> It does not cost you any extra money...why fret?:no:


How do you figure that these changes are not going to cost money?


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

SamoanThor said:


> We run our dishwasher with the disposal to a switch and then to the box so having a gfci switch would be a simple fix. A simple $25.97 fix compared to $0.69, based on Home Depot pricing. I'm sure our supply house rate is similar.



You would need to use a dead front GFI. A switch/GFI would be a code violation.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

robnj772 said:


> How do you figure that these changes are not going to cost money?


What he was saying was that the cost was going to be passed on to the customer.


----------



## SamoanThor (Oct 18, 2013)

Depends on how stupid your inspector is. Or hard up for money. 

Like an hvac incident last week. They got red tagged on Tuesday whilst we were roughing, I looked at it because its kinda what I do, they came back the next day, did nothing that i could tell, new inspector comes in and green tag. Shenanigans. Then again, we aim to pass first time, every time. But yeah, I looked it up after I said that.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> I don't really see anything that would prohibit it in the definition (and it is the preferred method around here). Your best argument would be "to remove obstacles, but I don't see stuff in a cabinet as an obstacle.
> 
> It would be like telling a homeowner they can't put their coffee maker directly in front of a GFI.


A GFCI receptacle in a cabinet is accessible not readily accessible. As of now I see dishwasher, disposal, some microwaves, and a number of other cord and plug appliances being fed from an AFCI breaker to a blank face GFI to the receptacle.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

What can you point to that proves your stance?


----------



## Mike D (Sep 16, 2008)

Another one,

210.8 GFCI protection for all receps in Laundry area (regardless of sink or not)


----------



## Mike D (Sep 16, 2008)

Changes:

http://www.iaei.org/blogpost/928475/165827/Analysis-of-Changes-2014-NEC


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Mike D said:


> Another one,
> 
> 210.8 GFCI protection for all receps in Laundry area (regardless of sink or not)


I would like to know what defines a laundry "area".


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

Deep Cover said:


> What he was saying was that the cost was going to be passed on to the customer.


Well I know that and you know that but I am pretty sure that he doesn't know that.


----------



## Mike D (Sep 16, 2008)

The cost is always passed on. just makes the jobs a harder sell. I have some builders that I have worked for many many years. I have to explain to them the cost increases and hope they stay with me when we all know there are companies out there giving the stuff away.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Deep Cover said:


> I would like to know what defines a laundry "area".


Ask your AHJ. :whistling2:


----------



## SamoanThor (Oct 18, 2013)

Anything within 10 feet of a washer is our standard.


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> You would need to use a dead front GFI. A switch/GFI would be a code violation.


I'm not seeing what you're saying. Please elaborate.


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

Little-Lectric said:


> I'm not seeing what you're saying. Please elaborate.


Having a gfi before the dishwasher circuit would allow you to plug other things in


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I heard there was a part of the country that still uses the 1993 NEC. Does anyone know where that is? I plan to move there.


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

probably West Virginia or Alabama :laughing:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

MTW said:


> I heard there was a part of the country that still uses the 1993 NEC. Does anyone know where that is? I plan to move there.


Some parts of US don't even accept any of the NEC.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> A GFCI receptacle in a cabinet is accessible not readily accessible. As of now I see dishwasher, disposal, some microwaves, and a number of other cord and plug appliances being fed from an AFCI breaker to a blank face GFI to the receptacle.





Deep Cover said:


> What can you point to that proves your stance?


There's a Mike Holt video that talks about it. I think someone posted it here recently. 

Here's a paragraph from the IAEI 2014 Analysis of changes..

They're talking about 210.8(A)(7) and GFCI protection for outlets. 



> A collateral-damage situation to this change might need to be taken into consideration. As an example, GFCI protection will now be required for a receptacle outlet that supplies the kitchen disposal under the kitchen sink. This will create a unique situation considering the fact that AFCI protection is now required for branch circuits supplying outlets in dwelling unit kitchens. All AFCI and GFCI devices are now required to be installed in a readily accessible location. Installers will be faced with the problem of how to provide two different means of protection without having to add additional outlets, considering this fact that both AFCI and GFCI devices will have to be readily accessible. Installers who choose to provide a combination AFCI device at the panelboard would now have to install and additional GFCI outlet device in a readily accessible location to provide the necessary GFCI protection to the garbage disposal receptacle outlet. A GFCI device could not be installed under the kitchen sink in the cabinets as this GFCI device would not be considered readily accessible.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

I thank you for posting that, but I completely disagree. I don't interpret the definition of accessible, readily to disqualify a GFI in a cabinet...especially in the case of a dishwasher. Just follow the cord and you'll find the GFI. Seems a whole lot better than installing a GFI in the garage and feeding the OS receptacles off of it.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> I thank you for posting that, but I completely disagree. I don't interpret the definition of accessible, readily to disqualify a GFI in a cabinet...especially in the case of a dishwasher. Just follow the cord and you'll find the GFI. *Seems a whole lot better than installing a GFI in the garage and feeding the OS receptacles off of it*.


That's now (2014 NEC) a violation too. 

Here's the video.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Could you post the link, for some reason I'm not seeing many of the YouTube videos that are embedded.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I wonder how much craigslist hackery and non-permitted work all these rules are going to encourage. Do you really expect the army of hacks out there to comply with these rules? :no:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Could you post the link, for some reason I'm not seeing many of the YouTube videos that are embedded.


http://www youtube.com/watch?v=pObsSoI4-yE

Just put the . between www and youtube


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> A GFCI receptacle in a cabinet is accessible not readily accessible. As of now I see dishwasher, disposal, some microwaves, and a number of other cord and plug appliances being fed from an AFCI breaker to a blank face GFI to the receptacle.


I talked to one AFCI manufacturer and they're working on a 120V combination AFCI/GFCI breaker.

It makes perfect sense now that all laundry 120V receptacles will need them as well.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> I talked to one AFCI manufacturer and they 're working on a combination AFCI/GFCI breaker.


I would expect to see this. Cutler Hammer had them for the older non combo AFCI breakers, you'd think they'd be all over this.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> I would expect to see this. Cutler Hammer had them for the older non combo AFCI breakers, you'd think they'd be all over this.


Most manufacturers had 30 ma GFCI protection in their AFCI's until recently.
One would think a few components could be changed and it would do the job.

I think most of the AFCI problems were caused by bare EGC's touching the neutrals. Most times I pigtail and run insulated green, very few AFCI problems.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> I talked to one AFCI manufacturer and they're working on a 120V combination AFCI/GFCI breaker.
> 
> It makes perfect sense now that all laundry 120V receptacles will need them as well.


and how many years before they get that figured out?:whistling2:


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

although i think the mfgs are behind a lot of the changes, they are making the changes faster than they can figure out how to make them work right, costing EVERYONE in the long run!:no::blink:


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Combination afcis already have ground fault protection. Just not for personal protection. The technology is in place and available. They were just waiting for the code making panel to make it happen. 

I have a friend who works for RJ Reynolds and he told me they've got everything they need to mass produce and distribute marijuana smokes as soon as the country gets around to legalizing it. Same principle.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

ponyboy said:


> Combination afcis already have ground fault protection. Just not for personal protection. The technology is in place and available. They were just waiting for the code making panel to make it happen.


Just like they said they had an AFCI device available and ready to go 13-14 years ago? :whistling2: :no:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> Combination afcis already have ground fault protection. Just not for personal protection. The technology is in place and available. They were just waiting for the code making panel to make it happen. ...


The ground fault technology is in the AFCI because it is the most effective part of the protection, although one manufacturer has eliminated it. In talking with AFCI development engineers, I have been told that over 80% of the AFCI trips are really ground fault trips.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

I hope they include some sort of indicator of what the AFCI/GFCI saw to trip it.


----------



## Derek1 (Mar 27, 2013)

Deep Cover said:


> I thank you for posting that, but I completely disagree. I don't interpret the definition of accessible, readily to disqualify a GFI in a cabinet...especially in the case of a dishwasher. Just follow the cord and you'll find the GFI.


I agree with Deep Cover, I put a 2 gang box under the sink, one gfi is switched (Garbage Disposal), and the other gfi is for the dishwasher. All you have to do is drill a hole through the cabinet and run the cord through.
hell, for Microwaves I do the same thing, I put its outlet in the cabinet above it... It always passes inspection (our inspectors use the 2011 nec).


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

Mike D said:


> 210.8 Kitchen Dishwasher Branch Circuit- now required to be GFCI protected.
> 
> 210.12 AFCI Expanded to include Kitchen and laundry rooms.
> 
> Damn. More money.


What! Charge accordingly.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Derek1 said:


> I agree with Deep Cover, I put a 2 gang box under the sink, one gfi is switched (Garbage Disposal), and the other gfi is for the dishwasher. All you have to do is drill a hole through the cabinet and run the cord through.
> hell, for Microwaves I do the same thing, I put its outlet in the cabinet above it... It always passes inspection (our inspectors use the 2011 nec).


A passed inspection doesn't make a legal code compliant installation.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Was talking with Jeffrey Sargent from the NFPA a couple weeks back. We were discussing the 2104 changes.

The idea of AFCI came from The Consumer Product Safety Commission NOT any manufacture or CMP. The CSPC wanted the issue of low level faults addressed as the circuit breakers do not open in a low level fault like those the afci catches. They had discovered that these low level faults were causing fires.
The CPSC wanted the entire dwelling units protected by afci. The NFP decided that this was way too much to do in one code cycle, so they came up with a plan to incorporate different areas in each cycle. 

The same approach was used when the GFCI was invented. The same arguments everyone is now making for AFCI ( for & against) was used for GFCI back in the 70's.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

manchestersparky said:


> Was talking with Jeffrey Sargent from the NFPA a couple weeks back. We were discussing the 2104 changes.
> 
> The idea of AFCI came from The Consumer Product Safety Commission NOT any manufacture or CMP. The CSPC wanted the issue of low level faults addressed as the circuit breakers do not open in a low level fault like those the afci catches. They had discovered that these low level faults were causing fires.
> The CPSC wanted the entire dwelling units protected by afci. The NFP decided that this was way too much to do in one code cycle, so they came up with a plan to incorporate different areas in each cycle.
> ...


Not that it didn't happen this way, but do you really think he would have told you the real story if this was a code bought by the manufacturers?


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

AFCI or GFCI , what is the Life Expectancy of these items ?


I like Idaho and Indiana in these matters .






Pete


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

manchestersparky said:


> Was talking with Jeffrey Sargent from the NFPA a couple weeks back. We were discussing the 2104 changes.
> 
> The idea of AFCI came from The Consumer Product Safety Commission NOT any manufacture or CMP. The CSPC wanted the issue of low level faults addressed as the circuit breakers do not open in a low level fault like those the afci catches. They had discovered that these low level faults were causing fires.
> The CPSC wanted the entire dwelling units protected by afci. The NFP decided that this was way too much to do in one code cycle, so they came up with a plan to incorporate different areas in each cycle.
> ...


Given the amount of money and power Eaton has (pun might be intended) they can easily get the CSPC to agree via influence or Eaton can choose to hide behine their studies. Heck there are millions of studies, conclusions and recommendations about code improvements that never see the CMP. And of course there to is fairy tale stories. I bring Eaton into this because they knew well in advance and were working on the technology long before. AFCIs most likely came about when someone discovered that the residential side of the market was yielding the least amount of money yet hade potential to yield much more. By adding an extra 35 bucks to each breaker that's plenty right there.






pete87 said:


> AFCI or GFCI , what is the Life Expectancy of these items ?
> 
> 
> I like Idaho and Indiana in these matters .
> ...


GFCIs can last 40 years but some fail before that. Test is the answer. AFCIs Ive heard are sensitive to voltage spikes, so, its a safe bet 50 years from now when they are needed they wont be there to work.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

meadow said:


> Given the amount of money and power Eaton has (pun might be intended) they can easily get the CSPC to agree via influence or Eaton can choose to hide behine their studies. Heck there are millions of studies, conclusions and recommendations about code improvements that never see the CMP. And of course there to is fairy tale stories. I bring Eaton into this because they knew well in advance and were working on the technology long before. AFCIs most likely came about when someone discovered that the residential side of the market was yielding the least amount of money yet hade potential to yield much more. By adding an extra 35 bucks to each breaker that's plenty right there.


Did you ever think that the CPSC may have contacted the manufactures to question about the ability to develop a device that will capture low level faults in order to prevent fires ??

I am not one the "conspiracy theory" believers that think every new code issue was the brain storm of some manufacture out to pick the pockets of every consumer out there.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

manchestersparky said:


> Did you ever think that the CPSC may have contacted the manufactures to question about the ability to develop a device that will capture low level faults in order to prevent fires ??
> 
> I am not one the "conspiracy theory" believers that think every new code issue was the brain storm of some manufacture out to pick the pockets of every consumer out there.


Yes I have thought about and Its not a conspiracy theory because I know a few things. Ill leave it at that. But even that aside, if you look in depth at the relationship structure and the business models of listing agencies/CMP/NFPA 70/buying contractors/share holder/product development ect ect the reasoning behind code requirements will begin to make sense. Certainly not all of them are intended for capital gain, but some like AFCIs have had a helping hand behind them.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

whta i want to know is just how do they determine that something is going to last or be be usefull for ]such and such amount of time when the time hasent been spent on testing them! they can claim anything they want, but every new product that we are forced to use has failed in less than the time we are told they will work! when will EVERYONE get together and fix this? NEVER~!:no: so on we go following the sheep ahead of of us:blink:


----------



## mbednarik (Oct 10, 2011)

None of the CMP's wait to see the results of the last code changes before making more changes. Many use flawed data such as my states fire marshal office saying electrical fires have decreased by 30%. Never mind that they restructured the reporting system to separate appliances and fixed wiring. How can you see the results after 3 years? Do they think immediately everyone updates their home electrical system to current code after adoption? Example are they using data from electrical fires from a home wired per 2011 NEC when making changes for the 2014? I doubt it.


----------



## mark35 (Mar 24, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> There's a Mike Holt video that talks about it. I think someone posted it here recently.
> 
> Here's a paragraph from the IAEI 2014 Analysis of changes..
> 
> ...


In the MH video in Scott's post #52, @ the 29.50 mark, Mike actual says that you CAN put a GFCI under the sink, check it out.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> Combination afcis already have ground fault protection. Just not for personal protection.


Some AFCIs have GFP some do not.

A combination AFCI means it combines branch circuit and cord protection it does not mean AFCI and GFCI combined.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> Not that it didn't happen this way, but do you really think he would have told you the real story if this was a code bought by the manufacturers?


Jeff would.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

mark35 said:


> In the MH video in Scott's post #52, @ the 29.50 mark, Mike actual says that you CAN put a GFCI under the sink, check it out.


A GFCI breaker in a panel is accepted as "readily accessible" because one only has to open a door to get at it.

Same applies in the 2014 Code for under the sink.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

Since dishwashers are usually within 6 ft of the sink, for drainage, they require "readily accessible" GFCI (A) protection as well as AFCI protection.

Since they can't be on the SABC , if there are only two, they could be on the one for the garbage disposer circuit.

Also, the refrigerator could be fed from the GFCI on a countertop.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> Since dishwashers are usually within 6 ft of the sink, for drainage, they require "readily accessible" GFCI (A) protection as well as AFCI protection.
> 
> Since they can't be on the SABC , if there are only two, they could be on the one for the garbage disposer circuit.
> 
> Also, the refrigerator could be fed from the GFCI on a countertop.


6' shouldn't apply in the sink base. But the '14 code will require gfi and AFCI protection for a dishwasher.

Dishwashers cannot be on a SABC period


----------



## seabee41 (Dec 21, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Some AFCIs have GFP some do not.
> 
> A combination AFCI means it combines branch circuit and cord protection it does not mean AFCI and GFCI combined.


Thought combo was for series and parallel faults??? It's Monday and I'm probably wrong


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> 6' shouldn't apply in the sink base. But the '14 code will require gfi and AFCI protection for a dishwasher.
> 
> *Dishwashers cannot be on a SABC* period


True and neither can the GD.

But garbage disposal receptacles will now need to be GFCI protected , per 210.8(A) (7) , since they are within 6 ft of the outside edge of the sink, just like Mike's Video stated.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

One way around the GFCI requirement for garbage disposals and dishwashers would be to hardwire them, since only receptacles are mentioned in the Code.

This would require a switch for the GD, which is normally provided on the countertop and could serve as the disconnect.

If the DW on-off switch qualifies as a disconnect another switch or GFCI protection would not be needed, if it too was hardwired.

IMO, doing so would be a step back in safety and I personally will not do it.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

I don't have the '14 with me, could you post the distinction on why the dish/disp need gfci protection?


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> I don't have the '14 with me, could you post the distinction on why the dish/disp need gfci protection?


2014 Code (210.8 (A) (7) doesn't mention GD or DW they just mention receptacles. The Analysis of Changes just mentioned them as possible examples.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

I guess what I'm asking is, what is the change in the '14's wording that would now require recepts in the sink base to be GFI protected.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> I guess what I'm asking is, what is the change in the '14's wording that would now require recepts in the sink base to be GFI protected.


"Any receptacles within 6 ft of the outside edge of a sink" need GFCI protection"


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> "Any receptacles within 6 ft of the outside edge of a sink" need GFCI protection"


Also in addition to the receptacle requirement and ACFI requirement, dwelling dishwashers require GFCI protection regardless of where it is and how it's connected. 210.8(D)


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> Also in addition to the receptacle requirement and ACFI requirement, dwelling dishwashers require GFCI protection regardless of where it is and how it's connected. 210.8(D)



*Per Analysis of Changes*
The exact wording is: "(D) Kitchen Dishwasher Branch Circuit. GFCI protection shall be provided for outlets that supply dishwashers installed in dwelling unit locations".

But on the same the staff added the following: "This would include a receptacle outlet or a direct-wired outlet for a dishwasher".

So, I won't know until I get a copy of the 2014 NEC.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Ok, I don't have the official copy, just the draft, but I don't see any changes in 210.8 as a whole to require receptacles under a kitchen sink to be GFI protected. Specifically, (A)(7) is areas other than kitchens.


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

I have the draft too and from what i understand (d) was added addressing this issue.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> Ok, I don't have the official copy, just the draft, but I don't see any changes in 210.8 as a whole to require receptacles under a kitchen sink to be GFI protected. Specifically, (A)(7) is areas other than kitchens.


The other than kitchens has been removed so now any receptacle within 6 feet of any dwelling sink has to be gfci protected. That means under the sink, possibly fridge, micro hood, gas range, etc etc etc


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

This is going to suck. We are on the '08, soon to be switching to the '11, and I'm gonna need to familiarize myself with the '14 so I know what the faque everyone is talking about here.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Next72969 said:


> I have the draft too and from what i understand (d) was added addressing this issue.


No, D was added and addresses dishwashers specifically regardless of their location or wiring method. It has nothing to do with the within 6 feet of a sink rule. If the dishwasher was located more than 6 feet from the sink, rare but I've seen it, it would still require GFCI protection.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> No, D was added and addresses dishwashers specifically regardless of their location or wiring method. It has nothing to do with the within 6 feet of a sink rule. If the dishwasher was located more than 6 feet from the sink, rare but I've seen it, it would still require GFCI protection.



My draft doesn't have those changes...guess I'll have to buy the real '14.


----------

