Interior GFCI Poll

[rmaday]

Still awaiting your respone to this, Bob...

Originally Posted by rmaday

Bob, it has nothing to do with checklists or speed of inspection.

In this specific instance, the electricians have said it's not needed. And Paul said the NEC is very clear about this.

IMO you are doing your client a dsservice if you call out things that are not needed.

And again, I'm not talking about any Joe the Electrician who is looking to make a buck and says, oh yeah, you need GFCI here, that'll be $150.

There are always scenarios that you can come up with where people do stupid things. We can't mention all of them.

Do you, in every report, tell them that in the event they paint and fail to tape the outlets, that they shouldn't use a scewdriver to try to get the paint out of the outlet holes?

Do you, in every report, tell them that they should not run an extention cord from a non-GFCI outlet to a location where GFCI is required?

Do you, in every report, tell them that AFCI breakers should be installed on all circuits that are not required to have GFCI?

I don't mind the disagreement, but to imply that somehow by calling this out (and ignoring the sparkys) you are doing your clients a better service, is misguided at best.

And to further imply that if we don't call it out, we are somehow not giving our clients "their money's worth" or "don't care" about them, is asinine.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by pabernathy

This is Bull Melarky......

Kitchens are NOT considered Wet Locations......who in the world thought that one up.

Man I teach seminars all over the country and some of the things I hear always amaze me but this one is takes alot of the cake.

You have not seen Bob's kitchen Paul.

[Bruce A. King]

See picture and caption on page 2 of this commercial document.....


http://www.compliance.gov/forms-pubs...facts_gfci.pdf

[relliott]

Originally Posted by rmaday

Help me understand..

How, when two (well respected) electricians state that GFCI is not required in this instance, can anyone continue to vote YES?

Perhaps you need to not just read facts, but also to comprehend the big picture,in that Paul says not needed by code.This to me says that you inspect by code and only code. Is that true?



They are the specialists, that we say to call,

Yes when I have a code question.
and we have seen the experts argue and dis-agree on this forum.

I am a student always, but paid to be an expert and the same is true of you.(I hope)
Never stop questioning

ie. "Recommend repair (replace/upgrade) by licensed electrician"

I use simular terms as above when clear cut,but in this case I would put it in as a recommendation/ which is why I mix narrative / material /and comment sections into my report.

When canned comments such as above are used you can get into trouble for the fact you never have no grey area and are committing yourself with every word.

This is why I do not understand someone using a check box only report

This is not the dead horse I am beating, but another horse has come into the barn. This second horse, IMO is much more confusing to me.

Rick the whole argument is based on nobody, not even an expert(in my opinion) such as Paul having no idea what the code is based on.

"Thats just the way it is" as an answer put quite simply sucks.

To do a good job as an Inspector we need an understanding of why the codes exist and the thought process behind them .

[Paul W. Abernathy]

Incorrect.....not knowing what the code is based on does not hold any ground. You can argue a point with a "Code" inspector until you actually pass out and he will say because the CODE says it is done this way.

Now if they wish to allow something OTHER than what the accepted code is then they have to show it meets or exceeds the minimum standard put forth by the National Electrical Code when we are using the example I gave above.

I am an EXPERT at the written code, how it is translated to everyday use and how it is to be applied to the electrical field...I am NOT an expert on the history of the National Electrical Code and I happen to be one of those that do not believe I have to be in order to understand it's application as it is written.

I dont always care where a code ruling got started, but I do care where it ends. Many will have access to the old "ROP" on why things are the way they are....but Code is Code.......you are not code officials so you er on the side of safety and AGAIN for the who knows how many times.......if you believe in YOUR inspection that it needs to be GFCI to be "safer" in your mind...so be it........

Nothing More.....Nothing Less.......

Plus I would not say I have "NO" idea what it is based on....I gave my opinions in previous posts as to why it is so but again I don't believe to be the so called "good" inspector you need to know the entire history of ruling....

Guess this would be a good time to reference a chart from the past: http://www.nachi.org/forum/f19/histo...n-101/#post518

[relliott]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

You have not seen Bob's kitchen Paul.

My kitchen is mainly the microwave.
Microwave is the new wave.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by relliott

My kitchen is mainly the microwave.
Microwave is the new wave.

Well you had better upgrade the outlet serving it if you are going to use liquid in the old micro, just to be safer.

[relliott]

Originally Posted by pabernathy

Incorrect.....not knowing what the code is based on does not hold any ground. You can argue a point with a "Code" inspector until you actually pass out and he will say because the CODE says it is done this way.

Now if they wish to allow something OTHER than what the accepted code is then they have to show it meets or exceeds the minimum standard put forth by the National Electrical Code when we are using the example I gave above.

I am an EXPERT at the written code, how it is translated to everyday use and how it is to be applied to the electrical field...I am NOT an expert on the history of the National Electrical Code and I happen to be one of those that do not believe I have to be in order to understand it's application as it is written.

I dont always care where a code ruling got started, but I do care where it ends. Many will have access to the old "ROP" on why things are the way they are....but Code is Code.......you are not code officials so you er on the side of safety and AGAIN for the who knows how many times.......if you believe in YOUR inspection that it needs to be GFCI to be "safer" in your mind...so be it........

Nothing More.....Nothing Less.......

Plus I would not say I have "NO" idea what it is based on....I gave my opinions in previous posts as to why it is so but again I don't believe to be the so called "good" inspector you need to know the entire history of ruling....

Let me ask you this Paul.

Please be honest as it is your personal opinion , I am asking for....

Your NEC has Kitchen Islands covered but not the situation here .

Now please tell me in your own words,without quoting code why you think the Kitchen island needs GFCI more than the wall below the sink ledge in this situation from post #1.

Give me a real world reason and I will reverse my judgment.

Thanks for the graphic ,as it will go in my collection next to the one I have simular

[Brian E. Kelly]

Kitchen Islands require GFCI protection because they are in Kitchens, where appliances are plugged in.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Well Bob, when you put that TV on your counter top, be sure to leave a drip-loop in the cord. This way you won't need the GFCI protection. . .

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jpope

Well Bob, when you put that TV on your counter top, be sure to leave a drip-loop in the cord. This way you won't need the GFCI protection. . .

Fantastic. I think I will have to use that in a narrative somewhere. With your blessing of course Jeff.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

because in MY opinion I am going to do things in my kitchen with appliances that I may sit on the counter of ANY space within the kitchen. I am also going to use appliances on my counter that probably only have a 20"-24" cord to be used.

If someone chooses to use a 6' extention cord to wrap over the wall in the example you have in the original post then I can only say to them this...

You Can't Fix Stupid.......

I happen to have an island in my kitchen Robert and I use appliances ( blenders and such ) on it all the time.....if the installation is PROPERLY done the person would not need to drape a cord over the back side of that wall to power the TV......

You want REAL world answers.......we can't protect people from themselves...they need to protect themselves from themselves.....

[relliott]

Originally Posted by jpope

Well Bob, when you put that TV on your counter top, be sure to leave a drip-loop in the cord. This way you won't need the GFCI protection. . .

Not true as her hands are wet also and may touch the other end.
Nice try though as you just cut the risk.

Plus it is only a six footer and extensions are against NEC rules when used as permanent conductors.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Fantastic. I think I will have to use that in a narrative somewhere. With your blessing of course Jeff.

Absolutely

[Marc D. Shunk]

I could run an extension cord from the upstairs bedroom to serve an appliance on the kitchen countertop. Should I GFCI protect that bedroom receptacle?