Interior GFCI Poll

[ROBERT W. NEWLAND, JR.]

Originally Posted by mlarson

lol!!!!

[Michael Larson]

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

What does his face and your argument have in common.?

[Michael Larson]

Bob, I don't have the skills to insert your mug in the blank face. hth

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Bob, I don't have the skills to insert your mug in the blank face. hth

Whatever you say Jimmy.S

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by relliott

Whatever you say Jimmy.S

Who is Jimmy S.?

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

who is jimmy s.?

[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?



They are the specialists, that we say to call,

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

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.

[Bob Elliott]

Maybe because Joe and I are not well respected Electricians?

Maybe because there is something about being an Inspector that goes beyond codes and whats required.

A checklist report type of guy will blow through and not waste his time to narrate this scenario, while a Inspector that cares about his clients may think it is worth a mention

Perhaps this is why I will never be able to do 4 Inspections a day.

I actually give them their money's worth.

Checklist report guys can keep voting no, but as for me I will continue to use a strong Health and safety aware report.

[Michael Larson]

What's with this check list report crap?

How is that any part of this discussion?

P.S. I use HiPro just like you.

[rmaday]

Originally Posted by relliott

Maybe because Joe and I are not well respected Electricians?

That's why people are voting yes?

Maybe because there is something about being an Inspector that goes beyond codes and whats required.

So why not GFCI on every outlet?

A checklist report type of guy will blow through and not waste his time to narrate this scenario, while a Inspector that cares about his clients may think it is worth a mention

Perhaps this is why I will never be able to do 4 Inspections a day.

I actually give them their money's worth.

Checklist report guys can keep voting no, but as for me I will continue to use a strong Health and safety aware report.

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.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by relliott

Perhaps this is why I will never be able to do 4 Inspections a day.

I actually give them their money's worth.

Let's not get nasty Bob.

Not ONE of you have given a legitimate reason as to WHY this receptacle is more deserving of additional protection than the ones just inside the exterior door ways. So I'm trying to figure out the "logic."

[rmaday]

Yeah, what Mike said too..

Originally Posted by mlarson

What's with this check list report crap?

How is that any part of this discussion?

P.S. I use HiPro just like you.

[Jim Port]

Originally Posted by relliott

Please explain ,since it is required all kitchen receptacles be GFCI.

GFI protection is only required for the portions that serve the countertop surfaces. Receptacles near the eat-in are would not.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

Originally Posted by relliott

Paul I see nothing there about 12" below the surface,also wondering about the smiley cover up?

What smiley cover up....do you read everything into everything....it number 8 in done with () around it makes smiley face....so I wanted everyone to know it was an 8 and not a smiley face I had to change it to brackets to make it show the number 8....nothing more.....???

As for the 12"....read the following....I was refering to OTHER areas of the NEC saying the receptacle shown COULD not serve the countertop because of its location:

(5) Receptacle Outlet Location.

Receptacle outlets shall
be located above, but not more than 500 mm (20 in.) above,
the countertop. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible
by appliances fastened in place, appliance garages,
sinks, or rangetops as covered in 210.52(C)(1), Exception,
or appliances occupying dedicated space shall not be considered
as these required outlets.

Exception to (5): To comply with the conditions specified in
(1) or (2), receptacle outlets shall be permitted to be
mounted not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop.
Receptacles mounted below a countertop in accordance
with this exception shall not be located where the
countertop extends more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond its
support base.