555.3

[augie47]

(Disclaimer: Our area is currently under '2008 and the only copy of '2014 I have is a ROP Draft so the final document may be more descriptive)
My question is the result of another thread concerning marinas. In that thread the OP seemed to indicate that in lieu of the 100ma service GF protection they had elected (as I understood it) to install pedestals with 5ma GF protection on each receptacle.
From reading 555.3, I would think that his receptacle protection substitution does not suffice as the alternative to feeder and branch circuit protection.
Thoughts anyone ?

 

[iwire]

If the text of 555.3 posted in the other thread is correct I have to agree with you that having the GFCI device at the pedestal does not comply.

 

[texie]

(Disclaimer: Our area is currently under '2008 and the only copy of '2014 I have is a ROP Draft so the final document may be more descriptive)
My question is the result of another thread concerning marinas. In that thread the OP seemed to indicate that in lieu of the 100ma service GF protection they had elected (as I understood it) to install pedestals with 5ma GF protection on each receptacle.
From reading 555.3, I would think that his receptacle protection substitution does not suffice as the alternative to feeder and branch circuit protection.
Thoughts anyone ?

I took the OP in that thread to mean these are 15 or 20 amp outlets and as such are not a shore power receptacle as they would require 30 amp minimum and twist lock. Any 15 or 20 amp receptacle on the dock or in the pedestal would have to have GFCI. While these 15 or 20 receptacles are not "shore power", they are often used as such.
But more to your comments, I think you are correct in that 555.3 would require GFPE at no more than 100 ma to protect the feeder and/or wiring on the dock that is supplying these pedestals. The OP comment that it it can be provided at the pedestal is wrong as he is misunderstanding 555.3 and the fact that his pedestals have OCPDs in them as opposed to being on shore.
For example, you could protect a branch circuit with GFPE at the source on land before it goes on to the dock. If this branch circuit is, say, 15 amp it will also need GFCI (such as at the recep.) but it still needs GFPE before it goes on the dock. If it supplied a 30 amp "shore power receptacle" it would just need GFPE at the land source and no GFCI anywhere.
The whole point of 555.3 (new as of the 2011 NEC) was to offer some protection to people from wiring on/under the dock that may leak to ground through the water and pose voltage gradient dangers. If you put the GFPE at the pedestal out on the dock it does not provide the intended protection.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

555.3 Ground-Fault Protection The main overcurrent protective device that feeds the marina shall
have ground fault protection not exceeding 100 mA. Ground-fault protection of each individual branch or feeder circuit shall be permitted as a suitable alternative.

If the receptacles have the ground fault protection, then I don't see the installation as meeting the rule. If the breakers that are in the pedestal have the ground fault protection, the rule has been complied with. There is a very short branch circuit between the OCPD and the receptacle in the pedestal.

 

[iwire]

If the receptacles have the ground fault protection, then I don't see the installation as meeting the rule. If the breakers that are in the pedestal have the ground fault protection, the rule has been complied with. There is a very short branch circuit between the OCPD and the receptacle in the pedestal.

The feeder supplying that short branch circuit still needs protection.

 

[Smart $]

The feeder supplying that short branch circuit still needs protection.

I believe Don is correct.

555.3 Ground-Fault Protection. The main overcurrent
protective device that feeds the marina shall have ground
fault protection not exceeding 100 mA. Ground-fault protection
of each individual branch or feeder circuit shall be
permitted as a suitable alternative.

 

[texie]

The feeder supplying that short branch circuit still needs protection.

That is my point. Feeder or branch it needs GFPE before it comes on the dock. 555.3 need some work to clarify. Still kind of new and nothing was done for 2014 except a couple of word changes.

 

[Smart $]

That is my point. Feeder or branch it needs GFPE before it comes on the dock. 555.3 need some work to clarify. Still kind of new and nothing was done for 2014 except a couple of word changes.

I believe your interpretation is the intent... but the words do not [completely] support that intent.

 

[iwire]

I believe Don is correct.

I see it as 'If you run a feeder out to the dock it needs protection OR if you run a branch circuit out to a dock it needs protection'.

 

[texie]

I believe your interpretation is the intent... but the words do not [completely] support that intent.

Yes, I believe that was the intent. The branch or feeder alternative just makes allowance for various scenarios. For example, you could have a service that feeds on shore loads and a single shore power circuit (branch circuit) with GFPE 100mA going to a shore power receptacle on the dock.
I don't believe the intent was to allow you to run that same branch circuit, or any other circuit, onto the dock and put the GFPE at the load end as the wiring on/under the dock would not be GFPE protected.

 

[South Bay Marina]

Gentlemen, I posted that; I am referring to the actual 30 amp twist lock receptacles, not a standard household receptacle. There are four of these on each pedestal with four corresponding breakers for each, all with a "test" trigger button on each breaker.

Does anyone who has read 555.3 know the spec for the second part indicating individual pedestal protection is an option in lieu of the main feeder 100mA protection? It says it is acceptable but lists no specification.

Hope this helps, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Smart $]

I see it as 'If you run a feeder out to the dock it needs protection OR if you run a branch circuit out to a dock it needs protection'.

Yes, I believe that was the intent. The branch or feeder alternative just makes allowance for various scenarios. For example, you could have a service that feeds on shore loads and a single shore power circuit (branch circuit) with GFPE 100mA going to a shore power receptacle on the dock.
I don't believe the intent was to allow you to run that same branch circuit, or any other circuit, onto the dock and put the GFPE at the load end as the wiring on/under the dock would not be GFPE protected.

I can see how you both see it... but it doesn't say that. Here's my own re-write of that section to state what you guys are seeing:

555.3 Ground-Fault Protection. The overcurrent
protective device(s) supplying the marina shall have ground
fault protection not exceeding 100 mA, sum total if more
than one.

 

[GoldDigger]

To me the critical distinction is that each circuit needs protection *before* it enters the dock area.

 

[augie47]

Gentlemen, I posted that; I am referring to the actual 30 amp twist lock receptacles, not a standard household receptacle. There are four of these on each pedestal with four corresponding breakers for each, all with a "test" trigger button on each breaker.

Does anyone who has read 555.3 know the spec for the second part indicating individual pedestal protection is an option in lieu of the main feeder 100mA protection? It says it is acceptable but lists no specification.

Hope this helps, thanks for your thoughts.

Obviously an opinion, but since the only threshold mentioned in 555.3 is the 100 ma, I would think you could set individual feeder and/or branch circuit at any level up to that point. It appears to me that the Code has picked 100ma as the maximum and allows you to take the less expensive but possibly more troublesome route of protecting the service or, to prevent loss of the entire service, you can protect individual feeders in each case up to 100ma..

To me the critical distinction is that each circuit needs protection *before* it enters the dock area.

agree

 

[South Bay Marina]

Thanks for every one's input.

I have heard back from Eaton, and there is no work around nor "fix" for the issue; the galvanic isolator monitoring systems will trip any GFCI. It is old technology that has been rendered obsolete by the new wiring code.

 

[fmtjfw]

555.3 Ground-Fault Protection.
The main overcurrent protective device that feeds the marina shall have ground fault protection not exceeding 100 mA.[1]
Ground-fault protection of each individual branch[3] or feeder circuit[2] shall be permitted as a suitable alternative.


I've looked at 555.3 and am trying to understand the GF requirements.

[1] you can use a 100mA or more sensitive service main GF breaker, or
[2] you can put 100mA or more sensitive GF breakers on each feeder, or
[3] you can put 100mA or more sensitive GF breakers on each branch circuit, or
or you could mix 2 and 3 as long as all circuits are covered.

It also appears that the circuit, not just the receptacles must be protected.[6]

Then in 555.19 (B) it appears that 15 & 20 A 125V receptacles (in most places) must be GFCI protected (5mA).

555.19 Receptacles.
Receptacles shall be mounted not less than 305 mm (12 in.) above the deck surface of the pier and not below the electrical datum plane on a fixed pier.
....
(B) Other Than Shore Power.
(1) Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter (GFCI) Protection for Personnel.
Fifteen- and 20-ampere, single-phase, 125-volt receptacles installed outdoors, in boathouses, in buildings or structures used for storage, maintenance, or repair where portable electrical hand tools, electrical diagnostic equipment, or portable lighting equipment are to be used shall be provided with GFCI protection for personnel[5].
Receptacles in other locations shall be protected in accordance with 210.8(B).

[5] must be GFCI (5mA) protected
[6] that the circuit feeding the receptacle needs to be GFE protected.

Have I got it right?

 

[augie47]

Thats the way I see it.

 

[david]

Permissive rules are looked at as achieving equivalent of the requirement of the rule.

555.3 Ground-Fault Protection. The main overcurrent protective device that feeds the marina shall have ground fault protection not exceeding 100 mA.Ground-fault protection of each individual branch or feeder circuit shall be permitted as a suitable alternative.

555.19 Receptacles. (2008)
(A) Shore Power Receptacles. (3) Branch Circuits. Each single receptacle that supplies shore power to boats shall be supplied from a marine power outlet or panelboard by an individual branch circuit of the voltage class and rating corresponding to the rating of the receptacle.

I guess it needs to be determined what the 100mA GF protection is required to protect.

Where is a marine power panelboard in 555.19 allowed to be located?

The permissive rule clearly indicates the individual branch circuit must have GF 100mA GF protection from the main overcurrent protective device that feeds the marina or is permitted to be protected from 100mA GF protection from the feeder or is protected from 100mA Gf protection for the individual branch circuit its self.

Is there any requirement to what part of the dock area a marine power panel board has to be located?

 

[augie47]

The only location restrictions I can think of would be 555.7 for the service equipment; 555.9 for height; any associated with Art 514 if applicable; and, of course, 110.26.

 

[texie]

While we can and should debate where the GFP protection should be located in the circuit, the situation that the OP has is another matter. My point to him is that there should not be GFCI protection on the shore power outlets. Only GF is required for these and putting GFCI on a shore power outlet is not required or a good practice. In fact if you read the ROP on this for 2011, GFCI protection for shore power was 1 change submitted by Eaton but rejected as being to unreliable to this application. The 100 mA GF protection was approved instead.
The OP seems to indicate that Eaton has told him that the 30 amp outlets of the pedestals are protected with 5 mA GFCI and that is they way they must be. I disagree, that is not a code requirement or a good idea.