GFCI exception

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Snyder

NEC expert
Location
Denver, Co
Occupation
Electrical Foreman
A listed Class A GFCI shall provide protection in accordance with 210.8(A) through (F). The GFCI shall be installed in a readily accessible location.
Informational Note: See 215.9 for GFCI protection on feeders.
For the purposes of this section, the distance from receptacles shall be measured as the shortest path the power supply cord connected to the receptacle would follow without piercing a floor, wall, ceiling, or fixed barrier. Add a new Exception No. 5 to section 210.8(A) to read as follows: 210.8(A) Dwelling Units. … Exception No. 5: GFCI protection shall not be required for a receptacle serving a refrigerator or HVAC appliance if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The appliance is located within a dedicated space. (2) The appliance is on an individual branch circuit. (3) In normal use, the appliance is not easily moved or is fastened in place. This exception shall expire January 1, 2028.
Exception #2 If any of the specific equipment has integral protection for personnel provided by the manufacturer and compliant with the UL standard.
Additional Proposed Changes
File NameDescriptionApproved
Open 315522135_562375592318221_2186616584159142738_n.jpgTesla Manufacturer instructions
Open 358395649_3488271048114890_8514449395977391969_n.jpgMassachusetts local amendment for compatibility exception
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
There has been a growing number of incompatibility issues with specific equipment and it would seem that the UL standard for testing and safety would meet the minimum requirements of the NEC. I feel this must be addressed due to the fact if a piece of equipment does not function with a class A device, the class A device is removed and standard OCPD is used. A scenario where the equipment is not listed in 210.8(D) and hardwired the hazard to personnel is removed by removing the receptacle.
 

Attachments

  • 315522135_562375592318221_2186616584159142738_n.1688922631723 (1).jpg
    315522135_562375592318221_2186616584159142738_n.1688922631723 (1).jpg
    44 KB · Views: 6
  • 359429486_644239564281884_3973899024483115720_n.jpg
    359429486_644239564281884_3973899024483115720_n.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 5

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Now that UL 943 is looking at making a change to require some GFCIs to have immunity to high frequency leakage current. that might have a chance of passing, however it is unlikely that the change to UL 943 and new GFCIs built to the change standard would be available by that date.
 

letgomywago

Senior Member
Location
Washington state and Oregon coast
Occupation
residential electrician
Now that UL 943 is looking at making a change to require some GFCIs to have immunity to high frequency leakage current. that might have a chance of passing, however it is unlikely that the change to UL 943 and new GFCIs built to the change standard would be available by that date.
What date would you think they'd have this all figured out by?
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
What date would you think they'd have this all figured out by?
No idea...the process is very slow and no idea if the technical committee members of UL 943 will even approve this. The draft of the proposal makes the high frequency immunity an optional part of the GFCI. I don't see that working, if the one with the HF immunity will cost more, as people will continue to install the cheaper ones that trip on high frequency leakage current.
 

Bill Snyder

NEC expert
Location
Denver, Co
Occupation
Electrical Foreman
No idea...the process is very slow and no idea if the technical committee members of UL 943 will even approve this. The draft of the proposal makes the high frequency immunity an optional part of the GFCI. I don't see that working, if the one with the HF immunity will cost more, as people will continue to install the cheaper ones that trip on high frequency leakage current.
Funny how CMP-2 is unable to impose their will on a false merit of safety how safe is it when it is deleted?
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
They are required by no one to figure anything out they are compliant with the safety standards set by OSHA and the NEC
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The comment you replied to was about UL 943 completing work on the requirements for a GFCI design that has immunity to high frequency leakage current trips.

Neither the NEC or OSHA has anything directly to do with the workings of UL943.

Indirectly the NEC is driving the design change proposed by the technical committee for UL 943 as there are NEC requirements for GFCI protection where newer energy efficient equipment is used. Such equipment is known to have high frequency leakage current that results in some GFCIs tripping at leakage current levels below the 60 hertz requirement of must not trip below 4 mA, may trip between 4 and 6 mA, and must trip above 6 mA.
 

Bill Snyder

NEC expert
Location
Denver, Co
Occupation
Electrical Foreman
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The comment you replied to was about UL 943 completing work on the requirements for a GFCI design that has immunity to high frequency leakage current trips.

Neither the NEC or OSHA has anything directly to do with the workings of UL943.

Indirectly the NEC is driving the design change proposed by the technical committee for UL 943 as there are NEC requirements for GFCI protection where newer energy efficient equipment is used. Such equipment is known to have high frequency leakage current that results in some GFCIs tripping at leakage current levels below the 60 hertz requirement of must not trip below 4 mA, may trip between 4 and 6 mA, and must trip above 6 mA.
My mistake sir I was referencing UL 1995 and UL 7001 which I don't think will ever be compatible with class A devices
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top