Home Inspectors and GFCI's
- Thread starter badbrad
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I scanned through it and noticed one thing the NEC disagrees with, this paragraph:
The 2008 NEC has removed the exceptions which allowed use of a single receptacle without GFCI protection in garages and basements. Take a look at the changes for the 2008 in 210.8(A). Also 15 and 20 amp, 125 volt all receptacles in commercial kitchens, even those supplying refrigerators, require GFCI protection so the NEC kind of defeats your argument.
The 2008 NEC has removed the exceptions which allowed use of a single receptacle without GFCI protection in garages and basements. Take a look at the changes for the 2008 in 210.8(A). Also 15 and 20 amp, 125 volt all receptacles in commercial kitchens, even those supplying refrigerators, require GFCI protection so the NEC kind of defeats your argument.
- Location
- Massachusetts
I agree with Trevor, do not keep the myth going.
If the fridge trips the GFCI have the fridge repaired or replace it.
If the fridge trips the GFCI have the fridge repaired or replace it.
I agree too. Given the fact that GFCI's work on construction sites they can certainly work in residential garages for properly working appliances. The correct action from the HI would be to cite the refrigerator as the problem.
Roger
Roger
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Nicely written Brad but I do agree with the others about GFCI and refrigerators. I have one in my basement that has been GFCI protected for 6 years or so with no incidents. Yes, it is still functioning properly.
The same is true for computers, they should not trip GFCI's however I can see how a trip down stream can be a probably for data lose. The biggest factor here is the use of the arc faults. With arc fault protection everywhere in the house (almost everywhere) the GFCI will be the least of the problems for the computer data lose. If everthing is wired properly hopefully this will not be that big an issue.
The same is true for computers, they should not trip GFCI's however I can see how a trip down stream can be a probably for data lose. The biggest factor here is the use of the arc faults. With arc fault protection everywhere in the house (almost everywhere) the GFCI will be the least of the problems for the computer data lose. If everthing is wired properly hopefully this will not be that big an issue.
Refig. GFCI
Refig. GFCI
With 2008 now vending machines must also be GFCI protected along with EWC?s and we had problems with EWC?s tripping the GFCI the manufacturers literature indicted that the EWC should not be placed on a GFCI protected circuit however the new 2008NEC requires it. it is not my problem the equipment manufacturers (not all some) build cheap equipment, that trip a GFCI to me this is a problem with the manufacturer (some) however a lot of manufacturers will work fine on a GFCI it just a matter of finding the right one.
Refig. GFCI
With 2008 now vending machines must also be GFCI protected along with EWC?s and we had problems with EWC?s tripping the GFCI the manufacturers literature indicted that the EWC should not be placed on a GFCI protected circuit however the new 2008NEC requires it. it is not my problem the equipment manufacturers (not all some) build cheap equipment, that trip a GFCI to me this is a problem with the manufacturer (some) however a lot of manufacturers will work fine on a GFCI it just a matter of finding the right one.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Good article. I have three minor comments:
- Middle of page 2: "These papers fail to understand . . . ." I would not expect a paper to understand.
- Top of page 5" ". . . to protect children from electrocution." I think they might protect an adult as well.
- General: The use of the word "located" does not make sense to me. You need to know something exists more than you need to know precisely where it is.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
As others have said don't keep reinforcing the myth that some appliances can't be used with GFCIs. The maximum permitted leakage for a listed appliance is 0.5mA, only 10% of the GFCI trip point. If the GFCI trips either the GFCI is defective (not very likely) or the appliance is a saftey hazard and the GFCI is doing its job.
highendtron
Senior Member
If one is worried about losing the contents of a refrigerator or freezer due to a loss of GFCI power...hook up a simple alarm buzzer ... most sump pumps have battery back ups which sound on loss of power.
Rewire
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake of the Ozarks
A UPS can be purchased at a realative low cost to allow time to save data should a gfi trip
Refrigerators on GFCI's
Refrigerators on GFCI's
Thank you guys for the input. It is so interesting to see the different point of view from the electricians. It is important to keep in mind that building codes are not retroactive and cannot be applied to existing housing.
I expected to get hammered on the "testing" vs. "locating" portion on the article, and never expected the comments on the refrigerator on the GFCI. Back in about 1974 my father, who was a custom builder, advised his customers to replace the GFCI's after the final inspection because of their nuisance tripping. If a customer wanted a freezer in the garage he would have one outlet dedicated just for that appliance. I know from personal experience that the early GFCI's were a major PIA on the job site and would occasionally trip on some appliances. Obviously they have improved over the years and now the NEC will accept them on a freezer.
Consider an older home with a single GFCI in a garage that protects a number of outlets down stream. The freezer is plugged into the last outlet. The mother-in-law of the house plugs in her 1950's era hair dryer into the first outlet and trips the GFCI. The freezer is now inoperative and nobody knows until it is too late and the food is spoiled.
I understand that the sparking explanation may be incorrect for the newer GFCI's but remember who the home inspector is talking to. Homeowners do not understand GFCI's and only really care when they have to shell out a few bucks for the spoiled food. I will rewrite that section and make a few change and see if I can do a better job.
Thanks,
Brad Deal
20/20 Home Inspections
Refrigerators on GFCI's
Thank you guys for the input. It is so interesting to see the different point of view from the electricians. It is important to keep in mind that building codes are not retroactive and cannot be applied to existing housing.
I expected to get hammered on the "testing" vs. "locating" portion on the article, and never expected the comments on the refrigerator on the GFCI. Back in about 1974 my father, who was a custom builder, advised his customers to replace the GFCI's after the final inspection because of their nuisance tripping. If a customer wanted a freezer in the garage he would have one outlet dedicated just for that appliance. I know from personal experience that the early GFCI's were a major PIA on the job site and would occasionally trip on some appliances. Obviously they have improved over the years and now the NEC will accept them on a freezer.
Consider an older home with a single GFCI in a garage that protects a number of outlets down stream. The freezer is plugged into the last outlet. The mother-in-law of the house plugs in her 1950's era hair dryer into the first outlet and trips the GFCI. The freezer is now inoperative and nobody knows until it is too late and the food is spoiled.
I understand that the sparking explanation may be incorrect for the newer GFCI's but remember who the home inspector is talking to. Homeowners do not understand GFCI's and only really care when they have to shell out a few bucks for the spoiled food. I will rewrite that section and make a few change and see if I can do a better job.
Thanks,
Brad Deal
20/20 Home Inspections
Hi Brad,
Let me know if you received my email comments on using the press-to-test Three-prong tester that trips the GFCI breaker circuit or receptacle test. rbj
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
I didn't see it in the article, but using a plug in tester on an ungrounded GFCI will not make it trip. The GFCI test button inserts a resistor in series from hot to neutral that does not go thru the torroid (unbalanced) coil, hence causing a trip. The plug in tester bleeds current from hot to ground as it can't get inside the GFCI. No ground no trip.
The only, and some would say acceptable (see 110.3(B)) way to test a GFCI is with the test button.
I highly recommend you search out and purchase a book by Earl Roberts "Undercurrents and Overcurrents" on the history of the GFCI and more.
The only, and some would say acceptable (see 110.3(B)) way to test a GFCI is with the test button.
I highly recommend you search out and purchase a book by Earl Roberts "Undercurrents and Overcurrents" on the history of the GFCI and more.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
I agree about the fridge thing - I didn't understand why it got such a response until I read the article.
Edit to add: I would consider my solenoid meter to be an "indicator", since it creates an indiscriminately higher current ground fault, but a GFCI tester (I thought) faults something close to 5mA.
Also - I can understand that time is money and all that, but I wonder what folks would think if you recommended a few sample receptacles be pulled for examination? Miswiring aside, bad terminations are a hazard in any home.
I'll bite: why the emphasis on testing and locating? I thought 3-prong receptacle tester for GFCIs were indeed "testers" and not "indicators". I know when the AFCI came out, and the three-light receptacle checkers came out, it was made clear that the AFCI might not be fooled by these devices, and so therefore they were an "indicator" and not a "tester", because the AFCI could be perfectly fine and fail to trip when the button was pushed.
Edit to add: I would consider my solenoid meter to be an "indicator", since it creates an indiscriminately higher current ground fault, but a GFCI tester (I thought) faults something close to 5mA.
Also - I can understand that time is money and all that, but I wonder what folks would think if you recommended a few sample receptacles be pulled for examination? Miswiring aside, bad terminations are a hazard in any home.
Last edited:
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
I have to totally agree with this statement:
I think our government has crossed the line in many respects of over governing our lives, and where will it stop? will hang gliding be outlawed? sky diving? foot ball? car racing?
It destroys the freedom of choice, we as American's should have the choice to enjoy at our expense, it should be up to us as to how dangerous we so chose to live. The very backbone of our country laws are being destroyed
There are a few laws in our states that back this, such as the log cabin law, which allows for a home owner to do his own work, and in some states , as they see fit even without inspections, and there is even laws in our Constitution that protect us from having to bring up everything to code every time there is a code change, its article 9 section 21 and states
"No Post Facto Law Shall Ever Be In Acted" the all known "Grandfather Clause"
Do I believe in this? You bet I do!
But now on the flip side, as a worker doing work for a paying customer, I do not have the right to endanger their lives, even if they are not a paying customer. This is the only place where the codes and laws should ever come into play.
At the same time If I were and insurance company or loan company I should and do have the right to refuse service to a high risk, if I would be paying for the out come of a person who wishes to live in a dangerous house.
Now if I were on the market to buy a house, lets say for cash, then it is up to me as to whether or not I would buy a house a DYS built for himself again this is a choice by me and my freedom to make that choice.
Now where does a "Home Inspector" fit into this? Informational purpose only. To help inform the payer of the service to make an "informed" choice of a decision of the facts found and the laws that may apply.
The choices of the out come is up to the one making the choice and to them only.
It has been proved that the more safe we make things, the more relaxed the public is about safety, newer cars are a good example of this, and the reckless driving that has resulted because they feel safer and can get away with more.
I think our government has crossed the line in many respects of over governing our lives, and where will it stop? will hang gliding be outlawed? sky diving? foot ball? car racing?
It destroys the freedom of choice, we as American's should have the choice to enjoy at our expense, it should be up to us as to how dangerous we so chose to live. The very backbone of our country laws are being destroyed
There are a few laws in our states that back this, such as the log cabin law, which allows for a home owner to do his own work, and in some states , as they see fit even without inspections, and there is even laws in our Constitution that protect us from having to bring up everything to code every time there is a code change, its article 9 section 21 and states
"No Post Facto Law Shall Ever Be In Acted" the all known "Grandfather Clause"
Do I believe in this? You bet I do!
But now on the flip side, as a worker doing work for a paying customer, I do not have the right to endanger their lives, even if they are not a paying customer. This is the only place where the codes and laws should ever come into play.
At the same time If I were and insurance company or loan company I should and do have the right to refuse service to a high risk, if I would be paying for the out come of a person who wishes to live in a dangerous house.
Now if I were on the market to buy a house, lets say for cash, then it is up to me as to whether or not I would buy a house a DYS built for himself again this is a choice by me and my freedom to make that choice.
Now where does a "Home Inspector" fit into this? Informational purpose only. To help inform the payer of the service to make an "informed" choice of a decision of the facts found and the laws that may apply.
The choices of the out come is up to the one making the choice and to them only.
Last edited by a moderator:
Email comments
Email comments
Hi Brad,
Let me know if you received my email comments on using the press-to-test Three-prong tester that trips the GFCI breaker circuit or receptacle test
I do not think I received your email comments. I can barely make this thing work anyway.
I am aware of the difference between the way the built in GFCI testing circuit the the way the 3 prong tester works. From my point of view as a home inspector I do not care about the details of how the inner components operate. I only care about being reasonably assured that the GFCI exists and that it exists at specific locations. If there is any reason to believe there is a problem with the GFCI then it is called out as defective.
As for taking a few plugs apart, it is forbidden by the purchase contract. No intrusive inspections are allowed. However, a good inspector will exceed the standards if he suspects a significant a health safety hazard. Experience has taught me to be very careful when messing with other people's property.
In houses with only a two wire system I will sometimes recommend replacing the two prong outlets with GFCI's in order to keep the down the cost of installing the ground wire. "No equipment ground" is to placed on these outlets, and yes the 3 prong tester will not trip these non-grounded GFCI's
I guess papers don’t respond, but authors do. I almost always use children as standard for safety. Most people will not question a child safety hazard, but will argue over the same issue for an adult.
There is a great controversy in the home inspection industry regarding the use of 3 prong tester and especially testing GFCI's. You can only test a GFCI by pushing the test button, but how do you know the outlet next to the swimming pool is protected by a GFCI if it does not have a obvious GFCI in that particular outlet? I submit that I do not test GFCI with my tester, but only confirm or deign it's existence at a specific location. I locate GFCI's, I do not test GFCI's.
Thank you for the input. this is great fun.
Brad Deal
20/20 Home Inspections
Email comments
Hi Brad,
Let me know if you received my email comments on using the press-to-test Three-prong tester that trips the GFCI breaker circuit or receptacle test
I do not think I received your email comments. I can barely make this thing work anyway.
I am aware of the difference between the way the built in GFCI testing circuit the the way the 3 prong tester works. From my point of view as a home inspector I do not care about the details of how the inner components operate. I only care about being reasonably assured that the GFCI exists and that it exists at specific locations. If there is any reason to believe there is a problem with the GFCI then it is called out as defective.
As for taking a few plugs apart, it is forbidden by the purchase contract. No intrusive inspections are allowed. However, a good inspector will exceed the standards if he suspects a significant a health safety hazard. Experience has taught me to be very careful when messing with other people's property.
In houses with only a two wire system I will sometimes recommend replacing the two prong outlets with GFCI's in order to keep the down the cost of installing the ground wire. "No equipment ground" is to placed on these outlets, and yes the 3 prong tester will not trip these non-grounded GFCI's
I guess papers don’t respond, but authors do. I almost always use children as standard for safety. Most people will not question a child safety hazard, but will argue over the same issue for an adult.
There is a great controversy in the home inspection industry regarding the use of 3 prong tester and especially testing GFCI's. You can only test a GFCI by pushing the test button, but how do you know the outlet next to the swimming pool is protected by a GFCI if it does not have a obvious GFCI in that particular outlet? I submit that I do not test GFCI with my tester, but only confirm or deign it's existence at a specific location. I locate GFCI's, I do not test GFCI's.
Thank you for the input. this is great fun.
Brad Deal
20/20 Home Inspections
Last edited by a moderator:
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Brad I guess I got a little off track of your original post, not too often I find someone who shares my pet peeves with how our laws are being trampled on.:grin:
But back on subject, I see that you are well informed on the fact that these three light tester are more of just an indicator as was pointed out, then they are for testing of GFCI's, even UL has a statement that the only UL method of testing a GFCI is the test button on the device whether that it be a receptacle or breaker or any other type, this is the only UL listed method that has to be complied with. as for using these 3-light tester/indicators for finding out if a circuit does in fact have GFCI protection is nothing more than what any electrician would do in the same situation, a 3-light tester is only one choice for this kind of testing/locating as there are other methods such as using a coil loaded voltage tester, etc... but these serve only to note if a circuit has GFCI protection and is not a test of the performance of the GFCI in question, which as has been said has to be the test button on the device.
Your report seems to be well written and makes some great points.
But back on subject, I see that you are well informed on the fact that these three light tester are more of just an indicator as was pointed out, then they are for testing of GFCI's, even UL has a statement that the only UL method of testing a GFCI is the test button on the device whether that it be a receptacle or breaker or any other type, this is the only UL listed method that has to be complied with. as for using these 3-light tester/indicators for finding out if a circuit does in fact have GFCI protection is nothing more than what any electrician would do in the same situation, a 3-light tester is only one choice for this kind of testing/locating as there are other methods such as using a coil loaded voltage tester, etc... but these serve only to note if a circuit has GFCI protection and is not a test of the performance of the GFCI in question, which as has been said has to be the test button on the device.
Your report seems to be well written and makes some great points.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am also confused by the use of "located" it adds nothing but confusion to your paper. Inspectors find GFCIs, test them and make recommendations. Located?
Also Leviton makes a GFCI tester that tests at 2 , 3, and 5 miliamps. (cat #6185) it costs about $30. Our building inspector has one. I have had one for 20 years. I think every electrician and home inspector should have one too. If the tester shows no ground and does not trip the GFCI, I hook it up to a ground with an adapter to make it work.
You have tested a GFCI and it would not reset? This has never happened to me in over 30 years. And this is the bizarre opening story to your pamphlet?
Also the idea about leaving an extension cord plugged in to a refer at a customer's house is just plain nuts.
Your most excellent idea is to have your writing checked before you send it out to the public.
My suggestion for you: research.
Also Leviton makes a GFCI tester that tests at 2 , 3, and 5 miliamps. (cat #6185) it costs about $30. Our building inspector has one. I have had one for 20 years. I think every electrician and home inspector should have one too. If the tester shows no ground and does not trip the GFCI, I hook it up to a ground with an adapter to make it work.
You have tested a GFCI and it would not reset? This has never happened to me in over 30 years. And this is the bizarre opening story to your pamphlet?
Also the idea about leaving an extension cord plugged in to a refer at a customer's house is just plain nuts.
Your most excellent idea is to have your writing checked before you send it out to the public.
My suggestion for you: research.
Last edited:
writing context
writing context
Hi Brad,
I know by my own writing that using various words can twist a readers mind into interpretation chaos. Sometimes I find that spelling out the whole-for-better-meaning will help the clarity I seek. So maybe my intrusion into a post will help...
I interpreted 'located' as meaning looking for a receptacle that is downline from and part of the tripped GFCI circuit. I also interpret 'located' as looking for an upstream GFCI that has or has not tripped. I think the additional descriptive data will help discern a targeted location. I hope I am not being too critical when there is a run-on train of thought, but sometimes I can trip up the reader's concept by not predicating the difference between two similar objects or 'locations'.
I think the best example is taken from your comments on the "Sure-Test" paragraph notes mentioning and I quote... "There (their) use is well outside the scope of a home inspector's responsibilities. My position is that the issues properly reported (indicated?) by the tester greatly outweigh the negative aspects of the tester."
My mind is not asking which tester is being referred to while I am still focused on the Sure-Test instrument comments in thinking your position of tester issues is being referenced to the Sure-Test. I later saw the statement really was alluding to "My position is that the issues properly reported by the ('three-prong') tester..." would have kept me reading forward rather than looking for clues to which tester was being mentioned in the issues taken. I hope the suggestions can help put more bite into writing structure. I know I take inordinate time to re-write segments of description that just do not sound proper when I proof read my own terrible habits. So I hope you can laugh at me and see some of my errors in this discourse rendered. rbj
writing context
Hi Brad,
I know by my own writing that using various words can twist a readers mind into interpretation chaos. Sometimes I find that spelling out the whole-for-better-meaning will help the clarity I seek. So maybe my intrusion into a post will help...
I interpreted 'located' as meaning looking for a receptacle that is downline from and part of the tripped GFCI circuit. I also interpret 'located' as looking for an upstream GFCI that has or has not tripped. I think the additional descriptive data will help discern a targeted location. I hope I am not being too critical when there is a run-on train of thought, but sometimes I can trip up the reader's concept by not predicating the difference between two similar objects or 'locations'.
I think the best example is taken from your comments on the "Sure-Test" paragraph notes mentioning and I quote... "There (their) use is well outside the scope of a home inspector's responsibilities. My position is that the issues properly reported (indicated?) by the tester greatly outweigh the negative aspects of the tester."
My mind is not asking which tester is being referred to while I am still focused on the Sure-Test instrument comments in thinking your position of tester issues is being referenced to the Sure-Test. I later saw the statement really was alluding to "My position is that the issues properly reported by the ('three-prong') tester..." would have kept me reading forward rather than looking for clues to which tester was being mentioned in the issues taken. I hope the suggestions can help put more bite into writing structure. I know I take inordinate time to re-write segments of description that just do not sound proper when I proof read my own terrible habits. So I hope you can laugh at me and see some of my errors in this discourse rendered. rbj
- Status