Why are GFCI required in garages and hangers, but not on industrial floors

[natfuelbill]

Why does the Code require GFCI receptacles in garages and hangers, but not on process, industrial and manufacturing floors?

 

[G._S._Ohm]

. . .but not on process, industrial and manufacturing floors?

Downtime in these places due to nuisance tripping is bad for business? Yet car washes now require them even though there has never been an 'incident.'

 

[pete m.]

Why does the Code require GFCI receptacles in garages and hangers, but not on process, industrial and manufacturing floors?

Wait around... it will probably get there.

Pete

 

[marti smith]

If the area fell under 210.8(B)(8) according to the AHJ then it would be required.

 

[John Deere Man]

Inspector

Inspector

In garages, hangers, & the like is where there are power tools being used to work on equipment in combination of wet floors in some cases.

 

[John Deere Man]

Inspector

Inspector

I just checked the hand book & this is what it said as well. Go figure.

 

[rbalex]

Why does the Code require GFCI receptacles in garages and hangers, but not on process, industrial and manufacturing floors?

I wish Section 590.6 weren’t quite so convoluted. What is now (or has become) Section 590.6 has been chopped up and “wordsmithed” so much it isn’t immediately clear. However, read carefully and parsed correctly, Section 590.6, in combination with Subsections 590.6(A) and (B), essentially requires GFCI or an Assured Equipment Grounding Conductor Program (AEGCP) in virtually every “workplace” operation.

Subsection 590.6(A) makes the absolute statement, “If a receptacle(s) is installed or exists as part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure and is used for temporary electric power, ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel shall be provided.”

Normally a Subsection should be interpreted in context of the primary. Section 590.6 would appear to “…apply only to temporary wiring installations used to supply temporary power to equipment used by personnel during construction, remodeling, maintenance, repair, or demolition of buildings, structures, equipment, or similar activities.” However, the opening and governing sentence also requires compliance with 590.6(A) and (B). That is, the second sentence becomes a condition and is not an exception.

Therefore a proper reading would be something like:

“All 125-volt, single-phase, 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacles used to supply temporary power to equipment used by personnel during construction, remodeling, maintenance, repair, or demolition of buildings, structures, equipment, or similar activities and that are in use by personnel shall have ground-fault circuit interrupter protection for personnel.”

Assuming the "industrial exception" doesn't apply, while GFCI does not have to be part of the receptacle, it still must be provided.

 

[natfuelbill]

I wonder when this GFCI was first placed in this section, or past section that have been renumbered to 590.6.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

Ambiguity in the wording of the NEC must benefit someone, otherwise it would disappear overnight.

 

[rbalex]

I wonder when this GFCI was first placed in this section, or past section that have been renumbered to 590.6.

The oldest version I have readily available is 1993; it said:

305-6. Ground-Fault Protection for Personnel. Ground-fault protection for personnel on construction sites shall be provided to comply with (a) or (b) below.
(a) Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupters. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacle outlets that are not a part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure and that are in use by personnel shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel. If a receptacle or receptacles are installed as part of the permanent wiring of the building or structure and used for temporary electric power, GFCI protection for personnel shall be provided.

It's older than that.

Art 305[1993] became Art 527[2002] and later Art 590[2005].

 

[rbalex]

... otherwise it would disappear overnight.

Don't kid yourself. Have you ever tried to make a Proposal?

 

[G._S._Ohm]

Don't kid yourself. Have you ever tried to make a Proposal?

No, but I have to wonder if there is an awful lot of unexplained inertia in adapting new and good ideas. Is it just bureaucracy and egos?

 

[Cavie]

GFI = Water. That was the tinking back in the 80's when GFI's were intoduced. That Idea is dead. GFI's are now projection in MANY applications. The nuciance triping in nothing like it used to be. I install gfi recps where ever I can. I can solve the problem over the phone in most cases (reidential). I have happ future customers when I do that. Go there and charge a service call to reset a breaker and you'll never hear from them again.

 

[natfuelbill]

Has anyone's project ever been red-tagged for not having GFCI's in the areas we are talking about.

 

[pfalcon]

Assuming the "industrial exception" doesn't apply, while GFCI does not have to be part of the receptacle, it still must be provided.

Article 590 applies to temporary installations only. See 590.1 Scope. Permanent receptacles in any environment are out of scope for 590.

It has been brought to my attention however that the 2011 will require GFCI in all garage-like areas. Considering that our plant has overhead doors where vehicles called trucks (fork trucks) come in out of the rain to travel down smooth concrete ...

 

[natfuelbill]

Article 590 applies to temporary installations only. See 590.1 Scope. Permanent receptacles in any environment are out of scope for 590.
QUOTE]

For 2011 NEC - how do you read 590.6(A)(2)?

Temporary permament receptacle....cOnFlIcTeD ????

Or am I missing something obvious?

This 590.6(A)(2) section seems to be more OSHA than NEC.

 

[pfalcon]

Article 590 applies to temporary installations only. See 590.1 Scope. Permanent receptacles in any environment are out of scope for 590.
QUOTE]

For 2011 NEC - how do you read 590.6(A)(2)?

Temporary permament receptacle....cOnFlIcTeD ????

Or am I missing something obvious?

This 590.6(A)(2) section seems to be more OSHA than NEC.

You are missing something counter-intuitive due to language limitations.

Permanent as in used for portable equipment that is a part normal operations. Sweepers, fans, laptops, etc. No GFCI.

vs.

Temporary as in used for (590.3) construction et al. Floodlamps while replacing overhead luminaires. GFCI needed.

 

[natfuelbill]

Sweepers, fans, laptops, etc. No GFCI.

I understand what you wrote, but, how is a sweeper, fan, laptop etc not considered maintenance as used in 590.6(A)?

Maybe some more examples of tasks that are not maintenance...and therfore not requiring GFCI.

This seems like such a fine distinction.

Here is the Websters Dictionary definition for maintenance.
"the upkeep of property or equipment"

Here is the Websters Dictionary definition for upkeep.
"the act of maintaining in good condition : the state of being maintained in good condition"

 

[pfalcon]

I understand what you wrote, but, how is a sweeper, fan, laptop etc not considered maintenance as used in 590.6(A)?

You need to stop focusing exclusively on the text of 590.6 and remember 590.6 is used only if 590 applies.

590.1 gives the scope and 590.3 gives examples. Unfortunately the word maintenance in 590.3 is a multi-use, personally interpreted word for most people. Thereby a source of understandable confusion. Look at the other examples and notice their scope of content. All are "major" items, quotes emphasized.

So if you're going to bring in a floor scrubber every night - it's housekeeping not maintenance. If you're going to shut down for the day to power wash - it's maintenance not housekeeping.

A fan to ventilate dangerous fumes during a toxic cleanup is temporary while a fan to cool off workers on a production line is just portable equipment using a receptacle.

Most of the words that tie this article down are judgemental. Everybody is going to draw a line at a different place. Just remember that the article is not meant to interfere with day-to-day operations but only to apply to exceptional jobs. So if a millwright comes out to lag a machine down to the floor it's not day-to-day even though it takes only 15 minutes. That hammer drill requires GFCI. IMHO.

 

[rbalex]

... remember 590.6 is used only if 590 applies.

I agree; however, there is no intermediate term between permanent and temporary - and no provision in Article 590 to do anything else even if there were.

Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (the NFPA Manual of Style?s official source for defining terms not specifically defined elsewhere in NFPA documents) defines temporary as, ?lasting for a limited time.? Therefore, the examples you cited are still temporary ? and subject to Section 590.6, the fact that they are rarely enforced notwithstanding.

Section 590.6 has become replete with unintended consequences, especially since the 1996 NEC. I documented a couple of them in the 2001 ? 2002 ROP/ROC. (It was Article 305 at the time)

... Just remember that the article is not meant to interfere with day-to-day operations but only to apply to exceptional jobs... IMHO.

Where in the Article's scope does it say that?