Article 422.52 and 680

Status
Not open for further replies.
fbhwt

fbhwt

Electrical Systems Inspector
Location
Spotsylvania,Virginia
Occupation
Electrical Systems Inspector
Just looking for your thoughts, the other day I received a work ticket to replace existing 20a duplex receptacles with GFCI receptacles that are within 6ft of a drinking fountain. This was the result of a safety inspection by base safety at a barracks on base. I know this is not required, but they are telling me it is. Theses receptacles do not feed the drinking fountain.
 
Article 680 is for pools, 422.52 wouldn't apply if the receptacle was for something other than powering the DF.
 
infinity said:
Article 680 is for pools, 422.52 wouldn't apply if the receptacle was for something other than powering the DF.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to include that at some point in the description they mentioned the words "water fountain" which 680 also covers.
 
Remember the code is the bare minimum.

I have seen this before and if some facility thinks that this will lead to increased safety and theoretically lower their insurance premiums by all means do.

I used to care that "this is not required" but if this is what the customer wants I'm not going fight it, not even give an opinion unless specifically asked.
Same goes for home inspectors.

Put em' in; get paid; and go home.

Sounds like easy work

Joe Villani
 
sounds like someone does not know the difference from a "water fountain" and a "drinking fountain". 680.589 would apply to a water fountain and does have a 6 ft rule.
Joe probably has the best idea: "There's your GFCIs, where's my check" :D You and Levition shareholders make a dollar and some brain-dead safety guru gets an att-boy.
 
Last edited:
fbhwt said:
Sorry, forgot to include that at some point in the description they mentioned the words "water fountain" which 680 also covers.
Click to expand...
Does not include drinking fountains.

Fountain. Fountains, ornamental pools, display pools, and
reflection pools. The definition does not include drinking
fountains.
Click to expand...
 
Joe Villani said:
Remember the code is the bare minimum.

I have seen this before and if some facility thinks that this will lead to increased safety and theoretically lower their insurance premiums by all means do.

I used to care that "this is not required" but if this is what the customer wants I'm not going fight it, not even give an opinion unless specifically asked.
Same goes for home inspectors.

Put em' in; get paid; and go home.

Sounds like easy work

Joe Villani
Click to expand...


This is a barracks, new building, still under warranty, if this a safety concern it should have been in the spec's. To me it's a waste of tax payers money.
 
Based on the two sections posted in the OP I would say that the person who wrote the report cannot read very well. Those sections are clearly written in my book. :roll:
 
Well, there is also the ancient model of a continuously running decorative fountain that you can also drink from.
But they did not have electricity to worry about back then. :)
And on a similar note, would a janitor's closet with a slop sink inside be a Water Closet?
 
Last edited:
fbhwt said:
This is a barracks, new building, still under warranty, if this a safety concern it should have been in the spec's. To me it's a waste of tax payers money.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%

I guess I'm jaded.

If the contractor or owner is expecting me to pay for this naturally I would fight it and eventually get the change order.

If there willing to pay me and I protest they will get someone else.

IMO the only "win" in this situation is to do the work and cash the check :D
 
Joe Villani said:
I agree with you 100%

I guess I'm jaded.

If the contractor or owner is expecting me to pay for this naturally I would fight it and eventually get the change order.

If there willing to pay me and I protest they will get someone else.

IMO the only "win" in this situation is to do the work and cash the check :D
Click to expand...

Nobody is getting paid, this is your taxes paying for this.
 
fbhwt said:
Nobody is getting paid, this is your taxes paying for this.
Click to expand...
and I agree that's irritating as h***
only problem: which will cost more.. you installing the receptacles or jumping through the hoops to not do so.
If it is as simple as your informing someone that its not Code required and that's the end of it, great ! Save us taxpayers some money.
If it requires your going back through a half-dozen bureaucrats to revise written requirements, etc.... which is more cost effective ??
 
fbhwt said:
Nobody is getting paid, this is your taxes paying for this.
Click to expand...

Again I agree with you.

This how I've seen it work.

When it comes to safety everything is scrutinized.

This report goes to some manager. They can disapprove of the observation based on code.

Now this observation just doesn't die it moves up the chain and now another manager or committee looks now only the observation but the manager who disapproved it.

No manager wants that attention. It's easier to approve the work.

Now the manager can spin it as he or she is a champion of safety and doing the "right" thing.

It's not worth the fight. Just my 2 cents.

Joe Villani
 
augie47 said:
and I agree that's irritating as h***
only problem: which will cost more.. you installing the receptacles or jumping through the hoops to not do so.
If it is as simple as your informing someone that its not Code required and that's the end of it, great ! Save us taxpayers some money.
If it requires your going back through a half-dozen bureaucrats to revise written requirements, etc.... which is more cost effective ??
Click to expand...
He didn't mention specifically, but I have to assume he did the original installation and this replacement is being considered a checklist item under the original contract... thus already covered in contract payment. If GFCI receptacles in these locations were not specified under contract documentation, it is only right it should be submitted as a change order and paid as such.

That said, you are correct that escalation could end up costing more than just replacing the receptacles. Bureaucrats do not take the cost on their side into consideration, they're getting paid regardless of the outcome. So it is something that will have to be weighed into the matter on the OP's end... but I think it is only right to take at least the first step and see what happens before making the decision on how to proceed.
 
Article 422.52 and 680

We all agree that these receptacles are not required to be GFCI protected according to 2011 NEC, correct? Now if base safety wants these changed they can contact the contracting officer and have the EC come back and change them out. Not long ago they wanted me to put arc-flash warning labels on the outside of all the new panels, even though they were clearly labeled on the inside.
 
fbhwt said:
According to the base order, we are to follow the most current NFPA standards of the National Electrical Code. 110.16
Click to expand...

As of [2011], the relevant section, IMHO, is 110.16 (emphasis mine):
The marking shall be located so as to be clearly visible to qualified persons before examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance of the equipment.
Click to expand...
Arguably, that means that the label should be visible before you open the door to examine the breakers, etc.
The section also refers the user, via an informational note, to NFPA 70E, which has additional guidelines.

Now other required panelboard markings, by contrast, are explicitly permitted to be inside the panel, just not too far inside:
408.58 Panelboard Marking. Panelboards shall be durably marked by the manufacturer with the voltage and the current rating and the number of phases for which they are designed and with the manufacturer?s name or trademark in such a manner so as to be visible after installation, without disturbing the interior parts or wiring.
Click to expand...
Note that the 408.58 markings must be placed by the manufacturer, and so cannot be on the removable/interchangeable cover, while the arc flash labels are by their nature specific to a particular panelboard in a particular location, and cannot necessarily be supplied by the manufacturer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top