GFI Protection for hard-wired ranges.

[kwired]

There is at least one person from the appliance industry on CMP 2. Not sure if that person raised objections or not.

It isn't CMP members and who they work for as much as it is the AFCI and GFCI manufacturers have deep enough pockets to produce documents, demonstrations and such that are used to convince CMP members to vote their way when it comes to code making. While the contractors/installers that have different opinions on some the matter don't have any organization with deep enough pockets to produce similar opposing content and/or enough of it that is convincing enough to sway CMP decisions.

One appliance manufacturer on the CMP maybe does make them discuss things a bit more though. But maybe that person doesn't work for a manufacturer that is going to be effected by much or maybe doesn't make the appliances in question?

Before turn of the century most all GFCI requirements were there because of common real world incidents in certain areas and not so much one incident here or there that maybe had other code issues contributing to the incident. And a majority of them were 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles being involved where it was common to see missing EGC pins on cord caps contributing to the problems. I was fine with a lot of the expansion of GFCI requirements involving 15-20 amp 125 volt receptacles for the most part.

One the first places they started to lose me at supporting most new GFCI changes was with the water drinking fountains and dishwashers. Most drinking fountains do have 15 amp 125 volt plug, but the receptacle is placed where it will be covered by the unit and risk of losing that EGC pin is not like it is with a lot of other equipment. I disagreed but not too strongly. The dishwasher wasn't even added because of compromised EGC reasons, it was added because of a component issue that potentially caused fires when it failed and it was discovered that GFCI would trip when that component failed. I never really knew exactly what component was, but IMO this issue should been resolved with product recalls and not by code requirements. After that they started going hog wild with added GFCI requirements with no real justification for them. And I believe the official reason for some the first three phase GFCI protection requirements was something to the effect "we now have that ability" and not something like "there has been quite a few shock and electrocutions incidents involving this".

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It isn't CMP members and who they work for as much as it is the AFCI and GFCI manufacturers have deep enough pockets to produce documents, demonstrations and such that are used to convince CMP members to vote their way when it comes to code making. While the contractors/installers that have different opinions on some the matter don't have any organization with deep enough pockets to produce similar opposing content and/or enough of it that is convincing enough to sway CMP decisions.

One appliance manufacturer on the CMP maybe does make them discuss things a bit more though. But maybe that person doesn't work for a manufacturer that is going to be effected by much or maybe doesn't make the appliances in question?

Before turn of the century most all GFCI requirements were there because of common real world incidents in certain areas and not so much one incident here or there that maybe had other code issues contributing to the incident. And a majority of them were 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles being involved where it was common to see missing EGC pins on cord caps contributing to the problems. I was fine with a lot of the expansion of GFCI requirements involving 15-20 amp 125 volt receptacles for the most part.

One the first places they started to lose me at supporting most new GFCI changes was with the water drinking fountains and dishwashers. Most drinking fountains do have 15 amp 125 volt plug, but the receptacle is placed where it will be covered by the unit and risk of losing that EGC pin is not like it is with a lot of other equipment. I disagreed but not too strongly. The dishwasher wasn't even added because of compromised EGC reasons, it was added because of a component issue that potentially caused fires when it failed and it was discovered that GFCI would trip when that component failed. I never really knew exactly what component was, but IMO this issue should been resolved with product recalls and not by code requirements. After that they started going hog wild with added GFCI requirements with no real justification for them. And I believe the official reason for some the first three phase GFCI protection requirements was something to the effect "we now have that ability" and not something like "there has been quite a few shock and electrocutions incidents involving this".

He is a representative of the US appliance industry and not of a single manufacture. He likely has a directed vote like many other panel members who represent organizations...for example NEMA, where the votes are directed by the organization and not by the actual panel member. I know one whose votes were often detrimental to the actual manufacture that he worked
for, but reflected the wishes of the sponsoring organization.

The original dishwasher requirement was, as you say a CYA move by one manufacture where end of life component failures sometimes resulted in fires.

You are correct that the reason that GFCIs were originally limited to receptacles on 15 and 20 amp branch circuits, as that was the most likely installation where the EGC would be compromised.

However I agree that there has never been any actual evidence that would require GFCIs for hard wired equipment. The cased cited to get 210.8(F) was a code violation because the LFMC as installed in that case was not permitted to be an EGC. Other than very high hazard area like pools, there is no justification to require GFCI or SPGFCI protection for hardwired equipment.

And yes, some of these requirements are just because we can do that, without even looking at the product standards for the products that might be protected by these GFCIs. In namy cases hard wired equipment did not even have any leakage current limitations in the product standards as the standards writers correctly assumed that the code required EGC proveded the required protection, and in other cases such as outside AC equipment the standard permitted leakage current that exceeds the trip point of a GFCI. That standard has been changed, but they are still an issue because of the use of VFDs and high frequency leakage currents that can result and cuase GFCIs to trip where there is not an actual shock hazard.

 

[tortuga]

It isn't CMP members and who they work for as much as it is the AFCI and GFCI manufacturers have deep enough pockets to produce documents, demonstrations and such that are used to convince CMP members to vote their way when it comes to code making. While the contractors/installers that have different opinions on some the matter don't have any organization with deep enough pockets to produce similar opposing content and/or enough of it that is convincing enough to sway CMP decisions.

This is why independent peer revived research is important to fund, universities and research labs can do the studies with less bias.

Before turn of the century most all GFCI requirements were there because of common real world incidents in certain areas and not so much one incident here or there that maybe had other code issues contributing to the incident. And a majority of them were 15 and 20 amp 125 volt receptacles being involved where it was common to see missing EGC pins on cord caps contributing to the problems. I was fine with a lot of the expansion of GFCI requirements involving 15-20 amp 125 volt receptacles for the most part.

I agree, and requiring a GFCI on a new range circuit while we continue to allow a TN-C system on old ranges is really putting the cart before the horse.

 

[kwired]

This is why independent peer revived research is important to fund, universities and research labs can do the studies with less bias.

Where is their funding going to come from though? Donations to do cancer research is much more likely to come from wider base of the general population than donations to study GFCI technology. Not that there wouldn't be any donations at all, it's just not as hot of an interest topic for further study.