GFCI for appliances dilemma

nietzj said:
422.5 (A) instead of trying to list every known appliance at the time of this code cycle maybe the code panel should of said something like appliances requiring more than one utility, electric + water/gas/steam require GFCI class (A) protection. Otherwise we just have to assume they knew in advance an appliance that needs electric, water and gas connections is safe to install using a standard breaker.
Click to expand...
The system will open in the next few weeks for the submission of Public Inputs to make changes for the 2029 code. I am looking forward to reading your public input.
Remember, in general, the code is written by the code making panel's action of the public inputs that have been submitted.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is not over the voltage requirement as that requirement is that the branch circuit voltage not exceed 150 volts to ground. A 208Y/120 volt system does not exceed 150 volts to ground.
Click to expand...

It is over 100A. Or at least the linked equipment.

I was saying it is over the current limitations of both requirements, 422.5 & 210.8(B).
 
nietzj said:
Just play the devils advocate.

"Is it reasonable for a code making panel to list every single appliance known? I think one could assume they are similar enough and therefore require GFCI"

BTW I don't like the language in 422.5, very vague for both installer and AHJ.
Click to expand...
What is vague is calling an oven a dishwasher just because it has a water connection to it. If it is listed to any standards that apply to dishwashers and called a dishwasher then it is a dishwasher. If it is listed to standards that apply to ovens then it is an oven. BTW the oven will very likely require GFCI protection in many cases if it were cord and plug connected.

Though I don't agree with the need to GFCI protect some the things they have added in the last few code cycles, I don't see the wording being all that vague on what was intended to have GFCI protection.

Some the more recent GFCI additions in recent code editions were based primarily on "because we can" more so than actual statistical data showing there was increased shock/electrocution incidents involving the items and/or locations they had added to the requirements.
 
nietzj said:
422.5 (A) tells me I need to provide GFCI protection for certain appliances which are listed 1-7. I thought by hard wiring the appliance I wouldn't need to worry about any receptacle requirements of 210.52 (B) This is not a dwelling.
Click to expand...
Other than item 3 that specifically says cord and plug connected high pressure spray washing machines, all the other items require GFCI protection whether cord and plug connected or not if they fall under voltage and current levels mentioned.

You are correct that 210.52(B) has nothing to do with this. GFCI protected receptacle requirements are not in 210.52 but are in 210.8 (A) and (B) along with other possible non receptacle situations in (C) through (F). Wall mounted ovens is mentioned in (D), but is pushing things in similar manner to call what you posted a link to a wall mounted oven as it is to call it a dishwasher.
 
kwired said:
What is vague is calling an oven a dishwasher just because it has a water connection to it. If it is listed to any standards that apply to dishwashers and called a dishwasher then it is a dishwasher.
Click to expand...
I've always maintained that just because there is water or moisture present shouldn't be a reason for a GFCI. We seem to forget that the reason for domestic dishwashers to be on a GFCI protected circuit is not because of a shock hazard. It is because some dishwasher manufacturers refused to design their machines so that when a seal leaks water doesn't run down into the motor.

I see no reason for commercial kitchen equipment that is hard wired to be GFCI protected. If the EG was not installed properly by some hack, don't expect a GFCI either.

I totally agree that much of the expansion of GFCIs is "because we can" encouraged by manufacturers wanting to increase profits.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
I totally agree that much of the expansion of GFCIs is "because we can" encouraged by manufacturers wanting to increase profits.
Click to expand...
I remember back when they first started requiring 3 pole GFCI's in 210.8 I was looking through the reports trying to figure out what the justification was for that and the best thing I recall reading was something to the effect of 'we have that ability now'.


??? expletive not entered??? Back since GFCI's were first introduced and up until about the turn of the century most the changes to GFCI requirements had to do higher incidents in the specific situations they added a requirement for. Maybe we cruised through the 2000's without too much major additions though maybe more restrictions on what was already in effect (like no more receptacles dedicated to a specific appliance exemption or things of that nature) but 2011 and on just seemed to add things for no real justification or because of a single reported incident vs multiple reports of same type of incident occurring and some because we can type of justification as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top