50a RV Outlet

[jap]

I picked up a Midwest 50a RV unmetered outlet UO54P and it said this on the cover.

"No Groundfault Protection. Use acceptable assured equipment grounding program for corded equipment except for recreational Vehicles with GFCI protection"

What exactly does this mean?

JAP>

 

[infinity]

"acceptable assured equipment grounding program" usually refers to temporary installations under Article 590. Look at 590.6.

 

[jap]

But it says to use that program "except" for recreational vehicles with GFCI protection.

Seeing as how I don't know of any recreational vehicle that is fully GFCI protected at it's source, would that not mean that assuring an electrically continuous EGC connection would negate the need for any GFCI protection ?

The wording of this stuff drives me crazy.

JAP>

 

[infinity]

The wording of this stuff drives me crazy.

Yeah we recently had a thread about how manufacturers labels and instructions are so poorly written. This is a good example of that. Since they used the very specific wording of "acceptable assured equipment grounding program" I would assume that the reference is for temporary installations only unless for an RV there was some other GFCI protection after the receptacle.

 

[augie47]

Likely a result of the situation that arose in the 2017 when 210.8(B) was expanded 50 amp single phase receptacles which caused coflict with Art 551.71. The 2020 Code clarified the discrephency.

 

[jap]

In the 2023 code I see no relief from having to install GFCI protection for a 50a 125/250v RV receptacle outlet if installed on a dwelling unit for a personal RV.

It's about a $100.00 more expensive breaker now than what it was in the past to install the same outlet.

I don't think the whole "considering the circuit as a feeder once the RV is plugged into the outlet" thing will fly.

I'm just hoping once installed the RV plugged into the receptacle plays well with the GFCI breaker protecting it.

JAP>

 

[augie47]

In the 2023 code I see no relief from having to install GFCI protection for a 50a 125/250v RV receptacle outlet if installed on a dwelling unit for a personal RV.

It's about a $100.00 more expensive breaker now than what it was in the past to install the same outlet.

I don't think the whole "considering the circuit as a feeder once the RV is plugged into the outlet" thing will fly.

I'm just hoping once installed the RV plugged into the receptacle plays well with the GFCI breaker protecting it.

JAP>

I would agree with that. The "GFCI Exception" is in 551.71 which is under Part V in Art 551 which is entitled RV Parks which, by definition is two or more RVs offered to use by the public so, IMO, and argument can be made the lone 50 amp receptacle on a residence would need GFCI protection.,

 

[tortuga]

I'm just hoping once installed the RV plugged into the receptacle plays well with the GFCI breaker protecting it.

Back before GFCI's were required I converted a old 50A spa hookup to a RV outlet and just left the 50A GFCI breaker as is.
When I was leaving customer was waiving me down before I got to the end of their driveway, it had tripped.
About threw out my back contorting my self to look in the RV AC/DC/charger panel and right there was a N-G bond strap.

 

[jap]

I feel the only way to clear up the GFCI requirement would be to have a special 50 amp configuration for the RVs male cord ends and re write the rule to address those specific outlets.

The 30a 120v RV male cap I believe is already its own special configuration. At least I think it is.

As long as you can plug a 50a range cord configuration into an outside Rv outlet at a dwelling unit there is no relief from the GFCI requirement no matter how much you'd like to read around it.

It's the receptacle outlet on the branch circuit that triggers the requirement.
A 50a RV receptacle outlet is a 125/250v receptacle on a branch circuit.

Until they start providing a cord from the RV with loose ends on it that you could hard wire to a an onsite disconnect at a dwelling unit (where you could actually firmly define the cord to the RV as a feeder cable) Its my belief that the GFCI rule 210.8(b) applies.

Oh well...

Jap>

 

[CoolWill]

Supplyhouse.com has 50 amp Square D GFCI spa disconnects for $67, which is way cheaper than you can buy a GFCI breaker for. You could mount that right next to the receptacle and nipple between them.

 

[retirede]

I feel the only way to clear up the GFCI requirement would be to have a special 50 amp configuration for the RVs male cord ends and re write the rule to address those specific outlets.

The 30a 120v RV male cap I believe is already its own special configuration. At least I think it is.

As long as you can plug a 50a range cord configuration into an outside Rv outlet at a dwelling unit there is no relief from the GFCI requirement no matter how much you'd like to read around it.

It's the receptacle outlet on the branch circuit that triggers the requirement.
A 50a RV receptacle outlet is a 125/250v receptacle on a branch circuit.

Until they start providing a cord from the RV with loose ends on it that you could hard wire to a an onsite disconnect at a dwelling unit (where you could actually firmly define the cord to the RV as a feeder cable) Its my belief that the GFCI rule 210.8(b) applies.

Oh well...

Jap>

As soon as a “special RV receptacle configuration” is introduced, there will be adapters for sale on Amazon. That won’t solve the issue.

 

[jap]

As soon as a “special RV receptacle configuration” is introduced, there will be adapters for sale on Amazon. That won’t solve the issue.

The NEC rules are not based on adapters.

JAP>

 

[retirede]

The NEC rules are not based on adapters.

JAP>

Not based on receptacle configuration (other than voltage/current rating), either.

 

[jap]

Not based on receptacle configuration (other than voltage/current rating), either.

You just made my point.
If there was a specific configuration for an RV receptacle a rule could be written just for that.

JAP>

 

[tortuga]

A 30ma class B GFCI is all that should be required for a RV receptacle in my opinion.