Class-A GFCI's are not well suited

[iwire]

t

OSHA was mentioned, and if you read OSHA 1926.404(b)(1)(iii)(D) you'll see that they demand EGC for GFCI..... seems like they recognize the hazard(s) when there is no EGC.

Yes I see that, but as interesting as it is if you look here.

1910.304(b)(2)(iv)(B)

Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this subpart; and

1910.304(b)(2)(iv)(C)

Where a grounding means does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with one of the following provisions:

1910.304(b)(2)(iv)(C)(1)

A nongrounding-type receptacle may be replaced with another nongrounding-type receptacle; or

1910.304(b)(2)(iv)(C)(2)

A nongrounding-type receptacle may be replaced with a ground-fault circuit-interrupter-type of receptacle that is marked "No Equipment Ground;" an equipment grounding conductor may not be connected from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter-type receptacle to any outlet supplied from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle; or

1910.304(b)(2)(iv)(C)(3)

A nongrounding-type receptacle may be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle where supplied through a ground-fault circuit-interrupter; the replacement receptacle shall be marked "GFCI Protected" and "No Equipment Ground;" an equipment grounding conductor may not be connected to such grounding-type receptacles.

You will see OSHA allows replacing two wire receptacles with three wire GFCIs under the same conditions of the NEC.

 

[iwire]

is that shorthand for something, i do not know what that is

Cut and paste errors.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Cut and paste errors.

that's why i added the smiley....

so 210.8

a fridge is not covered in there.

 

[iwire]

so 210.8

a fridge is not covered in there.

Correct, no direct requirement to GFCI protect a fridge.

But place a cord and plug connected 15 or 20 amp, 125 volt fridge in a dwelling unit garage, or within 6' of a sink or anywhere in commercial kitchen and it will end up on a GFCI.

There are no exceptions left for refrigerators.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Correct, no direct requirement to GFCI protect a fridge.

But place a cord and plug connected 15 or 20 amp, 125 volt fridge in a dwelling unit garage, or within 6' of a sink or anywhere in commercial kitchen and it will end up on a GFCI.

There are no exceptions left for refrigerators.

very true.

so for those garages that have 1-2 BC's, isnt it just easier to install GFCI OCPD, or the combo AF/GF OCPD ?
2016 NEC requires AFCI for kitchen stuff, yes?, so it seems like OCPD is the place to be as long as there is enough room in the panel.

before proliferation of GFI recepts we had just OCPD's in panel, with the requirements of AFCI creeping across like GFCI has we are moving back to everything in panel, so the future of GFCI on yoke seems to be limited.

 

[iwire]

so for those garages that have 1-2 BC's, isnt it just easier to install GFCI OCPD, or the combo AF/GF OCPD ?
2016 NEC requires AFCI for kitchen stuff, yes?, so it seems like OCPD is the place to be as long as there is enough room in the panel.

I will let someone else answer that, I work in commercial space so AFCI are not (yet) an issue.

Most of the prints we get will ask for GFCI receptacles at the point of use. A couple of reasons.

1) Easy to reset, no hunting by untrained employees

2) Reduces issues of the cumulative leakage current of a number of appliances supplied from one GFCI device.


HOWEVER, recently the NEC has required that the GFCIs be accessible so that really limits where we can install the GFCI device.

In some cases we use faceless GFCI devices to provide GFCI accessibility to supply a downstream standard receptacle that is not accessible.

 

[FionaZuppa]

I will let someone else answer that, I work in commercial space so AFCI are not (yet) an issue.

Most of the prints we get will ask for GFCI receptacles at the point of use. A couple of reasons.

1) Easy to reset, no hunting by untrained employees

2) Reduces issues of the cumulative leakage current of a number of appliances supplied from one GFCI device.


HOWEVER, recently the NEC has required that the GFCIs be accessible so that really limits where we can install the GFCI device.

In some cases we use faceless GFCI devices to provide GFCI accessibility to supply a downstream standard receptacle that is not accessible.

#2 is interesting because std resi gfci is installed as 1st "outlet" to feed the rest downstream, but i guess nobody in resi reports of cumulative leakage issue.
and why they call it faceless? it has a face :happyyes:

and the faceless is what i was talking about earlier, for applications where class-A just dont work well the use of class-C faceless installed at point of service (w/ single recept or just hardwired) would be ok under UL definitions.

and just to note, some have said "UL cant think for themselves since they became for-profit", yet on flip side you point out that NEC has back references to UL. cant have the argument both ways, etc.

 

[iwire]

#2 is interesting because std resi gfci is installed as 1st "outlet" to feed the rest downstream, but i guess nobody in resi reports of cumulative leakage issue.

There is nothing to report, it is a fact.

We all know each appliance has some leakage, each appliance connected to a GFCI lowers the headroom of the trip point. In some cases that additional current could cause a trip.

Is it a huge problem for a home? Likely no. In a commercial kitchen? Maybe

 

[iwire]

and the faceless is what i was talking about earlier, for applications where class-A just dont work well the use of class-C faceless installed at point of service (w/ single recept or just hardwired) would be ok under UL definitions.

No, not at this time. The NEC would have to change. And please tell me what item in a dwelling unit won't work with a GFCI?

and just to note, some have said "UL cant think for themselves since they became for-profit", yet on flip side you point out that NEC has back references to UL. cant have the argument both ways, etc.

I did not say, or comment on "UL cant think for themselves since they became for-profit so ...

 

[FionaZuppa]

No, not at this time. The NEC would have to change. And please tell me what item in a dwelling unit won't work with a GFCI?

I did not say, or comment on "UL cant think for themselves since they became for-profit so ...

i was only noting that the comment was made, yet NEC relies on UL, etc. i thought when i said "some have said" you would not take that to be directed at you :thumbsup:

and its not just "GFCI", it was the diff between class-A and class-C. UL recognizes GFCI class-C for personnel protection, so why does NEC force use of class-A only?

 

[K8MHZ]

i was only noting that the comment was made, yet NEC relies on UL, etc. i thought when i said "some have said" you would not take that to be directed at you :thumbsup:

and its not just "GFCI", it was the diff between class-A and class-C. UL recognizes GFCI class-C for personnel protection, so why does NEC force use of class-A only?

UL also puts their stamp on two to three prong adapters and cleat type light sockets with exposed hot conductor terminals. UL oversees the manufacture of devices. The NEC oversees the installation of devices. The two are not interchangeable. In fact, I don't even think that 'UL' is even mentioned in the NEC.

 

[FionaZuppa]

UL also puts their stamp on two to three prong adapters and cleat type light sockets with exposed hot conductor terminals. UL oversees the manufacture of devices. The NEC oversees the installation of devices. The two are not interchangeable. In fact, I don't even think that 'UL' is even mentioned in the NEC.

NEC makes back references to UL by way of "installed per directions", and those directions are somewhat dictated by UL listings, etc. the example was already given by iWire that the UL whitebook states that GFCI to be used only on grounded source, but later disputed by example of non-grounded truck mounted gen that uses GFCI, etc. i said the quote was taking about EGC only, iWire said otherwise.

so in essence, NEC does not state for itself that GFCI cannot be used on non-grounded source, the UL listing does, etc.

iWire made comment on my quote i posted, saying that NEC requires GFCI to not be on non-grounded source, and then made reference to NEC110 area. 110 is the "follow instructions" directive. Ok, most instructions will not list out the UL instructions, thus if the UL listing says "not on non-grounded source" but the instructions do not call that out, its not a violation under NEC if i put GFCI on non-grounded source because all i did was follow the instructions, which mentions nothing about the UL specifics, etc.

thus, the logic to conclude here is that the NEC does not have the requirement of GFCI on grounded source only, and, under NEC putting GFCI on non-grounded source is not a violation, i followed the instructions that came with the product, etc. this is why back references can be rabbit hole of unknowns.

 

[K8MHZ]

NEC makes back references to UL by way of "installed per directions", and those directions are somewhat dictated by UL listings, etc. the example was already given by iWire that the UL whitebook states that GFCI to be used only on grounded source, but later disputed by example of non-grounded truck mounted gen that uses GFCI, etc. i said the quote was taking about EGC only, iWire said otherwise.

so in essence, NEC does not state for itself that GFCI cannot be used on non-grounded source, the UL listing does, etc.

iWire made comment on my quote i posted, saying that NEC requires GFCI to not be on non-grounded source, and then made reference to NEC110 area. 110 is the "follow instructions" directive. Ok, most instructions will not list out the UL instructions, thus if the UL listing says "not on non-grounded source" but the instructions do not call that out, its not a violation under NEC if i put GFCI on non-grounded source because all i did was follow the instructions, which mentions nothing about the UL specifics, etc.

thus, the logic to conclude here is that the NEC does not have the requirement of GFCI on grounded source only, and, under NEC putting GFCI on non-grounded source is not a violation, i followed the instructions that came with the product, etc. this is why back references can be rabbit hole of unknowns.

You are still confusing a grounded source (one CCC connected to ground) with an EGC. That is your rabbit hole. The UL requires a grounded neutral (for example), not an EGC.

 

[FionaZuppa]

You are still confusing a grounded source (one CCC connected to ground) with an EGC. That is your rabbit hole. The UL requires a grounded neutral (for example), not an EGC.

not confused. i already stated "grounded CCC". EGC is not a CCC :thumbsup:

ok, now pull up any instructions that come with a GFCI, show us where the instructions say "this GFCI to be installed on grounded source only". we waiting.

 

[kwired]

NEC makes back references to UL by way of "installed per directions", and those directions are somewhat dictated by UL listings, etc. the example was already given by iWire that the UL whitebook states that GFCI to be used only on grounded source, but later disputed by example of non-grounded truck mounted gen that uses GFCI, etc. i said the quote was taking about EGC only, iWire said otherwise.

so in essence, NEC does not state for itself that GFCI cannot be used on non-grounded source, the UL listing does, etc.

iWire made comment on my quote i posted, saying that NEC requires GFCI to not be on non-grounded source, and then made reference to NEC110 area. 110 is the "follow instructions" directive. Ok, most instructions will not list out the UL instructions, thus if the UL listing says "not on non-grounded source" but the instructions do not call that out, its not a violation under NEC if i put GFCI on non-grounded source because all i did was follow the instructions, which mentions nothing about the UL specifics, etc.

thus, the logic to conclude here is that the NEC does not have the requirement of GFCI on grounded source only, and, under NEC putting GFCI on non-grounded source is not a violation, i followed the instructions that came with the product, etc. this is why back references can be rabbit hole of unknowns.

NEC almost never refers directly to UL other than in informational notes. I can't think of a specific example but seem to recall there is some sections that refer directly to UL in chapters 5,6 or 7, but otherwise is pretty rare for NEC to mention anything other then just NRTL. UL happens to be somewhat the king of NRTL though.

 

[FionaZuppa]

NEC almost never refers directly to UL other than in informational notes. I can't think of a specific example but seem to recall there is some sections that refer directly to UL in chapters 5,6 or 7, but otherwise is pretty rare for NEC to mention anything other then just NRTL. UL happens to be somewhat the king of NRTL though.

and neither do the instructions that come with these UL listed products :thumbsup:

yes, iWire established this already, as well as pointing out the NEC110 section, which is a back reference.

pull up some GFCI install instructions. per NEC i am to follow those instructions for installation. do any instructions you find say "per UL, must be installed on a grounded source only" ?? or anything to that affect? UL could say at the end of the whitebook listing "do not install this device, ever", but if the instructions dont say that then i am in no violation of NEC because i followed the instructions that came with the product, etc.

 

[mbrooke]

And notice I did.

GFCI is what the NEC requires for people protection. As it stands today you cannot use a GFP for GFCI.

GFP is equipment protection

GFI is nothing.

Nothing officially established, but for the sake of the conversation I think we can use our imagination that I was referring to all GFP/GFCI/ect.

I looked at you link, I see nothing to support the argument that 30Ma is people protection.

It is not and was not my point, rather that the 2017 is requiring SPGFCI in industrial locations.

I did not hint at anything. Come on by this time you must know I am all about the NEC here.

I made no comment on the hazards only the current requirements.

I can understand that. But the current requirements have moved on.

Funny, in the past when you and I have talked about GFCIs you seemed to feel open EGCs where not an issue driving GFCI requirements.

For dishwashers, at least that there was very poor CMP substantiation. On the other hand open EGCs are a very real problem with vending machines in my experience and deli slicers/commercial kitchen equipment in your experience. Statistics have also found open EGC in pool motors in the past being responsible for electrocutions.


Now, why do I keep bringing this up? Because Mr. Zappa has mad multiple claims that an EGC is needed for a GFCI to function.

 

[mbrooke]

this became its own thread??
anyways, why is 30mA being discussed, GFCI classes C/D/E trip at 20mA



this statement shows that class-A is required where 1- cap-cord may be possible, which makes sense, however, not every use of GFCI falls into this application, as i had already mentioned, so kinda baffling as to why NEC calls out class-A for GFCI in art100.

OSHA was mentioned, and if you read OSHA 1926.404(b)(1)(iii)(D) you'll see that they demand EGC for GFCI..... seems like they recognize the hazard(s) when there is no EGC.

What about NEC 590.6?

A) Receptacle Outlets. Temporary receptacle 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 shall comply with the requirements of
590.6(A)(1) through (A)(3), as applicable.


Exception: In industrial establishments only, where conditions
of maintenance and supervision ensure that only
qualified personnel are involved, an assured equipment
grounding conductor program as specified in 590.6(B)(2)
shall be permitted for only those receptacle outlets used to
supply equipment that would create a greater hazard if
power were interrupted or having a design that is not compatible
with GFCI protection.

(B) Use of Other Outlets. For temporary wiring installations,
receptacles, other than those covered by 590.6(A)(1)
through (A)(3) used to supply temporary power to equipment
used by personnel during construction, remodeling,
maintenance, repair, or demolition of buildings, structures,
or equipment, or similar activities, shall have protection in
accordance with (B)(1) or the assured equipment grounding
conductor program in accordance with (B)(2).


(2) Assured Equipment Grounding Conductor Program.
A written assured equipment grounding conductor
program continuously enforced at the site by one or more
designated persons to ensure that equipment grounding
conductors for all cord sets, receptacles that are not a part
of the permanent wiring of the building or structure, and
equipment connected by cord and plug are installed and
maintained in accordance with the applicable requirements
of 250.114, 250.138, 406.4(C), and 590.4(D).
(a) The following tests shall be performed on all cord
sets, receptacles that are not part of the permanent wiring of
the building or structure, and cord-and-plug-connected equipment
required to be connected to an equipment grounding
conductor:
(1) All equipment grounding conductors shall be tested for
continuity and shall be electrically continuous.
(2) Each receptacle and attachment plug shall be tested for
correct attachment of the equipment grounding conductor.
The equipment grounding conductor shall be connected
to its proper terminal.
(3) All required tests shall be performed as follows:
a. Before first use on site
b. When there is evidence of damage
c. Before equipment is returned to service following
any repairs
d. At intervals not exceeding 3 months
(b) The tests required in item (2)(a) shall be recorded
and made available to the authority having jurisdiction.

hmmm, NEC says EGC is required for GFCI ??

http://www.esgroundingsolutions.com...hnical-reason-to-put-a-gfci-on-a-refrigerator/

Yup, GFCIs are spreading.

 

[mbrooke]

And the outlets that NEC required to be protected with GFCI has typically been areas where there maybe has been more statistical deaths or injuries - most because of a compromised EGC.

Correct- in addition to being in areas where a person is either more likely to be well grounded or have a lower skin resistance if not both.

Only more recent years did they start requiring them in places where the statistics were not likely all that high. What was the substantiation that a drinking fountain needs GFCI? How many of you ever run into one with a missing EGC? Sure it is possible, but majority of those are seldom ever unplugged and the risk is much lower then say a portable tool or appliance.

And I think this is where we become critical of the NEC and CMP process, however, older verbiage was mostly driven due to an open EGC.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Now, why do I keep bringing this up? Because Mr. Zappa has mad multiple claims that an EGC is needed for a GFCI to function.

thats not my claim.

my argument was that a GFI (GFCI under NEC) can provide more hazard coverage if an EGC was present. imho, replacing a 1- with a 5-GFCI leaves room for hazard exposures, thus why i said it should really be a 1:1 swap, a 1-r being replaced by a 1-GFCI, but they dont make 1-GFCI, so i suggested a platic barbed ping to block out the EGC hole on the 5-GFCI, in essence making the swap a 1:1 and keeping it a 1-15R(GFCI).

i forget where (NEC or NEMA or UL) stated that the 1- swap to a 5- (not sure if it said 5-GFCI) you can bond the EGC to a proper bond location to gain back the benefit of EGC.

What about NEC 590.6?

i think what you posted in #58 all comes from OSHA