- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
It has no reference to HAZLOC ratings.
EVSE and GFCI PROTECTION
- Thread starter Rjryan
- Start date
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
I think they have a more sensible approach.
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
There is ALSO a PI for NEC 625, to the same effect. Unclear if 625 or 210.8 would control in this case.
-
But really if this is going to see a fix perhaps the exception should be for any "listed" permanently installed equipment with integral ground continuity checking and a "listed" computerized residual current sensor.
-
This would then cover EVSE plus any form of equipment where a hard dumb shutoff is undesirable, including various backup systems, emergency heat, sumps, bicycle chargers, etc. Then that equipment can make appropriate notifications, retries or other appropriate actions. This will also reduce "vampire" power consumption as the shutoff device can default to de-energized, using power only when the equipment does.
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
The supply to a GFCI receptacle is always on, and the receptacle doesn't protect against shock hazard on its supply side. A hardwired EVSE is no different, except that unlike a receptacle, it will not even have exposed energized contacts on its load side.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
It would depend on the wording. For 625 to control, the language there would have to specifically say that 210.8 does not apply.
There is one that was written in a way that 210.8 would not apply, and there is another that would specifically require GFCI protection for all outlets that supply EVSEs.
I'd like to see it studied and debated again, I don't have a dog in the fight, allot of the IEC standards are good some are lacking, it was a 20 year process getting rid of our UL 508 and harmonizing with the UK/EU/Asia (IEC) on that, it went both ways.
Some of the tests these standards are based on are really old and dont reproduce well, and funding for that materials science is less and less.
Whatever we choose its like metric vs imperial, Haz divisions / classes vs Zone system, I don't care which one we use but please just pick one.
When we can use the same or similar standards, its vastly more cost efficient.
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
@don_resqcapt19 Can the CMP merge or edit the PI to "fit" or just accept/reject?
What would it take for extending to similar devices? Let's say a smart Internet of Things iOT Sump Pump, that's listed and has RCD type protection, but if it gets a fault it notifies the owner and retries periodically.
In other words like an EVSE but not an EVSE.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Leviton has a "Smart" WiFi Enabled GFCI that will send you an alert if it trips. I haven't looked at the details to see if it support remote reset.
20 Amp SmartlockPro® Wi-Fi Certified Smart GFCI Receptacle/Outlet, White, D2GF2-KW
An industry first! Leviton's Smart GFCI Outlet provides peace of mind by sending notifications directly to your smart phone when a GFCI trips due to a ground-fault, using the My Leviton app. At-a-glance, the app provides details on protectionstatus, if and when a ground-fault occurs, and if the...
store.leviton.com
Cheers, Wayne
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
They can make changes when they act on a PI. A couple of times they have actually written a rule exactly opposite of what was being requested.
It would take separate PIs for every type of device that you want to exempt from the rules. If the item is not in Chapters 5-8, it is very unlikely that CMP 2 would give an exception for the equipment, however they did do a temporary one for HVAC equipment.
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Wonderful. But I'd want the "domain knowledge" company in charge of that. For example, the sump company knows what's appropriate for sumps, rather than hooking together systems from several vendors that may or may not play well. The Leviton may support remote reset, but won't support "retry again if the water level goes down" or whatever.
Thus the NEC ask would be try to ignore 625 and exempt from 210.8 any "listed" permanently installed equipment with integral ground continuity checking and a "listed" computerized residual current sensor.
-
I suppose a few other qualifications could go in. Most of the death records from HVAC and dishwashers were DIY self repair persons. So maybe that could grow a requirement for case shutoff switches or security screws. But then again fools have proven over and over to be ingenious
. I suspect many equipment vendors would just accept the upstream GFCI rather than have the liability of an integral RCD, but others would prefer to have control.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Is there any such thing?...is there even a product listing standard for such a product?Wonderful. But I'd want the "domain knowledge" company in charge of that. For example, the sump company knows what's appropriate for sumps, rather than hooking together systems from several vendors that may or may not play well. The Leviton may support remote reset, but won't support "retry again if the water level goes down" or whatever.
Thus the NEC ask would be try to ignore 625 and exempt from 210.8 any "listed" permanently installed equipment with integral ground continuity checking and a "listed" computerized residual current sensor.
-
I suppose a few other qualifications could go in. Most of the death records from HVAC and dishwashers were DIY self repair persons. So maybe that could grow a requirement for case shutoff switches or security screws. But then again fools have proven over and over to be ingenious
Getting a new product standard written, approved and issued is a many year project.
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Any EVSE is such a thing, right?
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Here's a chart from LittleFuse, presented to the NFPA last year, on this topic.
Unfortunately the source of the information for the human effects was not listed, perhaps someone knows?
Unfortunately the source of the information for the human effects was not listed, perhaps someone knows?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
That was presented in relation to the use of Class C and D Special Purpose Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters that use the 20 mA trip point.
Note that there is nothing close to a breaker type device for a Class C or D SPGFCI. They are all stand alone devices and require the use of an additional conductor between the device and the equipment to be protected. That is used to verify that there is an EGC path between the device and the equipment. If there is no current path between the EGC and the additional conductor, the device will trip. I have been calling this extra conductors a "ground check" conductor, but there is no official name for it that I am aware of.
tyson7
Member
- Location
- Minneapolis
- Occupation
- Electrician
Always hardwire with a breaker lock, and it is permitted to install without disconnect if under 60a . Most manufacturers advise against GFCI protection.
A disconnect is only required if over 60A or 150V to ground.
Those instructions are just cop-outs so they can deflect the blame if a trip occurs.
These kinda problems with GFCI's will persist as long as the NEC and IEC have different standards for what appropriate ground fault protection should be.
Making up more UL standards that will just be used in the US market is a bad plan, and just shows up to us a higher materials prices, we should harmonizing with the IEC standards on ground fault protection.
I am not saying we blindly accept the IEC standards, nor they ours, but we should have a international standard on ground fault protections not a national one.
Making up more UL standards that will just be used in the US market is a bad plan, and just shows up to us a higher materials prices, we should harmonizing with the IEC standards on ground fault protection.
I am not saying we blindly accept the IEC standards, nor they ours, but we should have a international standard on ground fault protections not a national one.
brycenesbitt
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Found this interesting:
On January 26 2024, the State Fire Marshal published an Emergency Amendment to the existing Massachusetts Electrical Code that will allow the ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) requirement to be waived due to nuisance tripping after a review by a qualified person.
On January 26 2024, the State Fire Marshal published an Emergency Amendment to the existing Massachusetts Electrical Code that will allow the ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) requirement to be waived due to nuisance tripping after a review by a qualified person.
Fred B
Senior Member
- Location
- Upstate, NY
- Occupation
- Electrician
Who is qualified?Found this interesting:
On January 26 2024, the State Fire Marshal published an Emergency Amendment to the existing Massachusetts Electrical Code that will allow the ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) requirement to be waived due to nuisance tripping after a review by a qualified person.
jaggedben
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern California
- Occupation
- Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Probably the same as the Article 100 definition in the NEC.
"One who has skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of the electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to recognize and avoid the hazards involved."