Garage GFCI's question.

[Rick Christopherson]

Thanks all for the reply.
It looks like the customer is stuck with the GFCI, which is both a shame and one more reason where more and more I see the NEC as the big brother, where people have to be protected from themself.

What you are discovering is that the NEC is very bureaucratic. It is a private company, and Money Buys! Changes aren't necessarily driven by what is best, but by how much money is tossed behind the lobbying effort. The exceptions for GFI's were not removed because they posed significant danger to the public. They were removed because the lobbyists had enough funding behind them to make it happen. It forces a higher volume of GFI sales.

Take garage door openers or chest freezers as a simple example. These devices are mandated to be 3-wire devices, yet are critical if they fail. GFI protection on a 3-wire device is trivial, except when the operator is plugging or unplugging the device. These devices are mandated to have chassis grounds, so unless the grounding wire is lost, there is no risk to the operator. The chassis cannot have an elevated voltage if the grounding system is intact.

It is unfortunate that some of the posters to this forum have come to believe that GFI's will only trip on actual failures. False trips do happen because the threshold is low enough that energy storage devices will trigger the differential amplifier of the GFCI circuit. When you connect a 2-wire (double insulated) device into a GFCI protected outlet, and that otherwise isolated device trips the GFI, then it is a SURE sign that the GFCI has tripped when it should not have.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It is unfortunate that some of the posters to this forum have come to believe that GFI's will only trip on actual failures. False trips do happen because the threshold is low enough that energy storage devices will trigger the differential amplifier of the GFCI circuit. When you connect a 2-wire (double insulated) device into a GFCI protected outlet, and that otherwise isolated device trips the GFI, then it is a SURE sign that the GFCI has tripped when it should not have.

So you expect the gfci to know whether there is a potential for shock on any item that is plugged in. You can call that a false trip but something triggered it whether it is a hazard or not. I think the term false trip is an inaccurate account of what is happening. I think many are saying the gfci trips for a potential problem and something triggers it. They generally don't trip under healthy conditions.

 

[jumper]

So you expect the gfci to know whether there is a potential for shock on any item that is plugged in. You can call that a false trip but something triggered it whether it is a hazard or not. I think the term false trip is an inaccurate account of what is happening. I think many are saying the gfci trips for a potential problem and something triggers it. They generally don't trip under healthy conditions.

Yep. While they may have been problems with early generations of GFCIs, I would say most good brands are pretty darn reliable these days. Personally I have not had a nuisance trip under normal conditions on a GFCI in many years.

Storms, lightning, surges, etc-Yes. Everyday normal -No.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

So you expect the gfci to know whether there is a potential for shock on any item that is plugged in. You can call that a false trip but something triggered it whether it is a hazard or not. I think the term false trip is an inaccurate account of what is happening. I think many are saying the gfci trips for a potential problem and something triggers it. They generally don't trip under healthy conditions.

No! I would call that a false trip. If the device is fully isolated from ground and still trips, then it was not a ground fault. If there are only 2 wires going to the device and there is no possible path to ground, then there is no real ground fault.

 

[iwire]

The proposal that removed two of the GFCI exceptions

2-41 Log #3602 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept
(210.8(A))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Douglas Hansen, Code Check

Recommendation: Eliminate exception #1 to (2) and exception #1 to (5).

Substantiation: Being “readily accessible” is too vague a standard. A garage
door opener might not be readily accessible to a person who is 5 feet tall, and it
could be accessible to a person who is 6 feet tall. There is no longer a need for
these exceptions. The current generation of GFCI devices do not have the
problems of nuisance tripping that were common with older GFCIs.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept

Panel Statement: See the panel action on Proposal 2-40.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1

Explanation of Negative:

PURVIS, R.: See my Explanation of Negative for Proposal 2-40.

Now 2-40

2-40 Log #3601 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(210.8(A))
____________________________________________________________
TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee understands that the
Panel Action on this Proposal adds the additional new sentence after the
existing sentence in 210.8(A)(5).
The Technical Correlating Committee understands that the Panel Action
on Proposal 2-41 modifies the Panel Action on this Proposal and
reidentifies the existing Exception No. 3 as Exception.

Submitter: Douglas Hansen, Code Check

Recommendation: Eliminate exception number 2 to (2) and eliminate
exception number 2 to (5).

Substantiation: The change in 210.8(A)(7) in the 2005 edition has created a
contradiction. If a laundry or utility sink is present in a garage or basement, and
a clothes washer receptacle is within 6 feet of that sink, it now requires GFCI
protection. The existing exceptions are no longer necessary. The present
generation of GFCI devices do not have the problems of “nuisance tripping”
that plagued the earlier devices.

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
In addition to deleting the exceptions the following text is to be deleted from
210.8(A)(2) and.
“Receptacles installed under the exceptions to 210.8(A)(2) shall not be
considered as meeting the requirements of 210.52(G).”
Revise the current code text in the last paragraph of 210.8(A)(5) to read:
“Receptacles installed under the exception s to 210.8(A)(5) shall not be
considered as meeting the requirements of 210.52(G).”

Panel Statement: The meeting action taken by the panel correlates with the
accepted recommendation to delete the exceptions.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10 Negative: 2

Explanation of Negative:

BROWN, L.: I sincerely hope, from the discussion by the “experts” on the
Panel, that the “problem” of “nuisance tripping” no longer exists. These two
Exception were developed to address certain and clear needs. The Submitter’s
Substantiation related the need to delete these Exceptions to the installation of
a utility sink and clothes washer. Using Exception #2, it is a refrigerator or
freezer located on a GFCI protected circuit in a garage or basement loosing
power and spoiling its consumable contents that is still of concern.

PURVIS, R.: The Submitter has not provided sufficient substantiation (”The
existing exceptions are no longer necessary”) to expand the requirements for
GFCIs in dwellings.
____________________________________________________________

I don't see any manufacturers putting in for this change.



In my own opinion the fact that 1000s of commercial kitchens have been successfully using GFCIs for a number of years tends to dismiss the thought that GFCIs cannot be used with refrigerators and freezers in good condition.

The original GFCI requirement for commercial kitchens goes directly to a number of employee deaths in commercial kitchens due to compromised EGCs combined with a fault and not to a manfacturers sales pitch.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

No! I would call that a false trip. If the device is fully isolated from ground and still trips, then it was not a ground fault. If there are only 2 wires going to the device and there is no possible path to ground, then there is no real ground fault.

That's fine Rick-- call it what you like but it didn't trip without something happening. Lightning will sometimes affect them and it's probably not a ground fault that tripped it but I can't get worked up about this wording of false trip. We know the gfci saves lives not sure about the afci but that is another issue.

 

[stickboy1375]

That's fine Rick-- call it what you like but it didn't trip without something happening. Lightning will sometimes affect them and it's probably not a ground fault that tripped it but I can't get worked up about this wording of false trip. We know the gfci saves lives.

And thats all we need to know, they are required, and for a good reason, people really need to change the mind set of why we install them and stop worrying about someones dollar value on food in a fridge, but value on a persons life... enough said.

 

[kwired]

some think that if you reset it and it does not immediately trip - it was a false trip, some think any inconvenient loss of power because of tripping of a protection device is a false trip.

The device tripped because something happened.

The device is electromechanical and can and does fail.

Conditions happen that were not considered in the design of the product - we have had these devices long enough that we have discovered some of these conditions and have redesigned the device to compensate for those conditions.


Not going to say lobbying by a product manufacturer does not happen, but the amount of money spent lobbying for a code is not what the code panels use to make their decisions. The amount of money spent lobbying for a code can create the evidence the code panel is looking for to convince them the change is needed. The next code cycle could come back with enough information to make them consider reworking, replacing, or even removing something they added the last cycle. GFCI's must be doing more good than bad or they would not have taken the course they did over the years within the NEC.

The addition of GFCI protection to garage door openers or refrigerators or freezers has not made me use more GFCI's. It has made me either use less GFCI's and or use less conductor. If there was to be only one branch circuit supplying the garage - the GFCI goes in the first outlet now and protects everything. Allowing certain outlets to be exempted from GFCI protection actually made me either use more GFCI's or more copper (or both) in the past.

 

[jumper]

I am agreeing with Bob and Dennis, modern GFCIs work fine. I had a 17 year fridge plugged into one and it never false tripped in 8 years.

 

[kwired]

I am agreeing with Bob and Dennis, modern GFCIs work fine. I had a 17 year fridge plugged into one and it never false tripped in 8 years.

That is because when it tripped it did so for a reason:happyyes:

If it never tripped there was either never any reason to, or perhaps it is defective and doesn't trip when it should.

IMO false tripping is just a term used when we don't know why it tripped.