GFCI 2020--UH OH

Status
Not open for further replies.
texie said:
Pardon if this was mentioned already. Take a look at 210.8(F). This would require the typical condensing unit in a dwelling to have GFCI.
Click to expand...

First I ever heard of it, but reading what it says, yes. It doesn't mention receptacles, which might make more sense, it just says "outlets" along with outdoors, 150 volts to ground or less and 50 amps or less. Pretty much covers everything you might commonly find outdoors at a dwelling other than some 5 ton heat pumps/AC's might call for a 60 amp breaker.

This is stupid for anything hard wired IMO, if there is a receptacle involved I still don't know that darn near everything should be included, but makes a little more sense than hard wired items.
 
romex jockey said:
If only we could finally adopt descending ma value designs here MBrooke....:happyyes:~RJ~
Click to expand...

Beats having a panel full of these:



1606490_294806570729523_6317458535942455803_o.jpg

10686884_294806294062884_9078882154024058674_n.jpg

10481900_294806447396202_3550298570248165393_o.jpg
 
kwired said:
First I ever heard of it, but reading what it says, yes. It doesn't mention receptacles, which might make more sense, it just says "outlets" along with outdoors, 150 volts to ground or less and 50 amps or less. Pretty much covers everything you might commonly find outdoors at a dwelling other than some 5 ton heat pumps/AC's might call for a 60 amp breaker.

This is stupid for anything hard wired IMO, if there is a receptacle involved I still don't know that darn near everything should be included, but makes a little more sense than hard wired items.
Click to expand...

This might shed light:


The rationale for change

One downfall of the electrical business is that it's more reactive than proactive, with accidents often the catalyst for change. Numerous incidents inspired this code change, including an accident involving a 12-year-old boy who jumped over a fence and touched an AC condenser unit with an electrical fault. The outer metal housing was electrified and the child was fatally electrocuted immediately upon coming in contact with the condenser and fence simultaneously.
Click to expand...

The rationale for change

NEC 2017 language only accounts for 15- and 20-amp receptacle outlets for dwelling units. During 2020 code review meetings, panel members agreed that hazards always exist; if 15- and 20-amp receptacle outlets present a hazard, that hazard also exists on 30-amp and higher receptacle outlets. However, it was difficult to understand the likelihood of a hazardous occurrence when weighed against expanded requirements. Recent home-based electrocution accidents – a 10-year-old girl behind an energized appliance, a child in Oklahoma retrieving a pet behind a clothes dryer, a 10-year-old Houston boy playing hide and seek — helped panel members realize the need for change. In light of these tragic events, we now have a requirement that sets a higher standard across more areas of the Code, though there are some exceptions discussed later in this blog.
Click to expand...


http://www.p3-inc.com/blog/entry/nec...fci-protection

However, a lot of hard wired electrocutions stem from people who not only disregard code but lack an understanding of basic electricity.
 
Are they going to have 2 pole GFCI breakers in like 25A ratings for A/C units?

mbrooke said:
However, a lot of hard wired electrocutions stem from people who not only disregard code but lack an understanding of basic electricity.
Click to expand...

Very true. This assumes that those installations which were improperly wired to begin with would be wired correctly with a GFCI breaker. If they were wired properly WITHOUT a GFCI breaker those accidents wouldn't have happened.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Are they going to have 2 pole GFCI breakers in like 25A ratings for A/C units?



Very true. This assumes that those installations which were improperly wired to begin with would be wired correctly with a GFCI breaker. If they were wired properly WITHOUT a GFCI breaker those accidents wouldn't have happened.

-Hal
Click to expand...

I agree, incidents probably never happen in first place if installed properly. Now you make a rule that same ignorant people won't follow anyway, and will get away with it anyway if there is no permit or inspection. Some of us professionals still try to meet code even in cases where permits/inspections are not required - it isn't good to get insurance claims when you didn't follow the standards.

And now that they finally succumbed to the fact that there is always a danger, how do you select where to add requirements vs just saying everything needs the protection?

GFCI is ok, but a little too sensitive to natural leakages and causes a lot of problems with things that are working fine. Problem is if there is no EGC GFPE still leaves one kind of vulnerable if some appliance frame is energized with no current leakage. This leaves me acknowledging that GFCI is the best thing we have for cord and plug connected items, in particular 5-15 and 5-20 receptacle applications where the EGC seems to be commonly missing. Everything else I still think more emphasis on having good EGC needs to be taken.

Maybe they should put some sort of EGC monitoring on appliances that will disable them when there is no EGC detected. Then you will kind of have to enforce upgrading older circuits with no EGC in order for the new appliance to even work. That said people will still bootleg from neutral in some instances.
 
hbiss said:
Are they going to have 2 pole GFCI breakers in like 25A ratings for A/C units?



Very true. This assumes that those installations which were improperly wired to begin with would be wired correctly with a GFCI breaker. If they were wired properly WITHOUT a GFCI breaker those accidents wouldn't have happened.

-Hal
Click to expand...



Exactly. If idiots can screw up an EGC they can screw up a GFCI. Its just punishing those doing safe installations.
 
romex jockey said:
leviton_high_current_smartlock_gfci-back_and_side_wired_8895.jpg


One could install one of those ahead of a subpanel.....IF they still made them

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Then it would be subject to all the capacitive leakage of every circuit leaving the panel and likely has too much nuisance tripping in many instances.


Whether they were discontinued IDK, but the sheet ramsy posted a link for says they are a recognized component - they were only indended to be used in listed assembly applications.

That said I don't see why they couldn't make something similar and get it listed - $$ probably appears to be elsewhere is my guess, or the breaker manufacturers have the market somewhat cornered right now and the device manufacturers now have reason to work on something like this and will be coming soon.
 
kwired said:
Then it would be subject to all the capacitive leakage of every circuit leaving the panel and likely has too much nuisance tripping in many instances.


Whether they were discontinued IDK, but the sheet ramsy posted a link for says they are a recognized component - they were only indended to be used in listed assembly applications.

That said I don't see why they couldn't make something similar and get it listed - $$ probably appears to be elsewhere is my guess, or the breaker manufacturers have the market somewhat cornered right now and the device manufacturers now have reason to work on something like this and will be coming soon.
Click to expand...



I'd agree. But Kwired, how would you feel is this was your next commercial panel?






https://forums.mikeholt.com/forum/a...2538913-gfci-2020-uh-oh?p=2547396#post2547396
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top