GFCI and "Water Source"

Z

ZSIM

Member
Location
United States
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
I am struggling to recall how large vials / flasks of water are viewed and when GFCI is recommended.

I recall in my memory reading (what I thought was an informational reference) in the NEC that pointed to... I think UL... that discussed what to do if a certain volume of liquid was being handled in an otherwise dry area. For instance a normal laboratory table does not require GFCI if they are just handling a test tube of liquid. However if the client planned on dispensing gallons of fluid on this table into open flasks that were being manually handled... GFCI suddenly becomes a lot more practical. I want to say the quantity I recall was something like 1.8 Liters.

Does anyone remember or have any idea what it is I may have saw that provided that guidance? Some informational note someplace? I thought it might have been in UL943 too, but not having luck there. Then I started digging into if the definitions of Damp/Wet locations... but no luck there.

At the end of the day I know its going to be an informational note (and not code), but I swear I found something technical in the past providing guidance here.
 
There is nothing in the code that would require GFCI for that type of application. There is no code rule that says you need GFCIs in the presence of water. The closest are the rules that require GFCI protected receptacles within 6' of a sink.

It is a design issue and not a code issue for your application.
 
ZSIM said:
I am struggling to recall how large vials / flasks of water are viewed and when GFCI is recommended.
Click to expand...
Really nothing to do with that. It's all to do with the presence of power and ground and the possibility that someone may come between the two. Certainly, standing in a swimming pool and grabbing an extension cord would help that along, but water or moisture is not a prerogative.

-Hal
 
Last edited:
As Don stated this "water source" that is often cited as being the nexus for requiring GFCI protection is a myth.
 
Thank you all for the responses. I fully agree, this is not code derived item. I am just trying to find some reference I should have saved in the past but didn’t.

If we could debate though, I’m not sure I fully agree about the “water source myth” part. Yes, it’s not code specified or a defined term but ground fault is required in locations where water is present (excluding feeders and services).

I agree that gfp works on any circuit where a ct detects an imbalance. I agree it is not dependent on the presence of water to function. And It will likely expand more and more to non watery locations in the future as the technology improves, cost comes down, or manufacturers sell it harder to the panel.

But in my opinion to say it’s entirely divorced from water sources is a stretch in its current iteration and application; the question I see is what is the threshold of liquid volume before it becomes applicable.
 
If I could add, 210.8 actually does say under both dwelling and non that GFCI is required for all branch circuits in damp or wet locations and ALSO areas with beverage preparation.

True that a laboratory desk with bottles and flasks is not in the strict black-and-white reading in any relation to beverage preparation. However in the spirit of the text… the code is leaning towards having a space that only serves 8 to 16 fl ounces of water as requiring GFCI.

Again, I recognize that this is a design issue more than a black-and-white code issue. The location is an intended uses of the spaces are also in play. The authors clearly had some volume of water present in mind when they wrote this though.
 
Beverage prep requires a sink in the area too however. Probably common though to have a sink in an area for beverage prep.
 
ZSIM said:
If I could add, 210.8 actually does say under both dwelling and non that GFCI is required for all branch circuits in damp or wet locations and ALSO areas with beverage preparation.

True that a laboratory desk with bottles and flasks is not in the strict black-and-white reading in any relation to beverage preparation. However in the spirit of the text… the code is leaning towards having a space that only serves 8 to 16 fl ounces of water as requiring GFCI.
Click to expand...
210.8(A)
(7) Areas with sinks and permanent provisions for food
preparation, beverage preparation, or cooking.

Let's not take things out of context. They are talking about a wet bar here that includes a sink and other appliances like coolers and icemakers. Hardly just a bottle of liquid.

"... the code is leaning towards having a space that only serves 8 to 16 fl ounces of water as requiring GFCI."

Seems you know something that we don't know. Tell us about it and why GFCIs would be necessary in that instance.

GFCIs, while beneficial, have been unnecessarily expanded to areas for little or no apparent reason, other than like AFCIs, to make money for the manufacturers.

-Hal
 
ZSIM said:
recall in my memory reading (what I thought was an informational reference)
Click to expand...
Informational note to NEC 517 definition for Wet Procedure Location.

Informational Note: Routine housekeeping procedures and incidental spillage of liquids do not define a wet procedure location. [99:A.3.3.183 ]
 
Appreciate the feedback. I did forget the part about sinks slay being in that section in my reply… thanks for keeping me honest!
 
When someone asks me why code requires something, I like to say "it doesn't matter why" or "because it does".

I've failed inspections for shirt pocket rules, inspector enforcing what he thought was spirit of code requirement.

For example, recessed panel too close to copper water lines inside wall.

Exterior receptacle too close to hose bib.

Enough of this nonsense already.
 
I can understand where this idea comes in mind, in my earliest day as certified Electrician back in late 80's NEC requires GFCI whenever there is sink, and other water sources, later down the road it does not matter anymore because electrocution can happen even when there is no source of water. So the idea of water source have long phased out.
 
readydave8 said:
When someone asks me why code requires something, I like to say "it doesn't matter why" or "because it does".

I've failed inspections for shirt pocket rules, inspector enforcing what he thought was spirit of code requirement.

For example, recessed panel too close to copper water lines inside wall.

Exterior receptacle too close to hose bib.

Enough of this nonsense already.
Click to expand...
I understand and share your frustration, I would only say that the code is not a design manual either.

Just because something isn’t specifically in here doesn’t mean it’s automatically acceptable. I can’t speak to your specific examples but if somethings close enough to another section, but doesn’t have its own section… I’d probably defer to those requirements, even if it’s not necessary.
 
MagneticVane said:
I can understand where this idea comes in mind, in my earliest day as certified Electrician back in late 80's NEC requires GFCI whenever there is sink, and other water sources
Click to expand...
Once areas without a "water source" were added to the NEC GFCI requirements, like unfinished basements and crawl spaces, the term water source was no longer applicable as the only requirement. Since it has been several decades since that happened it's time for the term to be put to rest.
 
Devils advocate, both locations can be considered damp or wet locations (indicating a presence of water).

From Eaton:

The NEC expanded GFCI protection for dwelling units with basements both finished and unfinished.

The rationale for change

Often afterthoughts that present unique hazards, basements are typically not as well maintained as other areas of the home. Further, environments are often wet and damp, and moisture is a great conductor. These code updates help ensure that accidents due to factors such as leakage current and contact with water are considerably lessened or eliminated.

Yes, not code and just an equipment manufacturer… but they are still advocating for this at least partially in respect with water.
 
ZSIM said:
The NEC expanded GFCI protection for dwelling units with basements both finished and unfinished.
Click to expand...
The issue is that basements typically have concrete floors which are conductive even if the location is a dry location. Almost all basements around here are dry as a bone with most of them finished into living space.
 
In general, if the equipment and its exposed non-current carrying metal parts is connected to an equipment grounding conductor, a GFCI provides no additional protection unless you are touching an ungrounded conductor
 
GFCI protection was never directly associated with water sources it was normally only in places where a person might have higher chance of being "better grounded". Places where water might be common did contribute to potentially being better grounded. At first it was just swimming pools, and bathroom areas, then came the kitchen sinks outdoor receptacles, garages and unfinished basements, all areas where there often is higher chance of someone having good contact with a grounded surface the fact it may have even more improved continuity if it is wet kind o led to people associating GFCI requirements with presence of water. Majority of the GFCI requirement additions after about the 1999 NEC have little real justification IMO. An intact EGC makes most of these not necessary, but the manufacturers have pushed the "what if" card and gotten their way of getting more and more in the code so they can sell product and some of the more recent ones don't even have any real incidents to get them in code but more of a "we can now do this" approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top