GFCI and "Water Source"

[coffeebean]

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.

I don't know where you are located in NJ, but in central NJ extreme weather events that now happen frequently basements get flooded

 

[infinity]

I don't know where you are located in NJ, but in central NJ extreme weather events that now happen frequently basements get flooded

Sure anything abnormal is possible but that wasn't what my comment was directed towards. The NEC definition of dry location is for "normal" conditions.

 

[ZSIM]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to write this out. What your saying definitely makes sense and is clearly an area I need to do more research in.

Perhaps a long shot, but is this written out anyplace? White papers, etc? It seems like it should be controversial enough to have articles on it but I’m drawing up nothing on Google.

 

[ramsy]

Perhaps a long shot, but is this written out anyplace? White papers, etc? It seems like it should be controversial enough to have articles on it but I’m drawing up nothing on Google.

There is no controversy with corruption.

Controversy with US governance by conflict of interest was settled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Every US elected official represents their campaign financiers, constituents with skin in the game, subject only to personal embezzlement restrictions.

So called corruption is now required, or your constituents remove you from office.

 

[kwired]

Thank you for taking the time to write this out. What your saying definitely makes sense and is clearly an area I need to do more research in.

Perhaps a long shot, but is this written out anyplace? White papers, etc? It seems like it should be controversial enough to have articles on it but I’m drawing up nothing on Google.

Just kind of my observation over the years of how it went with this area of discussion. Anybody can submit a PI. Manufacturers have deeper pockets to go about providing convincing information to sell their point of view even if that information is biased in favor of their interests, so they get their way more than they maybe should. I think years ago it was more about balance of practicality along with safety, now they abuse the safety factor to line their pockets with some these requirements.

It used to be most the majority of GFCI requirements were involving 15 and 20 amp 120 volt receptacles. Many electrocutions that prompted these requirements were because of a missing EGC pin on a cord cap. Had the EGC not been compromised the electrocutions likely would have been minimized pretty well in most those cases. Lately it has become "lets do everything we can" with this GFCI stuff "just in case" with no real justification based on real world statistics. When they have a real world statistic it usually involves other code issues being in violation in the incident.

If you want to look at the public inputs and reports (formerly known as proposals) you can look up that information on NFPA's website under the NEC area of their site. They have basically viewable content of every NEC published, and the proposals and reports going back at least quite some time. This can tell you what information was used for the code making panel to make changes at the time they made them.

 

[tortuga]

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.

210.8(A) covers dwelling units.
My take is the OP is talking about a commercial occupancy so that would be 210.8(B)

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.

In that case it would be in the 2023:

210.8(B)(7) Sinks -where receptacles or cord-and-plug fixed or stationary appliances are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) from the top inside edge of the bowl of the sink

Or in the 2020 / 2017:

210.8(B)(5) Sinks - where receptacles are installed within 1.8 m
(6 ft) from the top inside edge of the bowl of the sink

While its such a common term with a well understood meaning a sink is not a NEC defined term, and in a lab something used as a 'sink' may not necessarily be a typical plumbing fixture, a place of employment would fall under OSHA, employees working with liquids in 'sink like' basin along with 'electric appliances' that are large enough to pose a problem I'd put in a GFCI in the design, unless doing so added an additional hazard.
A construction electrical inspector would never enforce the above GFCI requirement unless it was a sink type plumbing fixture within 6 feet of a receptacle, a safety (OSHA) or insurance inspector who inspects the facility when operating may say otherwise.

 

[ramsy]

information is biased in favor of their interests, so they get their way more than they maybe should

Forum member don_resqcapt19 also provides an informed opinion of the code making process.

Lately it has become "lets do everything we can" with this GFCI stuff

Prior to 1999 GFCI requirements was no cake walk, especially with remodel wiring that trips GFCI’s, & existing MWBC outlets.

Since 2011 NEC licensed power failure services were further complicated by replacement code 406.4(D), especially (D)(4).

But none of these requirements are observed by property maintenance, remodelers, or homeowner improvements, where licenses are not required.

IMHO the insurance industry benefits the most having representatives on NFPA code making panels, in favor of GFCI & AFCI requirements.

Since no maintenance staff, non-electrical general contractor, or municipal code enforcement, are trained to recognize it, the violations remain un-insureable increased hazards, and cause for non-renewal and cancellation, with confiscation of all prior-premiums paid.

It’s the lowest hanging fruit for industry rape & pillage of North American property owners.

 

[kwired]

Forum member don_resqcapt19 also provides an informed opinion of the code making process.

Prior to 1999 GFCI requirements was no cake walk, especially with remodel wiring that trips GFCI’s, & existing MWBC outlets.

Since 2011 NEC licensed power failure services were further complicated by replacement code 406.4(D), especially (D)(4).

But none of these requirements are observed by property maintenance, remodelers, or homeowner improvements, where licenses are not required.

IMHO the insurance industry benefits the most having representatives on NFPA code making panels, in favor of GFCI & AFCI requirements.

Since no maintenance staff, non-electrical general contractor, or municipal code enforcement, are trained to recognize it, the violations remain un-insureable increased hazards, and cause for non-renewal and cancellation, with confiscation of all prior-premiums paid.

It’s the lowest hanging fruit for industry rape & pillage of North American property owners.

I can see your point on insurance industry benefiting as well, which does make sense if they actually see a reduction in claims. I really doubt they seen a significant reduction in claims over many the more recent GFCI requirements in the code. How many electrocutions has there been that involved a three phase receptacle being in the mix vs similar incident of same situation except no receptacle?

From day one GFCI protection for receptacles primarily involved 5-15 and 5-20 receptacles where it tends to be common to have a compromised EGC pin on cord plugs. Fix the tendency of having missing EGC pins and GFCI protection would not have had as high of priority in those situations back before the turn of the century as equipment grounding was about as good as it was for hard wired items that almost never were considered for GFCI protection other than maybe in art 680 applications.

 

[ramsy]

never were considered for GFCI protection other than maybe in art 680 applications.

Makes sense that electrocution is most likely when people can’t let go, or get out of the water.

doubt they seen a significant reduction in claims over many the more recent GFCI requirements

The GFCI standard may not help most people who present chronic Afib. The quick 120 volt electrical shock can make that condition fatal, without a defibrillator.

With modern magnetic trip breakers clearing bolted faults faster than GFCI outlets, which are orders of magnitude slower than European RCD standards, the maximum amount of power possible is delivered to the human body before a GFCI opens the circuit.

Proving illegality for code violations is more likely that proving cause of death.

IMHO, Most property-insurance claims are being denied over the recorded phone interview, for lack of documentation.

Building permits, licenses, & WC may be the most common documents missing, after people brag about their beautiful remodels.

 

[kwired]

the maximum amount of power possible is delivered to the human body before a GFCI opens the circuit.

Power needs to have a time component in association to give you incident energy before you can assess much for damages/injury levels.

Low level current but for longer time can be just as damaging or more than higher current for shorter time depending on details. We see this association with arc flash situations as well.

GFCI's don't limit current, they respond to current. The faster they can respond the lesser the possible injury may be. You will feel the 4-6 mA it takes to trip a GFCI if you are in the path and all that current is passing through you. Often in that situation you will be passing even more than 4-6 mA as like I said GFCI doesn't limit current it only responds to current.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Power needs to have a time component in association to give you incident energy before you can assess much for damages/injury levels.

Low level current but for longer time can be just as damaging or more than higher current for shorter time depending on details. We see this association with arc flash situations as well.

GFCI's don't limit current, they respond to current. The faster they can respond the lesser the possible injury may be. You will feel the 4-6 mA it takes to trip a GFCI if you are in the path and all that current is passing through you. Often in that situation you will be passing even more than 4-6 mA as like I said GFCI doesn't limit current it only responds to current.

The maximum permitted time to trip in seconds is equal to the quantity (20/fault current in milliamps) raised to the 1.43 power. The application of this formula would permit a 7 second trip time for a 5 mA ground fault.

Most trip much faster than the maximum permitted time. The typical internal test resistor flows about 8 mA at 120 volts. If the GFCI took the maximum permitted time, you would have to hold the test button in for about 4 seconds.
Assuming a 120 volt source and a body resistance of 1000 ohms, 120 mA would flow and the maximum time it would be permitted to flow would be about 0.08 seconds or a little over 2 cycles.

 

[tom baker]

Forum member don_resqcapt19 also provides an informed opinion of the code making process.

Prior to 1999 GFCI requirements was no cake walk, especially with remodel wiring that trips GFCI’s, & existing MWBC outlets.

Since 2011 NEC licensed power failure services were further complicated by replacement code 406.4(D), especially (D)(4).

But none of these requirements are observed by property maintenance, remodelers, or homeowner improvements, where licenses are not required.

IMHO the insurance industry benefits the most having representatives on NFPA code making panels, in favor of GFCI & AFCI requirements.

Since no maintenance staff, non-electrical general contractor, or municipal code enforcement, are trained to recognize it, the violations remain un-insureable increased hazards, and cause for non-renewal and cancellation, with confiscation of all prior-premiums paid.

It’s the lowest hanging fruit for industry rape & pillage of North American property owners.

Mike Holt recently stated ona video there are no insurance reps on CMPs

 

[ramsy]

Mike Holt recently stated ona video there are no insurance reps on CMPs

The insurance industry initially voted themselves as authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) in several building codes, which is understandable with insurance fraud, and bankrupt businesses burning down the building to collect insurance.

Unlike NECA/IBEW, or other industry members that maintain panel reps every year, the insurance industry comes and goes as they please. In 2017, NEC CODE-MAKING PANEL NO. 19 was chaired by the North Carolina Department of Insurance, and any proposals delivered during that term would not be determined, or published before the 2020 code cycle.

Code panel members presenting at local IAEI meetings also describe recent insurance rep proposals adopted by NFPA-70E, which made plant managers AHJ for employee safety, and material suppliers AHJ for validating NRTL requirements. There would be no corruption for spreading liability around to other responsible parties for casualty claims.

 

[kwired]

The insurance industry initially voted themselves as authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) in several building codes, which is understandable with insurance fraud, and bankrupt businesses burning down the building to collect insurance.

Unlike NECA/IBEW, or other industry members that maintain panel reps every year, the insurance industry comes and goes as they please. In 2017, NEC CODE-MAKING PANEL NO. 19 was chaired by the North Carolina Department of Insurance, and any proposals delivered during that term would not be determined, or published before the 2020 code cycle.

Code panel members presenting at local IAEI meetings also describe recent insurance rep proposals adopted by NFPA-70E, which made plant managers AHJ for employee safety, and material suppliers AHJ for validating NRTL requirements. There would be no corruption for spreading liability around to other responsible parties for casualty claims.

I would guess there is no requirements limiting CMP members to be associated with specific industries, trades, etc. but rather the credentials of the individual are a contributing factor to them being selected to be on a committee. Even people that are active in the electrical field in some way may have areas where they are more knowledgeable about than other areas and may be more suitable on some committees than others.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would guess there is no requirements limiting CMP members to be associated with specific industries, trades, etc. but rather the credentials of the individual are a contributing factor to them being selected to be on a committee. Even people that are active in the electrical field in some way may have areas where they are more knowledgeable about than other areas and may be more suitable on some committees than others.

The code making panels must represent one of ten interest groups. When I checked a few mounts ago, there was only one panel member among the 18 panels that represented the insurance industry.