GFCI breaker vs Outlet

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Horst1

Member
Ok, had a question from a maintenance super at an apartment complex. Seems corporate has come down with a policy that states all exterior outlets must be GFCI protected at the point of use (eg: GFCI outlets) and that GFCI breakers do not afford the proper protection.... So, they have to install GFCI outlets all over the place even though the breakers are GFCI... So my question is, and I know I read this somewhere, just cannot find it, that there is no difference; or is there? Anyone have a written reference to support my opinion that the outlets are not necessary? I thought it was in the NEC somewhere... Thanks.
 
Horst1 said:
Ok, had a question from a maintenance super at an apartment complex. Seems corporate has come down with a policy that states all exterior outlets must be GFCI protected at the point of use (eg: GFCI outlets) and that GFCI breakers do not afford the proper protection.... So, they have to install GFCI outlets all over the place even though the breakers are GFCI... So my question is, and I know I read this somewhere, just cannot find it, that there is no difference; or is there? Anyone have a written reference to support my opinion that the outlets are not necessary? I thought it was in the NEC somewhere... Thanks.
Click to expand...

The only issue I see is the convenience of only loosing a single device in lieu of the whole circuit.

As far as the proper protection is concerned, the breaker will provide the same amount of protection and maybe even a lower trip threshold due to possible leakage along the length of one conductor over the other (uneven between the conductors)

Roger
 
Horst1 said:
and that GFCI breakers do not afford the proper protection....
Click to expand...

That is utter nonsense.



Horst1 said:
So, they have to install GFCI outlets all over the place even though the breakers are GFCI... So my question is, and I know I read this somewhere, just cannot find it, that there is no difference; or is there? Anyone have a written reference to support my opinion that the outlets are not necessary? I thought it was in the NEC somewhere... Thanks.
Click to expand...

The NEC only specifies GFCI protection...it does not specify the device type.
 
I actually prefer GFCI receptacles because it put the reset closer to where the problem is. I would rather install 4 GFCI recepts for the same money as a GFCI C/B just for the convenience of it, and I really don't like the feed-through feature if the circuit supplies devices in more than one room. I still do service calls on homes from the 70s&80s where the GFCI device in the garage tripped (and is behind a bunch of junk) and knocked out the batrooms and exterior outlets. I think that the NEC is silent on which way to go though and the GFCI C/Bs and devices are held to the same UL standards.

I think.
 

Sounds like corporate is looking for convenience (Meaning: Being able to reset at the outlet).

Yet, if they want to waste their money, then let them!

 
They might also be considering the fact that the new generation of GFCI receptacles will not reset if it stops providing ground fault protection or if it is miswired.

I don't know if a breaker will do that.:confused:
 
Other than the fact that long circuit runs can be a problem, like mentioned, I think maybe you should point out to the suits that there is actually a higher level of protection with the breaker method. How is that? everybody asks? Well, if you have a large facility, like an amusement park for instance, and some outdoor bell boxes get broken apart like we all see from time to time. A gfi breaker will protect the wires feeding the receptacle from ground fault hazard whereas the gfi receptacle oultet won't protect the branch wiring on the line side of the device. In public parks I often have seen wp device boxes broken at the conduits entering the boxes, and laying on the side, still energized. The gfi receptacles in them however, have tripped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top