How would conflicts between 110.3(B) and other Code sections be handled?

[Jraef]

As a specific case to discuss, the 2023 Code changes 210.8(A)(6) to eliminate the term "to serve the countertop surfaces" with regard to requiring GFCIs in kitchens. That means that ALL outlets in kitchens will need to be GFCI, including the one behind the refrigerator, which has been the last bastion of sanity in this regard (IMHO). So what I have already started seeing is that the appliance manufacturers are putting in statements such as "Do not install refrigerator on ground fault circuit", or words to that effect.

I believe this is an attempt from the appliance mfrs to give us "air cover" so that we can use a non-GFCI outlet, under the belief that 110.3(B) will trump 210.8(A)(6). But will it? I attended a local Code change seminar last year when 2023 was released, the general consensus among the presenters was that NO, 110.3(B) would not negate any other Code section. But most of the ECs in the room felt that AHJs would "look the other way" on this based on that issue. Of course I understand that from a construction standpoint, you could just install the GFCI, pass inspection, then tell the end customer to swap it out afterward, but that's not really the "right" way to address it.

Mind you, I'll be retired by the time 2023 goes into effect here in California, so this is strictly rhetorical at this point, but I'm very curious.

 

[wwhitney]

If a 110.3(B) mandatory requirement conflicts with an NEC mandatory requirement, that just means you can't use that product. Find another one.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The first draft report for the 2026 code shows the following in 110.3(B)

(B) Installation and Use.
Equipment that is listed, labeled, or both, or identified for a use shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing, labeling, or identification. The instructions included shall not conflict with the minimum safety requirements in this code.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The other way around.....We were always told that if an appliance didn't require gfci per NEC and the manufacturer mandates it then we must go by what the manufacturer says

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The other way around.....We were always told that if an appliance didn't require gfci per NEC and the manufacturer mandates it then we must go by what the manufacturer says

Yes the manufacturer can require more than what the NEC does, but cannot delete an NEC requirement.

 

[LarryFine]

Before too long, we're going to end up with no compliant appliances.

 

[TwoBlocked]

Simple solution. Put the fridge in an upstairs hallway.

 

[kec]

Simple solution. Put the fridge in an upstairs hallway.

That's a great idea. Then I won't have to travel far for a beer.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Before too long, we're going to end up with no compliant appliances.

Most are not actual 110.3(B) instructions....just a manufacturer's recommendation for CYA purposes.

 

[Birken Vogt]

Sanity needs to return. If an appliance is permanent and 3rd wire grounded, GFCI is redundant and should not be required at all.

 

[winnie]

Or, if the intent is to provide GFCI protection in the event that the EGC fails, then permit GFCIs which get desensitized if a reliable EGC is detected.

In the past, I've advocated for a device which evaluates the ECG, and if there is an assured EGC then higher leakage current is permitted without tripping.

Jonathan

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Or, if the intent is to provide GFCI protection in the event that the EGC fails, then permit GFCIs which get desensitized if a reliable EGC is detected.

In the past, I've advocated for a device which evaluates the ECG, and if there is an assured EGC then higher leakage current is permitted without tripping.

Jonathan

That would likely require an additional conductor to verify the EGC.

Exactly what is required for Special Purpose GFCIs, but in that case the device opens the circuit if either the ground check or the EGC is open. The ground check conductor connects to the EGC as the equipment being protected by the GFCI.

 

[wwhitney]

That would likely require an additional conductor to verify the EGC.

Why isn't it enough to just attempt to pass 1 ma from an ungrounded conductor to the EGC?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[winnie]

Why isn't it enough to just attempt to pass 1 ma from an ungrounded conductor to the EGC?

Cheers, Wayne

Wouldn't that require some sort of component on the appliance creating an intentional but somehow recognizable ground fault?

I think adding an 'EGC sense' wire is simpler.

Jonathan

 

[GoldDigger]

If it were not for the parallel "requirement" for a dedicated circuit, the behind the refrigerator problem could be solved by making the refrigerator receptacle a pass through from a countertop GFCI receptacle.
Reconciling both could be managed by a dead front GFCI near the refrigerator. (Or, of course, a GFCI breaker) It would not be the first time that reconciling practicality with the new letter of the Code just adds arguably unnecessary cost.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If it were not for the parallel "requirement" for a dedicated circuit, the behind the refrigerator problem could be solved by making the refrigerator receptacle a pass through from a countertop GFCI receptacle.
Reconciling both could be managed by a dead front GFCI near the refrigerator. (Or, of course, a GFCI breaker) It would not be the first time that reconciling practicality with the new letter of the Code just adds arguably unnecessary cost.

What do you mean by that. I mean the parallel requirement for a dedicated circuit. Refrigerator doesn't require a dedicated circuit

 

[wwhitney]

Wouldn't that require some sort of component on the appliance creating an intentional but somehow recognizable ground fault?

Sure, but that's what EVSEs currently do, to my understanding. And all of those "smart switches" that used the EGC for up to 0.5 ma of current before the requirement for a neutral at the switch locations.

I think adding an 'EGC sense' wire is simpler.

Adding another wire to the branch circuit would be a huge expense.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

The other way around.....We were always told that if an appliance didn't require gfci per NEC and the manufacturer mandates it then we must go by what the manufacturer says

NEC doesn't require GFCI for refrigerators, it can require GFCI protection for the receptacle you wish to plug said refrigerator into though.

2023 with no amendments, you apparently need to plug your refrigerator into say a living room receptacle if it doesn't play well with GFCI protection.

When we switch to 2023 here sometime soon, early August I think, they have amended 210.8 to mostly read the same as it did in 2017, one smartest moves the state has made IMO. We never had adopted 2020 BTW, but that was more because of other topics in legislature having higher priority more so than content of what would be changed with the 2020 edition and they simply did not get to the bill to change this before legislative sessions were over each of the past few years.

 

[sgtsparky]

I am glad I live in a state that has an exception to GFCI’s , Oregon has exception #5 for equipment in a dedicated space not easily moved and labeled not GFCI protected,
To me the NEC is becoming to much of a “nanny organization”, I believe in GFCI’s near water & outside and arcfaults in bedrooms but that’s it, how many tens of thousands of homes are 3 wire feeders? most all prior to the 99 code,

 

[sgtsparky]

Sure, but that's what EVSEs currently do, to my understanding. And all of those "smart switches" that used the EGC for up to 0.5 ma of current before the requirement for a neutral at the switch locations.


Adding another wire to the branch circuit would be a huge expense.

Cheers, Wayne

There used to be a limit of ?3 smart switches on a circuit maybe it is the mfg that states this but I ran into it years back and had to change switch types. (Switches that required the ground)