bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
If a gfci device were installed in a location that gfci protection is not required, should that gfci be required to be connected correctly and operate correctly?
Proper Use of Device
- Thread starter bphgravity
- Start date
- Status
B
bthielen
Guest
Re: Proper Use of Device
If you are just asking for personal opinions, my vote is for yes. The fact that the protection afforded by the GFCI is available, it would seem prudent to take advantage of it. I would rather have protection from a GFCI without knowing it rather than to be given a false sense of security to have a GFCI that is not installed to be functional.
I'm curious where you want to take this.
Bob
If you are just asking for personal opinions, my vote is for yes. The fact that the protection afforded by the GFCI is available, it would seem prudent to take advantage of it. I would rather have protection from a GFCI without knowing it rather than to be given a false sense of security to have a GFCI that is not installed to be functional.
I'm curious where you want to take this.
Bob
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Proper Use of Device
Interesting questions. The key word in the questions is "should." I think this crosses the line between "code minimum" and "what the owner wants, even if the owner is unaware that that is what the owner wants." Speaking as a design engineer, I would say that I do not want the owner to think that the GFCI protection is available, when it is not. In that, I agree with Bob. But that is a design consideration; the NEC doesn't care (i.e., doesn't have jurisdiction over) how the owner operates anything within the facility, and doesn't care if the owner is happy.
If you saw one that was wired wrong, such that it would provide power to anything plugged into it, but that it would not function in its capacity of protection against ground faults, and if you wanted to cite it as a violation, then I think you could use 110.3(B) as your basis. That is as weak a case as you could ever hope to find, and I think it should not be used as the sole basis for a code-related decision, if there is any other code article that can be cited instead. But I can't think of any other article that would apply here.
Interesting questions. The key word in the questions is "should." I think this crosses the line between "code minimum" and "what the owner wants, even if the owner is unaware that that is what the owner wants." Speaking as a design engineer, I would say that I do not want the owner to think that the GFCI protection is available, when it is not. In that, I agree with Bob. But that is a design consideration; the NEC doesn't care (i.e., doesn't have jurisdiction over) how the owner operates anything within the facility, and doesn't care if the owner is happy.
If you saw one that was wired wrong, such that it would provide power to anything plugged into it, but that it would not function in its capacity of protection against ground faults, and if you wanted to cite it as a violation, then I think you could use 110.3(B) as your basis. That is as weak a case as you could ever hope to find, and I think it should not be used as the sole basis for a code-related decision, if there is any other code article that can be cited instead. But I can't think of any other article that would apply here.
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: Proper Use of Device
The answer from a legal perspective is "yes."
Now, the answer I would give is "no."
The answer from a legal perspective is "yes."
Now, the answer I would give is "no."
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Proper Use of Device
My vote is it would be required to be installed the correct way.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Proper Use of Device
Aha. A scofflaw!
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Proper Use of Device
Ditto.Originally posted by jwelectric:
My vote is it would be required to be installed the correct way.
davedottcom
Senior Member
Re: Proper Use of Device
I second that!
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Re: Proper Use of Device
I would say that the answer is "yes", as I would imagine that anything electrical installed above and beyond minimum NEC requirements must still be installed according to code.
You could draw a parallel: if you install an extra receptacle between two that are placed to comply with spacing requirements, shouldn't that extra receptacle be wired correctly?
I would say that the answer is "yes", as I would imagine that anything electrical installed above and beyond minimum NEC requirements must still be installed according to code.
You could draw a parallel: if you install an extra receptacle between two that are placed to comply with spacing requirements, shouldn't that extra receptacle be wired correctly?
jim k
Member
- Location
- Northwestern Oregon
Re: Proper Use of Device
Yes.
110-3(b).
- Jim K.
Yes.
110-3(b).
- Jim K.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
Re: Proper Use of Device
is there any requirement it be wired at all? is there any code that says you can't have a dead receptacle?
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Proper Use of Device
There is no such requirement. But that is not the issue. The issue is that if it is wired, must it be wired correctly?
Re: Proper Use of Device
i wouldn't pass a dead receptacle as something must not be working correctly. a dummy receptacle is different, like dummy switches in multigang sw boxes. A GFCI that does not have the protection is no different than a non-required guardrail (less than 30" height) that is attached with a couple of small box nails. The implied safety is inherent in the usage. Products are to be used as listed, and not providing that safety may seem a debatable issue with NEC, but not with the totality of codes, as the NEC does not exist in isolation.
I could not imagine an inspector passing it, nor could I see the inspector losing upon appeal.
I like "homerun security"
paul
i wouldn't pass a dead receptacle as something must not be working correctly. a dummy receptacle is different, like dummy switches in multigang sw boxes. A GFCI that does not have the protection is no different than a non-required guardrail (less than 30" height) that is attached with a couple of small box nails. The implied safety is inherent in the usage. Products are to be used as listed, and not providing that safety may seem a debatable issue with NEC, but not with the totality of codes, as the NEC does not exist in isolation.
I could not imagine an inspector passing it, nor could I see the inspector losing upon appeal.
I like "homerun security"
paul
Re: Proper Use of Device
Ok...I'll bite...how would a gfci be connected so that it would not work correctly? Line wires to the load side?
I am really trying to understand the issue here...?
A blank plate is a lot less expensive than a non-working receptacle.
Did this scenario actually happen?
Ok...I'll bite...how would a gfci be connected so that it would not work correctly? Line wires to the load side?
I am really trying to understand the issue here...?
A blank plate is a lot less expensive than a non-working receptacle.
Did this scenario actually happen?
- Status