Receptacles for RV's

[kwired]

I would expect a high level gfci on the 50 amp outlet..like 100ma or such... with a requirement of lower limits in the RVs... you still want some protection due to wet ground etc...

The RV isn't all that clear as to whether or not it is intended to be included in changes to 210.8 in 2017 code. But all of what it covered in 210.8 is class A GFCI protection for personnel which is the 4-6 mA trip level. The only justification I have found for most of what was added in 2017 isn't based on statistics of high risk, but rather "we now have devices that are listed for these applications". Take that however you want, seems to be skewed a little from reality of what is truly needed to me.

 

[480sparky]

Let us pray...... please Lord, don't let this rule include 50a RV outlets,,,,,camping is supposed to be fun,,,, not stressful by having to worry about going to confession when we get back home for taking your name in vane whilst continually running outside to reset The GFI protected outlet on our camping trip... amen.

Jap>

Or you could pray at the funeral for someone who was electrocuted because there was no GFCI protection that could have prevented the tragedy.

 

[ptonsparky]

Or you could pray at the funeral for someone who was electrocuted because there was no GFCI protection that could have prevented the tragedy.

That is a toss up.

 

[jap]

Or you could pray at the funeral for someone who was electrocuted because there was no GFCI protection that could have prevented the tragedy.

I'm not heartless, yet, there comes a point where one must realize that electricity is dangerous in all aspects no matter what the voltage or amperage.

Is there a large number of reports of people getting hurt by 30 and 50 amp RV outlets?

JAP>

 

[jap]

Or you could pray at the funeral for someone who was electrocuted because there was no GFCI protection that could have prevented the tragedy.

With that Mindset you'd be best not to turn on any power at all.

JAP>

 

[Craigv]

210.8 applies to dwelling units and "other than dwelling units". There is no specific definition of "other than dwelling unit" but we can reasonably surmise that since all of the definitions of one-, two- and multi-family dwelling units state, "a building that...", they intend for dwelling units ( and therefore "other than" dwelling units ) to apply to buildings. We could argue this, but the fact that another Code article (551) specifically gives scope, definitions and requirements directly applicable to recreational vehicle parks, sites, and stands means that it must take precedent over any vagueness or conjecture regarding Article 210.8.

A recreational vehicle site and a recreational vehicle stand are not defined as buildings or dwelling or other than dwelling units...they are defined as "areas". Again, no relation to and therefore no coverage by Article 210.8.

Article 551 goes into sufficient detail regarding the need to furnish electrical supplies to recreational vehicle sites in specific manners for us to reasonably determine that 15 and 20 ampere site receptacles shall be GFCI protected, and that 30- and 50-amp receptacles are not required to have GFCI protection.

 

[kwired]

210.8 applies to dwelling units and non-dwelling units. There is no specific definition of "non-dwelling unit" but we can reasonably surmise that since all of the definitions of one-, two- and multi-family dwelling units state, "a building that...", they intend for dwelling units ( and therefore non-dwelling units ) to apply to buildings. We could argue this, but the fact that another Code article (551) specifically gives scope, definitions and requirements directly applicable to recreational vehicle parks, sites, and stands means that it must take precedent over any vagueness or conjecture regarding Article 210.8.

A recreational vehicle site and a recreational vehicle stand are not defined as buildings or dwelling or non-dwelling units...they are defined as "areas". Again, no relation to and therefore no coverage by Article 210.8.

Article 551 goes into sufficient detail regarding the need to furnish electrical supplies to recreational vehicle sites in specific manners for us to reasonably determine that 15 and 20 ampere site receptacles shall be GFCI protected, and that 30- and 50-amp receptacles are not required to have GFCI protection.

I agree other than end of the second paragraph, 210.8 applies to both dwelling and non dwelling applications and has specific dwelling requirements and specific non dwelling requirements. Then it also has parts (C) and (D), everything else either A or B applies, or no GFCI protection is required as a general rule, need to see later sections for specific applications not covered here, like swimming pool applications for example you need to see what it says in 680 for anything not already required in 210.8

 

[Craigv]

I agree other than end of the second paragraph, 210.8 applies to both dwelling and non dwelling applications and has specific dwelling requirements and specific non dwelling requirements. Then it also has parts (C) and (D), everything else either A or B applies, or no GFCI protection is required as a general rule, need to see later sections for specific applications not covered here, like swimming pool applications for example you need to see what it says in 680 for anything not already required in 210.8

Understood and it also has (E), but the point is that none of these paragraphs describe a recreational vehicle site or stand. An RV site is not a dwelling unit (A), not an "other than dwelling unit" (B) (which still must be a building), not a boat hoist (C), not a kitchen dishwasher branch circuit (D), and not a crawl space lighting outlet (E).

And if 210.8 encompassed all aspects of RV sites, there would be no need for a redundant requirement in 551.71(F). As (F) has language change updates for 2017, it's unlikely it was simply overlooked when 210.8 was updated.

There are also requirements for mobile home and park model homes that have 40, 50 and 60 amp services...there's no way the Code now requires those homes supplied via a cord and plug to have GFCI protection.

I don't agree with the interpretation that "other than dwelling unit" applies to anything other than installations in or on or supplied from buildings.

Yet another disturbance in The Force caused by vague or non-existent definitions.

 

[kwired]

Understood and it also has (E), but the point is that none of these paragraphs describe a recreational vehicle site or stand. An RV site is not a dwelling unit (A), not an "other than dwelling unit" (B) (which still must be a building), not a boat hoist (C), not a kitchen dishwasher branch circuit (D), and not a crawl space lighting outlet (E).

And if 210.8 encompassed all aspects of RV sites, there would be no need for a redundant requirement in 551.71(F). As (F) has language change updates for 2017, it's unlikely it was simply overlooked when 210.8 was updated.

There are also requirements for mobile home and park model homes that have 40, 50 and 60 amp services...there's no way the Code now requires those homes supplied via a cord and plug to have GFCI protection.

I don't agree with the interpretation that "other than dwelling unit" applies to anything other than installations in or on or supplied from buildings.

Yet another disturbance in The Force caused by vague or non-existent definitions.

I don't see that (B) has to involve a building. If I put a 5-15 receptacle, and now with 2017 more has been added, on a post or as part of a pedestal on non residential property - I think most will agree it falls under "other than dwelling units".

 

[Adamjamma]

The RV isn't all that clear as to whether or not it is intended to be included in changes to 210.8 in 2017 code. But all of what it covered in 210.8 is class A GFCI protection for personnel which is the 4-6 mA trip level. The only justification I have found for most of what was added in 2017 isn't based on statistics of high risk, but rather "we now have devices that are listed for these applications". Take that however you want, seems to be skewed a little from reality of what is truly needed to me.

but, and even I know this, you would only want 50 to 100 ma to start with if covering a group of circuits that probably will have protection on them as well, or it will constantly trip... bot sure how it is stated, think it talks about selectivity... but for a 30 or 50 amp circuit that will feed a bunch of other circuits would use bigger than the required gfci at the actual user outlets... as far as the actual usage outlets you use the normal gfci ratings but it will work properly if you dont start with your biggest choke... like choking a shotgun...

 

[kwired]

but, and even I know this, you would only want 50 to 100 ma to start with if covering a group of circuits that probably will have protection on them as well, or it will constantly trip... bot sure how it is stated, think it talks about selectivity... but for a 30 or 50 amp circuit that will feed a bunch of other circuits would use bigger than the required gfci at the actual user outlets... as far as the actual usage outlets you use the normal gfci ratings but it will work properly if you dont start with your biggest choke... like choking a shotgun...

I understand what your line of thinking is, and does make sense to me. NEC and 210.8 is all about "people protection though" which in the USA means class A GFCI protection. Other than boat hoists and dishwashers (which IMO the issue that triggered dishwashers shouldn't even be in the NEC, should have been addressed with product recalls) 210.8 has always been about GFCI protection when using 15 or 20 amp 120 volt receptacles, and usually when some particular application has been added it was because of statistical information involving shock/electrocutions in those particular situations. Now they have added many other situations because "we have the technology" and not because it has been proven there is much risk in the real world. I would be more for requiring 30 or 100 mA protection for much of what they have added to 210.8. 5-15,5-20 cord caps - seen too many missing EGC pins on cords, class A protection is more important on those IMO, if one could assure those EGC pins don't get compromised I would be all for 30 or 100 mA protection on a lot of things that now require class A protection and save the class A for around swimming pools, bathrooms, and places where people may be more likely to be immersed in water. Even kitchen countertops I think 30 mA protection level would be sufficient, not like you crawl into a sink full of water like you do a tub or a pool.

 

[Adamjamma]

I understand what your line of thinking is, and does make sense to me. NEC and 210.8 is all about "people protection though" which in the USA means class A GFCI protection. Other than boat hoists and dishwashers (which IMO the issue that triggered dishwashers shouldn't even be in the NEC, should have been addressed with product recalls) 210.8 has always been about GFCI protection when using 15 or 20 amp 120 volt receptacles, and usually when some particular application has been added it was because of statistical information involving shock/electrocutions in those particular situations. Now they have added many other situations because "we have the technology" and not because it has been proven there is much risk in the real world. I would be more for requiring 30 or 100 mA protection for much of what they have added to 210.8. 5-15,5-20 cord caps - seen too many missing EGC pins on cords, class A protection is more important on those IMO, if one could assure those EGC pins don't get compromised I would be all for 30 or 100 mA protection on a lot of things that now require class A protection and save the class A for around swimming pools, bathrooms, and places where people may be more likely to be immersed in water. Even kitchen countertops I think 30 mA protection level would be sufficient, not like you crawl into a sink full of water like you do a tub or a pool.

30 ma is all required here, with 240volt circuits...but they do talk about discrimination and using larger values in certain cases, such as T-T residences... Think it is similar to how surge protection is looked at, though right now RCD, GFCI, and AFCI are all sort of like witchcraft to me as to what exactly and how it all works.. everything I have been reading tells me that GFCI/RCD works, but AFCI is a waste of time and money and there are probably more efficient ways to solve the Arc problem.

 

[kwired]

30 ma is all required here, with 240volt circuits...but they do talk about discrimination and using larger values in certain cases, such as T-T residences... Think it is similar to how surge protection is looked at, though right now RCD, GFCI, and AFCI are all sort of like witchcraft to me as to what exactly and how it all works.. everything I have been reading tells me that GFCI/RCD works, but AFCI is a waste of time and money and there are probably more efficient ways to solve the Arc problem.

GFCI and AFAIK RCD are about the same thing. Many of us understand exactly the main features of GFCI and why/how they work. AFCI OTOH seems to be many secrets they don't want the average trade person to know about - instead they think we are just supposed to trust them and that they do what they say they will do.

Simple description of a GFCI is you take all intended conductors of the circuit to be monitored and pass them through a current transformer. Doesn't matter if it is a simple two wire circuit, multiwire (like 120/240) circuit or even a three phase circuit. If total current that goes out on one conductor comes back via any or all the other conductors the net current measured by that CT is zero, opposing fields around the conductors are equal and cancel one another. If any current flow back via an alternate path, most common being EGC or other grounded object, then a voltage will develop because not all current in the CT is being canceled by opposing current anymore. The other key is sensitive enough circuitry to detect only a 4-6 mA imbalance in the current. We may not fully understand how the control circuitry all works, but understanding the main concept is not that difficult if you have any electrical theory interest at all.

 

[Craigv]

I don't see that (B) has to involve a building. If I put a 5-15 receptacle, and now with 2017 more has been added, on a post or as part of a pedestal on non residential property - I think most will agree it falls under "other than dwelling units".

210.8(A) clearly involves buildings. All dwelling unit definitions explicitly state "buildings". It isn't unreasonable that "other than dwelling units" applies to buildings and not virtually anything with electrical supply. And we still return to the fact that article 551 clearly defines and delineates RV parks, etc. and how the sites are to be supplied. Makes no sense at all to mention 15- and 20-amp GFCI receptacles but not 30 and 50 amp, especially where this would be new and a significant change.

It also doesn't follow that the articles covering carnivals, marinas, and truck parking all have specific requirements that 15 and 20 amp 120v receptacles be GFCI protected, but are silent regarding higher amperage and 250v receptacles. There's no way these would all remain in place if "other than dwelling unit" applied.

I have yet to find a manufacturer selling an RV pedestal with GFCI on both the 30 and 50 amp circuits, even as optional equipment. I just did an RV park upgrade and was inundated with pedestal information from several supply houses as well as my research. Never encountered any with GFCI on 30 and 50. So I just called Midwest.

Midwest has ONE pedestal, out of literally dozens, that has a GFCI on the 30 (U075GP6019). The rep said they don't offer anything for the 50's and "you might be the first to even ask". I've found no mention in code updates, handbooks etc. of this being something to look out for.

I understand your interpretation and it isn't unreasonable, but it seems improbable.

 

[kwired]

210.8(A) clearly involves buildings. All dwelling unit definitions explicitly state "buildings". It isn't unreasonable that "other than dwelling units" applies to buildings and not virtually anything with electrical supply. And we still return to the fact that article 551 clearly defines and delineates RV parks, etc. and how the sites are to be supplied. Makes no sense at all to mention 15- and 20-amp GFCI receptacles but not 30 and 50 amp, especially where this would be new and a significant change.

It also doesn't follow that the articles covering carnivals, marinas, and truck parking all have specific requirements that 15 and 20 amp 120v receptacles be GFCI protected, but are silent regarding higher amperage and 250v receptacles. There's no way these would all remain in place if "other than dwelling unit" applied.

I have yet to find a manufacturer selling an RV pedestal with GFCI on both the 30 and 50 amp circuits, even as optional equipment. I just did an RV park upgrade and was inundated with pedestal information from several supply houses as well as my research. Never encountered any with GFCI on 30 and 50. So I just called Midwest.

Midwest has ONE pedestal, out of literally dozens, that has a GFCI on the 30 (U075GP6019). The rep said they don't offer anything for the 50's and "you might be the first to even ask". I've found no mention in code updates, handbooks etc. of this being something to look out for.

I understand your interpretation and it isn't unreasonable, but it seems improbable.

Sorry but to me "other than dwelling unit" is "anything" other than a dwelling unit, not a building that is not a dwelling unit. Unless NEC wants to give us a specific definition, but so far we have a dwelling unit definition, anything that doesn't fit that is not a dwelling unit, whether it be a building, pole, pedestal, boat dock, tank, silo, tree, sign, I could go on for quite a while naming things that aren't necessarily a building and also not a dwelling unit that may or may not have electrical wiring on them. I don't recall seeing a definition of "other than dwelling" and as worded I would think it is anything that is not a dwelling unit - to the NEC anyhow.

I promise you if I put a 5-15 (lets forget about 2017 changes that include other receptacles for a moment) receptacle on any of those items I mentioned and it is outdoors, I will get cited for violating 210.8(B)(4) if I don't protect it with a GFCI. You are not finding issues in handbooks or finding pedestals with GFCI's where they never needed to be in the past because this is all new and AHJ's haven't raised hell with contractors yet for something that isn't quite so clear. 551 was kind of redundant in the past with mentioning GFCI requirements for 15/20 amp receptacles as it was already required by 210.8(B) or if plugging your RV into a 20 amp receptacle at home - 210.8(A)(3) still required GFCI protection on the receptacle. It is the receptacle being located outdoors whether dwelling related or not that kicks in 210.8 as both (A) and (B) apply to outdoor receptacles. The 50 amp in 2017 however isn't mentioned in (A).

NEC is telling us there is increased shock risk for anything under 150 volts to ground but not at a dwelling unless it is 15/20 amp 120 volt. They are also telling us that it is only a risk for up to 50 amps single phase but is a risk up to 100 amps three phase. Most of this doesn't really make any sense. Up to 150 volts seems to be same shock risk to me regardless of how many amps the circuit can handle or if it is originating from single or three phase source, or whether it is at a dwelling location or not.

 

[jap]

Sorry but to me "other than dwelling unit" is "anything" other than a dwelling unit

That's pretty well my take on it also.

JAP>

 

[Craigv]

Sorry but to me "other than dwelling unit" is "anything" other than a dwelling unit, not a building that is not a dwelling unit. Unless NEC wants to give us a specific definition, but so far we have a dwelling unit definition, anything that doesn't fit that is not a dwelling unit, whether it be a building, pole, pedestal, boat dock, tank, silo, tree, sign, I could go on for quite a while naming things that aren't necessarily a building and also not a dwelling unit that may or may not have electrical wiring on them. I don't recall seeing a definition of "other than dwelling" and as worded I would think it is anything that is not a dwelling unit - to the NEC anyhow.

I promise you if I put a 5-15 (lets forget about 2017 changes that include other receptacles for a moment) receptacle on any of those items I mentioned and it is outdoors, I will get cited for violating 210.8(B)(4) if I don't protect it with a GFCI. You are not finding issues in handbooks or finding pedestals with GFCI's where they never needed to be in the past because this is all new and AHJ's haven't raised hell with contractors yet for something that isn't quite so clear. 551 was kind of redundant in the past with mentioning GFCI requirements for 15/20 amp receptacles as it was already required by 210.8(B) or if plugging your RV into a 20 amp receptacle at home - 210.8(A)(3) still required GFCI protection on the receptacle. It is the receptacle being located outdoors whether dwelling related or not that kicks in 210.8 as both (A) and (B) apply to outdoor receptacles. The 50 amp in 2017 however isn't mentioned in (A).

NEC is telling us there is increased shock risk for anything under 150 volts to ground but not at a dwelling unless it is 15/20 amp 120 volt. They are also telling us that it is only a risk for up to 50 amps single phase but is a risk up to 100 amps three phase. Most of this doesn't really make any sense. Up to 150 volts seems to be same shock risk to me regardless of how many amps the circuit can handle or if it is originating from single or three phase source, or whether it is at a dwelling location or not.

If all this is true and 210.8 is universally applicable, there's absolutely no reason for the specific and redundant requirements in other sections such as 525 and 551. And if those redundant mentions are necessary, then why do they leave out anything higher than a 20 amp 120v?

 

[kwired]

If all this is true and 210.8 is universally applicable, there's absolutely no reason for the specific and redundant requirements in other sections such as 525 and 551. And if those redundant mentions are necessary, then why do they leave out anything higher than a 20 amp 120v?

They were redundant before and they are still unchanged even though 210.8 changed. 210.8(B)(4) wasn't necessarily in existence yet when 551 was requiring GFCI for the 15/20 amp receptacle. It became redundant when they added 210.8(B)(4).

 

[LarryFine]

"This is a message from your Department of Redundancy Department."

 

[Adamjamma]

I think what we are overlooking, in a way, is the requirement for the use of RV sockets and receptacles, which includes certain features to reduce shock when being handled. The 15 or 20 amp outlets in the pedestals are required to be gfci protected, but the higher amp outlets are feeders, in effect, not regular outlets. So, they will be split in the individual RV. Thus it is up to the RV owner to make sure their RV is properly protected inside, not the park owner. Many parks, at least online info is saying, are only allowing RVs of certain ages, which I think may be in part to make sure some of the newer safety features are in those RVs.
But, I am in Europe not the USA and have not used an RV since 1998..lol