Testing GFCI?s & EFCI's:

[Tony S]

You stated your mind was closed to a legitimate argument. Not much I can say.


How often is the testing you posted above done?

Sorry iwire I missed your post due to commitments on a UK forum, please don?t think I was ignoring you.


My mind isn?t closed to legitimate argument but I didn?t want the thread to get bogged down in the economics of safety.


Testing is up to the individual householder or landlord. To buy a property the mortgage lenders terms may specify an EICR is done before the contracts are signed, they want to protect their investment.
EICR = Electrical Installation Condition Report, this isn?t a quick ?it looks OK? thing. It is a detailed report which includes the full gamut of tests and recommendations for remedial action.
If the report comes back with a condition 2 then you may struggle to get a mortgage, a condition 1 and you wouldn?t have a snowballs chance in hell until the remedial work is done. This would be at the vendors expense, they want to sell, they can pay.

Landlords however have a legal obligation to protect their tenants. My flat is on a 5 year cycle, depending on where you are in the country it could be different.

You have problems with local codes, believe me, you?re not on your own.

 

[romex jockey]

Sorry if you find testing tedious and boring but keeping people alive is tedious and boring to the fire and paramedic services.

Many of us here have worn the maltese cross and/or star of life in our past Tony.

Many of us are also electrical contractors and/or lead men , even educators .

Further, more who have been subjected to liability concerns , because our system provided so many grey areas read here as well.

We all have our stories....

Myself, i see the oversight bureaucracies as inconsistent state to state. One could even claim they give us 'enough rope to hang ourselves'

For ex. we have this wonderfully nefarious term 'existing' , which seems to grandfather most everything short of an imminent life safety threat here.

So comes the question for those who would be in a position of having to place their name on what is 'existing' out there.

Which would we like?

A detailed test/investigation? Or some look/see test button approach?


~RJ~

 

[iwire]

My flat is on a 5 year cycle, depending on where you are in the country it could be different.

So how is the frequency of the testing determined?

Isn't five years too long, wouldn't it be safer if the test was every two years? Or every year?

 

[Tony S]

So how is the frequency of the testing determined?

Isn't five years too long, wouldn't it be safer if the test was every two years? Or every year?

Five years too long? How often do you do a retest?

I knew the answer before I wrote the question.

Older installations get interesting, you may have a circuit that has its day. It?s old and worn out like me but is giving IR and CR readings that are borderline acceptable. By regular testing you can track its condition. The next test if it is the same then the circuit is stable. IR tests will show any insulation deterioration. Which I believe is where we started with AFCI?s

 

[growler]

Older installations get interesting, you may have a circuit that has its day. It?s old and worn out like me but is giving IR and CR readings that are borderline acceptable. By regular testing you can track its condition. The next test if it is the same then the circuit is stable. IR tests will show any insulation deterioration. Which I believe is where we started with AFCI?s

If we went around testing older homes we would find enough problems to keep us busy for the next century.

The problem I see is, just who is responsible for keeping up with all these testing records. Many of the local jurisdictions can't keep up with information they should already have on file. In this county you would probaly have to double or tripple the size of the community developement office. Once you have all these extra government employees then where does the money come from to pay them. What? Higher taxes?

 

[ramsy]

..it is rare that an electrician would test a GFCI device after the initial install. ..The instructions specify that the user test the GFCI once a month. We all know that doesn't happen, ..

My onsite clients always get a GFCI / RCD demonstration after install. When installed, new A/GFCI devices in my region requires an initial reset before operation. By having the onsite occupant do it, they get more familiar with it.

Sometimes the test button is also demonstrated. The first & last time I said, this is how it protects people, and pushed the test button while the disposer was running, it caused lots of sparks inside the device. Probably not a good thing, but we're entitled to be stupid once in a while.

 

[Curious nerd]

This is a follow on from the discussion about AFCI?s where EFCI?s (RCD?s) and Someone please explain to me why ?pressing the button? is the better method. Economic reasons will not be accepted as an argument, safety reasons only please.

If I'm reading this right, any safety-related reason for using the test button instead of an external test set would answer the question. For example, someone could argue that a test circuit an NRTL signed off on is more trustworthy than something out of the electrician's van.

 

[mbrooke]

If I'm reading this right, any safety-related reason for using the test button instead of an external test set would answer the question. For example, someone could argue that a test circuit an NRTL signed off on is more trustworthy than something out of the electrician's van.

Untrue. The device used is listed and calibrated. Thats like saying you should never trust a voltage meter or amp clamp or oscilloscope. In such a case it would be better not to carry these around.

 

[romex jockey]

I've a number of antiquated test equipment , analog biddel meggers to wiggy's here.

Should i trust their calibrated NRTL readings of 1/2 century ago?


~RJ~

 

[Tony S]

If I'm reading this right, any safety-related reason for using the test button instead of an external test set would answer the question. For example, someone could argue that a test circuit an NRTL signed off on is more trustworthy than something out of the electrician's van.

The simple answer is yes.

Was that particular breaker tested by a registered test house or just ?batch sampled?. That one?s OK, the rest should be.

As for how reliable a meter it, they should be calibrated annually. Many company electricians also have testing units at base so they can confirm their personal meter is working correctly.

Which reminds me, my meters are due for calibration sometime next month.

 

[JRW 70]

It may not be legally required, but the utility I work for
does testing of ground fault detection on our distribution
lines all the way down to certian receptacles. That is part
of what I get paid for is to help ensure public and staff
safety.
On the flipside, I can't remember ever testing a grornd
detection device in a resedential setting ever.
I didn't do too well in my law schooling, but we have
the ex post facto concept that originates in the constitution,
thus allowing for quite a bit of dangerous equipment to
remain in place and no statute either federal or state
can override this. If the practice was acceptable at one time
and left alone there are very few "legal" remedies. At this
moment, condemnation is probably the only way to remove
hazardous conditions that I can think of that is used on a
regular basis.

(turn off lawyer, and back to engineer)

The cost and intrusion into some of the panels
may do more harm than good. Old brittle insulation
is a real problem in what I have to deal with.
Things dating from the 1920's up to current times.
All testing and risk management is a balancing act
because one must know when they are actually
shortening the life of the object under test.
And if the test fails/destroys the piece we have to
have a replacement ready immediately.

As a side note, the State of Missouri does not adopt an
electrical code. It is left up to the incorporated cities and
counties to set their codes and ammendments.

JR

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Try the NFPA-NEC if you want over regulation.

BS7671 is a recommended standard. You can be taken to court if you breach the recognised standard and cause injury/damage.

The first page of the NEC I do believe:

That is not part of the NEC and I doubt that any of the state or local laws that adopt the NEC read like that.

 

[ramsy]

That is not part of the NEC and I doubt that any of the state or local laws that adopt the NEC read like that.

The point is well taken, even though the real document is actually embossed with a Rebbel flag, crossing gun barrels, and the words, " The South shall rise again".

 

[mbrooke]

That is not part of the NEC and I doubt that any of the state or local laws that adopt the NEC read like that.

True, but the AHJ is pretty much that. IF I violate the NEC an inspector will refuse to give me a certificate of occupancy or red tag my installation. Try that with AFCIs, it doesn't matter how much you fight with him, in the end he determines it all :rant::happyno:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

True, but the AHJ is pretty much that. IF I violate the NEC an inspector will refuse to give me a certificate of occupancy or red tag my installation. Try that with AFCIs, it doesn't matter how much you fight with him, in the end he determines it all :rant::happyno:

The quote talks about criminal penalties ...those are very rare for code violations. Things like a red tag and not getting a certificate of occupancy are not criminal penalties.

 

[growler]

True, but the AHJ is pretty much that. IF I violate the NEC an inspector will refuse to give me a certificate of occupancy or red tag my installation. Try that with AFCIs, it doesn't matter how much you fight with him, in the end he determines it all :rant::happyno:

The inspector doesn't really determine anything. It's his/her job to make sure that you have a code compliant installation for whatever code cycle that's been adopted by the AJH.

If you want to fight with someone don't do it with the inspector because he can't grant special permission for you not to follow the adopted code.

It is possible to get a "variance" that will allow you to build something other than a code compliant structure ( bend the rules a bit). This is the written special permission that you here about. It's offical and accepted but you would need to show cause and also that your stucture is safe.

I doubt that you could get around the AFCI rule.

 

[mbrooke]

The quote talks about criminal penalties ...those are very rare for code violations. Things like a red tag and not getting a certificate of occupancy are not criminal penalties.

Rare, but possible if something goes wrong and you are found liable. So they are not out of bounds for mentioning it.

 

[mbrooke]

The inspector doesn't really determine anything. It's his/her job to make sure that you have a code compliant installation for whatever code cycle that's been adopted by the AJH.

If you want to fight with someone don't do it with the inspector because he can't grant special permission for you not to follow the adopted code.

It is possible to get a "variance" that will allow you to build something other than a code compliant structure ( bend the rules a bit). This is the written special permission that you here about. It's offical and accepted but you would need to show cause and also that your stucture is safe.

I doubt that you could get around the AFCI rule.

Theres my point. The inspector and the AHJ has all the power. If I build a new 50 home sub division without a single AFCI what will happen to me if I refuse? What if I rip the red tags off and go ahead with closings?

 

[GoldDigger]

Theres my point. The inspector and the AHJ has all the power. If I build a new 50 home sub division without a single AFCI what will happen to me if I refuse? What if I rip the red tags off and go ahead with closings?

Among other things it would be civil and criminal fraud committed against the buyer.

PS: I have seen that warning page at sites that host unauthorized copies of regulations. It seems to be part of their justification that the codes are a matter of public record once adopted.

 

[mbrooke]

Among other things it would be civil and criminal fraud committed against the buyer.

PS: I have seen that warning page at sites that host unauthorized copies of regulations. It seems to be part of their justification that the codes are a matter of public record once adopted.

Right there. The warning is technically correct.

My understanding is that in the UK its more along the lines for convincing someone that part P is met. IF I really wanted to I could get away with wiring a UK home to the German regs. Trying doing that in the US with the Canadian electrical code.