Vending machine Gfci: Lawsuit waiting to happen?

Status
Not open for further replies.
brantmacga said:
Again, just to clarify, this is NOT retroactive. If it were, it would specifically say so. New laws are passed every day. Unless they specifically say "this is retroactive to xx/xx/xxxx" then it is not retroactive. This applies to new installations only. The ONLY reason for giving a date on this code is because machines made after the date were required to have the gfci built into the vending machine, and thus would not require a gfci receptacle.
Click to expand...


I think I ruffled enough feathers and kicked up enough sand ;) lol. That being said, I do believe that most inspectors will treat this for all NEW installations of the vending machines and not existing ones. Just that the NEC needs to do better on their wording seeing how it can be interpet the other way.

As for others that say all public access places should be gfci protected. Thats going to be intresting to see that happen someday. Talk about expensive. A new shopping mall, resturants, walmart, parks, stores, hotels, libraries, court houses, etc with just about all their receptacles gfci protected. Whats next, AFCI, oops i shouldnt have said that they might hear me!! :(
 
Last edited:
seeing how it can be interpet the other way.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how that's possible to interpret as retroactive. sorry. :) I'd hate to be the inspector that tries to enforce that on me. It would be a bad day for him.
 
brother said:
I believe since the NEC went thru the trouble of 'defining' VENDING MACHINE, I believe one would have to follow that definition whether it has a 'tag' stating its a vending machine or not to avoid any violation of 2008 Code.
Click to expand...

I disagree, what your suggesting is ignoring the listing of an item which is a direct NEC violation of 110.3(B).
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I disagree, what your suggesting is ignoring the listing of an item which is a direct NEC violation of 110.3(B).
Click to expand...

Bob ,what he is doing is above the min.That is not a violation.Depending on use a machine may or maynot be a vending machine.As we often see nec stops bit short on definitions.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Bob ,what he is doing is above the min.That is not a violation.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. :)

What I would have problem with is an inspector saying a freezer is a vending machine and require a GFCI when the freezer is listed as a freezer and not a vending machine. (Did that make any sense?)
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I agree with that. :)

What I would have problem was is an inspector saying a freezer is a vending machine and require a GFCI when the freezer is listed as a freezer and not a vending machine. (Did that make any sense?)
Click to expand...

That i agree on
 
Incidentally, my interpretation is that the NEC, or a local amended version thereof, is the criterion by which a job for which a permit has been pulled must pass. Once a permitted job is given final approval by an inspector, the job is over and so is the inspector's, and by extension the NEC's, involvement. Incidentally, wouldn't a retroactive piece of code violate Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution? ;)
 
iwire said:
I disagree, what your suggesting is ignoring the listing of an item which is a direct NEC violation of 110.3(B).
Click to expand...

I think now you are READING into my posts of what is not there.
Im not suggesting that you ignore the (UL or any other) listing of an item or try to 'violate' the NEC.

What I am SAYING is that the NEC defined what a 'vending machine' is and to IGNORE that definition and install or use something against that 'definition' is a violation of the NEC (Even though it happens i.e. using a circuit beyond the 80% capacity like hairdryers in bathrooms or those small cords on some other units but we wont go there!!).

Im sure that most 'tags' (not all), listings (UL) will 'comply' with the NEC defintions so that there will be NO conflicts. However I do know that the MAIN reason that the NEC went through the PAIN STAKING trouble of defining 'vending machines' is because (in 2005 code 422.51)before there was some CONFUSION in field concerning that issue of what exactly is a 'vending machine' and that people were getting cited, or had trouble complying with that article.

Some claimed that a vending machine was only a candy or other machine you put money in and get something out . Others claimed that the soft drinks(soda) machines that dispense when pushed (self served) at resturants lobby where you get free refills and you pay at the counter were vending machines and others said no it wasnt.

Some of these examples and (others i do not feel like typing) do not have a 'tag' or listing specifically saying it is a 'vending machine' but it would be considered as such now by NEC 'definition'. So there was a need to clarify. So that soda machine in the resturant can have a tag on it that says 'soda dispenser' and by NEC definition its a 'vending machine' too, it does NOT negate or violate the listing/tag of that item.So you are reading into my post of what is NOT there. It just makes it more restrictive.

So my statement
brother said:
I believe since the NEC went thru the trouble of 'defining' VENDING MACHINE, I believe one would have to follow that definition whether it has a 'tag' stating its a vending machine or not to avoid any violation of 2008 Code
Click to expand...
Still stands. .
iwire said:
What I would have problem was is an inspector saying a freezer is a vending machine and require a GFCI when the freezer is listed as a freezer and not a vending machine. (Did that make any sense?)
Click to expand...
Just to take the 'flip side' of your statement and logic (you read into my posts and i can read into yours) ;)
Lets say the manufactures of the these 'candy/soda vending machines' decides in order to AVOID the extra expense of manufacturing the new machines after Jan 1 2005 with gfci as an intergral part of the attachment plug on the cords, they decide to put a 'tag' or 'listing' on it saying its a 'candy/soda distrubutor' instead of 'vending machine'. Im sure some of these BIG MONEY manufacturers can CONVINCE the UL to go along with it. Would that be okay??? Should this get them out of the requirement of the NEC 422.51 since it is 'listed' as a 'candy/soda distributor' instead of 'vending machine'??

Ok Im done. ;)
 
Can we on our own try to understand intent,no they failed again but does it not look like they are after what the consumer touches ?What does that kiddy ride dispense
 
It is my opinion that for the purposes 422.51, the listing of the device has absolutely nothing to do with the requirement for GFCI protection. If the item in question meets the definition in the section GFCI protection is required and it doesn't matter what the listing tag says.

Just for the record, the NEC has no business writing a rule that requires the vending machine manufacturer to install GFCI protection on his machine. That is outside the scope of the NEC, as is a lot of the content of Article 422. The NEC should just require that the outlet that the "vending" machine is connected to have GFCI protection as that is within the scope of the NEC.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is my opinion that for the purposes 422.51, the listing of the device has absolutely nothing to do with the requirement for GFCI protection.
Click to expand...

So we get to pick and choose when we want to follow the listing. :smile:

IMO 110.3(B) would have to be modified with a 'unless otherwise required by this code' type statement.
 
Bob,
So we get to pick and choose when we want to follow the listing. :smile:

IMO 110.3(B) would have to be modified with a 'unless otherwise required by this code' type statement.
Click to expand...
The listing has nothing to do with the NEC definition. If the NEC had not defined "vending machine" then the rule would only apply to equipment that was listed as a "vending machine" There is no issue with 110.3(B) as we are not violating the listing or the installation instructions. How are we not following the listing by providing GFCI protection?
Don
 
electricalperson,
if they dont have the right to make companies put gfci on there plugs then why do they make air conditioner companies install LFCI's on there plugs?
Click to expand...
Like a said there are a lot of sections of Article 422 that are outside the scope of the NEC. The one you are citing is another example. Those types of rules belong in the product standards and not in the NEC.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is my opinion that for the purposes 422.51, the listing of the device has absolutely nothing to do with the requirement for GFCI protection. If the item in question meets the definition in the section GFCI protection is required and it doesn't matter what the listing tag says.
Click to expand...

I agree, at least someone is hearing/understanding me.

don_resqcapt19 said:
Just for the record, the NEC has no business writing a rule that requires the vending machine manufacturer to install GFCI protection on his machine. That is outside the scope of the NEC, as is a lot of the content of Article 422. The NEC should just require that the outlet that the "vending" machine is connected to have GFCI protection as that is within the scope of the NEC.
Don
Click to expand...
Now you open up a can of worms!! There a few things in the NEC that is 'really' outside their scope!! Does the NEC have the right to tell manufacturers what type of over current devices should be made and how made (i.e. Afci combo breakers, and other breakers)?? Watch out, we are in 'ELECTION' season. Maybe someone can write a 'ROP' or something else. lol
 
iwire said:
Brother take breath, relax.
Click to expand...


Im fine, i just write bold and to get my point across. To make sure people dont try to add to my words and read something that is not there. ;)


iwire said:
So we get to pick and choose when we want to follow the listing.

IMO 110.3(B) would have to be modified with a 'unless otherwise required by this code' type statement
Click to expand...


This is also where I think you are 'reading into' the article and(posts) of something that is not there. Like don said, there is no issue with 110.3(B). How are you 'violating' the 'listing' of the product/device by providing gfci protection, unless its instructions 'specifically' says 'do not provide gfci protection'??? (I do not know of any product of this type that says that,) Obvious you would not be.

As in your example of the 'freezer '(self serve in the store), lets say you run into the 'HARD CORE' inspector and they claim that by the 2008 'NEC' definition the freezer would have to be protected by a gfci, would your only defense be that 'there is not a listing/tag' that says its a vending machine so I do not have to provide gfci protection?? Even if that was true (no tag), your defense IMHO would not hold up. The only real defense IMHO you could say and (thats if the product had it in its intstructions) is that this 'freezer is not to installed with gfci protection per the manufacturers instructions'. Which is something I do NOT believe would ever happen!!
How about try using the statement i made before as your 'defense' if you ever run into this issue.
Maybe you could say the freezer is not ' dispensing' anything so therefore it does not meet the definition of vending machine as define by the NEC. That would be better in my IMHO. Im sure others would have more to say.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Bob,

The listing has nothing to do with the NEC definition.
Click to expand...

OK, so if I take a UL listed incandescent fixture equip it with a CFL lamp I can now put it in the closet because the listing that identifies what it is irrelevant?

I am not really going to go on in this thread, but I do see it as a conflict.
 
iwire said:
Brother, I am hearing you and understanding you, I simply do not agree with you.
Click to expand...


what is it you do not agree with, The Definition of 422.51 the nec?? That a listing tag is not in conflict with 422.51??

I noticed you didn't answer any of my previous questions. ;)

1. How are you 'violating' the 'listing' of the product/device by providing gfci protection, unless its instructions 'specifically' says 'do not provide gfci protection'???

2. .. would your only defense be that 'there is not a listing/tag' that says its a vending machine so I do not have to provide gfci protection??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top