Why are GFCI required in garages and hangers, but not on industrial floors

[pfalcon]

Bob,
A fan, a floor sweeper, or a laptop are "appliances" or other "utilization equipment" not temporary electric power as required by the scope 590.1; Therefore the article is applied to the receptacle not the appliance.

A permanent receptacle is placed for the use of appliances and other utilization equipment. The use of that equipment is inherently temporary but the electric power is permanent.

The article addresses wiring for temporary electric power, not temporary work.

The confusion arrives in 590.6(A) where a clause was added to close a loophole. Roughly equivalent: If you are doing work that would normally require the installation of "temporary electric power" then you cannot bypass the GFCI requirement by borrowing "permanent electric power".

As to its intent not to interfere with day-to-day operations, that's where the IMHO In My Humble Opinion comes into play. Thought that acronym was common enough. Guess not.

 

[rbalex]

Bob,
A fan, a floor sweeper, or a laptop are "appliances" or other "utilization equipment" not temporary electric power as required by the scope 590.1; Therefore the article is applied to the receptacle not the appliance.

A permanent receptacle is placed for the use of appliances and other utilization equipment. The use of that equipment is inherently temporary but the electric power is permanent.

The article addresses wiring for temporary electric power, not temporary work.

The confusion arrives in 590.6(A) where a clause was added to close a loophole. Roughly equivalent: If you are doing work that would normally require the installation of "temporary electric power" then you cannot bypass the GFCI requirement by borrowing "permanent electric power".

As to its intent not to interfere with day-to-day operations, that's where the IMHO In My Humble Opinion comes into play. Thought that acronym was common enough. Guess not.

With respect to GFCI/AEGCP the whole Section 590.6(A) is muddled.

The short history is in 1996 two unrelated Proposals were "Accepted," for the parallel Section 305-6(b) to (1) require Ground Fault Protection for personnel in all temporary wiring applications [Proposal 3-151] and to (2) eliminate Assured Equipment Grounding Conductor Program (AEGCP) altogether.[Proposal 3-160] While CMP3 stated they accepted the second Proposal “in principal” they actually rejected it because they left AEGCP in the NEC.

It did, however reverse the intended users of AEGCP. The origin of the AEGCP is OSHA 29CFR1926.404(b)(1)(iii) which is a construction (not general industrial) safety document; but, under the current wording [590.6(A) Ex as revised at the time by 305.6(b) Ex 2] the original intended beneficiaries of AEGCP, are now excluded.

A couple of wordsmithing attempts since then have made it more confusing.

Your Humble Opinion is fully recognized. And I’m <shamefaced>because I do know what IMHO means.

Within the current text and context of the Article, I still don’t see being able to make a clear distinction about how temporary power (or lighting) is created or used; otherwise, there is no application for Section 590.6 at all (IMHO, of course )

 

[pfalcon]

Within the current text and context of the Article, I still don?t see being able to make a clear distinction about how temporary power (or lighting) is created or used; otherwise, there is no application for Section 590.6 at all (IMHO, of course )

So now in 590.6 the AEGCP is only applied to temporary electric power outlets that are NOT 15/20/30A @ 125Vac. I guess I won't say the construction industry can't use it but certainly a lot of its purpose is gone.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means.? (Corollary to Charlie?s Rule)

... and sometimes what the NEC writes is not what it means to say