ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area The Illusion of GFCI Protection

Reno,
I've never been real big on conspiracy theories.

I think not.

Reno I think C/H does have a combo GFCI/AFCI breaker. That is basically just an AFCI with 5ma GF protection so it isn't hard to do.

This dog has no teeth... self-testing GFCI receptacles already exist and are readily available.

Hubbell Catalog

From the Hubbell Catalog...
"You may forget to test, but the Hubbell AUTOGUARD GFCI won’t! While the
Hubbell GFR is actively ready to provide ground fault protection, an additional
circuit is continually monitoring the ability to protect every 60 seconds. This
self-test, diagnostic feature is a significant contrast to the one time per month
test that users are suggested to perform today. With this feature, the ability to
provide people protection can now be verified on a continuous basis. When
was the last time you tested your ground fault receptacle?"

I found this on the CH web site

The question I ask is why is all the onus on the installer?
The Home-owner has to come to the party somewhere along the line.
After all, it will be them or their kids that get killed by a device that THEY failed to test.
Let's be real about this and not dance around that fact.

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed Greg, this thread is about GFCI's, not AFCI's.

All joking aside .... I think that the author really does advocate placing GFCI protection in the panel - which would mean the end og the GFCI receptacle. It's safe to assume that the device makers will strongly oppose this effort.

I'm not sure how the 'self test' feature (present in all GFCI's made since 2003) can test for actual movement of the solenoid inside - which is what corroded it the failed examples, to the point where it could not move.

It should also be noted that the 2003 revision of GFCI standards also introduced some additional corrosion protection. The advent of "WR" devices introduced even more corrosion resistance.

In other words, the 'problem' has already been addressed. Now, it's a bit late; it would have been nice had we been aware of the issue back when it was a concern! After all, "corrosion resistant" devices have ALWAYS been available, though expensive, and usually special-order. We didn't buy them, as we didn't see the need for them. A study, such as the one cited by this author, would have made all the difference 'back then.'

Which is why I believe that the main purpose of this article is to drum up support for placing GFCI protection in the panel.

The short biography of the author included with the article is devoid of any connections with any manufacturer. That may very well be the case - though past antics of manufacturers (Hydrolevel vs. ASME) do justify a certain amount of paranoia. As it stands, where you place the GFCI protection is strictly a design choice.

Yet, I've seen these issues fester, often for decades. It's not going away, and we can expect this proposal to appear at EVERY code cycle from here on. One recent example was the campaigning on internet forums that led to 'multi-wire' circuits being essentially banned from residential work. Even in that example, the proposals didn't directly attack mwbc's so much as place so many restrictions on them as to make them unattractive.

You've been warned.

Mike I was responding to this

Coming rather late to this discussion but a couple of things come to mind. There are places where it would be more appropriate to install GFCI breakers over outlets. The outlets are by far the most convenient as the reset is available right where the problem is detected. That said an outlet that is out in the weather or subject to high humidity levels has a greater risk of corrosion causing a problem. While the changes that came about as a result of GFCI failures in the beginning of the new millennia are addressing this issue there is still something to be said for providing the protection in the panel. I assume the panel is located so it stays dry and free of condensation. I would not want to see the loss of GFCI outlets as they are still a great solution and can allow a single receptacle to be gfci protected where the circuit would otherwise not require it.
AFCI Breakers do have gfi protection and some offer GFCI protection too but I do not wish for AFCI devices and think the breaker is the only way to actually provide protection to the circuit. That however is another discussion.

I am looking forward to the Jan/ Feb issue of the IAEI magazine since it has sparked so much discussion.