i always install GFI outlets for construction trades in the houses i wire.
but at the house across the street(snooping on my competition)they use regular outlets is this legal or should they be gfi?
i have heard that when permanant power is hooked up you dont need to be GFI protected but dont know if this is a wives tale.

thanks,
h20

Read 590.6. Thius answers your question yes. This is also required by OSHA.

Is it possible that they installed a GFCB in the panel to feed the normal outlets that you saw?
Joe

My wife's houses have the panel in the garage. They set the panel and put in the garage receptacle very early in the process, pretty much as soon as the roof is black and the trades run cords from there. That will be GFCI anyway.
Prior to that they either steal power from the house next door ... Hopefully not a closed house ;-)
Otherwise it is generators.

Both the NEC and OSHA require GFCI protection for construction personal.

However each trade is responsible for their own actions.

If the carpenter plugs into a regular receptacle it will be a fine against that carpenters company.

OSHA rules put the burden on each sub contractor to provide their own GFCI protection. They can use GFCI cord sets.

The way we do it is this, at the beginning we provide GFCI protected temporary as per contract.

As the job wraps up we remove those and fire up some permanent circuits.

At the same time we post papers and send letters to the GC explaining and referencing the OSHA standards and that it will be up to each trade to protect themselves.

I can post some OSHA interpretations if anyone is interested.

I'm not so sure that a GFI is ALWAYS required for ALL construction.

Imagine this situation: The house is closed in, with a panel mounted in the mechanical room. A short piece of pipe exits the panel, to a stud-mounted box with an "industrial" or "exposed" type cover.
This install could very well be part of the permanent structure, and not temporary at all. The construction crews are simply using an existing receptacle.

As I see it, this install, in a place that might have exposed studs when finished, would beat the GFI requirement.

But- fine rules aside- I reccomend the use of a GFI. Heck, the additional cost is maybe $10. When you consider all the faulting pipe threaders, saws-it-alls, scissor lifts, etc., that I've discovered with a GFI, it's a smart move.

John


That can happen and does happen.

However each contractor plugging into that outlet is required by OSHA to have GFCI protection. The use a GFCI cord set is a work around.

If caught breaking this rule the fine will be against the offending persons employer.

It will not (or should not ) be against the EC for installing an outlet that is part of the permanent wiring.


BTW that rule applies to us ECs as well, if we plug an extension cord into that non GFCI outlet we have to use a GFCI cord set.

Bob


[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 07-11-2006).]

Section 590.6(A) has all the details. The 2005 NEC also requires this protection.

490 really refers to temporary installations I think Reno might be referring to permanent building wiring that gets used in later stages of construction. How about the carpet installer who plugs his seaming iron into a general lighting receptacle? I have never seen them use a GFCI adapter.

IMO OSHA requires them have GFCI protection.

That said OSHA standards are generally ignored by small contractors and if it it is a one person owner operator shop OSHA does not apply`

At what point does the OSHA regulation stop? After the house is purchased and is now someone's home and no longer a construction site? Or what happens on a remodel? Is the portion of the house not being worked on ok to use a carpet iron without GFI protection while the carpet installer in the next room which is part of an addition must use GFI protection?

OSHA 'stops' when someone is not being paid for the work they are doing.

What I am trying to say is that OSHA only applies to people doing a job they are employed at.

A while back OSHA was talking about coming into the homes of people who work from home, that idea was rejected.

OSHA derives it's authority from that part of our Constitution that gives the Feds the sole power to "regulate interstate commerce."

"Interstate commerce" has been understood by our courts to include business large enough to "affect interstate commerce." How large is this? Large enough that rulings have applied the Wage & Hour Act. If I remember correctoly, that would be any business, or job, with a value of $250K in a year.

Which is why the original OSHA avt also gave the states strong incentives to create their own state "OSHA" offices. So a smaller business could very well be covered by local rules, while technically exempt from federal rules.

OK, lurking & silent till now...
Iwire has all his ducks in a row with this IMHO.

What we enforce here is:
Construction GFI required
Renovation areas, same
Additions, same
Comm, Ind, retail, resi....all treated the same

"unsafe" conditions (in AHJ's determination) require corrections. Now that includes lack of GFI, incorrect 'temp' lighting, etc.

I cannot, nor will not speak for 'others' or 'all', but that's how it's done in my areas, both as an EC and AHJ

I hear others concerns regarding the scope of the jobsites, and the other trades and their practices, but we (EC's) have to cover our butts, right???

BTW, the OSHA 'boys' can get REALLY expensive with violations! GFI's are a good investment!

John

I find it curious, all this hair-splitting over a $10 widget.

I am also surprised at the absolute lack of interest in repairing the faulty equipment discovered through using that widget.

I can't speak for others... but if my tool was tripping the GFI, I'd get it fixed (or replaced) pronto.... no sense in waiting for smoke to leak out!

Reno:
Basically, you just said what I'm thinking, but didn't 'say' in so many words

$10 GFI vs a $$$$$ fine, what's the sense??

John

I don't think there was a question when we were talking about temporary wiring or early construction phases. I guess the real question is when it is final trim, punch out or warranty/repair work in finished buildings. Why is a contractor's drill any more dangerous than the customer's when it is used in the living room?

OSHA covers any size business that has employees.

No area is actually 'exempt' from the Federal OSHA, what you can have are local rules that meet or exceed OSHA.

So at a minimum you must meet the Fed standards.

I agree with both Reno and Hotline that the price of the GFCI be it installed or in a cord set is insignificant compared to the fine.


Greg I have asked that many times and I think it comes down to this.

OSHA is interested in workers safety, the statistics show workers getting electrocuted.

That being the case it is not big jump for them to simply say workers using portable tools shall have GFCI protection.

They might even want homeowners have to have the same protection as well but OSHA lacks the authority to enforce that.....Thankfully...

JMO, Bob

you install a gfi for other trades to use. Who says the GFI works correctly?? and why would want that liablity??

First let me say I am not trying to push these rules on anyone, I am just passing on what I was taught in OSHA classes and electrical safety classes.


OSHA requires the testing that the manufacture instructs are to be performed and a log of the tests kept.

I guess that's where the inspector can support you. Can't guaranty it will work but can prove code compliance.

[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 07-13-2006).]

So you guys have the expense of testing in your quotes?? Seems like it would cost some dough to keep up with all the regs and testing.
I agree a GFI is good idea, I just wonder about the compliance. Seems to me it would be less of a liability to provide a regular outlet and let the other trades worry about their GFIs and the testing etc.

Iwire Wrote:
I have to point out that twenty four of the fifty states have no state OSHA law. That leaves only the federal OSHA rules for nearly half the states. Those rules do not cover firms with fewer than twenty five employees. According to the department of labor the average electrical contractor has only twelve persons on the payroll.
--
Tom Horne

Tom do you have any reference for that?

I believe that is false.

As I understand it OSHA applies to any employee regardless of the business having one or ten thousand employees.


OSHA Act of 1970

Iwire, I have also encountered the "25 or less" rule. I suspect it has the same source as was the basis of my earlier statement about the limits to OSHA jurisdiction.

In our system, the Federal government is severely limited in what powers it may exercise, with the vast majority of governmental powers belonging to the states. (See "The Constitution")
The Constitution does contain a phrase that reserves to the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate commerce. This phrase has been the basis for probably 90% of all Federal government regulation since Roosevelt.

Courts have interpreted the clause to also cover things that "affect interstate commerce." Further rulings defined that such "affect" could be determined by the size of the business.

There have been a number of other limits applied to OSHA. The right to refuse inspector access, absent a warrant, being one . The need for OSHA to defer to other governmental regulations being another.

Back on point: I have seen the "25 employee" rule applied by Federal agencies when a fired employee claimed discrimination.

There is an ideology taught that "Federal trumps State- so State can be more restrictive, but not less." Strictly speaking, this is not true. Our Constitution defines areas where the different bodies have powers, and these divisions are exclusionary. The Feds have their sandbox...while the States have a different one to play in.

As it stands right now in this thread the 25 rule is only hearsay, can anybody post the backup.

Reno, I have seen an OSHA inspection team stay on a job site until a search warrant was obtained, (only a matter of a couple hours) all the refusale to let them inspect did was, delay them and make them mad, which made the fines maximum for the particular contractor.

Here in NC we do have a state OSHA and I know of a case where they were refused access to a site on federal controlled land, the very next morning Federal OSHA was on the site. I must of only taken a phone call.

Roger

Can you point to any reference that can back that up?

Not being a wise guy I just don't feel that is the case.

Bob

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption

[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 07-16-2006).]

In Cea V Seattle, Camera V San Francisco the Supreme court of the United States held that the need to conduct public safety inspections is sufficient probable cause for a warrant to issue. Given that decision refusing entry to public safety inspectors is just no smart.

No as it turns out I don't. It was a restriction placed on the OSH Administration through the appropriations process during the years when I was learning the little employmet law I have read. Since each appropriations bill only last for one fiscal year it may well have died. I lack the legal research skills to wade through the presently applicable appropriations bill to see if that restriction survives to this day. So it would appear that every employee is covered unless they work for a non OSHA plan state government or a political subdivision thereof.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

[This message has been edited by tdhorne (edited 07-16-2006).]

Again I point out that even if you live in an area with a State "OSHA" you are still bound by the same rules or stricter rules than what Federal OHSA has.

Your State can not 'take away' the requirement for PPE or the requirement for MSDS availability.

They can either match or exceed the Federal rules.



[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 07-16-2006).]

Iwire... Some things are so basic as to defy a specific citation.

The Constitution is a document that defines, limits, and assigns powers, as it's primary purpose. That is what makes it truly revolutionary.
Nonetheless, I believe it is the Tenth ammendment that clarifies matters, where is explicitly states that what is not specifically assigned to the Federal Government belongs to the states, or the people.

In similar manner, the Constitution has as its' basic framework a "sepraation of powers" doctrine; that is, powere are specifically assigned, and are not up for grabs by just any "government" entity.

Folks who are not clear on these points often express amazement when they find there is no Federal "murder" law. Indeed, for there to be such related laws, Congress has seen the need to narrowly restrict the Federal laws so as to not overlap with local laws; they will apply to Federal personnel, on Federal property, etc.

In it's landmark insurance case (Roosevelt era), the Supreme court muddied the waters considerably with a murky decision that failed to clearly assign insurance regulation to "interstate commerce," or not.

It has become typical of Federal statutes to "encourage" States to pass similar legislation themselves. This step is unnecessary, except for the "separation of powers" doctrine.

Likewise, Federal contracts contain pages of clauses specifing that you agree to various Federal rules... again, not necessary if the rules are a matter of "law."

"Public safety?" Spare me. That excuse can be, and has, been abused in the grossest of ways. That's why 'warrants' were invented in the first place. To exert that sort of authority, the governemnt needs a specific complaint, specifying an imminent danger... a simple, routine "compliance inspection" is not sufficient.

Apart from other regulatory bodies, OSHA litigatd many of these issues early in its' existance, and lost time and again. Warrantless searches? Nope. Application everywhere? Nope. Superior to, say, the USDA? Nope.

Now, I think we're getting off on a tangent. For this reason, I have started a related thread in the Safety & Health forum.

Reno, do you have any back up for the "25" rule you mentioned you had heard of?

Roger



[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 07-16-2006).]

No, Roger, I do not have a direct cite. I first heard of it from a customer... who benefited when various complaints were dismissed by Federal agencies as soon as it was determined he was 'under the limit.'

Most courts now seem to say the 14th amendment has trumped the 9th and 10th. That allows the feds to encroach on things that were always considered "state's rights". The states can't infringe on our federally granted rights like the right to be arrested for going over 55 mph or the right to be arrested for medical marijauna.
They are just looking out for us.

John heres the thing.

1)We all know OSHA fines are expensive.

2)Many ECs are in fact small shops.

3)Many ECs come here to ECN for advice.

4)We have info with references from both Greg and myself that OSHA applies to all employees.

That being said I am not at all comfortable with someone saying 'OHSA does not apply to small shops becuse'....


This is weak hearsay.

I will continue to maintain that OSHA applies to all employees until shown reference from OSHA or at least a Gvt. agency that says otherwise.

The stakes are to high here to mislead people.

I also have to ask a question.

Do you really believe that the fact the someone works for a shop of 24 people that they are not required to be protected from work place hazards?

We are not talking about Health care benefits or paid vacations.

We are talking about an employers requirement to provide a safe work place.

Bob

In Michigan, we have MiOSHA which is OSHA with a Michigan spin on it. I would say that a small Electrical Contractor would not get a visit from MiOSHA - unless there was a complaint. I have worked in large shops (over 100 people) and we used to get annual, unannounced inspection.
Now the municipality I inspect for has a maintenance department consisting of 2 people and they had a visit from MiOSHA last year for an unknown reason?? Maybe because they are an enforcement entity.
Let something happen where someone gets injured or killed and that's when MiOSHA shows up to investigate. Like yellow on a bee- Like a moth to a flame- Like stink on s**t. And I'm glad they do

George, that is the pattern here too. Nobody ever sees OSHA until an accident investigation "Go Team" shows up, then everyone gets a ticket for something.
The go team is pretty much like speed trap cops and meter maids. They just write tickets all day. It may not really be a "quota" but they certainly have "productivity" guidelines.

I also agree with George Little.

Small shops won't see OSHA until an accident happens.

At that point they will show up and you will find that the fines are just as high for small shops.

Bob

Here CalOHSA has a program, who knows they may have it elsewhere? But it works like this.... You think you might have a violation, and they send a consultant to you FREE, and they cant bust you for what ever they find.... Just help you set a up a program to change it in the future.... My last shop did it, very edjucational.... If you're in CA check it out: http://www.dir.ca.gov/DOSH/consultation.html

Bob:
I have to agree with you, I know of no minimum number of employees.

Recently, a 'addition' (comm) job got a visit from OSHA, no more than 10 people on the site. Five warnings, one $$ ticket. Next day there were OSHA rules & reg posters/signs, etc. I was not EC on this site.

Also, I don't know if we (NJ) have Fed OSHA, or NJOSHA?? NJ also has a POSHA, for Municipal Properties/Public Employees.

John

John, your mention of the posters is another good point. We were fined for not having the up to date posters in a job trailer once.

However the fine was waived after we provided documentation (letters) of where we had requested the new posters from NCOSHA.

Roger