One of the first things I noticed was a large number of proposals to require GFCI protection within 6 feet of all sinks, not just kitchen and Bathroom. They were all rejected including one for protection near sinks in preschool classrooms. The reason was (basically) insufficent evidence that it presents the same potential hazard as outlets in areas near kitchen sinks in Dwelling units. Others tried for GFCI protection for all outside receptacles in all locations. Also rejected. GFCI protection is not required presently in ouside locations at schools, churches etc. This was rejected also.
Can anyone explain why there is no potential hazard in these locations? Or is it simply an 'Acceptable Risk'? I don't get it!
No, I didn't see mention of any statistics. Aside from any arguments about their effectiveness (I don't really want to go there) I'm a bit confused as to why GFCI protection is deemed important in some instances and not others where it seems like a similar set of conditions exist. Why the inconsistancy?
Got any Idea why that is?
Re: An 'Acceptable Risk'?#76769 03/21/0106:16 AM03/21/0106:16 AM
GFCI is short for Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter. It can be in the form of an outlet or Circuit Breaker. It constantly monitors current flow and if some of it goes elsewhere (like through you) it can trip off in as little as 1/40th of a second. It is required near Kitchen and Bathroom sinks and in Basements, garages, crawlspaces and outside of Dwelling units. But my question has to do with why wouldn't be required outside of a church or a school? Or, if it's a hazard near the Kitchen sink at home why wouldn't also be a hazard near the sink in a commercial kitchen or a sink in a preschool classroom?
Bill: This is a coincidence, of bringing up the GFCI subject. I was surprised to read Old Appy's question here, I was involved on the other thread. I touched on this subject, and see confirmation of my reference to GFCI's not being prevalent in New Zealand. The statistics of risk appear to show the lack of necessity. The reliability, and 230 volt design for the sensing system, do not support the cost involved. New Zealand citizens, and culture, are not bottom line orientated. They are extremely safety knowledgable, and aware of hazards, they provide sure methods to eliminate the cause, not "Smoke and Mirrors" to deal with the resultant effect, of a bad situation.
Re: An 'Acceptable Risk'?#76773 03/21/0102:15 PM03/21/0102:15 PM
So as not to go off on a Tangent, lets assume that GFCI's are very effective in preventing injury or death when used in areas specified. This is a subject that confuses me. Looking through the code at different articles I see different requirements for electrical devices and fixtures near sinks, tubs, pools, Spas, and outside. To me they all seem much the same. Yet they have very different requirements. I've asked this before and not gotten any closer to understanding it. I think the inconsistency of required GFCI application tends to dilute the intended importance placed upon it. That doesn't seem to make sense.
Re: An 'Acceptable Risk'?#76774 03/21/0103:43 PM03/21/0103:43 PM
the NEC is far from perfect. all the rop's are tesimony to this. GFI's have , if you have old code books, slowly made their way into code after code. There also seems to be a lot of ROP's about it for 2002.
ever notice how many of us are good at finding particular code articles, but are at a loss as to why it exists ( or doesn't) in the first place?
This is a good example....
i'd have to agree with others in this thead, and add that safety's ugly cousin liability has had much to do with polluting the issue in this country.
[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 03-21-2001).]