RE: ART 210 Report on Proposals
http://www.nfpa.org/Codes/National_Electrical_CodeR__NEC/Proposals/necpdf/A210.PDF


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!


Bill

Bill,
As always, the body count isn't high enough.

Was there any statistics furnished with the proposals to substantiate a need for the GFCI's in these locations?

Hey Bennie!

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?

Bill

perhaps we will learn more about this in the new Art 420?, receptacles...

Okay here goes
What do "GFCI protection" mean?


[This message has been edited by old Appy (edited 03-21-2001).]

old appy,

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?

More info here:
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Gfcipage.htm

https://www.electrical-contractor.net/Home_Safety_Page.htm

Do you use these, or something like it in NZ?

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.

Bennie,

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.

Bill

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).]

Bill: You are in an area that I have taken a lot of verbal abuse. My views regarding the documented lack of reliability, necessity, and marketing tactics to sell these devices to the American public, have caused all the renowned code experts to insult my intelligence, and ethics.
I protested these devices, as being mandatory, from day one.
I am now hearing rumors, not confirmed, but from a fairly reliable source, that there is a planned class action law suit based on the lack of performance, reliability, length of life, and the marketing by mandated law only, not on their own merit or need.
I have heard it is by the same lawyers in the tobacco lawsuits. Again, this has been only a rumor, I have no proof of its validity. If this is true, it could be a factor in not seeing any expansion of mandatory GFCI requirements.

Bennie,

If that is even partially true it might explain a few things hmm ....

Besides that, Why can a switch, fixture or receptacle be located right next to a Bathtub but not a Spa or pool?

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 03-21-2001).]

Ben;
I once attended a sales seminar, they made us understand that the root of all sales is sex and death. sounds funny huh.... their point was that the public will spend on anything that promotes the first, prevents the second.

GFI's, AFCI's and a zillion other widgets in our trade follow suit. the manufacturers use safety as the premise to lobby the NEC.

i have been made to understand that there is a majority of manufacturers that sit on CMP's submitting ROP's. The fact that the cause could probably be addressed instead of supplying a new widgets effect is not conducive to an entire chain of business.

to further this, half our codes, laws, etc are could be easily argued in this light.

any abuse you have taken is due to your unbiased clarity of these issues.

I appreciate your remarks, Sparky. Along with your statements, review the submitters for making it mandatory to install AFCI's. This is a consensus? They would barely make a good poker game.

Thanks that cleared up now we have them here i think but call them ELCB's or RCD
Earth Leakage Circuit Breakers, or Residual Current Device they must comply with the following The must be tested every 3 months this can be the test button, preferably with a electronic tester to ensure that they operate within 30ms at 300mA they are very very popular.
We install then as a switched outlet or as a MCB and downstream all the outlets on that circuit (making sure they have OL protection as well).
A tutor at night school told me they are complusory in South Africa for wall outlets
i am replacing all my 16 A MCB's over time as we have young children.
Sorry to ramble on

appy;
so basically, you install what we would call a GFI for all receptacles?

while we look for the "body count" in schoolyards to justify it here??

Sparky,
I don't see how a 300 ma trip provides much in the way of safety for humans.
The more serious electrocution and shock hazards occur above the let go limits. 99% of the female population have an let go limit above 6 milliamps, with an average of 10.5 milliamps. 99% of the male population have an let go limit above 9 milliamps, with an average of 15.5 milliamps. Prolonged exposure to 60 Hz. currents greater than 18 milliamps, across the chest causes the diaphragm to contract which prevents breathing and causes the victim to suffocate. No data is available for females or children but suffocation is presumed to occur at a lower current level.
How does a 300 ma trip help?

I was going to question this level of trip also. It was over 20 years ago, when I visited New Zealand. I am sure there is many advances in technology since then. I know that I missed many features of their technical applications. I miss a lot of ours.
It would be interesting to know the purpose and research results that determined the trip level as stated.
I do know there was a problem in designing a sensing and trip function, with solid state components and the 230 volts. This may have been resolved.

I noted the reference to 16 amp trip circuits, on Appy's response. The ampacity of metric sized conductors, will present some problems when the US adopts the metric system.
The NM cable I used was 16 amp sized. I used it as both 15 or 20 amp. The ambient temperatures of most locations in the Antarctic would easily compensate for any increase in current. I could see no problem.
The 16 amps at 230 volts can supply 3680 watt load. 16 amps at 120 volts is 1920 watts.

Could it be that the breakers Appy is referring to is not for personnel protection, but to eliminat ground faults that would not normally trip a breaker? Seems like with the system voltage over there a ground fault could transfer a good amount of power without tripping the breaker(double the amount over here).
Gerald

Gerald, you turned on a light. I remember reading of the concept to prevent earth leakage, or waste of power. Knowing that the culture in New Zealand, will not permit waste of anything, this can be a reasonable explanation. Just think, this will clear a ground fault through the ground electrode system, we can't do that!.
The ground current trip device, I designed and constructed, 40 years ago, to protect a 4.16 KV submerged marine cable, initiated a trip at 180 ma. I never considered this device to be a ground fault interrupter. I don't think I even knew the term then.

OPPPS.. sorry i got that wrong A type II for houses must operate within 300 milliseconds at 30 milliamps :-0
And they must be install or the circuit must be RCD protected if it is a wet or damp zone.
Sorry for the confusion.

Don;
you'll have to pardon my zeal here, after being the guy that's been held, flashed, choked , as well as other various acts worthy of "Darwinian Award" notice in this trade.

Appy;

can you tell us more on, maybe the differences bettween your ELCB's and RCD's?

They are the same thing just diffenent names
Also called,RCCB,CBELCB,GFI.
Did i miss something along the way?

Appy;
it would seem that we, here, are missing the point.

sparky,
Are you suggesting that we should be installing 30 ma trip ground fault protection on our circuits?
Don

Don;
It seems other countries define electrical safety differently than we do, our rationale being heavily based on litigation.

This is why, to me anyways, the NEC sometimes makes no sense.

just an observation....

I can't see why you wouldnt use them admittedly they are an added cost and some circuits may experience nuisance tripping but they are easily isolated and adressed. Also they are are good sales tool when being beaten down on price. They save lives, shouldnt that be encouraged.