New 2008 NEC GFCI requirememts

[hausdok]

What I mean is, write it the way you'd say it if you were talking to the client in person. Hint, nobody uses the term "it is recommended" when speaking directly to their clients. Check out Bonnie Trenga's forum here on TIJ and you'll eventually be able to pull yourself away from the mangled inspectorspeak that so many of us have used for so long.

OT - OF!!!

M.

[fyrmnk]

Originally posted by hausdok

What I mean is, write it the way you'd say it if you were talking to the client in person. Hint, nobody uses the term "it is recommended" when speaking directly to their clients. Check out Bonnie Trenga's forum here on TIJ and you'll eventually be able to pull yourself away from the mangled inspectorspeak that so many of us have used for so long.

OT - OF!!!

M.

Ahhh, now it makes sense.

I have my "official" documentation so they can reference it and also explain to people that it is recommended for safety and a relatively inexpensive thing to fix, and explain how they work and how they protect the person rather than the circuit like a circuit breaker (I explain how little current across the heart it takes to kill, etc.). I also explain codes change and that although you're not required to change things every time a code changes, there are some things that should be done just because of the safety aspect.

I cite them as safety issues in my report.

Thanks for the input.

[kurt]

There's a lot of specious reasoning in this thread. Making a connection between GFCI trips and "nuisance trips" (or motors), without doing a very thorough and deep analysis of the cause of the trip, is dangerous at best.

Relying on anything members of a condo association say is walking down the blind mans path. I work w/lots of HOA's, and they are invariably confused, led by mgt. companies that are clueless. Deep mysterious problems that are reported can usually be traced to some very simple thing the mgt. company handyman did wrong.

Personally, if this ever becomes required in Chicago, I'll tell folks about it in a boiler plate entry. After that, I'll keep recommending replacement of all existing GFCI's w/new GFCI's installed in all the places they should be installed, as described in Jim's responses above. All benefit, no harm. If a customer wants to ignore me, that's their prerogative.

Accidents don't recognize calendar dates. (Who said that first? It was in here, wasn't it?)

[Brian G]

Well, everyone has a right to their point of view, but I don't think all the specious reasoning is on one side here. I've never heard anyone claim GFCI's never nuisance trip before this thread. I suppose that's technically and theoretically true, when the device isn't defective or suffering some other internal problem, but I've seen them trip while I was standing in a bathroom writing notes, not even touching anything. Who knows why? If I lose everything in my freezer because the GFCI had an internal defect, will I care that it didn't technically nuisnace trip?

Why doesn't it matter that there's no apparent evidence of these exceptions actually being a problem? Those exceptions have been in place a long time; where are the injuries? Where are the deaths these changes are gonna save us from in the future?

And if motorized components like door openers should be on a GFCI so they can't accidentally electrocute someone, then surely all circuits feeding a motorized component should be GFCI protected for the same reason (?).

I think you fellas should walk that talk. Plug your refrigerators, freezers, and all other appliances in GFCI's, then I'll take your position more seriously. We're honest men; let me know when you've done that, and I promise to recommend GFCI's everywhere the change calls for. Until then, I feel I can't recommend something I certainly wouldn't do myself.

Brian G.

Speaking Only For Myself [:-alien]

[kurt]

Brian, every statement in your comment is specious. You're asking and answering questions in the same sentence.

Asking questions like "Where are the deaths these changes are gonna save us from in the future?" doesn't even make any sense.

I think you're jumping to conclusions that are not relevant. Who really cares what an HI does or does not do w/their own freezer(?).

And no, I wouldn't put my garage freezer on a GFCI, but what possible bearing does that have on anything?

Last time I checked, we were in the information business. I provide information. Folks can do w/it what they want. If that information is my own personal bias against a very well researched safety item, it's not very good information, is it?

Balanced information, supplied to intelligent folks, is the best thing. Lacking proof of intelligent life in the universe, I stick to what holds up in court. My personal bias ain't gonna hold up.

[Brian G]

Originally posted by kurt

You're asking and answering questions in the same sentence.

I am? Point out one for me.

Asking questions like "Where are the deaths these changes are gonna save us from in the future?" doesn't even make any sense.

I beg to differ. If the rules as they stood were safe, why are the changes necessary? If they weren't safe, where's the evidence? Asking for evidence to support positions isn't nonsensical.

I think you're jumping to conclusions that are not relevant. Who really cares what an HI does or does not do w/their own freezer(?).

And no, I wouldn't put my garage freezer on a GFCI, but what possible bearing does that have on anything?

I'm sure you get my point. These changes call on the public to do something dumb, and those who wouldn't do it in their own home know it. I think the group wouldn't plug their own freezer into a GFCI includes most of the people who voted for the changes, but maybe I'm wrong.

Last time I checked, we were in the information business. I provide information. Folks can do w/it what they want. If that information is my own personal bias against a very well researched safety item, it's not very good information, is it?

I'm not biased against GFCI's. I love 'em. They're fantastic safety devices, that have saved who knows how many lives since they came into the market; no question. All I'm saying is these changes don't make good sense, and GFCI's aren't infallible.

Balanced information, supplied to intelligent folks, is the best thing. Lacking proof of intelligent life in the universe, I stick to what holds up in court. My personal bias ain't gonna hold up.

I'm not much concerned about what will hold up in court on this score. If rules being rules is enough for you, whether you would follow them yourself or not, I understand. But I can't go with you this time, I need it to make sense. I need to agree with it before I can push it to others.

Brian G.

To Each His Own [8]

[hausdok]

You two need a dose of aw shucks.

Image Insert:

55.82 KB

Image Insert:

67.66 KB

OT - OF!!! [:-devil]

M.

[ghentjr]

Interesting how many different opinions and HI FOLKLORE - (knee deep) exist about a simple GFCI device. I'm with Jim.

[kurt]

Same here.

The specious reasoning comment was about the idea of GFCI's can't be on motor circuits, someone's friend in a condo association said something so it must be true, the idea of nuisance trips being taken at face value as only a nuisance and not a possible problem, and the ever popular, "I'm not gonna put it on MY freezer, By God!" argument.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around "Where are the deaths these changes are gonna save us from in the future?"

[Brian G]

Originally posted by kurt

....and the ever popular, "I'm not gonna put it on MY freezer, By God!" argument.

That one would part of my arguement, but the "by god" and exclamation point are yours alone.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around "Where are the deaths these changes are gonna save us from in the future?"

Ah, Brother Kurt. Knowing your command of the English language and having already further clarified that statement, I can only assume you're being purposely obtuse. I can't stop you.

_________________________________________________________________________

There's not much left I'd care to say at this point, but I will submit this to the peanut gallery. Consider these two statements:

A. I agree with the changes in the rules, and the arguements made in support of them.

B. I wouldn't comply with them myself, if it meant plugging my own freezer into a GFCI outlet.

Ladies and gentlemen, in any arena ruled strictly by logic and reason, these two statements directly contradict each other. If "A" is true, then "B" cannot be true. If "B" is true, then "A" cannot be true.

It's as simple as that, so I ask the entire board this: Is there anyone out there who would plug their own freezer into a GFCI outlet? If so, please speak up.

Brian G.

Waiting To See.... [:-magnify

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Brian G

. . . It's as simple as that, so I ask the entire board this: Is there anyone out there who would plug their own freezer into a GFCI outlet? If so, please speak up.

Brian G.

Waiting To See.... [/navy][:-magnify

Well, I have two fridges, one freezer and a garage door opener that are each plugged into GFCI-protected receptacles. No problems lately.

Years ago, I had a freezer that was plugged into a GFCI-protected circuit that included my porch receptacles. I once left an extension cord plugged into one of the porch receptacles and, during a rainstorm, the end of the cord was soaked. The GFCI tripped and I lost the contents of the freezer before I realized what had happened. After that, I made sure that the freezer receptacle was protected only by its own GFCI that didn't protect anything else. No problems since.

By the way, earlier in this thread you said, "I've never heard anyone claim GFCI's never nuisance trip before this thread." As far as I can see, no one ever claimed that GFCIs never nuisance trip. What I have repeatedly said -- apparantly to deaf ears -- is that properly wired motors, in good condition, won't trip a GFCI. If there is one piece of information that I'd like people to remember about this entire thread it's that motors don't trip GFCIs.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Brian G]

Originally posted by Jim Katen

Well, I have two fridges, one freezer and a garage door opener that are each plugged into GFCI-protected receptacles. No problems lately.

Okie-doke. That's one, and I applaud your consistency.

Years ago, I had a freezer that was plugged into a GFCI-protected circuit that included my porch receptacles. I once left an extension cord plugged into one of the porch receptacles and, during a rainstorm, the end of the cord was soaked. The GFCI tripped and I lost the contents of the freezer before I realized what had happened. After that, I made sure that the freezer receptacle was protected only by its own GFCI that didn't protect anything else. No problems since.

I think you've been lucky, but that's neither here nor there.

By the way, earlier in this thread you said, "I've never heard anyone claim GFCI's never nuisance trip before this thread." As far as I can see, no one ever claimed that GFCIs never nuisance trip. What I have repeatedly said -- apparantly to deaf ears -- is that properly wired motors, in good condition, won't trip a GFCI. If there is one piece of information that I'd like people to remember about this entire thread it's that motors don't trip GFCIs.

Fair enough. My apologies, and I stand corrected on that point. So Jim....

Does that mean you would also support requiring GFCI protection on all motorized appliances, for the reasons you've already laid out?

Brian G.

A Fair Question, I Hope [?]

[kurt]

Well, now it's name calling.

Brian, you're more worked up about GFCI's, and impolite in the pushback, than about religious differences.

Like I said, if you don't want to, that's your prerogative. My initial comment about specious reasoning pertained to the acceptance as fact, of certain comments by folks in condo's and/or builders of homes.

The point, if there is one, is that phenomenon of "nuisance trips", may or may not be a nuisance, but an underlying dangerous condition. It takes further investigation to know.

For the outlet on the ceiling that's been replaced by the builder 3 times, did anyone perform any in depth investigation?

From that, it progressed pretty rapidly to "I'm not gonna, and I'm not telling anyone else to either", and "prove it by showing me the dead people". Paraphrased certainly, but accurate in tone.

Okaaayyyy.............

I guess I'm obtuse.

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Brian G

Does that mean you would also support requiring GFCI protection on all motorized appliances, for the reasons you've already laid out?

Brian G.

A Fair Question, I Hope [?]

Well, if the appliances are cord & plug connected and if they're plugged into receptacles located at kitchen counters, bathrooms, garages, unfinished basements, crawlspaces, laundry rooms with sinks within 6', outdoors, etc , then, sure, they should be GFCI protected. If they're not located in such a location, why would you want them to be GFCI protected? I don't understand the point behind the question.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Brian G]

Originally posted by kurt

Well, now it's name calling.

This... "I can only assume you're being purposely obtuse" ...is name calling? Come now. If that quailifies as name calling in Chicago, you could really get your feelings hurt down in Mississippi.

Brian, you're more worked up about GFCI's, and impolite in the pushback, than about religious differences.

These changes really irritate me, but if you're reading my posts with a half-shouting voice in your head, you're mistaken. The only place I see that could be considered rude in content is where I suggested the supporters of the changes should be willing to implement those requirements in their own homes. Maybe I could have said it a little nicer way, but there's nothing wrong with the idea of grown men walking the talk rather than just talking it, is there?

Like I said, if you don't want to, that's your prerogative. My initial comment about specious reasoning pertained to the acceptance as fact, of certain comments by folks in condo's and/or builders of homes.

The point, if there is one, is that phenomenon of "nuisance trips", may or may not be a nuisance, but an underlying dangerous condition. It takes further investigation to know.

For the outlet on the ceiling that's been replaced by the builder 3 times, did anyone perform any in depth investigation?

If you look at my initial response, I also noted everyone's right to differ, and didn't dispute any of your points regarding condos, motors, or investigating causes.

What I disagreed with in your post was "All benefit, no harm".

From that, it progressed pretty rapidly to "I'm not gonna, and I'm not telling anyone else to either", and "prove it by showing me the dead people". Paraphrased certainly, but accurate in tone.

In tone, I'll accept that characterization. I've been just as bulldogish as you. What else is new? This is how you and I are wired (obviously).

I guess I'm obtuse.

Name calling!!! []

We're running in circles at this point. You can have the last word.

Brian G.

As Long As That Word Isn't "A**hole" [:-dev3]

[Brian G]

Originally posted by Jim Katen

If they're not located in such a location, why would you want them to be GFCI protected? I don't understand the point behind the question.

If this is the case for garage door openers....

If the GFCI trips, it's because there's a ground fault. The trip might save her life if the door or its track has become energized.

....wouldn't it also be true of virtually every other motorized appliance in a house, no matter where they were? Wouldn't the average homeowner be at far greater risk from their refrigerator or washing machine, considering how much more frequently they touch those appliances than a garage door or opener?

Brian G.

Hmmmm.....Bad Winding Insulation + Washing Machine + Wife = New Life (in prison) []

[Jim Katen]

Originally posted by Brian G

....wouldn't it also be true of virtually every other motorized appliance in a house, no matter where they were? Wouldn't the average homeowner be at far greater risk from their refrigerator or washing machine, considering how much more frequently they touch those appliances than a garage door or opener?

Brian G.

Hmmmm.....Bad Winding Insulation + Washing Machine + Wife = New Life (in prison) []

I'd rather see the high-risk areas addressed first. In my mind, the frequency with which you use an appliance doesn't increase the risk as much as the location of the appliance. The purpose of the GFCI rules is to provide protection in high-risk areas -- places where people will be well-grounded while using electrical devices. There wouldn't be a whole lot of benefit to providing GFCI protection to appliances in places where people aren't likely to be well grounded.

Remember that the genesis of this discussion has to do with removing *exceptions* to a requirement. Those exceptions were 20 years old. Since that time, the leakage requirements for motors have decreased and the reliability of GFCIs has increased.

Some interesting facts about this change:

* The change was proposed by our friend Douglas Hansen.

* CMP 2 accepted the change by a vote of 11 to 1. The single dissenter (Ronald Purvis) said that he voted against the change because Douglas didn't provide a body count of people who had died or been injured due to the existing exceptions (similar to your objection about saving us from future deaths).

* There was a time when the NEC was "written in blood." The CMPs tended to want to see a body count before implementing a change. In recent years, my impression is that they've become more proactive.

Having said all that, and getting back to the intent behind your question, if the 2011 NEC were to come out with a requirement for GFCI protection everywhere, I wouldn't have a strong objection. GFCI technology is mature and pretty darn reliable. GFCIs are pretty much the only devices in the entire electrical system of a house that are intended to protect people from being electrocuted. Most everything else is aimed at preventing fires.

The number of electrical deaths in the US has plummeted since the introduction of GFCIs in the early '70s.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Brian G]

Fair enough, you've answered my question. I certainly agree that GFCI's are a mature technology, far, far better than they used to be years ago, and they've saved countless lives since they entered the code, I just don't trust them not to nuisance trip as much as you do. I'm a big fan of the new requirements to make them unusable if they're wired wrong or failing, though I haven't seen any discussion of how well they're actually working; have you?

I knew Douglas was on that panel and voted for the changes, but I didn't know he proposed the changes himself. I have great respect for you, Douglas, Kurt, and the NEC in general, but where I disagree I can't say otherwise; lip service isn't respect. I will say my regard for the NEC as a whole is at a low ebb right now, between this, the AFCI debacle, and the small handful of things I already disagreed with them about. I'm sure they're all up late worrying about it. [:-sleep]

I've heard the thing about "written in blood" before, which I don't doubt for a minute. I wouldn't want to see things go very far that way at all, but I'm skeptical of solutions where no demonstrable problem can be found. That and the uneven economic factors leave me where I am.

Brian G.

So It Goes [8]