Siemens Panel with Eaton Breakers

[hurk27]

Well we have for years used just AFCI breakers anytime we installed gutter or snow melt receptacles, and we had a few inspectors reject them at first but the state went to UL and was told the GFPE in them is tested to protect as a GFPE and was told it was good to go, never been tagged on it again, this was also brought up at some of the IAEI meetings, and I think we had some threads on here in the past about it, of course there had to be the combo type with the 30-50ma GFPE in them now the newer GE's wouldn't work.

Indiana removed 210.12 so the above is about the only place we still use AFCI other then libraries and other types or archive buildings but those are in the engineering spec's

 

[Lady Engineer]

Lady Engineer - the hand book is nothing more than contributing authors opinions on the commentary portions.

I don't have a hard copy but following text is from PDF version of 2011 handbook. It was copied from second page of PDF file.

Important Notices and Disclaimers:​

​

That's not my point, really.

The handbook has the code in it, but you're correct the explanations are opinions. My issue that UL makes classifies GFCI and GFP differently, just as the code. 427.22 does not say GFCI, it says GFEP/GFP, so my main point is you should not use GFCI for equipment. As Don says, it gives a great level of protection, however I don't want nuisance tripping either. Most manufacturers make GFEP rated at about 30ma, from what I've seen.

 

[Lady Engineer]

Simple Solution.... set a small sub-panel adjacent to the Siemens panel of a brand that DOES make the correct GFEP style breaker and feed the heat trace circuit from the sub-panel.

No need to, Siemens make a 30ma GFEP breakers. Thanks anyway...

 

[Lady Engineer]

Which is just as valid as my opinions and commentary.

I use code handbooks regularly. I also use other references. But just because something has been published by someone does not mean I accept it as good engineering practice nor as an industry standard.


Warning, blatant personal commentary:
I find many technical authors, especially those of text books in the past 15-20yrs, to be very agenda driven and out of touch with 'industry' practices for electrical power systems.

This is true, however GFCI and GFP do the same things as far as tripping, but they are not the same. One will trip faster, and with equipment I don't want my ice melting tripping because of using a GFCI breaker.

I do feel like the AHJ was correct. If the code (not the handbook albeit it has the code in it) says use GFP, not GFCI I have to abide by that, IMO.

 

[kwired]

That's not my point, really.

The handbook has the code in it, but you're correct the explanations are opinions. My issue that UL makes classifies GFCI and GFP differently, just as the code. 427.22 does not say GFCI, it says GFEP/GFP, so my main point is you should not use GFCI for equipment. As Don says, it gives a great level of protection, however I don't want nuisance tripping either. Most manufacturers make GFEP rated at about 30ma, from what I've seen.

They all work in similar manner though, the difference is the level of the set points, and the names that may be given to them are based on the set points not because of the technology being any different, same with the GFCI component in an AFCI. No different than using a 5 amp fuse where a 10 may be acceptable.

 

[Lady Engineer]

They all work in similar manner though, the difference is the level of the set points, and the names that may be given to them are based on the set points not because of the technology being any different, same with the GFCI component in an AFCI. No different than using a 5 amp fuse where a 10 may be acceptable.

They do...just like you breaker explanation. However, and I'm going to say this again, I believe the reason I was flagged is because of what 427.22 says about it being for equipment, and that's what the AHJ said. Plus, we are not protecting a person like for GFCI, this is equipment. I know Heat Trace has been known to cause fires, but I don't want the GFCI causing nuisance tripping, because the trip level is at 3ma or so, opposed to 30ma.

I have this argument with contractors all the time (when doing a punchlist they installed GFCI breakers), but I have to say if I allow this, and the AHJ comes back to do an inspection and I get flagged who's fault to you think it will be?

There's no real way to get around that, some AHJ may let it through, but not here in Jersey.

 

[kwired]

They do...just like you breaker explanation. However, and I'm going to say this again, I believe the reason I was flagged is because of what 427.22 says about it being for equipment, and that's what the AHJ said. Plus, we are not protecting a person like for GFCI, this is equipment. I know Heat Trace has been known to cause fires, but I don't want the GFCI causing nuisance tripping, because the trip level is at 3ma or so, opposed to 30ma.

I have this argument with contractors all the time (when doing a punchlist they installed GFCI breakers), but I have to say if I allow this, and the AHJ comes back to do an inspection and I get flagged who's fault to you think it will be?

There's not real way to get around that, some AHJ may let it through, but no here in Jersey.

Like the 5 amp fuse where a 10 amp would otherwise be allowed - what is the problem other than possible tripping that may not happen on the higher rated device. Code says you must have at least the 30mA version - but does it prohibit the 6 mA version?

427.22 says nothing about which level of protection is necessary. Since it is not there for people protection the Class B protection is allowed.

The handbook commentary says "This required protection may be accomplished by using circuit breakers equipped with ground-fault equipment protection (GFEP)"

I take the words "may be accomplished" as meaning this is one method possible, and also keep in mind it is the opoinion of who wrote that and not a portion of the code itself.

Is there potential "nuisance tripping" in the install - yes. But it is probably just an earlier indication of failure than if the 30 mA protection were provided.

Is there a code violation - IMO no.

 

[Lady Engineer]

One issue I have with that is that the terms that the NEC and UL uses are not the same. How does anyone know the NEC term Ground-Fault Protection of Equipment is really referring to the UL term Equipment Ground-Fault Protective Device? If that is the device the NEC intends to require then the NEC should use the same term as the product standard.

As I said before I don't have a copy of the actual standard, but the UL information that is available for free indicates that the trip for the EGFPD is "typically" between 6 and 50 mA, strongly implying (to me) that the standard does not use that language.

The only way I see the big "gotcha" point is, it says in 1.4 of UL 1053: These requirements do not cover ground-fault circuit-interrupters.

 

[Lady Engineer]

Like the 5 amp fuse where a 10 amp would otherwise be allowed - what is the problem other than possible tripping that may not happen on the higher rated device. Code says you must have at least the 30mA version - but does it prohibit the 6 mA version?

427.22 says nothing about which level of protection is necessary. Since it is not there for people protection the Class B protection is allowed.

The handbook commentary says "This required protection may be accomplished by using circuit breakers equipped with ground-fault equipment protection (GFEP)"

I take the words "may be accomplished" as meaning this is one method possible, and also keep in mind it is the opoinion of who wrote that and not a portion of the code itself.

Is there potential "nuisance tripping" in the install - yes. But it is probably just an earlier indication of failure than if the 30 mA protection were provided.

Is there a code violation - IMO no.

I have to disagree. UL distinguishes between the GFCI and GFEP. Like I told Don, 1053 of UL 1.4 says: These requirements do not cover ground-fault circuit-interrupters.

The code says in Article 100 the definitions of GFCI and GFEP, so using two GFCI in lieu of GFEP isn't the correct approach because you're not using the device for the right purpose.

If a motor circuit is protected by a c.b., but you intended to install fuses, but the EC said eh well a c.b. will still protect the wires. He's correct, but table in 430 says you can't use the same device at the same trip rating. Sure they both will protect the wire, but the c.b. might trip due to the in-rush because it wasn't sized at 250%.

 

[Lady Engineer]

The handbook commentary says "This required protection may be accomplished by using circuit breakers equipped with ground-fault equipment protection (GFEP)"

Yes, but that's only part of it. is also says: or an integral device supplied as part of the pipeline or vessel heating equip.... meaning you can use a breaker or a integral device.

It did say may as in you "might" be able to use GFEP , but 427.22 says: GFEP shall be provided for electrical heat tracing and heating panels. Then Article 100 give the definition of GFCI as Class A, per UL 943. Then UL 1053 for GFEP says GFCI is not covered in 1053. That pretty much says it all, IMO

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...It did say may as in you "might" be able to use GFEP , but 427.22 says: GFEP shall be provided for electrical heat tracing and heating panels. Then Article 100 give the definition of GFCI as Class A, per UL 943. Then UL 1053 for GFEP says GFCI is not covered in 1053. That pretty much says it all, IMO

I still don't see it that way. Of course a "people" protection product is not covered by the same standard as an "equipment" protection product. I can see why you might not want to use GFCI, but will never see it as a code violation.

I have found the instructions for a number of "plug-in" heat trace products that require the use of GFCI protection. The following example is from a Raychem product.

Additional items required but not supplied for pipe applications:

Waterproof thermal insulation (e.g. preformed foam),
Ground-fault protected outlet (GFCI)...

550.13(E) requires a GFCI protected outlet under house trailers for use with pipe heating cables.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
​

 

[jxofaltrds]

I still don't see it that way. Of course a "people" protection product is not covered by the same standard as an "equipment" protection product. I can see why you might not want to use GFCI, but will never see it as a code violation.

I have found the instructions for a number of "plug-in" heat trace products that require the use of GFCI protection. The following example is from a Raychem product.

550.13(E) requires a GFCI protected outlet under house trailers for use with pipe heating cables.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
​

Decide to read 550.13 again. Look at (E)(2).

(2) Connected to an interior branch circuit, other than a
small-appliance branch circuit. It shall be permitted to
use a bathroom receptacle circuit for this purpose.

So it can't be a dedicated circuit if it has skirting around it?

 

[Lady Engineer]

I still don't see it that way. Of course a "people" protection product is not covered by the same standard as an "equipment" protection product. I can see why you might not want to use GFCI, but will never see it as a code violation.

I have found the instructions for a number of "plug-in" heat trace products that require the use of GFCI protection. The following example is from a Raychem product.

550.13(E) requires a GFCI protected outlet under house trailers for use with pipe heating cables.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
​

We'll have to....but that's permitted for that application so I can see that. Also, the GFCI would involve a "person" unplugging the device in a wet location. I would think they would say GFCI to protect the person unplugging it. I honestly think it's not really the same. If they were hard wired connections, you'd use a GFP c.b.

To be honest, the AHJ told me this, DCA who does the code review told me this, and latest instructor for an NEC class. I know using the GFP has negated being flagged by code review or violations in the field.

 

[kwired]

Yes, but that's only part of it. is also says: or an integral device supplied as part of the pipeline or vessel heating equip.... meaning you can use a breaker or a integral device.

It did say may as in you "might" be able to use GFEP , but 427.22 says: GFEP shall be provided for electrical heat tracing and heating panels. Then Article 100 give the definition of GFCI as Class A, per UL 943. Then UL 1053 for GFEP says GFCI is not covered in 1053. That pretty much says it all, IMO

I did suggest early on in the thread that a device that is an accessory item to the heating equipment is likely less costly way to go. It has been for me in the past with deicing cable, cant say I have installed pipeline heating cable but there are probably some similarities.

 

[GearMan]

That's not my point, really.

The handbook has the code in it, but you're correct the explanations are opinions. My issue that UL makes classifies GFCI and GFP differently, just as the code. 427.22 does not say GFCI, it says GFEP/GFP, so my main point is you should not use GFCI for equipment. As Don says, it gives a great level of protection, however I don't want nuisance tripping either. Most manufacturers make GFEP rated at about 30ma, from what I've seen.

A little history on GFEP breakers. Due to the excessive tripping of GFCI breakers when used for protection on the early design of heat trace, us NEMA folks, working in conjunction with UL and NEC, developed the EP breaker and brought it to market. The intent was to solve an issue without sacrificing safety. At that time, wording to eliminate the existing 5mA breaker for use on equipment in the NEC did not exist. From what I see, it is still the same today.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Decide to read 550.13 again. Look at (E)(2).

(2) Connected to an interior branch circuit, other than a
small-appliance branch circuit. It shall be permitted to
use a bathroom receptacle circuit for this purpose.

So it can't be a dedicated circuit if it has skirting around it?

I didn't say it was a dedicated circuit. I said a GFCI protected receptacle is required by the code for use with pipe heating cables. The purpose of connecting this receptacle to an interior circuit is to give the occupants a method of knowing that the circuit has tripped. (3) Requires all of the outlets on the circuit to be GFCI protected.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I did suggest early on in the thread that a device that is an accessory item to the heating equipment is likely less costly way to go. It has been for me in the past with deicing cable, cant say I have installed pipeline heating cable but there are probably some similarities.

What type of device are you talking about. The only think I have used is a heat trace controller that has the GFP protection built in, but those are much more costly than a GFP breaker.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We'll have to....but that's permitted for that application so I can see that. Also, the GFCI would involve a "person" unplugging the device in a wet location. I would think they would say GFCI to protect the person unplugging it. I honestly think it's not really the same. If they were hard wired connections, you'd use a GFP c.b.

To be honest, the AHJ told me this, DCA who does the code review told me this, and latest instructor for an NEC class. I know using the GFP has negated being flagged by code review or violations in the field.

I am well aware that a number of code authorities don't agree with me, but I have seen nothing from anyone that has convinced me to change my mind...but then I am a very stubborn old guy

 

[iwire]

It's has the code sections, with explanations by the Code writers, and the AHJ himself told me he flags this all the time. Do you own a Handbook? It's the code, plus explanations. Essentially, it is code.

See Article 100, where GFCI and GFEP have different definitions.

Many of us own the handbook and as has been said none of the commentary is code or binding.

 

[Lady Engineer]

Many of us own the handbook and as has been said none of the commentary is code or binding.

We did establish that and I said I felt it's a good guideline, but it's not the real issue. The issue was GFCI vs. GFP. Don, insists on using GFCI, but 427.22 says GFEP, which has been the real debate. Our current debate is this a code violation or not.

He says he's a stubborn old guy, but really he's just standing his ground as am I. lol