GFCI required for load side taps in 2020?

[jaggedben]

None of these definitions say anything about 'primary intent' or 'primary purpose.'

 

[kwired]

None of these definitions say anything about 'primary intent' or 'primary purpose.'

True.

How about an occupancy sensor control? is it just a switching device or is it an outlet? It will have some small load used within for control purposes as well. GFCI and AFCI breakers?

 

[jaggedben]

True.

How about an occupancy sensor control? is it just a switching device or is it an outlet? It will have some small load used within for control purposes as well. GFCI and AFCI breakers?

I think it's an outlet, whatever the ramifications of that are.

I've not tried to look into why CMP-2 chose the word 'outlet' instead of receptacle for the new requirement. But assuming that it was deliberate, it seems to me their intention was to cover just about everything. Keep in mind that any device supplied by a 120V circuit is a shock hazard. If they realize that switches have been left out they'll probably try to cover those.

(AFCI is a non-sequiter in this thread.)

 

[kwired]

I think it's an outlet, whatever the ramifications of that are.

I've not tried to look into why CMP-2 chose the word 'outlet' instead of receptacle for the new requirement. But assuming that it was deliberate, it seems to me their intention was to cover just about everything. Keep in mind that any device supplied by a 120V circuit is a shock hazard. If they realize that switches have been left out they'll probably try to cover those.

(AFCI is a non-sequiter in this thread.)

Well if so then any outdoor dwelling unit located generator, PV inverter, or transformer with less than 50 amps circuit will also need GFCI after 2020 NEC goes into effect, but where do you put the GFCI? Between the unit and connection to premises wiring - doesn't protect the so called "outlet". If it trips the "outlet" is still energized.

You still have not convinced me these items are "outlets" or utilization equipment per NEC definitions. If they are intended to be - some code sections don't play with others very well, in particular this GFCI requirement.

 

[pv_n00b]

Sometimes members of the CMP make interpretations of their own writing that are different from the interpretations of some AHJs. Unfortunately, it's what ends up on that page that counts, not what someone on the CMP said they really really wanted it to say. In this case, I have to agree that the utilization aspect of the inverter is secondary to its function as a source. Now if that inverter was in a backup system and could act as a battery charger then that's a different story, or if there were loads installed on the same circuit for a monitoring system, tracker motor, or other loads.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If it is an outlet and requires GFCI, I am not aware of any GFCI breaker that is listed for a reverse feed.

 

[shortcircuit2]

If it is an outlet and requires GFCI, I am not aware of any GFCI breaker that is listed for a reverse feed.

Thats why JB pointed out 90.4

 

[jaggedben]

Well if so then any outdoor dwelling unit located generator, PV inverter, or transformer with less than 50 amps circuit will also need GFCI after 2020 NEC goes into effect, but where do you put the GFCI? Between the unit and connection to premises wiring - doesn't protect the so called "outlet". If it trips the "outlet" is still energized.

In the case of an interactive inverter or micro-grid interconnect device, the AC conductors between the GFCI and said other device would be de-energized. Motor generators are a little different, I don't see the output circuit ever feeding an outlet. A control circuit might feed an outlet, but it would not usually be a circuit that fits the criteria for the GFCI requirement.

You still have not convinced me these items are "outlets" or utilization equipment per NEC definitions. If they are intended to be - some code sections don't play with others very well, in particular this GFCI requirement.

I agree that one has to apply common sense, and it is often the case that some code sections don't play well with others. But I think it's better with AHJs if one can point to specific code sections to back up one's point of view, as I did my best to above. If one is trying to negotiate with an AHJ it's probably better if one's main strategy is not to split hairs over what is an outlet. As pv_noob pointed out, knowing what some CMP members said can be influential but not always decisive.

 

[kwired]

In the case of an interactive inverter or micro-grid interconnect device, the AC conductors between the GFCI and said other device would be de-energized. Motor generators are a little different, I don't see the output circuit ever feeding an outlet. A control circuit might feed an outlet, but it would not usually be a circuit that fits the criteria for the GFCI requirement.



I agree that one has to apply common sense, and it is often the case that some code sections don't play well with others. But I think it's better with AHJs if one can point to specific code sections to back up one's point of view, as I did my best to above. If one is trying to negotiate with an AHJ it's probably better if one's main strategy is not to split hairs over what is an outlet. As pv_noob pointed out, knowing what some CMP members said can be influential but not always decisive.

What is an outlet is very critical to needing to apply 2020's new requirement in 210.8(F), not an outlet, that section doesn't apply.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think it's an outlet, whatever the ramifications of that are.

I've not tried to look into why CMP-2 chose the word 'outlet' instead of receptacle for the new requirement. But assuming that it was deliberate, it seems to me their intention was to cover just about everything. Keep in mind that any device supplied by a 120V circuit is a shock hazard. If they realize that switches have been left out they'll probably try to cover those.

(AFCI is a non-sequiter in this thread.)

The choice to use the defined term "outlet" was very deliberate because the substantiation cited a death that was caused by touching a hard wired outdoor condensing unit. However, if the condensing unit would have been correctly installed, the EGC would have caused the circuit to clear and prevented the shock hazard. While the substantiation only applied to outdoor condensing units, the rule was broadly written.

 

[shortcircuit2]

The choice to use the defined term "outlet" was very deliberate because the substantiation cited a death that was caused by touching a hard wired outdoor condensing unit. However, if the condensing unit would have been correctly installed, the EGC would have caused the circuit to clear and prevented the shock hazard. While the substantiation only applied to outdoor condensing units, the rule was broadly written.

And with the release of the updated NEC every 3-years, many new rules have collateral implications realized when applied in the real world. That is just the way it is. 2020 section 210.8(F) will probably have many PI's to revise or remove it.

2020 210.8(F) Outdoor Outlets. All outdoor outlets for dwellings, other than those covered in 210.8(A)(3), Exception to (3), that are supplied by single-phase branch circuits rated 150 volts to ground or less, 50 amperes or less, shall have ground-fault circuit interrupter protection for personnel.

Exception: Ground-fault circuit interrupter protection shall not be required for lighting outlets other than those covered in 210.8(C)

Massachusetts deleted 210.8(F) and will revisit the rule in 2023.

I expect there will be issues with GFCI for outdoor outlets such as private septic pump systems and private well water pumps. These are 2 systems that will aggravate the homeowner with false tripping due to circuit leakage current above the GFCI trip level. Take a well pump for example at 100 feet from the dwelling and 600 feet in the ground.

As for this thread here, 90.4 will resolve the OP question. I hope that the OP will give feedback on his results. Another solution is to put the utilization equipment inside the dwelling.

 

[jaggedben]

The choice to use the defined term "outlet" was very deliberate because the substantiation cited a death that was caused by touching a hard wired outdoor condensing unit. However, if the condensing unit would have been correctly installed, the EGC would have caused the circuit to clear and prevented the shock hazard. While the substantiation only applied to outdoor condensing units, the rule was broadly written.

Well the same logic would apply to interactive inverter equipment. But as noted above, such a case may not be able to comply with other code sections.

 

[kwired]

And with the release of the updated NEC every 3-years, many new rules have collateral implications realized when applied in the real world. That is just the way it is. 2020 section 210.8(F) will probably have many PI's to revise or remove it.

2020 210.8(F) Outdoor Outlets. All outdoor outlets for dwellings, other than those covered in 210.8(A)(3), Exception to (3), that are supplied by single-phase branch circuits rated 150 volts to ground or less, 50 amperes or less, shall have ground-fault circuit interrupter protection for personnel.

Exception: Ground-fault circuit interrupter protection shall not be required for lighting outlets other than those covered in 210.8(C)

Massachusetts deleted 210.8(F) and will revisit the rule in 2023.

I expect there will be issues with GFCI for outdoor outlets such as private septic pump systems and private well water pumps. These are 2 systems that will aggravate the homeowner with false tripping due to circuit leakage current above the GFCI trip level. Take a well pump for example at 100 feet from the dwelling and 600 feet in the ground.

As for this thread here, 90.4 will resolve the OP question. I hope that the OP will give feedback on his results. Another solution is to put the utilization equipment inside the dwelling.

Never gave well pump much thought, but yes it falls under this also. More recently I am seeing more VFD driven well pumps. Can put GFCI on input but it won't respond to ground fault on output. But at same time those drives are pretty good at detecting ground faults and will shut down anyway if you have a fault, if anything to protect the drive - but doesn't exactly fit what NEC calls GFCI protection either.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Well the same logic would apply to interactive inverter equipment. But as noted above, such a case may not be able to comply with other code sections.

Only if the inverter is connected at an outlet. I do not see it a being connected at an outlet, as it is a source an not a load.

 

[jaggedben]

Only if the inverter is connected at an outlet. I do not see it a being connected at an outlet, as it is a source an not a load.

The same safety logic applies as with the compressor that caused the death and everything else you described in post #30 . The circuit is energized from the utility side.

 

[kwired]

The same safety logic applies as with the compressor that caused the death and everything else you described in post #30 . The circuit is energized from the utility side.

The "safety logic" says GFCI everything. In the past we put GFCI's on things that were higher risk, and almost nothing "hardwired" was considered higher risk, the EGC is supposed to protect you. Now they think every electrocution because of someone not following code is justification to add something else to the GFCI protection list. It will eventually turn into needing to GFCI everything.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The same safety logic applies as with the compressor that caused the death and everything else you described in post #30 . The circuit is energized from the utility side.

There is no real safety logic in requiring GFCI protection for hard wired circuits asit is not likely that the required fault clearing path would be compromised. Even the case cited to get this into the code, was not a code compliant installation. Had the code required fault clearing path been there, it is very unlikely there would have been an incident.

 

[jaggedben]

There is no real safety logic in requiring GFCI protection for hard wired circuits asit is not likely that the required fault clearing path would be compromised. Even the case cited to get this into the code, was not a code compliant installation. Had the code required fault clearing path been there, it is very unlikely there would have been an incident.

I agree with those points, and the new requirement strikes me as overkill. I'm just saying that the substantiation applies just as much to inverters as to other hardwired equipment and it's only because of various technical loopholes and interpretations that they would end up exempt.