Revise 406.3

[George Stolz]

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 406.3(D)
2.) Proposal Recommends: [revised text]
3.) Proposal: 406.3(D) currently reads:
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (2), and (3) as applicable.
(1) Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure or a grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C), grounding-type receptacles shall be used and shall be connected to the grounding conductor in accordance with 406.3(C) or 250.130(C).
(2) Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters. Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this Code.
(3) Nongrounding-Type Receptacles. Where grounding means does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with (D)(3)(a), (D)(3)(b), or (D)(3)(c).
(a) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with another nongrounding-type receptacle(s).
(b) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a ground-fault circuit interrupter-type
of receptacle(s). These receptacles shall be marked “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter- type receptacle to any outlet supplied from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle.
(c) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Grounding-type receptacles supplied through the ground-fault circuit interrupter shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding-type receptacles.Revise text:
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles and additions to existing branch circuits shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (2), and (3) as applicable.
(1) --no change--
(2) --no change--
(3) Nongrounding-Type Receptacles. Where grounding means does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with (D)(3)(a), (D)(3)(b), or (D)(3)(c).
(a) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with another nongrounding-type receptacle(s). Existing circuits that utilize nongrounding-type receptacles shall be permitted to supply an addition to such a circuit, where nongrounding-type receptacles are installed. An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the nongrounding-type receptacles, or to any metallic enclosure in which they are installed.
(b) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a ground-fault circuit interrupter-type of receptacle(s). These receptacles shall be marked “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter-type receptacle to any new or existing outlet or enclosure supplied from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle.
(c) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a grounding-type receptacle(s) where supplied through a ground-fault circuit interrupter. Grounding-type receptacles at new and existing locations supplied through the ground-fault circuit interrupter shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding-type receptacles, or to any metallic enclosure in which they are installed.4.) Substantiation: There is currently no wording regarding additions to existing installations in 406.3(D). A Fine Print Note in 250.130(C) directs users of the NEC to 406.3(D) when applying the provisions of 250.130(C), but one of the scenarios outlined in 250.130(C) is overlooked: additions. Given the permissive nature of 250.130(C), an equipment grounding conductor (EGC) is permitted, but not required, to be installed for receptacle replacement.

But there contains no language, permissive or otherwise, in relation to additions to existing circuits.

Users of the code looking to 250.130(C) when installing an addition to an existing circuit are advised by the FPN to see 406.3(D), but are left empty-handed when they get there.

The section in question (406.3(D)) effectively bends the standard requirements for new installations to provide relief for the installer when dealing with old work. Given the leniency put forth by this section regarding replacement receptacles, it appears that old 2-wire installations, while regretable, do not present an "imminent danger to occupants" as stated in 80.5(B).

80.5(C) expresses that "Additions...shall not cause a building to become unsafe..." By expressing explicit guidelines for additions to existing circuits, installers will be forbidden to connect an unbonded EGC between receptacles, decreasing the shock hazard in the event of an unbonded fault.

Whether accepted or declined, I hope this proposal causes the panel to adopt some definute wording, to fill the void on existing installations.

[ June 26, 2005, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

[George Stolz]

Editted 14 times to enhance readability and tweak substantiation.

Sorry it's so danged long-winded. :o

[don_resqcapt19]

I can't see any reason to support the installation of a receptacle at a new location without an EGC.
Don

[George Stolz]

Thanks for the response, Don. :)

Thanks again. :)

[iwire]

George I know you asked Don and I hope he chimes in with his thoughts as well but I would like to take a swing at this.
.
.
.
.
.
Get ready it is long and complicated.
.
.
.
.
.
Are you ready?
.
.
.
.
.
.
BECAUSE THEY ARE EXISTING! :D
.
.
.
.
I know I am being a wise guy, but I truly believe it is just that simple.

The NEC is not retroactive and even if they wanted the replacement outlet to be grounded the States, Cities, and Towns that adopt the NEC do not have the authority to make it happen.

What do you say Don, IYO is it that simple?

[ June 26, 2005, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

[pierre]

" have a question for you, because what you have stated is by far the most valid problem I face with this proposal.

Why has the NEC supported replacement of an old receptacle without providing an EGC? How have the presciptions provided in 406.3(D) come into being, and what bolstered their support?"

George
Replacing a 2 prong receptacle that may be damaged or painted over, or has lost it's retention is not the same as installing wiring, a box, and a new device in the box.
The existing wiring method in this instance is not being altered.

In wiring a new "extension" this would be new work.
I understand the hardship it may create for some customers, but it is new work.

Your proposal would have far reaching implications which could affect other parts of the code and I do not see this as possibly being accepted.
Your heart is in the right place though :cool:

[George Stolz]

Originally posted by pierre:
Your proposal would have far reaching implications which could affect other parts of the code...Can you think of a far-reaching implication, off the top of your head? I hadn't given that much thought, but it's a valid point.

...and I do not see this as possibly being accepted.It's a stretch, but if we only write easy ones, difficult issues will never change, right? :)

The Mass Wiseguy wrote:
BECAUSE THEY ARE EXISTING!
I know I am being a wise guy, but I truly believe it is just that simple.
The NEC is not retroactive and even if they wanted the replacement outlet to be grounded the States, Cities, and Towns that adopt the NEC do not have the authority to make it happen.Why not? Then why does this section exist? If the NEC has no bearing on existing installations, then this section is a waste of space anyway, you know what I mean?

We know when we look at this section, when it applies, and we act accordingly. Apparently, without this section, the replacement of an old receptacle would make it a "new installation" in somebody's mind. I don't really agree with that, but it's all I can make of it without guessing more. :)

Bob wrote:
George I know you asked Don and I hope he chimes in with his thoughts as well but I would like to take a swing at this.I in no way meant that Don's input was more valuable than anybody's, no offense intended. :)

[iwire]

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Can you think of a far-reaching implication, off the top of your head? I hadn't given that much thought, but it's a valid point.I think that would be the 'slippery slope'

In other words 'Hey you let us install new ungrounded receptacles how about new ungrounded light fixtures or 'I just changed the service why should I have to ground it, the old one was not'

Originally posted by georgestolz:
I in no way meant that Don's input was more valuable than anybody's, no offense intended. :) No offense taken by me, I am interested in Don's opinion just as you are. :)

[ June 26, 2005, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

[don_resqcapt19]

The "replacement" rule is older than the ROPs and ROCs that I have. I really don't know why we are permitted to replace two wire receps with two wire recps, except that it does not have any impact on the safety of that existing system. Adding an additional two wire provides a new location where a grounded receptacle is not available and could have a negative effect on the safety of the system.
Don

[George Stolz]

How could it have more of a negative impact than the existing two wire receptacles already have?

Or are you just saying it's less safe than having an EGC?

[pierre]

"Originally posted by georgestolz:
Can you think of a far-reaching implication, off the top of your head? I hadn't given that much thought, but it's a valid point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that would be the 'slippery slope'

In other words 'Hey you let us install new ungrounded receptacles how about new ungrounded light fixtures or 'I just changed the service why should I have to ground it, the old one was not'"

It is always easier to wait for someone else to post and then just copy it. :)

That is basically what I would have said.
Thanks Bob

From George

"...and I do not see this as possibly being accepted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a stretch, but if we only write easy ones, difficult issues will never change, right?"


Absolutely correct.
I myself do not always take the easy road ;)

[don_resqcapt19]

George,
The lack of an EGC at the existing two wire receps is already a negative, but replacing with the same does not change anything. Adding additional ungrounded receptacles does.
Don

[George Stolz]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I can understand the responses, and I would still like to submit it. Worst thing that could happen is it will go down in a ball of flames.

So a different question: Is the proposal itself good, or is there something I should change? Does the substantiation work? Is the wording clear in the revied text as I have presented it?

[rbalex]

Originally posted by georgestolz:
4.) Substantiation: There is currently no wording regarding additions to existing installations in 406.3(D). A Fine Print Note in 250.130(C) directs users of the NEC to 406.3(D) when applying the provisions of 250.130(C), but one of the scenarios outlined in 250.130(C) is overlooked: additions. Given the permissive nature of 250.130(C), an equipment grounding conductor (EGC) is permitted, but not required, to be installed for receptacle replacement.

But there contains no language, permissive or otherwise, in relation to additions to existing circuits.

… George,

I think the substantiation is based on a false premise.

Quite simply, the scope Article 406 does not include “additions to existing circuits” and 406(3) main text refers to Art 210 for locating receptacles (which includes creating / extending branch circuits). The scope of Subsection 406.3(D)(3) is Replacement [of Receptacles]. In common rules of interpretation, 406.3(D)(3) defines what is required / permitted; therefore all other options are prohibited within that scope.

[George Stolz]

Originally posted by rbalex:
Quite simply, the scope Article 406 does not include “additions to existing circuits” and 406(3) main text refers to Art 210 for locating receptacles (which includes creating / extending branch circuits). The scope of Subsection 406.3(D)(3) is Replacement [of Receptacles].Doh! I saw that when I got started, and I totally spaced it. :)

I was going to change the title to "Existing Installations".

In common rules of interpretation, 406.3(D)(3) defines what is required / permitted; therefore all other options are prohibited within that scope. I've been rolling this prose around, and can't understand what you saying. Little words, Chaucer (nice avatar, by the way. :) ).

I think I get the gist of what you're saying: This section is an illogical target for what I'm trying to accomplish. But I believe that it would be an acceptable location with a name change. As the text currently stands, this section can't apply to new receptacles right off the bat, because it governs "Replacements", I agree. By default, we have to revert to (B), which requires receptacles to be grounded.

If (D) were changed, it would fall into place, wouldn't it? Where else would it go, 110 or 300? Even if it makes for strange bedfellows, I'd prefer to see my change remain close to the existing text, even if it mean creating a new subsection just for it, after "replacements".

[rbalex]

I think you also need coordinating Poposals with CMP2 (for existing branch circuits) and especially CMP5 (EGCs are really their scope you're messing with) as well as CMP18.

[George Stolz]

Originally posted by rbalex:
I think you also need coordinating Poposals with CMP2 (for existing branch circuits) and especially CMP5 (EGCs are really their scope you're messing with) as well as CMP18. I just flipped through all of 210, and didn't see a likely spot to submit this to.

I think 250.130(C) can rest as it is, it will work if my proposal goes through.

Are you thinking I should leave this section as it sits, and try a proposal for a new section of 210, Part I?

[petersonra]

Is it the concensus then that extensions of ungrounded branch circuits are totally prohibited?

If that is the case would the code not say that somewhere explicitly?

[rbalex]

Originally posted by petersonra:
Is it the concensus then that extensions of ungrounded branch circuits are totally prohibited?

If that is the case would the code not say that somewhere explicitly? These are both very good questions. The general progression would be:

</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"New" work must meet current Codes.</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"New" work would require the 15 and 20A receptacles to be "grounding type" [406.3(A)] with a specific exception - the Section in question - Replacements.[406.3(D)]</font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Therefore, 15 & 20A two-wire branch circuit extensions with non-grounding type receptacles are prohibited except as expressly permitted - such as with K&T ([2002]394.10).</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[ June 28, 2005, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]

[jwelectric]

Originally posted by petersonra:
Is it the concensus then that extensions of ungrounded branch circuits are totally prohibited?

If that is the case would the code not say that somewhere explicitly? No, extensions are allowed per NEC under the following conditions:

250.130 Equipment Grounding Conductor Connections.
Equipment grounding conductor connections at the source of separately derived systems shall be made in accordance with 250.30(A)(1). Equipment grounding conductor connections at service equipment shall be made as indicated in 250.130(A) or (B).

For replacement of non–grounding-type receptacles with grounding-type receptacles and for branch-circuit extensions only in existing installations that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuit, connections shall be permitted as indicated in 250.130(C).

I separated the above section for clarity

394.10 Uses Permitted.Concealed knob-and-tube wiring shall be permitted to be installed in the hollow spaces of walls and ceilings or in unfinished attics and roof spaces as provided by 394.23 only as follows:
(1) For extensions of existing installations

The NEC will allow the extension of certain circuits. The problem comes when adding a three wire receptacle.

:)

[ June 28, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

[George Stolz]

Originally posted by rbalex (and agreed upon by jw):
Therefore, 15 & 20A two-wire branch circuit extensions with non-grounding type receptacles are prohibited except as expressly permitted - such as with K&T ([2002]394.10).
I don't think so.

The allowance of the circuit to be extended does not permit the installation of two-wire receptacles on the new portion of that circuit.

It expressly permits the extension and use of K&T, not the installation of a new nongrounding-type receptacle.

The receptacle would have to comply with 406.3, same as if I added romex to the circuit. ;)

[George Stolz]

The other related thread just gave me an idea. What about a much shorter course?

(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (2), and (3) as applicable.Add text to 406.3(D):
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (2), and (3) as applicable. Receptacles installed to additions to existing branch circuits shall be considered replacements for the purposes of this section.Ho ho ho...

[al hildenbrand]

Ah, so, George,

This must be the proposal you asked me if I'd seen.

I hadn't.

I just went through the two pages here, and I think your proposal and substantiation is spot on.

Go for it!

[mc5w]

I would change the rules as follows:

1. When a circuit extension is made from a box or enclosure that is NOT grounded and an equipment ground cannot be obtained, the circuit extension shall have be nonmetallic and have an equipment grounding conductor that is temporarily insulated from enclosures. Bare equipment grounding conductors shall be temporarily insulated from enclosures using a removable sleeve that is colored green or tagged with green tape or paint.

Substantiation: There is no reason why a circuit cannot be gradually upgraded. Requiring that the equipment ground in type NM cable be cut would be a waste of material and labor. Cutting the equipment ground would necessitate cable replacement when an equipment ground does become available. Prohibiting the cutting of the equipment ground that is supplied at the factory and requiring an insulating sleeve that is removable would be a more satisfactory method.

[George Stolz]

...I do not see this as possibly being accepted.
Well, Bob, Don, and Pierre (and for different reasons, Bob Alexander) all prophesied doom for this one, and they were right: their sentiments are echoed (dang-near photocopied) below.

18-16 Log #1396 NEC-P18 Action: Reject
(406.3(D))

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: Section 406.3(D) addresses the installation of replacement receptacles. This proposal addresses the installation of new receptacles. Therefore, this text does not apply to this section. The panel rejects the concept of adding new receptacles to an existing two-wire circuit and applying the provisions for replacement receptacles rules. Replacement receptacles rules are to increase the safety of older two-wire branch circuits where a replacement receptacle is desired. Section 406.3(D)(3) does not address the extension of existing two-wire circuits. The applicable rules for extending two-wire branch circuits are contained in Section 250.130(C) and require the extension to provide an equipment grounding conductor. The references to Sections 80.5(B) and 80.5(C) are now contained in Annex G of the 2005 NEC as 80.9(B) and (C). Annex G is not enforceable unless specifically adopted by local ordinance.
I have to say, with a statement that long, they really hated the idea! :lol:

[petersonra]

I can't see any reason to support the installation of a receptacle at a new location without an EGC.
Don

In general, I am inclined to agree. But there are some old houses where the cost of doing so might cause a HO to use extension cords rather than a proper wiring method. I suspect the extension cords are far more hazardous then an outlet with a GFCI on it.

I think any extension that has no ground should be required to be GFCI protected and labeled as not grounded, and allowed only in existing construction.

A gut and remodel, no. An addition - no Adding an outlet on the other side of a room in a 100 year old house where it is not cost effective to get a ground there - yes.