will you pass this installtion?

[Ponchik]

Question for inspectors and installer,
Have you ever failed an installation because this cover plate was installed on a GFCI receptacle without an EGC? If you have not yet, why not?
(By GFCI installation I mean a single location that has a GFCI receptacle)

 

[cowboyjwc]

I have, because you have to have a way to ground a metal faceplate.

 

[mjf]

This an outdoor location, right?

 

[Ponchik]

This an outdoor location, right?

outdoor or indoor doesn't matter.

 

[Ponchik]

I have, because you have to have a way to ground a metal faceplate.

I assume you failed the installation and it was replaced by a "all plastic" bubble cover?

 

[augie47]

I don't see that many GFCIs that are not grounded since they would only be used as replacements. Not sure I would think of it on an inspection, but if I were on my toes, I would fail it under 406.5(B) (assuming it's metallic)
The next time I see such an install, I'll tell the electrician holding the red tag that he has you to thank

 

[GoldDigger]

I don't see that many GFCIs that are not grounded since they would only be used as replacements. Not sure I would think of it on an inspection, but if I were on my toes, I would fail it under 406.5(B) (assuming it's metallic)
The next time I see such an install, I'll tell the electrician holding the red tag that he has you to thank

Fortunately for indoor use of GFCI outlets as replacements, the GFCI front itself is all plastic, so you just have to be sure not to swap in a metal faceplate. And use nonconducting screws to hold the cover or insulate their heads?

 

[hurk27]

I'm not so sure I would fail it?

Since the GFCI is used on an ungrounded circuit so that anything that is connected to the GFCI will have some bit of protection through the GFCI as the GFCI does not need a ground to function, so if we are allowed to have a GFCI on a two wire circuit that would protect a person from electrocution if the case of the metal appliance was to become energized then why not the cover?

We could argue that the cover could be energized by the line side wiring but so could also the strap of the GFCI or even the ground terminal (that sticks out) which would also energize anything plugged into the GFCI through the ground terminal of the GFCI? the improper wiring that could cause the plate or strap of the GFCI to be energized to me is a "What If" if we are true professionals and take care in our wiring it shouldn't happen.

I agree that as Augie pointed out in 406.5(B) it is required to be grounded but the same arguement can be made for the yoke of the GFCI? I think? what about 406.10 if a metal box was used on a non grounded circuit, that even presents another danger?

 

[Ponchik]

I'm not so sure I would fail it?

We could argue that the cover could be energized by the line side wiring but so could also the strap of the GFCI or even the ground terminal (that sticks out) which would also energize anything plugged into the GFCI through the ground terminal of the GFCI? the improper wiring that could cause the plate or strap of the GFCI to be energized to me is a "What If" if we are true professionals and take care in our wiring it shouldn't happen.

The bold is my concern and my argument. So you would be OK to install a metal cover plate on a 2 wire system?

I believe the code does cover a lot of "what ifs".

I don't think we can convince the AHJ that "our installation is top notch so I am OK with the metal cover plate on a 2 wire system"

 

[hurk27]

The bold is my concern and my argument. So you would be OK to install a metal cover plate on a 2 wire system?

I believe the code does cover a lot of "what ifs".

I don't think we can convince the AHJ that "our installation is top notch so I am OK with the metal cover plate on a 2 wire system"

I agree but

What about if the line side hot energized the box on an ungrounded system?

or if a line side hot came onto contact with the ground screw tab or the GFCI yoke?

Both of the above would be just as dangerous as the metal cover plate and in some cases would be more likely to happen as they are much closer to the hot wire then the cover plate is.

If either of the above was to happen, what ever appliance was plugged in would have a hot case, and since it is energized by the line side of the GFCI the GFCI would never trip.

 

[GoldDigger]

If either of the above was to happen, what ever appliance was plugged in would have a hot case, and since it is energized by the line side of the GFCI the GFCI would never trip.

You are assuming that the appliance has a three wire cord and that the ground of the receptacle is connected to the box?
As long as the appliance has a 2 wire cord, it will still be OK. Since the GFCI should be marked "No Ground Present" or equivalent, this seems to me to argue that one should not plug a three wire cord with ground into that receptacle in the first place. But that is probably asking too much from the homeowners.

 

[ActionDave]

I agree but

What about if the line side hot energized the box on an ungrounded system?

or if a line side hot came onto contact with the ground screw tab or the GFCI yoke?

Both of the above would be just as dangerous as the metal cover plate and in some cases would be more likely to happen as they are much closer to the hot wire then the cover plate is.

If either of the above was to happen, what ever appliance was plugged in would have a hot case, and since it is energized by the line side of the GFCI the GFCI would never trip .

I believe it would in the event of an actual ground fault. If the cause to the ground fault were human he or she might get a nasty bite.

 

[iwire]

We can go crazy with 'what if' but the 'what is' is that the faceplate is required to be grounded. If the AHJ sees it that way I see no way of fighting it.

 

[kwired]

I agree but

What about if the line side hot energized the box on an ungrounded system?

or if a line side hot came onto contact with the ground screw tab or the GFCI yoke?

Both of the above would be just as dangerous as the metal cover plate and in some cases would be more likely to happen as they are much closer to the hot wire then the cover plate is.

If either of the above was to happen, what ever appliance was plugged in would have a hot case, and since it is energized by the line side of the GFCI the GFCI would never trip.

The metal box, the metal device yoke, the metal cover, anything connected to a cord via the equipment grounding pin are all bonded together. Energize any one of those items and you energize them all.


One thing that you do not want to do with the OP's install is use one of those plug in GFCI testers and hold on to the cover while pressing the test button. If you can't figure out why then maybe you should just try it:happyyes:

 

[hurk27]

that the ground of the receptacle is connected to the box?

If the box is metal and the GFCI is screwed into the box how would the ground pin not be connected to the box? Plastic screws?

I believe it would in the event of an actual ground fault. If the cause to the ground fault were human he or she might get a nasty bite.

If the box is energized by the wire feeding the GFCI, the GFCI will not protect a person from a shock from the case of a tool and somthing grounded like the concrete floor of a garage.

The metal box, the metal device yoke, the metal cover, anything connected to a cord via the equipment grounding pin are all bonded together. Energize any one of those items and you energize them all.

One thing that you do not want to do with the OP's install is use one of those plug in GFCI testers and hold on to the cover while pressing the test button. If you can't figure out why then maybe you should just try it:happyyes:

Correct and is what I was pointing out, one is as bad as the other, that is why I think this allowance should be removed or at least say epoxy the ground hole so it can't be used as well as receptacles loaded off it be required to be only two wire devices.

I agree with Bob that the code does require the metal face plate to be grounded, but that is putting a bandaid on what could be a more serious problem.

The funning thing I find is in 406.3(D)(3)(b) is this:

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.

This tells me that they some what knew of this problem and by not allowing any EGC to be used after a GFCI on a ungrounded circuit tells me they some what tried to at least lower the risk of having the EGC energizeing all the ground pins on the receptacles down stream from the GFCI.

So why not require a GFCI that does not have the ground pin or allow a blank face GFCI to be used or a breaker only, at least this would not have the same problem? at least this would not energize any appliance case plugged into the GFCI, I think only allowing a breaker type GFCI would be the right way to go as even if the box was energized at least it would be on the load side of the GFCI not the line side.

 

[kwired]

The funning thing I find is in 406.3(D)(3)(b) is this:

The funning thing I find is in 406.3(D)(3)(b) is this:


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.







This tells me that they some what knew of this problem and by not allowing any EGC to be used after a GFCI on a ungrounded circuit tells me they some what tried to at least lower the risk of having the EGC energizeing all the ground pins on the receptacles down stream from the GFCI.

So why not require a GFCI that does not have the ground pin or allow a blank face GFCI to be used or a breaker only, at least this would not have the same problem? at least this would not energize any appliance case plugged into the GFCI, I think only allowing a breaker type GFCI would be the right way to go as even if the box was energized at least it would be on the load side of the GFCI not the line side.

I think that verbiage was added in either 2005 or 2008.

There is still some risk of energizing all these things via a supply side of GFCI conductor, but maybe not as high of a risk as something plugged in with a fault in it.

 

[hurk27]

I think that verbiage was added in either 2005 or 2008.

Actually it is in my 1999 but back then it was under 210-7(d) 3. c. before being moved to the present 406.3 in 2002 I also remember it being in my 1996 NEC also in 210.7 but it says the same thing it does in 406.3

 

[kwired]

Actually it is in my 1999 but back then it was under 210-7(d) 3. c. before being moved to the present 406.3 in 2002 I also remember it being in my 1996 NEC also in 210.7 but it says the same thing it does in 406.3

I remember it being added, just don't recall it being that long ago. Where did the time go?

 

[norcal]

Here is a copy & paste from the 2011 NEC.


406.6 Receptacle Faceplates (Cover Plates).
Receptacle

faceplates shall be installed so as to completely cover the

opening and seat against the mounting surface.

Receptacle faceplates mounted inside a box having a

recess-mounted receptacle shall effectively close the opening

and seat against the mounting surface.

(A) Thickness of Metal Faceplates.
Metal faceplates shall

be of ferrous metal not less than 0.76 mm (0.030 in.) in

thickness or of nonferrous metal not less than 1.02 mm

(0.040 in.) in thickness.

(B) Grounding.
Metal faceplates shall be grounded.

Bold by me.

If a inspector does pass it, they are not doing their job.

 

[readydave8]

You are assuming that the appliance has a three wire cord and that the ground of the receptacle is connected to the box?
As long as the appliance has a 2 wire cord, it will still be OK. Since the GFCI should be marked "No Ground Present" or equivalent, this seems to me to argue that one should not plug a three wire cord with ground into that receptacle in the first place. But that is probably asking too much from the homeowners.

I would plug a 3 wire cord cap into a GFCI marked "No Ground Present," drill or saw or whatever. I assume the reason it is allowed to change out 2/prong receptacle to GFCI receptacle (in areas not otherwise required to have GFCI) is to make it safe to do so?