Receptacle change out

[raider1]

Several states, Michigan for example, have adopted the IRC. The MRC (The IRC with a few local amendments) does not allow the little GFCI trick.

Actually I disagree that the IRC prohibits using GFCI's for replacements of 2 wire receptacles.

IRC E3401.1 Specifically states in the last sentence, "Other wiring methods, materials and subject matter covered in the NFPA 70 are also allowed by this code."

That means that just because the IRC does not have a specific section to mirror 406.3(D)(3) it does not prohibit using that section.

Chris

 

[growler]

I know I have seen this here before but......old house had 2 prong receptacles and HUD Inspector wants them changed to 3 prong grounded receps. There are not any grounds on the box. House is old romex with metal boxes. Can I just ground the outlet to the box?

Folks this is a HUD Inspection and not one by the local authorities. This means that this house must meet certain criteria before a loan is approved.

The best person to ask what will be acceptable is the HUD inspector. You would need to be NEC compliant but it may require more than that for loan approval.

 

[construct]

Actually I disagree that the IRC prohibits using GFCI's for replacements of 2 wire receptacles.

IRC E3401.1 Specifically states in the last sentence, "Other wiring methods, materials and subject matter covered in the NFPA 70 are also allowed by this code."

That means that just because the IRC does not have a specific section to mirror 406.3(D)(3) it does not prohibit using that section.

Chris

I agree with Chris. And further.....barring any amendments to the code.....the very next section; 2006 IRC E3301.2; the last sentence says, "Electrical systems, equipment or components not specifically covered in these chapters shall comply with the applicable provisions of the NFPA 70".

 

[jmellc]

A lot of house in that era were wired thru the ceiling fixture boxes so GFCI breakers are the logical option. Otherwise you are trying to jamb GFCI receps in a LOT of small boxes.

Take a close look. There may be an unused ground wire in the old romex.

I've occasionally seen an available ground wire in the old romex, but many were cut at the sheath. If they are present, have to go to every box & be sure they're spliced. Most of what I've seen done in later years, EC would leave any ground wire intact, thinking ahead. Some would ground to box using 1 of the cover screws, though not a ground if a ground is not in the home run.

 

[GUNNING]

Def of ground?

Def of ground?

Now that the new definition of ground means attatched to earth ... who knows.

 

[jes25]

I agree with Chris. And further.....barring any amendments to the code.....the very next section; 2006 IRC E3301.2; the last sentence says, "Electrical systems, equipment or components not specifically covered in these chapters shall comply with the applicable provisions of the NFPA 70".

Perhaps it is because I do not have the latest version, or maybe it's because of the local amendments, but my MRC says nothing like that in that section.

 

[slick 50]

Why cant you just install GFI breakers on all the circuits? I know you might have some branch wiring that will need to be freed of cross neutrals and neutral to grounds

 

[mivey]

People, you would make it A LOT easier for everyone to help you by simply putting your location on your profile! At least which state you live in! It would save a lot of speculation since different places are operating under different versions of the NEC and many jurisdictions amend the NEC with local codes.

Help everybody help you!

With that much effort, you pretty much could have given an answer that would cover most cases.

Many people work across different jurisdictions so one location id would not necessarily be useful. If people want an answer specific to a jurisdiction, I expect them to state which one else they should accept what they get.

 

[renosteinke]

This is old ground ... but I suppose it's worth covering again.

And, Raider 1 .... chief moderator or not .... you're simply wrong regarding the testing of GFCI's. The use of a plug-in tester is a recognized, perfectly proper way to test GFCI's. UL says so, and lists GFCI 'testers' for this exact purpose. This is quite different from the UL (and manufacturer) position on the newer AFCI's, where the test button is the only true 'test.' The reasons for the distinction are a topic for another thread.

Yet, for complete disclosure, I must point out that the plug-in testers will not work in this situation .... and you are limited to using the test button. The plug-in testers require a ground path, and 2-wire houses have no such path. The test button on the device does not need that ground path in order to work- just as the GFCI does not need a ground wire to work.

Back to the OP ....

HUD has its' standards, and it's very possible that this house will NEVER meet their standards. The owner needs to know this; odds are he already does, and is looking for a way to cheat, to fool the HUD inspector. I, for one, will not discuss how to cheat. Here's why I think the house is a lost cause:

If the house is wired with 2-wire Romex, then there is no ground path, and you need GFCI protection in order to use 3-prong receptacles. Contrary to what another poster said, there's no limit to the number of receptacles on a GFCI (though nuisance trips can become a problem).

OK, so just put in GFCI breakers. Not so fast; odds are that the house either has a fusebox, or an obsolete panel for which GFCI breakers are not available. That means a service change is needed.

It's also very likely that the place was wired with multi-wire branch circuits (where two circuits share a neutral), which doubles your breaker cost- $120 for a single 2-pole breaker, rather than $60 for a pair of 1-pole breakers.

 

[Volta]

A lot of house in that era were wired thru the ceiling fixture boxes so GFCI breakers are the logical option. Otherwise you are trying to jamb GFCI receps in a LOT of small boxes.

Take a close look. There may be an unused ground wire in the old romex.

But, probably undersized, That might have worked in the '60s, but not these days. Even when connected we should be labeling them "no equipment ground".

It has always been legal to replace 2 prong with 2 prong. It is call ex post facto. Last time I checked the Constitution trumps the NEC or any building code.

Last time I checked, the Constitution was silent on 2-wire receptacles...

Correct me if I am wrong. Is testing (button) at the device the only approved method?

UL now has a listing for portable GFCI testers. As we know though, you'd need a grounded grounding adapter on it to demonstrate a functioning GFCI to anyone that would understand in these situations.

 

[renosteinke]

JX is correct on the 'ex post facto' idea .... though the NEC has whittled away at it a bit.

The NEC requires -IF you replace a any receptacle in a place that now requires GFCI protection (a bathroom, for example), that the replacement be GFCI protected. A simple 'like for like' replacement won't comply. It's a mighty fine line.

More relevant is that the HUD relationship is not one of "AHJ," but as that of a private party making a contract. They're simply saying 'we won't spend our money unless you meet our desires.' This is no different from someone insisting on a new carpet or a different color paint job.

I've worked a few places where the landlord desired "Section 8" tenants because of HUD's reliability in paying the rent. Many are the HUD requirements, and it's common for the "Section 8" tenants to have better housing than their immediate neighbors, who are paying their own rent.

These days, HUD is focused very heavily on the lead paint issue (do you have YOUR certifications?), and that's another reason why I believe the house may be a lost cause, as far as HUD is concerned. It's a bit beyond the scope of this forum, but we need to be able to see the 'big picture.'

 

[Volta]

There is no retroactive criminalization occurring. We are talking about installing a device-type that is generally not permited.

Simply comparing a newer regulation to requirements from fifty years ago doesn't have anything to do with retroactive acts.

The NEC doesn't make us replace the two-wire devices.

 

[Fulthrotl]

I've worked a few places where the landlord desired "Section 8" tenants because of HUD's reliability in paying the rent. Many are the HUD requirements, and it's common for the "Section 8" tenants to have better housing than their immediate neighbors, who are paying their own rent.

i'm about to break out in a rash here.....

... so my tax money gets spent to subsidize someone so they can live in a
better quality residence than i get, and i'm paying my own way........ and they aren't....

*carefully steps away from the keyboard, and gets ready to go to work,
lest he start a totally off topic rant.....*

... rant successfully contained, more or less.......

 

[kwired]

i'm about to break out in a rash here.....

... so my tax money gets spent to subsidize someone so they can live in a
better quality residence than i get, and i'm paying my own way........ and they aren't....

*carefully steps away from the keyboard, and gets ready to go to work,
lest he start a totally off topic rant.....*

... rant successfully contained, more or less.......

Good morning, I see you finally woke up:lol:

I will say no more or it will turn political in a hurry, would be a good way to get an old thread closed though.

 

[bradleyelectric]

It has always been legal to replace 2 prong with 2 prong. It is call ex post facto. Last time I checked the Constitution trumps the NEC or any building code.

They trump the constitution with all kinds of things these days. Just wanting to point out that you can't rely on the constitution to help install or run your business.