Now that it is 2014 - replacement outlets AFCI

[K8MHZ]

Question:

How would you replace a two wire receptacle in a bedroom that has a fuse box type service?

I doubt the AFCI's come in two wire.

You can't just change out a breaker to be able to use the three wire AFCI receptacle on a two wire circuit.

 

[GoldDigger]

I guess you could replace one of the upstream receptacles with a dead front GFCI so that it is no longer an outlet and then put an AFCI receptacle where you actually need it?
Or wait for the combination receptacle to come out?
Or just dig a two wire receptacle off the back of a shelf and "age" it?

Tapatalk!

 

[JDBrown]

Question:

How would you replace a two wire receptacle in a bedroom that has a fuse box type service?

I doubt the AFCI's come in two wire.

You can't just change out a breaker to be able to use the three wire AFCI receptacle on a two wire circuit.

Cut in an old work box next to the existing box, and install a dead front GFCI in the existing box feeding a tamper-resistant AFCI receptacle in the new box. Then mark the AFCI receptacle "GFCI Protected - No Equipment Ground" and you're done. See? It's easy! :slaphead:

Gotta love the way they can take a simple maintenance repair like replacing a receptacle with a cracked face or loose contacts, and turn it into a huge deal.

Here's a question for you: How many people will call an Electrician to replace a broken/worn out receptacle, find out he's going to have to do something like what I suggested above, and say, "Never mind"? How many of those people will run down to Home Depot and just put in a NEMA 5-15 receptacle (with no ground connection) themselves? How many will continue to use a damaged or worn out receptacle to avoid the hassle and expense of adding an AFCI?

It seems to me that this rule gives people an incentive to do non-permitted/non-inspected work themselves, or continue using a damaged receptacle that might be a hazard, rather than hiring an Electrician to do the replacement for them. Any way you slice it, I see this rule as a great big FAIL. But what do I know? I'm just a dumb Engineer.

 

[K8MHZ]

Cut in an old work box next to the existing box, and install a dead front GFCI in the existing box feeding a tamper-resistant AFCI receptacle in the new box. Then mark the AFCI receptacle "GFCI Protected - No Equipment Ground" and you're done. See? It's easy! :slaphead:

Gotta love the way they can take a simple maintenance repair like replacing a receptacle with a cracked face or loose contacts, and turn it into a huge deal.

Here's a question for you: How many people will call an Electrician to replace a broken/worn out receptacle, find out he's going to have to do something like what I suggested above, and say, "Never mind"? How many of those people will run down to Home Depot and just put in a NEMA 5-15 receptacle (with no ground connection) themselves? How many will continue to use a damaged or worn out receptacle to avoid the hassle and expense of adding an AFCI?

It seems to me that this rule gives people an incentive to do non-permitted/non-inspected work themselves, or continue using a damaged receptacle that might be a hazard, rather than hiring an Electrician to do the replacement for them. Any way you slice it, I see this rule as a great big FAIL. But what do I know? I'm just a dumb Engineer.

Well, I'm just a dumb electrician and I agree with you.

 

[Sierrasparky]

So how many of you install GFCI' in Baths and kitchens when doing a repair or replacement of regular recepts.
I would bet most of you.

 

[fmtjfw]

We're on 08 till heaven knows when here in PA, but out of curiosity, if you replace an outlet with a AFI outlet, do you have to wire it to protect downstream outlets as well? Do any existing wiring issues become your problem now that you replace a receptacle? If so, when are we gonna organize a sit-in or a march on Washington?

Wrong city, try Quincy, MA.

By the way how did the Whiskey Rebellion turn out?

 

[jxofaltrds]

I guess you could replace one of the upstream receptacles with a dead front GFCI so that it is no longer an outlet and then put an AFCI receptacle where you actually need it?
Or wait for the combination receptacle to come out?
Or just dig a two wire receptacle off the back of a shelf and "age" it?

Tapatalk!

Cut in an old work box next to the existing box, and install a dead front GFCI in the existing box feeding a tamper-resistant AFCI receptacle in the new box. Then mark the AFCI receptacle "GFCI Protected - No Equipment Ground" and you're done. See? It's easy! :slaphead:

Gotta love the way they can take a simple maintenance repair like replacing a receptacle with a cracked face or loose contacts, and turn it into a huge deal.

Here's a question for you: How many people will call an Electrician to replace a broken/worn out receptacle, find out he's going to have to do something like what I suggested above, and say, "Never mind"? How many of those people will run down to Home Depot and just put in a NEMA 5-15 receptacle (with no ground connection) themselves? How many will continue to use a damaged or worn out receptacle to avoid the hassle and expense of adding an AFCI?

It seems to me that this rule gives people an incentive to do non-permitted/non-inspected work themselves, or continue using a damaged receptacle that might be a hazard, rather than hiring an Electrician to do the replacement for them. Any way you slice it, I see this rule as a great big FAIL. But what do I know? I'm just a dumb Engineer.

You can not use a blank face you have to use a:

Receptacle. A receptacle is a contact device installed at the
outlet for the connection of an attachment plug.

 

[PetrosA]

Wrong city, try Quincy, MA.

By the way how did the Whiskey Rebellion turn out?

You think Quincy will send troops?

 

[K8MHZ]

You can not use a blank face you have to use a:

Receptacle. A receptacle is a contact device installed at the
outlet for the connection of an attachment plug.

Where does it say that?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Where does it say that?

I know where you are going:

(c) A non?grounding-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.

Personally I would allow it. But I play both sides (contractor/inspector) sometimes so we can discount (correct) an unreasonable inspector.

How would you rebut an inspector using this? I mean the inspector INSISTS that the picture represents their opinion. Is the picture like a handbook comment or is it what they truly believe should be installed.

Yes. Section 406.3(D)(3) of the 2008 National Electric Code permits a non-grounding type receptacle to be replaced with a grounding type receptacle without a grounding connection. However, the grounding receptacle must be GFCI-protected. The diagram below shows a typical non-grounding (2-prong) receptacle replaced with a GFCI. The GFCI must be marked, No Equipment Ground. The GFCI can feed through to a grounding receptacle, which must be marked GFCI Protected. No Equipment Ground. For increased electrical safety, Leviton strongly recommends installing a GFCI in every non-grounding circuit. A ground wire provides protection by offering a parallel path back to ground for any fault current. Without a ground wire, fault current will try and take other paths to ground and a GFCI will trip and cut power under these hazardous conditions. Ground faults are more likely to occur in non-grounding circuits and a GFCI will help protect family members from this potentially hazardous condition.

 

[Little Bill]

I know where you are going:

(c) A non?grounding-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.

Personally I would allow it. But I play both sides (contractor/inspector) sometimes so we can discount (correct) an unreasonable inspector.

How would you rebut an inspector using this? I mean the inspector INSISTS that the picture represents their opinion. Is the picture like a handbook comment or is it what they truly believe should be installed.

Yes. Section 406.3(D)(3) of the 2008 National Electric Code permits a non-grounding type receptacle to be replaced with a grounding type receptacle without a grounding connection. However, the grounding receptacle must be GFCI-protected. The diagram below shows a typical non-grounding (2-prong) receptacle replaced with a GFCI. The GFCI must be marked, No Equipment Ground. The GFCI can feed through to a grounding receptacle, which must be marked GFCI Protected. No Equipment Ground. For increased electrical safety, Leviton strongly recommends installing a GFCI in every non-grounding circuit. A ground wire provides protection by offering a parallel path back to ground for any fault current. Without a ground wire, fault current will try and take other paths to ground and a GFCI will trip and cut power under these hazardous conditions. Ground faults are more likely to occur in non-grounding circuits and a GFCI will help protect family members from this potentially hazardous condition.

View attachment 9775

That drawing is not correct. You can replace the non-grounded receptacle with a GFCI and protect downstream 3-prong/wire receptacles, but you can't run an EGC to the downstream receps.
I think the reason is someone later on might open up that receptacle and think it is a grounded circuit. Also the reason for the little "stickers".

 

[jxofaltrds]

That drawing is not correct. You can replace the non-grounded receptacle with a GFCI and protect downstream 3-prong/wire receptacles, but you can't run an EGC to the downstream receps.
I think the reason is someone later on might open up that receptacle and think it is a grounded circuit. Also the reason for the little "stickers".

You may have done, like I do quite often, is made a mistake when posting.

Please look at the "drawing" again and if it is incorrect I'm sure that our host will change it.

 

[K8MHZ]

You may have done, like I do quite often, is made a mistake when posting.

Please look at the "drawing" again and if it is incorrect I'm sure that our host will change it.

It's probably not a conductor at the grounding terminals, it looks like arrows pointing to them showing that there is no conductor in place.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I know where you are going:

(c) A non?grounding-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.

Personally I would allow it. But I play both sides (contractor/inspector) sometimes so we can discount (correct) an unreasonable inspector.

How would you rebut an inspector using this? I mean the inspector INSISTS that the picture represents their opinion. Is the picture like a handbook comment or is it what they truly believe should be installed.

Yes. Section 406.3(D)(3) of the 2008 National Electric Code permits a non-grounding type receptacle to be replaced with a grounding type receptacle without a grounding connection. However, the grounding receptacle must be GFCI-protected. The diagram below shows a typical non-grounding (2-prong) receptacle replaced with a GFCI. The GFCI must be marked, No Equipment Ground. The GFCI can feed through to a grounding receptacle, which must be marked GFCI Protected. No Equipment Ground. For increased electrical safety, Leviton strongly recommends installing a GFCI in every non-grounding circuit. A ground wire provides protection by offering a parallel path back to ground for any fault current. Without a ground wire, fault current will try and take other paths to ground and a GFCI will trip and cut power under these hazardous conditions. Ground faults are more likely to occur in non-grounding circuits and a GFCI will help protect family members from this potentially hazardous condition.

View attachment 9775

No bites?

(c) A non?grounding-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 groundfault
circuit interrupter shall be marked ?GFCI Protected?
and ?No Equipment Ground.? An equipment grounding
conductor shall not be connected between the groundingtype
receptacles.

Says to me either by a GFCI breaker or a GFCI receptacle.

If you add a blank GFCI ahead of the receptacle being replaced this kicks in:

382.10 Uses Permitted. Nonmetallic extensions shall be permitted
only in accordance with 382.10(A), (B), and (C).
(A) From an Existing Outlet. The extension shall be from
an existing outlet on a 15- or 20-ampere branch circuit. Where
a concealable nonmetallic extension originates from a non?
grounding-type receptacle, the installation shall comply with
250.130(C), 406.4(D)(2)(b), or 406.4(D)(2)(c).

You are adding. Correct?

 

[GoldDigger]

The previous device (blank face GFCI) is definitely GFCI protection and is arguably still at an outlet. So no problem there with then replacing the downstream outlet with a labelled 3-wire receptacle.
The only question I see remaining is whether you can remove the upstream receptacle and insert the blank face GFCI.
Or am I missing something? At that point the existing receptacle is not being replaced with another receptacle of any flavor.
Since the circuit to the downstream receptacle already exists, you are not extending anything.
Now if you are only discussing adding a new box for a blank face GFCI next to an existing receptacle, I do see a problem raised by that section, since you might be considered to be extending in that case.


Tapatalk!

 

[jxofaltrds]

The previous device (blank face GFCI) is definitely GFCI protection and is arguably still at an outlet. So no problem there with then replacing the downstream outlet with a labelled 3-wire receptacle.
The only question I see remaining is whether you can remove the upstream receptacle and insert the blank face GFCI.
Or am I missing something? At that point the existing receptacle is not being replaced with another receptacle of any flavor.
Since the circuit to the downstream receptacle already exists, you are not extending anything.
Now if you are only discussing adding a new box for a blank face GFCI next to an existing receptacle, I do see a problem raised by that section, since you might be considered to be extending in that case.


Tapatalk!

Bingo!

 

[jxofaltrds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekl_t-Q2ahQ

 

[Little Bill]

You may have done, like I do quite often, is made a mistake when posting.

Please look at the "drawing" again and if it is incorrect I'm sure that our host will change it.

I didn't make a mistake. I said what I meant according to what I saw. They might not have meant for the drawing to look like the EGC was run between boxes, but it sure looks like it from the small drawing you posted.

Better thing to have drawn would have just been a small arrow pointing to each EGC terminal with a disclaimer that no EGC is connected to either terminal.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Boy have we really digressed!