406.2(D)(2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fmtjfw

Senior Member
Location
Fairmont, WV, USA
Section/Paragraph: 406.4(D)(2)

Added Text

406.4 General Installation Requirements.
....
(D) Replacements.
....
(2) Non?Grounding-Type Receptacles.
Where attachment to an equipment grounding conductor does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with (D)(2)(a), (D)(2)(b), or (D)(2)(c). Receptacles wired according to (D)(2)(b) and (D)(2)(c) shall not be required to meet the provision of the first paragraph of 250.114

Substantiation:

The combination of 250.114 and 406.4(D)(2)(b) and (c) is sometimes interpreted to mean that equipment "requiring" connection to a grounding conductor can not utilize receptacles installed under the 406.4 provisions mentioned above. Due to copyright issues (I am not certain of the "fair use" exemption can apply to a whole forum discussion, I have not included text by others from an public online discussion proposing this aberrant interpretation. The contents of this public online forum are preserved for years and this is a link to the discussion Thread: GFCI Receptacle For Appliance With 3 - Prong Cord. See especially postings #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #15.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Code allows the installation of three prong grounding-type receptacles without a connection to the grounding connection and not expect three pronged plugs to be plugged into it?

Does anyone seriously believe that appliances, luminaires, and such that have three pronged plugs exist that do not "require grounding"?

It is clear to me that the requirement for GFCI protection of such ungrounded "grounding" receptacles has the intent of having the GFCI protection substitute for grounding. Otherwise the only reason for this scheme is to allow you to plug in a three wire extension cord or plug strip which would then be allowed to only be used by 2 prong plugs.

I believe the "No Equipment Ground" label is for those rare instances when an equipment ground is required for proper functioning of a device or interconnected devices. The only device that comes to mind is the plugin GFCI tester that needs a grounding conductor to trip the testee which, of course, is not a listed means of testing GFCIs.

insert delete
 
iwire said:
I do not believe that CMP-18 can change requirements of CMP-5. I may be mistaken.
Click to expand...

450.5 Grounding Autotransformers.
Grounding autotransformers covered in this section are zigzag or T-connected transformers connected to 3-phase, 3-wire ungrounded systems for the purpose of creating a 3-phase, 4-wire distribution system or providing a neutral point for grounding purposes. Such transformers shall have a continuous per-phase current rating and a continuous neutral current rating. Zigzag-connected transformers shall not be installed on the load side of any system grounding connection, including those made in accordance with 250.24(B), 250.30(A)(1), or 250.32(B), Exception No. 1.

Maybe this is a counter example which demonstrates that 450.5 does alter requirements in 240?
 
iwire said:
That is not what I was saying, go back and read again.
Click to expand...

I had suggested that if the CMP for 250 would not change their rule in 250.114; then that the CMP for 406 could override a rule in 250 for a specific instance in 406.

Perhaps if the two articles continue to contradict each other the TCC could broker a solution.

I apparently am dense, what I thought you said was that the CMP in charge of 406 could not change rules in 240.
I have no disagreement with that.

I suggested that the CMP in charge of 450 did override rules in 240 for items in 450.
 
There are a lot of issues in Chapters 1-4 in that there is no provision that permits a rule in Chapters 1-4 to be modified by another rule in Chapters 1-4, yet there are a number of cases where the rules do exactly that.
 
fmtjfw said:
I apparently am dense, what I thought you said was that the CMP in charge of 406 could not change rules in 240.
I have no disagreement with that.

I suggested that the CMP in charge of 450 did override rules in 240 for items in 450.
Click to expand...

My suggestion is that it takes a committee to do what you looking for. The process would be a mess if each CMP could change rules of other CMPs.
 
iwire said:
My suggestion is that it takes a committee to do what you looking for. The process would be a mess if each CMP could change rules of other CMPs.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the staff and Technical Co-ordinating Committee are supposed to do?

I'm not doing a general survey to find such problems, but I do try to identify those I come across.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top