Non-Grounding Type Receptacle Replacement - 406.4(D)(2)(c)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gsurace

Member
Location
Brunswick, OH
Occupation
Electrical Contractor & CSA Certification Engineer
Article 406.4(D)(2)(c) allows non-grounding type receptacles to be replaced with grounding type if supplied from a GFCI, breaker OR receptacle is my assumption as it does not state. An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type receptacles as well.

The question I have is whether or not this practice is allowed where GFCI protection is actually required (kitchen) versus doing it in a family room or similar location. Essentially, I have a kitchen which is currently wired with 2 wire NM cable. Unfortunately, the framing on the exterior walls consists of furring strips on block walls with very shallow boxes. Not a location where I can fish new wires, replace the existing non-grounding receptacles individually with GFCI receptacles or even replace the existing boxes with deeper ones to accommodate GFCIs. My thought was to locate the hot and neutral for the receptacles in question and supply from a GFCI breaker and then replace the receptacles with grounding type.

Am I missing something or is this simple, yes, it's allowed? I rarely utilize this article.
 
I agree with Jumper, with one caution. There are individual pieces of equipment, such as a refrigerator or microwave, where the manufacturer's instructions for the specific unit only instruct to supply power from a branch circuit with an equipment grounding conductor. The various inspectors in my area tend to consider the absence of the equipment grounding conductor, even with the GFCI protection, to run afoul of 110.3(B).
 
Good catch on the manufactures instructions, 110.3(B). Although I didn't think of that directly, I was more comfortable using this method because I can get the microwave, refrigerator, stove, dishwasher and disposal all on new circuits. Truly, it would only be done on the counter top receptacles.
 
al hildenbrand said:
I agree with Jumper, with one caution. There are individual pieces of equipment, such as a refrigerator or microwave, where the manufacturer's instructions for the specific unit only instruct to supply power from a branch circuit with an equipment grounding conductor. The various inspectors in my area tend to consider the absence of the equipment grounding conductor, even with the GFCI protection, to run afoul of 110.3(B).
Click to expand...

There is also 250.114 which IMO makes 406.4(D) all but worthless.

It's too long to post but basically requires an EGC for most appliances.
 
Recall the goal of 406.4 is non-grounding receptacle replacement. After reviewing 250.114, there still leaves plenty of situations where 406.4 is valid such as the one I have (all the equipment listed in 250.114 will be on new circuits), bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, etc.. It's a pretty specific list of cord connected equipment that must have metal components connected to the equipment grounding conductor.
 
gsurace said:
Recall the goal of 406.4 is non-grounding receptacle replacement. After reviewing 250.114, there still leaves plenty of situations where 406.4 is valid such as the one I have (all the equipment listed in 250.114 will be on new circuits), bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, etc.. It's a pretty specific list of cord connected equipment that must have metal components connected to the equipment grounding conductor.
Click to expand...

To each their own, from my perspective that is a lot of equipment.

For instance.

b. Clothes-washing, clothes-drying, dish-washing machines; kitchen waste disposers; information technology equipment; sump pumps and electrical aquarium equipment
Click to expand...

If you look at the UL whitebook information technology equipment covers a huge amount of items you would not expect.
 
I don't have the white book handy but here are some items that are IT equipment. I made bold some items that could be in a home office.

calculators, copying machines, dictation equipment, document shredding machines, duplicators, erasers, micrographic office equipment, motor-operated files, paper trimmers (punchers, cutting machines, separators), paper jogging machines, pencil sharpeners, staplers, typewriters
Click to expand...

More here http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn=60950-1.html
 
When it comes to the application of GFI protected two wire ungrounded wiring methods with grounding type receptacles, the responsibility, past inspection of your work, for the correct use of the wiring falls upon the occupant.

That utilization equipment actually present at the time of inspection determines whether there is a violation, when one is skirting close to the minimum standard of the NEC. In the less well appointed kitchens that I occasionally work with, (think rental housing), most appliances loose on counters are simple two wire, non-grounding cord and plug units. The refrigerator, most gas ranges, and microwaves are the most common concerns (occasionally the disposal and/or dishwasher). Its been a long time since I've seen a two wire non-grounding cord and plug on a refir, most of those have simply worn out and been replaced with younger units. Gas ranges tend to live longer, if one is inclined to keep the old unit, so, I occasionally run into original two wire non-grounding original cord and plugs on them.

But microwaves don't stand a chance. If there is a microwave present on the counter, at the time of inspection, or if there is a dedicated microwave location built into the cabinetry, then there is the requirement for the actual equipment grounding conductor to be present.

In residential, IT equipment tends to be two wire non-grounding, with exceptions for cable and satellite converters, tower and some laptop computers.
 
Al, I agree with you about direct responsibility being left to the untrained, unknowing occupant. To me that is bad code writing

But beyond that, if I find out work I did killed someone I doubt I would ever be the same. I am a huge fan of GFCIs but I am against counting on them as the only protection.
 
iwire said:
Al, I agree with you about direct responsibility being left to the untrained, unknowing occupant. To me that is bad code writing

But beyond that, if I find out work I did killed someone I doubt I would ever be the same. I am a huge fan of GFCIs but I am against counting on them as the only protection.
Click to expand...
And I agree with your point, ultimately, when my personal ethics and sense of good stewardship can be indulged in by diplomatically leading the client to opt for more than the knife's edge minimum standard of the NEC.

But, when the client is reluctant to be "safer" than the minimum NEC standard, I, personally, as business owner/operator, have the discretion to not do the work at all.

It's an interesting ethical question.
 
gsurace said:
Article 406.4(D)(2)(c) allows non-grounding type receptacles to be replaced with grounding type if supplied from a GFCI, breaker OR receptacle is my assumption as it does not state. An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding type receptacles as well.

The question I have is whether or not this practice is allowed where GFCI protection is actually required (kitchen) versus doing it in a family room or similar location. Essentially, I have a kitchen which is currently wired with 2 wire NM cable. Unfortunately, the framing on the exterior walls consists of furring strips on block walls with very shallow boxes. Not a location where I can fish new wires, replace the existing non-grounding receptacles individually with GFCI receptacles or even replace the existing boxes with deeper ones to accommodate GFCIs. My thought was to locate the hot and neutral for the receptacles in question and supply from a GFCI breaker and then replace the receptacles with grounding type.

Am I missing something or is this simple, yes, it's allowed? I rarely utilize this article.
Click to expand...

You can used a Wiremold surface mount box extension over an existing shallow box to give you the depth required for a GFCI receptacle.
 
A related question on a side note: In areas, such as kitchens, where there are usually multiple GFI-protected receptacles downstream of one GFI receptacle, are the ones downstream required to have a sticker "GFCI PROTECTED" on the faceplate? Or is this only for the ones that do not have an EGC within the box?

If required for all GFI-protected receptacles, what is the Code reference for such? I know that 406.3(D)(3) requires the stickers only in the situations where no EGC is present.
 
jeff48356 said:
. . . are the ones downstream required to have a sticker "GFCI PROTECTED" on the faceplate? Or is this only for the ones that do not have an EGC within the box?
Click to expand...
No and yes, in that order. Kitchen countertop receptacles need GFCI protection, but we don't have to announce the fact that they are. On the other hand, not having an EGC and using a GFCI to offer some mitigation of that missing safety feature is worth announcing (i.e., posting what is essentially a warning).

 
jumper said:
Seems reasonable to me, but code reference would you use? Too lazy to search myself right now.
Click to expand...


It is my opinion, but I could not bring myself to add ungrounded metallic Wiremold extensions to a system, which is why it was prefaced w/"IMHO".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top