2014 406.4(D)(4) Replacement Receptacles

[iwire]

And, even if you could document CMP intent, the intent, if different from the language in the published and adopted-into-law NEC wins in court, hands down.

Can you cite a case?

 

[Sierrasparky]

I don't see the issue with saying " Elsewhere" in the code.
From the CA electrical code

(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a
receptacl outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that
requires arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified
el ewhcre in this Cod, a rcplaccm nl receptacle at Ihis
outlet hall be one of the folio ing
(1) a listed outlet branch _circuit type arc-fault circuit
interupter receplacle
2013 California Electrical Code
(2) A receptacl prolected by a listed outlet branch
circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter type
receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type
arc-fault circuit intemlpter type circuit breaker
This requirement becomes effective January I. 2014.
(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper reistant receptacles shall be provided where replacements
are made at receptacle outlet that are required to be
tamper-resistant elsewhere in this Code.
(6) Weather-Resistant Receptacles. Weather-resistant
fec 'ptaclcs hall be provided where replacements are
made at receptacle outlets that arc required to be 0
protected elsewhere in this Code



OK so where is the confusion. SAME WORDING FOR: Wet locations, AFCI , TAMPER.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Can you cite a case?

Well, no. And I suppose a really good lawyer or team of lawyers can do just about anything. . .

 

[Sierrasparky]

Can you cite a case?

Well, no. And I suppose a really good lawyer or team of lawyers can do just about anything. . .

How can you assure me? Document it. I see absolutely no "intent" being adopted into enforceable ordinance. . . only the NEC itself.

And, even if you could document CMP intent, the intent, if different from the language in the published and adopted-into-law NEC wins in court, hands down.

I do know that in Calif law Intent of the making of the law does come into play in a dispute or legality. The lawmakers use this instead of making a law worded correctly like they drink water.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I don't see the issue with saying " Elsewhere" in the code.
From the CA electrical code

(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a
receptacl outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that
requires arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified
el ewhcre in this Cod, a rcplaccm nl receptacle at Ihis
outlet hall be one of the folio ing
(1) a listed outlet branch _circuit type arc-fault circuit
interupter receplacle
2013 California Electrical Code
(2) A receptacl prolected by a listed outlet branch
circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter type
receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type
arc-fault circuit intemlpter type circuit breaker
This requirement becomes effective January I. 2014.
(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper reistant receptacles shall be provided where replacements
are made at receptacle outlet that are required to be
tamper-resistant elsewhere in this Code.
(6) Weather-Resistant Receptacles. Weather-resistant
fec 'ptaclcs hall be provided where replacements are
made at receptacle outlets that arc required to be 0
protected elsewhere in this Code



OK so where is the confusion. SAME WORDING FOR: Wet locations, AFCI , TAMPER.

OK. Take TAMPER, as a case in point. When you come to an existing, legal, two-wire nongrounding-type duplex receptacle on the wall of a kitchen for, say, a wall hung kitchen clock, do you then ignore the 406.4(D)(5) "elsewhere in this Code" and pretend that 406.12 Exception (4) doesn't exist?

You are telling me that because of your certainty of CMP intent that Tamper-Resistant devices MUST be installed inplace of an existing nongrounding-type receptacle. Yet the Code clearly says I can replace a nongrounding-type with a nongrounding-type.

So do you not use 406.12 Exception (4)?

(I am deliberately picking this hypothetical to side step the GFCI and / or AFCI complication while considering only TR.)

 

[Sierrasparky]

OK. Take TAMPER, as a case in point. When you come to an existing, legal, two-wire nongrounding-type duplex receptacle on the wall of a kitchen for, say, a wall hung kitchen clock, do you then ignore the 406.4(D)(5) "elsewhere in this Code" and pretend that 406.12 Exception (4) doesn't exist?

You are telling me that because of your certainty of CMP intent that Tamper-Resistant devices MUST be installed inplace of an existing nongrounding-type receptacle. Yet the Code clearly says I can replace a nongrounding-type with a nongrounding-type.

So do you not use 406.12 Exception (4)?

(I am deliberately picking this hypothetical to side step the GFCI and / or AFCI complication while considering only TR.)

Good point however , Most if not all the homes or condo's I work on have a grounding connection. So in my case I will need to installl the Tamper.

Just because of a exception out there in the field may present a issue does not mean the code section as a whole is invalid. I think there is a section in the administration section of the Calif code that addresses these issues. Basically if one section of the code is deemed invalid it does not affect the other portion. Something to that affect.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Most if not all the homes or condo's I work on have a grounding connection.

OK. Now that is important. The points I am making about 406.4(D) and 210.12 are not concerned with the grounding wiring methods that you experience in most of your work. For grounding wiring methods, I agree with you about replacements.

--BUT--

Replacements in dwellings built in the first six decades of the 1900s, that is, 1900 through to the local adoption of the 1962 NEC (which might even stretch 70 years), that were wired with ungrounded method(s), that's another story. I routinely work in such old dwellings, lots of them, and it is rare that the original wiring is completely retired. -- The new Exception to 210.12(B) in the 2014 NEC is helping with old ungrounded wiring methods that are still in service, just like 406.12 Exception (4) helps with TR when manufacturers refuse to make a TR nongrounding-type 125 V 15 Amp straight blade receptacle.

Understanding how the Exceptions apply doesn't make what you do on grounding wiring methods and their receptacle replacements wrong. Far from it.

And, as for 210.12(B)(2) and the Eaton and Leviton installation instructions, that's also another story altogether (and a thread hijack which I will try to refrain from). The effect of Eaton and Leviton's instructions for the OBC AFCI is to write new more restrictive Code.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I am going to give it to you this way.

I see many a homes and Condos get re piped and plumbed, they get new windows all of which will not burn down a house. The customers are willing to part with the money. But say REWIRE ---- That is like the plague.
Then we have folks like yourself that are trying to keep the inventory of old decreped wiring intact. At some point those places need to be upgraded. Look I am not a fan of AFCI's but I would not be such a advocate to prohibit their use.

At least in CA there are provisions in the code that deal with these particular problems and issues.

Just as the cost per unit was to drop the CMP came up with a new version of the AFCI. What happend the price did not go down.

I think the solution should have been GFCI breakers.

All I can say is WT????

 

[al hildenbrand]

Then we have folks like yourself that are trying to keep the inventory of old decreped wiring intact.

My experience is that old INTACT wiring is defined as decrepit by those that don't like it, and many times don't understand it.

Who looses? Not me. The homeowner is suddenly smacked with huge rewire bills, not me. And for what? The old system was electrically sound and intact, and now they have had to pay for it to be removed to be replaced by a new electrically sound and intact system.

 

[Sierrasparky]

My experience is that old INTACT wiring is defined as decrepit by those that don't like it, and many times don't understand it.

Who looses? Not me. The homeowner is suddenly smacked with huge rewire bills, not me. And for what? The old system was electrically sound and intact, and now they have had to pay for it to be removed to be replaced by a new electrically sound and intact system.

Back in the day I used to think Knob and tube was fine and as long as was properly fused it was ok. I would find the wire fully intact in most instances where it was not overloaded.
But then you take into consideration light fixtures that cause too much heat and break down the isulation. You have high measurable EMF because of the spacing of hots and nuetrals in the wall. Then there is the lack of a grounding conductor. Too small a box for some dimmers or GFCI, No nuetral for a dimmer , Lack of most of which are reason enough to perform a re-wire. I am not saying that when you replace a outlet that is grounds for a re-wire. As I said here in CA there is a provision in the code that allows for some discretion.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Back in the day I used to think Knob and tube was fine and as long as was properly fused it was ok. I would find the wire fully intact in most instances where it was not overloaded.

Yes.

But then you take into consideration light fixtures that cause too much heat and break down the isulation.

There is a long history here of box installation for all non-K&T luminaires. Since 1985, attention to the temperature requirements of modern luminaires have been adhered to.

You have high measurable EMF because of the spacing of hots and nuetrals in the wall.

As politically correct, and health conscious as that is, it is a non-NEC issue. The grounded service conductor and the main bonding jumper create a more persistent EMF problem.

Then there is the lack of a grounding conductor.

Good minds, here, will argue cogently that adding an equipment grounding conductor increases hazard in wood framed houses.

Too small a box for some dimmers or GFCI, No nuetral for a dimmer

Change the box out for the GFCI and use a dimmer that doesn't require a neutral.

Lack of most of which are reason enough to perform a re-wire.

Maybe. But most of the time, the client is only needing a few maintenance things done, and the cost of returning and exchanging the dimmer and accepting that the replacement receptacles are two blade non grounding-type is more than acceptable to their pocket books.

I am not saying that when you replace a outlet that is grounds for a re-wire. As I said here in CA there is a provision in the code that allows for some discretion.

I agree. (And I substitute 2014 NEC in place of "here in CA".) Especially when trying to apply 406.4(D)(4) to existing, remaining, INTACT, electrically-sound, ungrounded wiring methods in well maintained Early 1900s housing stock.

 

[shortcircuit2]

And, as for 210.12(B)(2) and the Eaton and Leviton installation instructions, that's also another story altogether (and a thread hijack which I will try to refrain from). The effect of Eaton and Leviton's instructions for the OBC AFCI is to write new more restrictive Code.

We don't need another thread to discuss this one... IMO the instructions with the product must be followed. 110.3(B)

 

[Sierrasparky]

As politically correct, and health conscious as that is, it is a non-NEC issue. The grounded service conductor and the main bonding jumper create a more persistent EMF problem.


Good minds, here, will argue cogently that adding an equipment grounding conductor increases hazard in wood framed houses.

What kind of substatiation do you have for such a comment?

Please tell me how a Switch leg with no ground is going to trip a breaker when the conductor is damaged and touching metal piping or something similar.

Same thing with a 220v device that is ungrounded. Tell me what happens when one leg touches the metal of the device.

It will never trip the breaker but the metal will be live.

 

[GoldDigger]

What kind of substatiation do you have for such a comment?

Please tell me how a Switch leg with no ground is going to trip a breaker when the conductor is damaged and touching metal piping or something similar.

Same thing with a 220v device that is ungrounded. Tell me what happens when one leg touches the metal of the device.

It will never trip the breaker but the metal will be live.

I think that the argument must be that the metal will be live but that there will not be any grounded surface for the occupant to touch inside the wood frame house, so no shock risk.
That argument fails if there is any grounded piping, concrete, bare earth or other effective ground in the house near the energized metal.

 

[iwire]

Its threads like this that make me very happy I have still not had to install any kind of AFCI.

 

[al hildenbrand]

As politically correct, and health conscious as that is, it is a non-NEC issue. The grounded service conductor and the main bonding jumper create a more persistent EMF problem.

Good minds, here, will argue cogently that adding an equipment grounding conductor increases hazard in wood framed houses.

What kind of substatiation do you have for such a comment?

First of all, those are two different answers to two different situations.

Taking EMF first, the NEC forces us to combine the equipment grounding conductor and the neutral at the main bonding jumper. The grounding electrode system is also added at this point deliberately creating multiple current paths for the Premises Wiring (System) unbalance current to return to the secondary of the power company transformer -- AND -- at the same time provides paths for the neighbor's unbalance currents as well as the Power Company's primary distribution unbalance currents. You can shut off the service disconnect and even pull the electric meter from its socket and there will still be EMF in the dwelling because of the grounded service conductor and the main bonding jumper.

You can turn off a K&T branch circuit, and, unless it is miswired, or cross-neutralled, the EMF from it will disappear. For that matter, you can turn off the light switch and the EMF goes away. The Power Company unbalance currents can't be turned off. Hence, the Power Company unbalance and the Home unbalance currents splitting into multiple paths at the main bonding jumper results in a more persistent EMF.

Please tell me how a Switch leg with no ground is going to trip a breaker when the conductor is damaged and touching metal piping or something similar.

Same thing with a 220v device that is ungrounded. Tell me what happens when one leg touches the metal of the device.

It will never trip the breaker but the metal will be live.

I said "equipment grounding conductor" (EGC). Some how you are imagining floating metal from the absence of a branch circuit EGC. That makes little sense.

Most wood framed homes with K&T have wood floors and plaster on wood lathe. Water, sewer, heating and gas piping systems are all grounded in these structures (or else they are non-conductive, in which case, nothing is energized). Adding an equipment grounding conductor to the K&T (the point you made saying it was a deficiency) gives no help when, as you ask here, "a Switch leg. . .conductor is damaged and touching metal piping or something." The absence of the equipment grounding conductor doesn't impede the overcurrent protective device from operating and clearing the fault, "220v" or 125 Volts.

Most utilization equipment used in the common dwelling is connected to receptacle outlets by TWO wire non-grounding cords. . . window AC, TV converter box, microwave, refrigerator, desktop computers, etc., are exceptions, but entertainment devices, clocks, chargers, all types of lamps, fans, kitchen appliances, etc., are two wire non-grounding cords.

Where I work, there is a long history of incremental adding of new grounded wiring method receptacle outlets and branch circuits for window ACs, TV converter boxes, microwaves, refrigerators, etc., taking load off of legacy K&T general lighting circuits. I consider this quite rational and, when the work has been done by qualified persons, results in lightly loaded K&T general lighting circuits still in service 100 years later, circuits that will likely go another 100 years before the insulation is truly deteriorated.

A well maintained K&T installation in my part of the country has had the exposed K&T in the basement, and in the attic, cut back and replaced with other wiring methods because of the deteriorating effects of the humidity in the basement and the heat in the attic. The K&T in the rest of the dwelling is generally in a moderated temperature environment and is almost always kept dry.

 

[Sierrasparky]

when spoke of a switch leg not having a grounding conductor I mean just that. If you drive a nail through a wire or a the hot comes in contact with a metal box that is ungrounded the box becomes live. This can create a problem. If a grounded system the circuit will shunt and the breaker or fuse should trip. Same goes for a 220 device with no ground.


As far as EMF. With a proper grounding system EMF are not a problem I have used a Guass meter to check. When problems are found it is because of improper wiring. I had owned a old apartment house many years ago that had K&T. When we re-wired some units we greatly reduced the EMF in compared to the original units. We did one building at a time. Each building was identical to the others. There were 6 buildings. The EMF levels with K&T are far greater than that of a properly grounded system as such tested.

I don't buy your theory. Do anything wrong and you can expect the worst. I don't think we should have ungrounded systems because the plumber might open the ground or the utility looses the ground at the Xfmr.

 

[GoldDigger]

Because of the separation between the two current carrying conductors in any circuit, K&T will always produce a higher magnetic field than any modern wiring method.
And even without a grounded metallic raceway a hot, EGC, and neutral which are in very close proximity will also have a slightly lower electric field at a distance.

Tapatalk!

 

[Sierrasparky]

Because of the separation between the two current carrying conductors in any circuit, K&T will always produce a higher magnetic field than any modern wiring method.
And even without a grounded metallic raceway a hot and neutral which are in very close proximity will also have a slightly lower electric field at a distance.

Tapatalk!

Yes I knew that and know most do. I don't this theory of keeping K&T or ungrounded NM. This type of upgrade should not be ingnored.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Because of the separation between the two current carrying conductors in any circuit, K&T will always produce a higher magnetic field than any modern wiring method.

Don't overlook 300.3(B)(3). Any non ferrous wiring method can create EMF. And if one adheres to 300.20(B) one can create even more situations creating EMF in the occupancy.

And even without a grounded metallic raceway a hot, EGC, and neutral which are in very close proximity will also have a slightly lower electric field at a distance.

Again, 300.3(B)(3) does not require this. As I said, EMF is not a NEC issue, and the NEC required service configuration for conventional residential single phase 120 / 240 Volt services guarantees persistent EMF sources.