Another impossible code conflict.

[Strathead]

406.4(D)(2)
(b) A non—grounding—type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with a ground-fault circuit interrupter-type of receptacle(s). These receptacles or their cover plates shall be marked “No Equipment Ground.” An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter—type receptacle to any outlet supplied from the ground-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle.
(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. Where grounding-type receptacles are supplied through the ground-fault circuit interrupter, grounding-type receptacles or their cover plates shall be marked “GFCI Protected” and “No Equipment Ground,” visible after installation. An equipment grounding conductor shall not be connected between the grounding-type receptacles.

Informational Note No. 1: Some equipment or appliance manufacturers require that the branch circuit to the equipment or appliance includes an equipment grounding conductor.

Informational Note No. 2: See 250.114 for a list of a cord-and-
plug-connected equipment or appliances that require an equipment grounding conductor.
250.114 Equipment Connected by Cord and Plug. Exposed, normally non—current—carrying metal parts of cord-and—plug—connected equipment shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor under any of the following conditions:
c. Hand-held motor-operated tools, stationary and fixed motor-operated tools, and light industrial motor-operated tools
d. Motor-operated appliances of the following types:
hedge clippers, lawn mowers, snow blowers, and wet scrubbers

This is a partial list of the things listed in 250.114, and only select wording. Read the whole thing!!!

I surmise that is impossible to install a receptacle per 406.4(D)(2)(b) without potentially violating 250.114, so why do they even have 406. When someone gets electrocuted because a contractor complied with 406, a good lawyer should sue per 250.114.

 

[tortuga]

Yeah especially using 406.4(D)(2) at a workplace where employees are present is probably asking for trouble, I have seen that many times.
I worked on a clothing boutique that was in a converted old house with ungrounded NM years back and It would have been way too involved to rewire. I grounded the receptacles per 250.130(C), just ran a #6 bare across the basement and dropped #12 green from the receptacles.
There is a old post on here about a failed inspection where a guy installed a GFCI breaker to protect ungrounded 3-prong with a kitchen refrigerator on the circuit,
and I think some states perhaps Massachusetts? ban 250.130(C) so you can't just run a equipment ground, not sure why they ban it.

 

[Elect117]

What about in an office for in a home or non-residential? I don't think 250.114 covers personal computers and related equipment.

What about a charging station in an airport?

I don't think 250.114 is all encompassing where 406.4(D)(2) is.

 

[infinity]

I surmise that is impossible to install a receptacle per 406.4(D)(2)(b) without potentially violating 250.114, so why do they even have 406. When someone gets electrocuted because a contractor complied with 406, a good lawyer should sue per 250.114.

The code seems to indicate that if there is GFCI protection the likelihood of someone getting electrocuted is pretty low. I do agree that GFCI protection isn't a substitute for the connection to an EGC but it's better than no protection and someone plugging in a 2 to 3 prong adapter.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

I surmise that is impossible to install a receptacle per 406.4(D)(2)(b) without potentially violating 250.114, so why do they even have 406. When someone gets electrocuted because a contractor complied with 406, a good lawyer should sue per 250.114.

I tired to add an exception to 250.114 to permit the use of GFCI in lieu of the EGC. CMP 5 rejected it with a panel statement that said the listing standards for the equipment shown in 250.114 required that equipment be connected to an EGC.
250.114 is likely the reason that the GFCI protected receptacle that does not have an EGC must be marked "no equipment grounding conductor".

This is just a rule that is ignored in the field because no home owner and few electricians even know that 250.114 exists.

 

[tortuga]

What about in an office for in a home or non-residential? I don't think 250.114 covers personal computers and related equipment.

Oh yeah thats what got me on the clothing shop -> 250.114(4) 'In other than residential occupancies' has (b) which includes 'information technology equipment' a defined term in article 100.

What about a charging station in an airport?

un-grounded receptacles at an airport? Man that would have to be a really old airport!

 

[ramsy]

250.114 is likely the reason that the GFCI protected receptacle that does not have an EGC must be marked "no equipment grounding conductor".

Which would punt all liability to the end user, including for resi & commercial ungrounded extensions, per 382.10

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Which would punt all liability to the end user, including for resi & commercial ungrounded extensions, per 382.10

Not really...there is no expectation that the end user would know anything about this, but there is an expectation that the installing electrician would. Not sure I would make the installation without providing the EGC.

 

[Elect117]

Oh yeah thats what got me on the clothing shop -> 250.114(4) 'In other than residential occupancies' has (b) which includes 'information technology equipment' a defined term in article 100.


un-grounded receptacles at an airport? Man that would have to be a really old airport!

Fair. I missed that.

I was just trying to say that there has to be some kind of load that isn't included in 250.114, otherwise they should have that list of things. lol

Hmnmm lets see.

Space heaters?

Also, with reading it back, 250.114(4) is wild. "C" covers most hand held tools and "g" for that hammer or screwdriver in a wet location.

"
(4) In other than residential occupancies:

a. Refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners

b.Clothes-washing, clothes-drying, and dish-washing machines; information technology equipment; sump pumps; and electrical aquarium equipment

c.Hand-held motor-operated tools, stationary and fixed motor-operated tools, and light industrial motor-operated tools

d.Motor-operated appliances of the following types: hedge clippers, lawn mowers, snow blowers, and wet scrubbers

e. Portable handlamps

f. Cord-and-plug-connected appliances used in damp or wet locations or by persons standing on the ground, standing on metal floors, or working inside of metal tanks or boilers

g. Tools likely to be used in wet or conductive locations
"

 

[mikeames]

I surmise that is impossible to install a receptacle per 406.4(D)(2)(b) without potentially violating 250.114, so why do they even have 406. When someone gets electrocuted because a contractor complied with 406, a good lawyer should sue per 250.114.

Since we can't extend a circuit without an EGC, then this most likely only pertains to replacement situations. If the recep is being replaced because it's needed, then understanding the nature of the load is likely. Otherwise it probably won't be replaced. I don't have any problem with it. I could easily make the argument that dicing equipment (GFCI Exception) can fault against a metal gutter causing a hazard.

 

[ramsy]

Not really...there is no expectation that the end user would know anything about this, but there is an expectation that the installing electrician would.

Neither should any code expect end users to so, much less expect knowledge of test buttons showing premature failure of GFCI & AFCI devices.

There is legal precedent for unconscionable contracts, and reasonable person standards, but litigation is prohibitively expensive for end users bearing the burden of listed safety-device compliance.

 

[ramsy]

Not sure I would make the installation without providing the EGC.

If remodel wiring is off the table, 250.130(C) may be the best practice, especially where electricians wont prove 250.114 Exceptions, at typical laundry & refrigeration / motor appliances.

I read about a furnace defect that burned down the home, and was litigated against the cancellation & non-renewal, all the way to SCOTUS. Few people can afford to finance legal teams for 25 years, much less expect to land on liberal-majority courts, now extinct.

Regardless of success litigating one issue, Insurance will always challenge claims, due to typical extension-cord wiring, and remodel hazards, which seal the total loss of typical property without certificates of additionally insured.