- Location
- Massachusetts
That grounding means went away with the change of the rules.
It is really that simple.
BX as a ground.
- Thread starter e54fireman
- Start date
- Status
That grounding means went away with the change of the rules.
It is really that simple.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Hi Al,
A couple questions for you based on your line of reasoning.
1) Under the current NEC, do you consider the cable armor of BX cable without a bonding strip to be an EGC? Or is it simply a grounding means that isn't an EGC?
2) If the latter, how do you comply with 406(D)(2)?
3) If the former, how does it comply with 250.118?
Thanks,
Wayne
A couple questions for you based on your line of reasoning.
1) Under the current NEC, do you consider the cable armor of BX cable without a bonding strip to be an EGC? Or is it simply a grounding means that isn't an EGC?
2) If the latter, how do you comply with 406(D)(2)?
3) If the former, how does it comply with 250.118?
Thanks,
Wayne
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Ah, but 406.4(D)(1) is saying where a "grounding means exists" and "grounding means" pre-dates the emergence of Grounding Conductor, Equipment.
"Grounding means" is also a synonym for "ground" in earlier Codes that did not yet have Article 100, or a section headed "Definitions".
While you may want this to ONLY mean today's definition of EGC, you, in my opinion, are looking at a phrase that is deliberately crafted to look back over all historical installations still existing.
As installed, the armored cable was a grounding means. That's a fact. As long as the armor is undisturbed, it is existing, and the Code grounding is preserved, in my opinion, unless the Code specifically reverses that as-installed-grounding.
If, in fact, your jump-to-250.118 opinion is accurate, then there is a whole lot of installed metal raceway (flex) with installed grounding-type receptacles in the millions, that are HAZARDS because they "have no ground" that are not being called out by the AHJs that I am experienced with.
My cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.
The term EGC doesn't enter into it because it didn't exist before its 1968 NEC first writing. The cable armor of BX cable without a bonding strip is connected to ground when installed to 1918 NEC 15A i & n. (or subsequent Code editions, until BX is no longer manufactured.)
In my opinion, 406(D)(1) never lets me get to 406(D)(2) because a grounding means exists, therefore a grounding-type receptacle must be installed.
I never am lead from 406.4(D)(1) to 250.118.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
I understand that is your opinion. . . and I have my opinion.
Maybe we can look to the Code?
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Being non-compliant is not the same thing as being a hazard. But yes, the code change meant that millions of existing receptacle installations became non-compliant. That's OK until you replace the receptacle; then you have to make it compliant.
The same thing occured with TR receptacles; millions of non-TR receptacles are now non-compliant, but they can stay until you replace them. At which point you have to replace them with a TR receptacle (for the code specified locations).
The language of 406.4(D) says that you need to comply with any of 406.4(D)(1) through (6) that are applicable:
2011 NEC said:
It does not say "shall comply with at least one of 406.4(D)(1) through 406.4(D)(6)." You don't get to stop reading once you hit an applicable section, you have to comply with all applicable sections.
If, as you maintain, a box fed only by BX cable without a bonding strip has a "grounding means" but does not have an EGC, then 406.4(D)(2) is applicable. If 406.4(D)(1) is also applicable, as you maintain, then you need to comply with both. If that creates a paradox, that implies a flaw in your logic.
250.118 applies to all EGCs. The language:
2011 NEC said:
That's mandatory language, there's no option. If it's not in the 250.118 list, it's not an EGC. The definition of EGC even has an informational note to remind you of that. There's no need for other code sections to point you to 250.118, it always applies to any EGC.
So even though you'd like to use the installed "grounding means" in place when replacing a receptacle with a grounding-type receptacle you are out of luck. If you try to call the existing grounding means an EGC, 250.118 tells you it's not. If you try to call it a grounding means that isn't an EGC, 406.4(D)(1) and 406.4(D)(2) both apply, which is a contradiction.
Cheers, Wayne
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
If you're in for a penny, then you're in for a pound. If millions of grounding-type receptacles installed to the Code of their original install in a FMC (flexible metal conduit) system are RETROACTIVELY without an EGC, by your thinking, then you have, legally, an appearance safety with an existing grounding-type receptacle where there is no Code recognized connection to ground.
Any AHJ, or agent there of, upon seeing that in the course of passage to and from an inspection of new work is, in my understanding, empowered and required by statute to call out this HAZARD in some manner.
Where's the hue and cry over the last half century since the 1971 NEC was adopted? Really. . .do the smudge pots of housing inspectors roil because of this? Are your client's red tagged because of this.
Grounding-type receptacles without an EGC are a HAZARD (term-of-art, actionable in a court of law).
What is the actual mechanism that RETROACTIVELY removes the legally installed state of a Code (of the date of it's inspection and approval) compliant installation?
Last edited:
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Hi Al,
I thought you wanted to talk about the CODE, not how it is enforced. Apparently you have no solution to the difficulties I pointed out in your interpretation of 406.4(D) with respect to these no-longer compliant EGCs?
Cheers, Wayne
I thought you wanted to talk about the CODE, not how it is enforced. Apparently you have no solution to the difficulties I pointed out in your interpretation of 406.4(D) with respect to these no-longer compliant EGCs?
Cheers, Wayne
Last edited:
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
My apologies for not getting the question into my unedited initial previous post. This is VERY much about the Code.
In my personal experience, as described in earlier posts in this thread, I find no Real World (in my Metro work area) parallel for the claims being laid out here. And to the contrary, my Real World experience with the AHJ of multiple jurisdictions has completely countered the Code interpretation you say is correct.
Just saying.
Your point about the opening sentence of 406.4(D) doesn't say "ALL" applicable, only "as applicable". 406.4(D)(1) has an "or" before "equipment grounding conductor is (not was) installed", and does not have a test about the existing receptacle, so nongrounding or grounding-types existing has no bearing. The very next part is trump, do-not-pass-go, "grounding-type receptacles SHALL BE used". AND, it tells me, this rule, that the EXISTING grounding means is the "equipment grounding conductor" to be connected to.
You know, as I write that, I think to myself that this is where the Code allows that the existing grounding means exists as an equipment grounding conductor. . .
And now, respectfully, I must exit in to meat space. . . be back in a bit.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
The language "shall comply with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable" means comply with any and all that are applicable. Do you disagree?
Any time the NEC refers to an equipment grounding conductor, it means something that complies with 250.118. Do you disagree?
Cheers, Wayne
romex jockey
Senior Member
- Location
- Vermont
- Occupation
- electrician
We may not see eye/eye , and i've said my piece Al.
But i gotta say you've carried one hellova debate here
Methinks anyone following would like a little of that in their corner ...
~RJ~
But i gotta say you've carried one hellova debate here
Methinks anyone following would like a little of that in their corner ...
~RJ~
Fulthrotl
~Autocorrect is My Worst Enema.~
- Occupation
- E
wow... 211 posts.... i'll bet e54fireman didn't expect this kind of milage on his first post....
romex jockey
Senior Member
- Location
- Vermont
- Occupation
- electrician
Maybe this thread should read >>
"Everything you'd ever want to know about BX, but were afraid to ask"
~RJ~
"Everything you'd ever want to know about BX, but were afraid to ask"
~RJ~
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Wayne, you are asking a question that I literally just answered.
It is my position that you have to SHOW ME in the language of the Code that is enforceable language that says the ONLY meaning of EGC, for ALL installations ever made and for new construction not yet installed, is in 250.118 (or equivalent) of the most current edition of the Code adopted into statute today. I am asking you to show me where the Code says legally installed grounding means that exists today as installed, is NOW NO LONGER a grounding means, and NEVER WAS a grounding means.
Wayne, in this thread, the question is about receptacle replacement to the grounding means of an existing wiring method (old non-bonding strip armored cable type BX). But since you seem to be tilting toward GFCI, AFCI, TR and WR requirements, then let's apply your Code logic:
Think about what you wrote, there. If, as you claim, the EXISTING inspected and approved (to the Code in effect at the time of approval) installations are "non-compliant" then, the existing installation is a LEGAL HAZARD to personnel for lack of GFCI, to property and people for lack of AFCI, to children for lack of TR, and to property and people for lack of WR.
And then, Wayne, you actually say "That's OK. . . " !!!!!!!! How is it OK, by Code language? Where does the 2014 NEC state that existing non-compliant to the 2014 NEC installation approved under earlier editions of the NEC are "OK"?
If, as you claim, you are required to retroactively remove the legally established grounding means of BX, the same "retroactive" "condemning" of existing installations for other than grounding means HAS to happen.
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
Maybe this thread should read >>
"Everything you'd ever want to know about BX, but were afraid to ask"
~RJ~
Mike Holt's has a lot of threads like this on various subjects, worth every word imo. Heck we even have an 80 page thread saying #14 is good for 15 amps when used in general lighting and receptacle circuits :lol:
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
And as my questions suggest, your answer was unclear to me. So requoting what you see as an answer isn't as helpful as a simple yes or no. I still don't understand which of the following is your position:
1) The 2014 term "EGC" includes BX armor without a bonding strip that was originally installed under a code permitting its use and since unmodified.
2) Such armor isn't a 2014 EGC, but it is a "grounding means".
3) Some other, subtly different position.
Position #1 is completely untenable. A quick Internet search says that BX cable armor required a bonding strip starting in 1959. Your previous statement is that the NEC didn't introduce the term EGC until 1968. Even if you dispute the idea that a change in the code can change the compliance of an existing installation, there was never a point in time in which BX cable armor without a bonding strip was an EGC.
I am saying that if you do work today under the current code, be it a replacement or new work, you are creating a 250.118 violation if you connect something to the grounding terminal of a receptacle that isn't listed in 250.118. Section 250.118 uses the enforceable "shall be" language.
Any grandfathering in the NEC is explicit, such as the exception to 250.140 permitting the bonding of certain appliance frames to the neutral for certain existing installations, or the exception to 250.32(B)(1) allowing the use of the grounded conductor for bonding in an existing feeder to another building under certain conditions. Other than that, there is no grandfathering in the NEC. Prior code status of an installation is immaterial in deciding what you are allowed to do today.
Since "grounding means" is undefined in the NEC, I obviously can't do that. However, I have demonstrated that BX cable armor without a bonding strip "IS NOT" and "NEVER WAS" an EGC.
I'm making an analogy to other code sections, just as you brought up FMC in lengths longer than six feet.
Existing installations are rendered "no longer compliant" all the time by code changes. Absent an actual danger, there is no compunction to do anything to such installations. But if you modify them, your work is governed by the current code, so you basically have to bring anything you touch into compliance.
As for the legal hazard, that doesn't generally seem to be the case. But I can easily imagine that if I run a public establishment, and there is a potential hazard that would be mitigated by the installation of a GFCI, and the current code would require a GFCI there, and a member of the public gets hurt in a way that a GFCI would have prevented, that person could successfully sue me for failure to take the precaution of installing a GFCI. So yes, tort law may impose requirements beyond the NEC.
"OK" is not defined in the NEC, so I can't show you that.
But seriously, the NEC is typically adopted by a jurisdiction as the requirements for electrical work. Electrical work will legally require a permit and NEC compliance, but it is rare that a jurisdiction will legally require one to go back to prior legal work and update it to modern standards. [My city, Berkeley, does have such a requirement for certain seismic standards, such as unreinforced masonry and soft-story buildings.] So the result is that there are many existing, legal, non-compliant installations.
Cheers, Wayne
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
As I repeat: the problem with your approach is the assumption that 2014 NEC 250.118 establishes that an inspected and approved installation of a grounded system of armored cable type BX and associated fittings and boxes WAS NEVER a grounding means.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
I am familiar with local ordinance that is crafted to "maintain" the Premises Wiring (System) of occupancies within the local jurisdiction inspected and approved under earlier editions of the National Electrical Code. I have several examples of them in my Metro Area, and they are all subtly different from each other and NONE of them are in the National Electrical Code.
Yes, local ordinance can require the improvement of aspects of a Premises Wiring (System). I totally agree.
But the reason there is a local ordinance to do so, helps to underscore that the NEC is a new construction standard that regulates new installation, and does not extend to the existing installation. The NEC has silences that are thunderous on this matter, in my opinion.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Al, maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't see an answer to my questions in that writing of yours that you have repeated several times. So would you please just answer my questions directly, or try rephrasing your point?
If you are saying that the text of 406.4(D)(1) modifies 250.118 and establishes that the existing "grounding means" is an EGC, that is a huge leap. I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with that reading of 406.4(D)(1). "Grounding means" is a term that is nowhere defined in the enforceable NEC, and which first occurs outside of informational notes in 406.4(D), and it occurs in article 406 only once. Its use in the informational notes is as a synonym for EGC and always in conjunction with a direction to 250.118.
So which is more likely? That "grounding means" is a synonym for EGC? Or that the single use of the words "grounding means" in 406.4(D)(1) is an extension of the idea of EGC to include things that were previously approved grounding means or EGCs, that it further modifies the later use of the term EGC in 406.4(D)(1), and that you can ignore all the informational notes with the term "grounding means" that direct you to 250.118?
Cheers, Wayne
If you are saying that the text of 406.4(D)(1) modifies 250.118 and establishes that the existing "grounding means" is an EGC, that is a huge leap. I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with that reading of 406.4(D)(1). "Grounding means" is a term that is nowhere defined in the enforceable NEC, and which first occurs outside of informational notes in 406.4(D), and it occurs in article 406 only once. Its use in the informational notes is as a synonym for EGC and always in conjunction with a direction to 250.118.
So which is more likely? That "grounding means" is a synonym for EGC? Or that the single use of the words "grounding means" in 406.4(D)(1) is an extension of the idea of EGC to include things that were previously approved grounding means or EGCs, that it further modifies the later use of the term EGC in 406.4(D)(1), and that you can ignore all the informational notes with the term "grounding means" that direct you to 250.118?
Cheers, Wayne
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Yet it does apply when you choose to modify existing installations, and in several cases it gives you explicit allowances for existing installations that are not available in new installations. So when you choose to replace a grounding-type receptacle in an existing installation using unbonded BX cable armor as the grounding means, it prohibits you from using that unbonded BX cable armor as the EGC for a new grounding-type receptacle.
Maybe your local jurisdictions, in light of the large installed base of unbonded BX cable armor and FMC over 6' in length, has some local ordinances allowing you to use them as EGCs. But the NEC does not.
Cheers, Wayne
- Status