BX as a ground.

[al hildenbrand]

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?

OK, Wayne.

The "new construction" in a receptacle replacement at an existing outlet is the receptacle device, some form of bonding (if used) and maybe a coverplate. I first go to 406.4(D). I correlate the receptacle in relationship to the occupancy and apply the parts of 406.4(D) to the choice of the new device I will select to replace the existing device. (Obviously, there can be box volume issues, but let's keep this simple, and say there is enough volume.)

406.4(D) does not guide me in anyway to modify or replace the existing branch circuit wiring method (assuming it is installed to the Code of its inspection and approval). Rather, I am, in 406.4(D)(1) allowed, when there is an existing grounding means, to connect the new required grounding-type receptacle to that equipment grounding conductor.

I am never, by the NEC, instructed to restrict the existing wiring method grounding means to the list only in 250.118.

What I believe is the error, here, is to apply 250.118, before I walk up to the existing receptacle outlet, to a legally installed, existing grounded wiring method of its day, to say that the wiring method was never a grounded wiring method. The NEC is silent about this. If I have some of the old material that is UNinstalled and I wish to install it now, then the rules of the current NEC, as pertains to that new installation, take precedent. But a receptacle replacement in an existing outlet on an existing Branch Circuit is NOT modifying the existing Branch Circuit, it is maintaining the outlet.

 

[al hildenbrand]

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.

To the contrary. There are no local ordinances as you suggest. Only the NEC.

 

[wwhitney]

The "new construction" in a receptacle replacement at an existing outlet is the receptacle device, some form of bonding (if used) and maybe a coverplate.

You've left out connecting the wires to the new receptacle. That's part of the work, and that's what brings the status of those wires into play.

(Obviously, there can be box volume issues, but let's keep this simple, and say there is enough volume.)

So suppose the box volume was compliant at the time the original receptacle was installed, but is no longer compliant (say there was change in the counting). Do you need to change the box out to a new box with a now-compliant volume? By your logic, you would not, as 406.4(D) does not refer to the section on box volume.

406.4(D) does not guide me in anyway to modify or replace the existing branch circuit wiring method (assuming it is installed to the Code of its inspection and approval).

How do you know it was compliant at the time of installation? It makes more sense to say that since you are working on the wiring (landing it on the new receptacle), it is up to you to verify that wiring meets the current code. There is no general grandfathering in the NEC.

Rather, I am, in 406.4(D)(1) allowed, when there is an existing grounding means, to connect the new required grounding-type receptacle to that equipment grounding conductor.

So it is your position that the 406.4(D)(1) language makes the existing "grounding means" into an EGC? I strongly disagree, for the reasons outlined previously.

BTW, since you see the existing grounding means as an EGC, do you have any problem with extending that branch circuit to a new outlet, using a wiring method with an EGC listed under 250.118? If that is not allowed, how do you make the distinction?

I am never, by the NEC, instructed to restrict the existing wiring method grounding means to the list only in 250.118.

250.118 applies whether or not you are directed to it.

But you are, in fact, so directed explicitly by the informational note on the second sentence of 406.4(C). You have previously argued that even though 406.4(D)(1) directs us to 406.4(C), we can somehow ignore the second sentence of 406.4(C). Nothing in 406.4(C) suggests its second sentence only applies to new wiring and existing wiring is exempt from the 406.4(C) second sentence requirement. Rather all of 406.4(C) is a restriction on the type of wiring to which we may connect a grounding type receptacle, and 406.4(D)(1) directs us to comply with those restrictions when replacing a receptacle.

What I believe is the error, here, is to apply 250.118, before I walk up to the existing receptacle outlet, to a legally installed, existing grounded wiring method of its day, to say that the wiring method was never a grounded wiring method.

I have never said that. It was a grounded wiring method per the NEC, until the NEC was modified to reflect the reality that its impedance is too high. At which point it ceased to be a grounded wiring method per the NEC.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

BTW, Al, you are resting your entire argument on the two words "grounding means" in 406.4(D)(1), which are nowhere defined in the NEC. Do you agree that if those words were changed to "EGC", then your argument falls apart? If so, given the high impedance of unbonded BX cable armor, would you support such a change?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

BTW, Al, you are resting your entire argument on the two words "grounding means" in 406.4(D)(1), which are nowhere defined in the NEC. Do you agree that if those words were changed to "EGC", then your argument falls apart?

But it doesn't, Wayne. "Grounding means" is the legal adopted NEC term.

I have never said that. It was a grounded wiring method per the NEC, until the NEC was modified to reflect the reality that its impedance is too high.

Your whole argument is that the newest edition of the NEC makes existing wiring "non-compliant, but that's OK." Cavalierly exposing most of us to litigation for working in illegal installations without reporting them . . . missing AFCI, GFCI, TR, WR, etc. etc.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . adding self grounding outlets . . .

You've left out connecting the wires to the new receptacle. That's part of the work, and that's what brings the status of those wires into play.

:? Reconnecting the existing branch circuit conductors in no way modifies them if they aren't cut or extended, and even then, you've got a tall hill to climb in defining how changing the device in an Outlet is changing the Branch Circuit

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

 

[wwhitney]

Your whole argument is that the newest edition of the NEC makes existing wiring "non-compliant, but that's OK." Cavalierly exposing most of us to litigation for working in illegal installations without reporting them . . . missing AFCI, GFCI, TR, WR, etc. etc.

Non-compliant does not mean illegal, and it does not necessarily mean hazardous. It just means you couldn't install it that way today. It's like legal non-conforming in zoning speak.

I don't think you have to fix every non-compliant installation you see, but I do feel that if you work on something that is non-compliant, you need to fix it. And yes, I believe that landing branch circuit conductors on a replacement receptacle meets the definition of working on the branch circuit.

Now if you had an amendment like Massachusetts's Rule 3, you could probably continue using your non-compliant "EGC". But that just shows that Massachusetts feels the same way I do, because they had to make an explicit rule to allow you to do that, since the NEC itself does not allow it.

Al, you seem very attached to your convoluted definition of "grounding means", and you like to skip my questions and analogies that are inconvenient for you, so I'm not sure how much further we are going to get with this. I believe I have already rebutted all of your arguments.

For the record, here's my argument in a nutshell. (A) 250.118 always applies and (B) even if it doesn't, 406.4(D)(1) sends us to 406.4(C) which sends us to 250.118.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

For the record, here's my argument in a nutshell. (A) 250.118 always applies

Sorry, that is your opinion. I've given a Code sequence in 406.4(D)(1) that counters that. Please substantiate your opinion with a Code that 250.118 always applies to existing installations.

and (B) even if it doesn't, 406.4(D)(1) sends us to 406.4(C) which sends us to 250.118

You are ignoring the "or" that allows me to choose 250.130(C) instead of 406.4(C).

I'm not ignoring or cherry picking your "analogies". . . I'm limited on time today.

If you wish, I will counter your "analogies" another time. When I brought up box volume, you started talking about how I missed the idea of there being enough volume in the box, when I had already suggested that we keep it simple an let there be enough volume, . . . I frankly tuned out.

Respectfully, requirements call me out into meat space for a while.

 

[wwhitney]

Sorry, that is your opinion. I've given a Code sequence in 406.4(D)(1) that counters that. Please substantiate your opinion with a Code that 250.118 always applies to existing installations.

I'm not going to be able to do that directly, I am going to cite the idea that all relevant parts of the NEC apply to your work. You can't just go to one section, see where it leads, and then you are done.

You are ignoring the "or" that allows me to choose 250.130(C) instead of 406.4(C).

Thank you for clarifying that. I never understood which 'or' in 406.4(D)(1) you were originally referring to.

A couple points. First 406.4(C) applies anyway, even if it is not referred to in 406.4(D)(1) (see the first paragraph of this post). 250.130(C) just gives you relief from 406.4(C) for the case of "Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions" (the title of 250.130(C)).

Second, you are missing the explicit parallelism of 406.4(D)(1):

406.4(D)(1) Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure or an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C), grounding-type receptacles shall be used and shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 406.4(C) or 250.130(C).

If your situation meets the first part of the first "or" (a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure), as you maintain, then you are directed to the first part of the second "or" (406.4(C)). If your situation meets the second part of the first "or" (an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C)) then you are directed to the second part of the second "or" (250.130(C)).

In other words, there is an implicit 'respectively' at the end of the sentence. It makes no sense to apply 250.130(C) when "a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure", as 250.130(C) is for "Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions", which is a different situation.

You can not escape 406.4(C) and hence 250.118.

When I brought up box volume, you started talking about how I missed the idea of there being enough volume in the box

On the contrary, I was surprised that you brought up the box volume rules, because by your logic, how could they apply, when they aren't referenced in 406.4(D)(1)? When just replacing a receptacle, you obviously aren't moving the box or changing the box fill, so how could those rules apply, right?

Yet your comment suggests that you think the box volume rules do apply. How is it that the box volume rules apply, but 250.118 doesn't?

Good luck in the real world.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

Second, you are missing the explicit parallelism of 406.4(D)(1):

Originally Posted by 2011 NEC 406.4(D)(1) Grounding-Type Receptacles. Where a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure or an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C), grounding-type receptacles shall be used and shall be connected to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 406.4(C) or 250.130(C).

If your situation meets the first part of the first "or" (a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure), as you maintain, then you are directed to the first part of the second "or" (406.4(C)). If your situation meets the second part of the first "or" (an equipment grounding conductor is installed in accordance with 250.130(C)) then you are directed to the second part of the second "or" (250.130(C)).

In other words, there is an implicit 'respectively' at the end of the sentence. It makes no sense to apply 250.130(C) when "a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure", as 250.130(C) is for "Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions", which is a different situation.

Your linguistic strictures are simply wrong. The is no "parallelism". Period. Ask Netpog. Ask Charlie B.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I was surprised that you brought up the box volume rules, because by your logic, how could they apply, when they aren't referenced in 406.4(D)(1)? When just replacing a receptacle, you obviously aren't moving the box or changing the box fill, so how could those rules apply, right?

Yet your comment suggests that you think the box volume rules do apply. How is it that the box volume rules apply, but 250.118 doesn't?

Wayne, the NEC is understood here as a new construction standard. In the OP's case, what is new? The receptacle outlet device, maybe the coverplate. The Branch Circuit is existing, it is not new.

A new receptacle is two "conductor's in volume" because it is "new". The box is not new. The Branch Circuit is not new. If the existing conductors plus the device two conductor count results in a cubic inch requirement exceeding the existing volume, then the volume HAS to be increased in some manner. There are ways to do that without disturbing the Branch Circuit. . . let's say, to keep this simple, the Branch Circuit remains as existing, and the existing box volume is adequate for a device that has a "new" conductor count of two.

 

[al hildenbrand]

How do you know it was compliant at the time of installation? It makes more sense to say that since you are working on the wiring (landing it on the new receptacle), it is up to you to verify that wiring meets the current code. There is no general grandfathering in the NEC.

If you are unfamiliar with the construction of old Premises Wiring (Systems) that makes sense, but it is better to know what you are working on. Get someone with good experience to teach you. There really isn't an existential question here.

 

[wwhitney]

Your linguistic strictures are simply wrong. The is no "parallelism". Period. Ask Netpog. Ask Charlie B.

OK, then I will respond with two things:

A) You can't just ignore 406.4(C) and 250.118. The idea you can is simply wrong. Period. Ask anyone else here.

B) 250.130(C) only applies to "Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions". Without conceding any of your other points, let's restrict for the moment to the replacement of a grounding type receptacle without any branch circuit extension. In such a case, when following 406.4(D)(1) for the case that "a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure", you can not choose to connect "to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 250.130(C)." That section doesn't apply, it doesn't make any sense to work in accordance with it. So you must choose to work "in accordance with 406.4(C)" instead.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[al hildenbrand]

So it is your position that the 406.4(D)(1) language makes the existing "grounding means" into an EGC? I strongly disagree, for the reasons outlined previously.

BTW, since you see the existing grounding means as an EGC, do you have any problem with extending that branch circuit to a new outlet, using a wiring method with an EGC listed under 250.118? If that is not allowed, how do you make the distinction?

Your error, as I see it, is to assume, before you get to 406.4(D)(1), is that there is no existing grounding means. But I have shown you the Code that establishes the armor of armored cable as (in the 1918 NEC) a ground conductor and that is passed on through time as the language of the Code evolves. The 406.4(D)(1) required grounding-type receptacle is connected to the grounding means as an EGC.

BTW, let's keep it simple and stay with receptacle replacement, the question as the OP asked.

 

[al hildenbrand]

250.118 applies whether or not you are directed to it.

Show that to me in the language of the Code, that it is so all-encompassing across installations of all ages.

 

[al hildenbrand]

But you are, in fact, so directed explicitly by the informational note on the second sentence of 406.4(C). You have previously argued that even though 406.4(D)(1) directs us to 406.4(C), we can somehow ignore the second sentence of 406.4(C). Nothing in 406.4(C) suggests its second sentence only applies to new wiring and existing wiring is exempt from the 406.4(C) second sentence requirement. Rather all of 406.4(C) is a restriction on the type of wiring to which we may connect a grounding type receptacle, and 406.4(D)(1) directs us to comply with those restrictions when replacing a receptacle.

Your assertion that I am trapped to go through 406.4(C) is simply wrong. There is no "parallelism" as you assert in 406.4(D)(1)

 

[al hildenbrand]

I have never said that. It was a grounded wiring method per the NEC, until the NEC was modified to reflect the reality that its impedance is too high. At which point it ceased to be a grounded wiring method per the NEC.

Show that ENDING of existing grounding means in existing undisturbed wiring in the language of the Code. You can't. There is a silence in the Code about this.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Non-compliant does not mean illegal, and it does not necessarily mean hazardous. It just means you couldn't install it that way today. It's like legal non-conforming in zoning speak.

I don't think you have to fix every non-compliant installation you see, but I do feel that if you work on something that is non-compliant, you need to fix it. And yes, I believe that landing branch circuit conductors on a replacement receptacle meets the definition of working on the branch circuit.

In my area, in a receptacle replacement, the guidance is clear. If the volume calculation is OK, the replacement device is installed to the existing box. When one is done, there is still an existing outlet, no additional outlet has been added, and the Branch Circuit is untouched, that is the Branch Circuit is "existing". This is a real boundary. What you are claiming is seen as an overreach and abuse of authority to represent the existing Branch Circuit as non-compliant.

 

[al hildenbrand]

You can't just ignore 406.4(C) and 250.118. The idea you can is simply wrong. Period. Ask anyone else here.

Wayne, go back and read the others who are on my side in this matter in this thread. They are as surprised by your attitude as I am.

 

[al hildenbrand]

B) 250.130(C) only applies to "Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions". Without conceding any of your other points, let's restrict for the moment to the replacement of a grounding type receptacle without any branch circuit extension. In such a case, when following 406.4(D)(1) for the case that "a grounding means exists in the receptacle enclosure", you can not choose to connect "to the equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 250.130(C)." That section doesn't apply, it doesn't make any sense to work in accordance with it. So you must choose to work "in accordance with 406.4(C)" instead.

Sure it does. You check the OCPD end of the Branch Circuit to verify the connection of the Branch Circuit.