BX as a ground.

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
You have been shown by a number of folks you just don't agree with it and that is fine.
Click to expand...


I have carefully read and participated in this thread with honesty and candor for which I have been called a sophist and been otherwise challenged as to motive.
To claim that 2014 NEC 250.118 reverses Armored Cable type BX installed as a grounding means status as of the 1959 NEC has ramifications for other legally installed grounded wiring. This claim, when told to clients who have BX is, in my opinion, illegally manipulating them.

If the client is told only of the safety hazards, good.

But not by misquoting the Code.
 
al hildenbrand said:
I have carefully read and participated in this thread with honesty and candor for which I have been called a sophist and been otherwise challenged as to motive.
To claim that 2014 NEC 250.118 reverses Armored Cable type BX installed as a grounding means status as of the 1959 NEC has ramifications for other legally installed grounded wiring. This claim, when told to clients who have BX is, in my opinion, illegally manipulating them.

If the client is told only of the safety hazards, good.

But not by misquoting the Code.
Click to expand...

Again Al you are entitled to your opinion but many of us do not agree with it and that does not mean we are misquoting anything.

Just as you are entitled to your opinion we are entitled to ours.
 
peter d said:
I think it's fine as long as everyone else understands that Al's position is wrong. :)
Click to expand...
Look,
I agree BX is not a good ground. But to say the new code requires that you replace the BX just because you maintained a receptacle is baffling me. By that same logic, if I maintain a receptacle on a circuit without an AFCI breaker then I now have to change the breaker. That is crazy.

What did I miss?
 
mivey said:
Look,
I agree BX is not a good ground. But to say the new code requires that you replace the BX just because you maintained a receptacle is baffling me. By that same logic, if I maintain a receptacle on a circuit without an AFCI breaker then I now have to change the breaker. That is crazy.

What did I miss?
Click to expand...

Where did I ever claim the BX had to be replaced? I only said it has to be replaced if you want a modern, grounded system with grounded receptacles. If it's existing, it cannot be used for grounded receptacles if and when the time comes to replace receptacles.

Al's belief is that he can install a new, grounded receptacle as a replacement and use the BX armor as a suitable EGC. His reasoning and logic is that the system was considered grounded from the beginning, so it can stay that way. I have maintained all along that his position is wrong based on the fact that the NEC does not recognize unbonded BX armor as an EGC and any modification to an existing system, including receptacle replacement, has to follow the current code.

Truthfully, I don't get what was unclear about anything I have said.
 
mivey said:
Look,
I agree BX is not a good ground. But to say the new code requires that you replace the BX just because you maintained a receptacle is baffling me. By that same logic, if I maintain a receptacle on a circuit without an AFCI breaker then I now have to change the breaker. That is crazy.

What did I miss?
Click to expand...


I don't think anybody here has posted that the only option is to gut the old stuff- rather we have mentioned rep 2 wire recs as well the gfci feeding 3 wire outlets allowance as good viable alternatives to rewiring.
 
Last edited:
mivey said:
Look,
I agree BX is not a good ground. But to say the new code requires that you replace the BX just because you maintained a receptacle is baffling me. By that same logic, if I maintain a receptacle on a circuit without an AFCI breaker then I now have to change the breaker. That is crazy.

What did I miss?
Click to expand...
You are overstating the argument that has been made (although some may have made it). It is only necessary that the replacement receptacle, if it has a ground connection which the original receptacle did not, follow the rules for adding a three wire receptacle to a groundless circuit.
IMHO adding an explicit ground connection as part of a circuit which did not previously offer that connection is an extension. It is not a one-for-one device replacement.
 
al hildenbrand said:
My position is that nothing in the Code, in the current edition or in "superseded" editions has removed the status of "existing grounding means" by direct rule.
Click to expand...
250.118 does. And before you say that your "code path" doesn't get you there, you got there in post 199. In that you got to the definition of EGC, which directs you to 250.118.

Cheers, Wayne
 
GoldDigger said:
You are overstating the argument that has been made (although some may have made it). It is only necessary that the replacement receptacle, if it has a ground connection which the original receptacle did not, follow the rules for adding a three wire receptacle to a groundless circuit.
IMHO adding an explicit ground connection as part of a circuit which did not previously offer that connection is an extension. It is not a one-for-one device replacement.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, you seem to understood my opinion on this.
 
mivey said:
Look,
I agree BX is not a good ground. But to say the new code requires that you replace the BX just because you maintained a receptacle is baffling me. By that same logic, if I maintain a receptacle on a circuit without an AFCI breaker then I now have to change the breaker. That is crazy.

What did I miss?
Click to expand...

According to people on this site you DO have to change the breaker if you replace a receptacle on a circuit that should be AFCI.
 
George Stolz said:
That's crazy! That's absurd! That's found in 406.4(D)(4)!
Click to expand...

The 2014 'readily accessible' inclusion is what drives ocpd sales >>>




(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall com-
ply with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable. Arc-
fault circuit-interrupter type and ground-fault circuit-
interrupter· type receptacles shall be installed in a readily
accessible location.
Click to expand...



So all those 'receptacle updates ' behind beds or couches are now a violation of code, and require an OCPD


This is further exasperated by a 2014 EX here>

Exception: Where replacement of the receptacle type is
impracticable, such as where the outlet box size will not
permit the installation of the GFCI receptacle, the recep-
tacle shall be permitted to be replaced with a new recep-
tacle of the existing type, where GFCI protection is pro-
vided and the receptacle is marked "GFCI protected" and
"no equipment ground," in accordance with 406.4(D)(2)
(a)j . (b),or( c).
Click to expand...

and yes i know it references a gfci, but an afci receptacle outlet is basically the same size, but yet again came on the heels of the dual purpose OCPDdebut , so they become economically correct

George, these folks thought about these '14 changes here....

~RJ~
 
peter d said:
Where did I ever claim the BX had to be replaced? I only said it has to be replaced if you want a modern, grounded system with grounded receptacles. If it's existing, it cannot be used for grounded receptacles if and when the time comes to replace receptacles.

Al's belief is that he can install a new, grounded receptacle as a replacement and use the BX armor as a suitable EGC. His reasoning and logic is that the system was considered grounded from the beginning, so it can stay that way. I have maintained all along that his position is wrong based on the fact that the NEC does not recognize unbonded BX armor as an EGC and any modification to an existing system, including receptacle replacement, has to follow the current code.

Truthfully, I don't get what was unclear about anything I have said.
Click to expand...
That is clearer to me.

So Al thinks there is a "loophole" so to speak via code interpretation. Evidently the others in his area, including the AHJs, have the same interpretation. Most posters here do not agree with that interpretation. Got it.
 
user 100 said:
I don't think anybody here has posted that the only option is to gut the old stuff- rather we have mentioned rep 2 wire recs as well the gfci feeding 3 wire outlets allowance as good viable alternatives to rewiring.
Click to expand...
Which is what I would do unless they wanted to pay for a re-wire (the bank in the OP did not).

Iwire said he would not go the GFCI route.
 
GoldDigger said:
IMHO adding an explicit ground connection as part of a circuit which did not previously offer that connection is an extension. It is not a one-for-one device replacement.
Click to expand...
You could argue tha connection was previously offered through the spade terminal to screw but I don't remember the years and if they overlapped the BX ground years.
 
iwire said:
Let me clarify that, I would not install 3 wire receptacles on a BX circuit with or without a GFCI.

I do still have old BX in my home and don't live in fear of it burning down the house.
Click to expand...

I really never gave it a thought until this thread.

My question is would a GFCI fault trip on a BX circuit before there was enough current flowing through the armor to present a problem?
 
K8MHZ said:
My question is would a GFCI fault trip on a BX circuit before there was enough current flowing through the armor to present a problem?
Click to expand...

GFP protection won't address joule effect, the chief incendiary culprit of electrical fires .....

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top