jonanderson
New member
- Location
- Northfield, Vermont
Does installing a GFCI/AFCI breaker in a panel bring ungrounded outlets up to code or make them safe? The feed wires do not have a grounding wire in them.
GFCI and ungrounded outlets
- Thread starter jonanderson
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Tennessee NEC:2017
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrician
In a way it brings it up to code because the code allows 3-prong receptacles to replace 2-prong (no ground) receptacles if either a GFCI receptacle or breaker is used to protect the outlet from the point the GFCI is installed and any downstream outlets from that point. If a breaker is used, it covers the entire circuit.
Note: This does not make the circuit grounded. It does however make it safer as the GFCI protection will detect a fault as little as 5mA.
growler
Senior Member
- Location
- Atlanta,GA
Ungrounded outlets are already up to code so long as you don't change them out. If you change them you would have to use and ungrounded outlet and AFCI protection. If out change to a three grounded grounded outlet you would have to also GFCI protect the outlet and place a (no equipment ground) sticker on the cover plate to let people know it's not grounded.
With a GFCI/AFCI breaker for protection the circuit should be safe if the wiring is still in good condition. If the wiring has things like flying splices and is rat chewed then I wouldn't count on the protection of a breaker.
One other thing.....Just because you bring a house up to code doesn't mean it will always make a home inspector or a loan inspector happy because the inspection they do are not code inspections but have more to do with the value of the property. It doesn't have the same value as new wire.
Last edited:
texie
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Collins, Colorado
- Occupation
- Electrician, Contractor, Inspector
I would also add that, while you can do this, in many cases with today's equipment it may be required to have a grounded outlet. Particularly so if if the installation instructions requires it.
- Location
- Tennessee NEC:2017
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrician
The OP is a home inspector.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
And any equipment listed in 250.114 that requires an EGC.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
and they
and they
You phrase your question in a very tricky way, not that it is intended, but it shows an underlying set of assumptions.
The most glaring assumption is that two-wire nongrounding type receptacles are "not up to Code" and they are required to be brought up to Code. Whether an existing nongrounding type receptacle is "wired to the Code" is highly situational and requires the observer to have a working knowledge of the history of the Codes in effect back to the time or original installation, along with a working knowledge of any local ordinance in effect in the local jurisdiction having authority under law for the geographic location of the receptacle.
In my opinion, having any less historical knowledge of legally enforceable Code for the geographic location of the receptacle leads to generalized assumptions of what "might" be.
and they
Welcome to the Forum, Jon.
You phrase your question in a very tricky way, not that it is intended, but it shows an underlying set of assumptions.
The most glaring assumption is that two-wire nongrounding type receptacles are "not up to Code" and they are required to be brought up to Code. Whether an existing nongrounding type receptacle is "wired to the Code" is highly situational and requires the observer to have a working knowledge of the history of the Codes in effect back to the time or original installation, along with a working knowledge of any local ordinance in effect in the local jurisdiction having authority under law for the geographic location of the receptacle.
In my opinion, having any less historical knowledge of legally enforceable Code for the geographic location of the receptacle leads to generalized assumptions of what "might" be.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Sorry. I had to run about for a bit and I ended my previous post without the second assumption described.
What is "safe" ? That is an incredibly loaded term. The National Electrical Code Article 90 Rule 90.1 Purpose declares that the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity is the purpose of the Code. That said, a person may use a Code-compliant installation in ways that are hazardous. . . so, is that wiring installation "safe"? The answer is "relative".
When a NEC is adopted as enforceable by a jurisdiction, the rules therein take on the force of law in that jurisdiction. So, by law, in that jurisdiction, the Code described installation is "safe."
Now, with respect to using a dual function GFCI / AFCI breaker to protect an existing ungrounded-wiring-method branch circuit, with nongrounding type receptacles, IS allowed by the 2017 NEC. NEC Rule 90.1 declares that to be "practical safeguarding."
FionaZuppa
Senior Member
- Location
- AZ
- Occupation
- Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
its an arguable word. we cant measure it in absolute, we can only observe the diff. with my other cap on its "manipulation of probability".
using a gfci or afci breaker on 2-wire we know the diff is safer then it was before.
but if i look at it from the negative side as, before it was incredibly unsafe and now its remarkably unsafe, its still safer then before, yet still very unsafe
word smithing has been perfected by politicians. :thumbsup:
for me the existing NEC code for NEMA 1's is kinda ridiculous. if my NEMA 1 is broken and i replace it with a new NEMA 1, isnt the diff a safer situation ??? or, my NEMA 1 is broken but i cant afford a gfci recpt or afci breaker to replace it, so my NEMA 1 stays broken, a unsafe situation stays unsafe! so why would NEC code writers think its a good idea to force in "oh, lets make it even more more safe", of which i find ridiculous.
thats two concrete real examples, why else would a NEMA 1 need replacing ???!!!
i still scratching my head, all those fires and deaths by shock because of 2-wire...???
Last edited:
- Status