Non-EGC'd 5-R is a fire hazard ??

Status
Not open for further replies.
FionaZuppa said:
what do you mean re-read it? non-compliant for lack of afci? what? doesnt code say you need to have afci/gfci/tamper proof only if the location of the replacement requires such?
afci is not a requirement, its the exception that must be met.
Click to expand...
The un-amended 2014 NEC requires AFCI protection for the replacement receptacle, in most areas of a dwelling where one commonly finds two wire nongrounding type receptacles still in service.

I'm repeating this again for you. Slow down and read it.

The 2014 NEC is in effect in most of the country as you can see in This Map.
 
FionaZuppa said:
406.4 says a replacement needs to meet 406.12 ?
Click to expand...

406.4 (D)(5) says that where receptacles required to be tp elsewhere in the code (these areas are in 210.52), replacements are also to be tp.

406.12 tells the type of facilities where tp is required

(A) Dwelling units

(B)Guest rooms/suites

(C)Child Care Facilities
 
al hildenbrand said:
Yes. 406.4(D)(5)
Click to expand...

ok, if they dont make 1-R tamper proof then NEC cannot stop you from doing a 1R for 1R replacement even if the location calls for tamper proof. same concept as NEC saying you can just do 1R to 1R if the location requires GFCI but you cannot fit a GFCI into the mounting box, although not sure if NEC forces GFCI breaker at that point. in the end, AHJ has final say if you permit a replacement 1R :thumbsup:
 
FionaZuppa said:
ok, if they dont make 1-R tamper proof then NEC cannot stop you from doing a 1R for 1R replacement even if the location calls for tamper proof. same concept as NEC saying you can just do 1R to 1R if the location requires GFCI but you cannot fit a GFCI into the mounting box, although not sure if NEC forces GFCI breaker at that point. in the end, AHJ has final say if you permit a replacement 1R :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

OK. Look. With respect to Tamper Resistance: Read 2014 NEC 406.12 Exception 4 to find relief for 2014 NEC 406.4(D)(5).

There is no relief in the 2014 NEC for 406.4(D)(4) AFCI protecting a replacement. You may have some "deal" worked out with your AHJ, but that is not "the un-amended NEC."

Controlling the cost to most customers dictates using Outlet Branch Circuit AFCI receptacles (OBC AFCI), for replacement of grounding type receptacles where there is a grounded wiring method.

The 406.4(D)(4) AFCI requirement forces the installation of a grounding type receptacle on a ungrounded wiring method, if the panel/branch circuit doesn't economically allow installation of AFCI breakers or upstream OBC AFCI. Dual function GFCI AFCI receptacles, labeled "No Equipment Ground" will be the cheapest way to fix many single receptacle replacements, even with replacing the box to meet volume requirements.
 
al hildenbrand said:
There is no relief in the 2014 NEC for 406.4(D)(4) AFCI protecting a replacement. You may have some "deal" worked out with your AHJ, but that is not "the un-amended NEC."
Click to expand...

???

..... that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code .....
Click to expand...

if the location does not require it, then its not required.

what am i missing?
 
Fionazuppa,
You have clearly trolled this site in multiple ways on the same subject. Have you seen anyone convinced of your wit by this baiting followed by snarky attacks? Why don't you tell us how taking your crusade up with these people goes...

Secretary, Standards Council, NFPA, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, MA 02169-7471; email: stds_admin@nfpa.org

They should be able to give you information on submitting a proposal to be looked at by the code making council, but, you hade better be coming with better information than is provided in the article you have quoted at the beginning of this thread. The statement you find as so profound appears to be written by an electrically incompetent person.
 
mbrooke said:
I regret to say, but FFs are not the best fire forensics experts. As someone with many years in the fire service once told me "Most garden variety FFs can not tell an outlet from their omelet ~CS~"
Click to expand...

well, call/name/blame it what/how you want, the NEC is written under NFPA 70, right? but i guess FFs dont know much? which i respectfully disagree.

the article was referencing publication by FEMA's US Fire Administration.
 
FionaZuppa said:
well, call/name/blame it what/how you want, the NEC is written under NFPA 70, right? but i guess FFs dont know much? which i respectfully disagree.

the article was referencing publication by FEMA's US Fire Administration.
Click to expand...

The average fire fighter is not on the CMP.
 
FionaZuppa said:
???



if the location does not require it, then its not required.

what am i missing?
Click to expand...

#1- The fact that virtually the entire dwelling is required to be afci protected, and #2 The fact that replacement devices in virtually the entire dwelling are required to have afci protection.

Mentioning ahj allowances is immaterial, as hildenbrand rightly pointed out, b/c those allowances are not reflective of an unaltered version of the NEC. You can't argue about what the unaltered code says, get corrected and then turn around and say that since an ahj allows a practice contrary to the current unaltered NEC, its ok and is/should be permissible by the current unaltered code - can't have it both ways.



FionaZuppa said:
well, call/name/blame it what/how you want, the NEC is written under NFPA 70, right? but i guess FFs dont know much? which i respectfully disagree.

the article was referencing publication by FEMA's US Fire Administration.
Click to expand...

And by your inference, I guess that the members here who have given you code references, and hashed these threads out w/you must not know much either.

That article you in posted in your op contains blatantly false information about the function of an egc. An egc is not there to "handle the extra amount of electricity appliances draw." And it does not make any difference what organization was purportedly behind that statement- it is, on its face, completely wrong.
 
user 100 said:
#1- The fact that virtually the entire dwelling is required to be afci protected,

And by your inference, I guess that the members here who have given you code references, and hashed these threads out w/you must not know much either.

That article you in posted in your op contains blatantly false information about the function of an egc. An egc is not there to "handle the extra amount of electricity appliances draw." And it does not make any difference what organization was purportedly behind that statement- it is, on its face, completely wrong.
Click to expand...
1) "virtually" means what exactly
2) no, others know a lot, i havent said not knowledgeable
3) ok, exactly why i asked the Q in post #1, but the hazard around missing EGC is not "completely wrong"

what else?
 
FionaZuppa said:
1) "virtually" means what exactly-
2) no, others know a lot, i havent said not knowledgeable
3) ok, exactly why i asked the Q in post #1, but the hazard around missing EGC is not "completely wrong"

what else?
Click to expand...

1) "virtually" means pretty much the entire dwelling except the bathroom per the 2014

2) Fair Enough

3)That article was wrong about the purpose of an egc, end of story.

You already know that lack of an egc w/out gfci is a risk for electrocution when 3 prong appliances are used- now how does the lack of an egc contribute to a fire hazard?
 
user 100 said:
You already know that lack of an egc w/out gfci is a risk for electrocution when 3 prong appliances are used- now how does the lack of an egc contribute to a fire hazard?
Click to expand...
the article reference, along with OSHA, doesnt mention "GFCI" in their explanation of the hazard of a 5-P being connected to a 5-R that has missing EGC. and i dont believe i mentioned "GFCI" either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top