Ungrounded AFCI?

[jeff43222]

I had a call tonight where the homeowner/landlord is being told by the city that she has to add a receptacle to a bedroom in the unit she is renting out. She wants to do this as easily/cheaply as possible, so the plan is to tap into an existing receptacle in the next room.

The existing receptacle is one of the old two-prong ones, and I don't know if there is a an effective ground-fault path as required by 250.130(C). I suspect there is not. So I was thinking that it might be legal to replace the existing receptacle with a GFCI receptacle in accordance with 406.3(D)(3), extend the circuit by adding the new bedroom receptacle downstream of the GFCI, and protect the circuit with an AFCI breaker (Anyone know what modern brand can be used in a Bryant panelboard?).

I have Mike Holt's 2005 "Grounding versus Bonding" book, and on page 216 there's a Figure 250-178 that seems to indicate that what I'm proposing to do would be permissible (except for the AFCI part).

Anyone care to weigh in?

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Sounds to me like you should have it covered. Make sure to label the new outlet with the little sticker! (No Equipment Ground)

Originally posted by jeff43222:
(Anyone know what modern brand can be used in a Bryant panelboard?)

Cutler Hammer BR Series is now listed for use in the Bryant panels.

What a joke that whole "listing" of interchangeable breakers is. The same breaker that was not OK to use years ago, suddenly is now, just because of Corporate merges or what not. Funny, the breaker design hasn't changed but now, thanks to Corp. politics, it's ok.
What a joke.

Murray, GE, Cutler Hammer BR, Sq D Homeline, Siemens, Crouse Hines, Bryant, Challenger, Sylvania, GTE, ITE are ALL the same design. I wouldn't lose one wink of sleep having any of them in my panel even if they weren't "listed" for it. It's just a ploy to get you to buy their brand. Just like Chrysler says to only use Chrysler Anti-Freeze in their vehicles!...oh please :roll:

Dave

[ June 18, 2005, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: davedottcom ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Dave, I agree with you in principle, but there is one major factor that needs to be mentioned. If a fire starts, any non-compliant activity (whether it contributed to a fire or not) will be scrutinized. So, we need a healthy respect for the politics.

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Good Morning George... you are missing the entire point!
Dave

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by davedottcom:
Good Morning George... you are missing the entire point!
It is only Non-Compliant because of financial Competition.

Dave I think you have it backward.

It was never OK to mix breaker brands we all just went and did it as we knew they would interchange.

It has always been a UL violation and therefore a 110.3(B) violation to mis match breakers and panels.

Murry had never paid UL to see if their breakers would work in Bryant etc.

What changed is the inspectors are now enforcing these rules.

Even back in the 'good ole days' if you installed a murry in a byrant and a fire happened you would be up the creek without a paddle in court for violating the label on the panel.

Now that aside it would not surprise me at all to find out it was marketing departments that got the word out to the inspectors on this issue. :roll:

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Jeff, you are referencing Mike's book, which I am pretty familiar with. Take a look at figure 250-177, and the author's comment to 250.130, and you will see that the branch circuit extension you refer to is illegal, AFCI or not.

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by ryan_618:
Jeff, you are referencing Mike's book, which I am pretty familiar with.

King of the understatement.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by iwire:
Dave I think you have it backward. I know it's always been a violation, but it's always been a violation because the corps only list them for use in their own panels even though they purposely design them to fit the other brands as well as their own.
So, that is why I say it is only non-compliant because of the corp's financial gain from making it a violation (By not listing them) They are the ones that created this situation... on purpose, for personal gain.

I fully understand it IS a NEC violation but it wouldn't exist if the Co.s weren't trying to be sneeky and gain from it.

I never meant to sound like it used to be ok to interchange them, what I was saying was some breakers (Cutler Hammer BR for instance) that used to not be listed for use in a certain panel(GTE-Sylvania for instance), are now.
Same BR Breaker, same Sylvania Panel, just different management.
Dave

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by davedottcom:
Nope, I don't have it backwards at all! With all due respect Bob, I think you read my post backwards!

OK I got ya.

Originally posted by davedottcom:
I know it's always been a violation, but it's always been a violation because the corps only list them for use in their own panels even though they purposely design them to fit the other brands as well as their own.

I am still not sure we agree on this part.

If Dave Inc made a panel why would they pay to have Bob Inc breakers tested for use in the Dave Inc panel?

It would actual cost Dave Inc money to get an approval to allow Bob Inc breakers and that is before we consider that Dave Inc would end up selling less breakers.

That would be a very stupid business move.

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

True, but then why go through all the trouble to duplicate the competitions's design?

What's the point?

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by davedottcom:
True, but then why go through all the trouble to duplicate the competitions's design?

What's the point?

That is an interesting question.

I would like to know the answer to that one. I wonder who first came up with the common design?

We know it was not FPE or Square D.

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

It's to target the Non-Compliant Installs!
Why else?! That's My point, they duplicate the designs because they know people will use them in other panels.
And everyone knows they work fine!
But, to insure their own circuit breaker-sales market they don't allow the other brand breakers to be used in their panels, even though they just went to great measures to make sure they will interchange!
It's a catch 22 thing I guess!?

They might as well have a guy in a trench coat selling them outside of the supply house...
"Pssst, hey, this breaker will fit their panel. But, you didn't here it from me!"


Dave

editted to try to make more sense...not sure if I succeeded!?

[ June 18, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: davedottcom ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by davedottcom:
It's to target the Non-Compliant Installs!

Dave you could be right, I would like to think that there is a more benign reason for this.

Like it is cheaper to subcontract the manufacturing out to others if all breakers can be made on the same line.

We could also ask why this did not happen with bolt-on breakers if the makers where that devious.

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by iwire:
I would like to think that there is a more benign reason for this.

Like it is cheaper to subcontract the manufacturing out to others if all breakers can be made on the same line.

Yea, I would like to think that too!
Dave

 

[jeff43222]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by ryan_618:
Jeff, you are referencing Mike's book, which I am pretty familiar with. Take a look at figure 250-177, and the author's comment to 250.130, and you will see that the branch circuit extension you refer to is illegal, AFCI or not.

The part the confuses me is the figure immediately after 250-177. In that one (fig. 250-178), it looks like option C illustrates replacing a non-grounding receptacle with some form of GFCI-protected receptacle, and then extending it (note the new grounding-type receptacles downstream from the new GFCI-protected receptacles). Or is the intent of option C that the non-grounding duplex receptacle is replaced with a duplex GFCI-protected receptacle and another one downstream but in the same box?

So the bottom line is that I can't extend unless the extension has an effective ground-fault path, right? I haven't looked, but I suppose it's possible that the non-grounded receptacle might be fed with BX, which ultimately would be an acceptable ground-fault path, right?

Otherwise, it sounds like my only option is to run a new grounding conductor to the new receptacle or run a new circuit entirely (of course, the panelboard is currently full). Running new wire from the second-floor unit to the panelboard in the basement would be a major bit of fun in the vintage 1905 dwelling.

[ June 19, 2005, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: jeff43222 ]

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Jeff, Option C is actually showing 2 different options!

1) replace non grounded recp. with a GFCI Recp

or

2) replace non-grounded recp. with a grounded recp & install GFCI breaker. (The recps. don't need to be in the same box, that wouldn't matter, they just drew them closer together because the breaker took up more room in the illustration.)

In your case, because you'll need to install the AFCI breaker, I believe you would be using option C-1. And if you look at Figure 250-177 it confirms your "effective ground fault path" idea. If the BX is an effective ground fault path you can bond the new EGC to it and add a grounded type recp. without installing a GFCI anywhere.

Sorry about getting away from the original subject, that just sort of happens some times!

Dave

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

davedottcomm,

Maybe it's not the manufacturers that are driving the interchangeable issue, but U.L., maybe UL just wants some more revenue?

 

[jeff43222]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by davedottcom:
Jeff, Option C is actually showing 2 different options!

1) replace non grounded recp. with a GFCI Recp

or

2) replace non-grounded recp. with a grounded recp & install GFCI breaker. (The recps. don't need to be in the same box, that wouldn't matter, they just drew them closer together because the breaker took up more room in the illustration.)

In your case, because you'll need to install the AFCI breaker, I believe you would be using option C-1. And if you look at Figure 250-177 it confirms your "effective ground fault path" idea. If the BX is an effective ground fault path you can bond the new EGC to it and add a grounded type recp. without installing a GFCI anywhere.

Sorry about getting away from the original subject, that just sort of happens some times!

Dave

The option C in my illustration does indeed have two separate options. The first one has the non-grounding receptacle on the left side of the arrow ("before"), and then on the right side of the arrow ("after") a GFCI receptacle with an additional receptacle downstream. The second part in option C shows something similar, but using a GFCI breaker rather than a GFCI receptacle. Either way, the "before" shows one non-grounding receptacle, and the "after" shows two GFCI-protected receptacles. Going from one to two seems like extending the branch circuit to me. Otherwise, how does option C differ from option B?

Keep in mind that I have the 2005 version of the book, which I only received recently after MHE said it was backordered due to printing issues or something like that. Perhaps your figure 250-178 is different from mine (mine has a 2004 copyright date).

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

(3) Nongrounding-Type Receptacles. Where grounding means does not exist in the receptacle enclosure, the installation shall comply with (a), (b), or (c).

(a) A nongrounding-type receptacle(s) shall be permitted to be replaced with another nongrounding-type receptacle(s).

Has anyone else tried to get two-wire receptacles from a supply house? They all think they're "illegal." I had to go to Home Depot! :roll: