Ungrounded AFCI?

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

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

I just think it's all beacause "Everyone else is doing it"! I'm sure it adds up to serious profits. The manufacturers saw the other companies selling billions of these interchangable breakers (For Non-compliant installs) and thought..."Hmmm, that looks easy! Plus we don't even have to warranty them once they install them in the other panels!"
YES, that's it...We will make damn sure they fit the other panels, but if they actually use them, it will be a NEC violation! So if anything goes wrong we're covered...we TOLD them not to use them!
INGENIOUS!

It's like a black-market of circuit breakers hidden right in front of our eyes!

Salesman: Sorry sir, we don't sell any ITE breaker's here... I could Special order that for you and have it here next week... OR (As he looks over his shoulder & lowers his voice to a whisper) pssst, this here GE will work just fine for you (wink-wink) now make sure you follow the manufacturere's instructions when installing that sir (Wink-wink) :roll:

DIY Customer: um... yea.. ok...thanks... you say it fits huh?


Dave

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Jeff,
Option B is only showing replacing the recp. to (1) GFCI recp.

Option C shows replacing the recp. AND adding additional recps.

This can be done with a GFCI recp. or GFCI breaker.

Dave

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by jeff43222:

So the bottom line is that I can't extend unless the extension has an effective ground-fault path, right?

Correct.

 

[davedottcom]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by jeff43222:
So the bottom line is that I can't extend unless the extension has an effective ground-fault path, right?

Yes, without the "effective ground-fault path" you can only replace, With an "effective ground-fault path" you can replace & extend.

Dave

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Here's the rules as I understand them:

A non-grounding receptacle may be usd only to replace a non-grounding receptacle where there is no grounding pathway.

A GFCI will allow downstream grounding receptacles to be used ungrounded, as long as they're marked as not providing grounding and as long as the grounding terminals are not interconnected.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by ryan_618:

Originally posted by jeff43222:

So the bottom line is that I can't extend unless the extension has an effective ground-fault path, right?

Correct.

Does anyone else see this as a rather arbitrary requirement? So every receptacle in the house can be two-wire, but if you add one receptacle, it has to have a grounding conductor that may or may not actually serve a bonding function, which is far more critical than grounding to a remote grounding electrode?

That just seems stupid.

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
So every receptacle in the house can be two-wire, but if you add one receptacle, it has to have a grounding conductor that may or may not actually serve a bonding function, which is far more critical than grounding to a remote grounding electrode?

How did grounding electrodes enter into this?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

How did grounding electrodes enter into this?

250.130(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions. The equipment grounding conductor of a grounding-type receptacle or a branch-circuit extension shall be permitted to be connected to any of the following:
(1) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system as described in 250.50
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure where the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch circuit originates
(4) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor within the service equipment enclosure
(5) For ungrounded systems, the grounding terminal bar within the service equipment enclosure

Coming into an old, existing house, where the electrodes may be concealed after all this time, who's to say the neutral is connected to one of these?

Why can't we just install a 2-wire for that receptacle and forget about it? Or install a GFI? Why the special rule if a circuit is extended?

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Coming into an old, existing house, where the electrodes may be concealed after all this time, who's to say the neutral is connected to one of these?

The code can not be written from the perspective of wiring systems being non-compliant.

Did that make sense?

It is up to the installer to verify the conductor they chose to connect to is actually doing something.

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Why can't we just install a 2-wire for that receptacle and forget about it? Or install a GFI? Why the special rule if a circuit is extended?

I do not know why here is my opinion.

The code allows what is existing to remain but will not allow any new installations that are non compliant with todays standard.

IMO this is as it should be.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

80.9(B) Existing Installations. Existing electrical installations that do not comply with the provisions of this Code shall be permitted to be continued in use unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants. Where changes are required for correction of hazards, a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance, depending on the degree of the hazard.

250.130(C) is a current code to be used by current electricians to cope with old work, that by it's nature is not compliant with current code.

While not enforceable, Article 80 appears to turn a sympathetic ear to the plight of the current electrician, attempting to follow the code but left with the short end of the stick when it comes to old work. It contains language to appeal to the AHJ to intervene if "the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants."

If there were an imminent danger to the occupants from the lack of EGC's in a room, then the AHJ would have every right to shut it down. As it is, a lack of ECG's in old structures is viewed as unfortunate, but not an imminent danger. Hence why we can install GFCI's to "patch" the void in old work.

So why would an extension to existing wiring be different than replacing existing receptacles?

And asking us to find a grounding electrode is false advertising at best, given that the EGC's primary function is bonding in the first place. They'd almost be better off allowing us to connect the neutral to EGC at the first change of the old system, than find false hope in connection to a water pipe. IMO.

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Sorry George I just can not agree with your reasoning here.

By connecting to the GEC the circuit will be connected to the MBJ which is what is important.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Will it?

250.52(A)(1) changed in the 90's, right? So, the GES used to be every water pipe, now it's only within 5' for the reasons shown above.

Here we've complied with 250.130(C), and everybody who goes to the bathroom gets shocked, and the dog doesn't like walking near the house anymore, and the breaker still isn't tripping.

I'm not being sarcastic: before I came here and learned the importance of bonding, I would feel pretty good about connecting my new receptacle to the water pipe within 5'.

It's the same as the light poles that Charlie Tuna raves about. A misguided trust in "grounding."

That receptacle needs "grounding" like a hole in the head. It would benefit from bonding very much.

[ June 19, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

I am really not following you George I really do not see the issue.

I am trying and I want to understand your thoughts here.

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

You do realize that an open utility neutral will produce the same problem?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

I am really not following you George I really do not see the issue.

Dang it, Bob, that's why I drew the picture.

I take issue that the code is restrictive down a path that is fraught with more problems, both for the installer and the resident who lives there. This is a very small safety issue being forced out of proportion by a code.

I think it looks good on paper, but in the real world, an non-grounding house is a non-grounding house. Every last one of them is a Pandora's box, so why have this ridiculously prohibitive code, that isn't even effective at it's goal?

Why is the outlet on the other side of the room okay?

[ June 19, 2005, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by iwire:
You do realize that an open utility neutral will produce the same problem?

I think we're talking about two different things. If something bad happens, and the yoke of the receptacle or an appliance that's plugged into it has a ground fault, it'll try to use the EGC to fault 120V back to open the OCPD. In the picture, that's what's going on.

That's what I'm concerned about. I'm not concerned about that Utility Neutral, just concerned about the broken live Hole Hawg in my hand that's not opening the OCPD like it's supposed to.

[ June 19, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

George the line must be drawn.

Existing non-grounding outlets can remain new outlet locations must meet code. The code is already bending allowing the use of a separate grounding conductor instead of requiring a entire new cable be run.

By the way even though we may install a grounding outlet via a GFCI we can not plug grounding type equipment into it. Check out 250.114.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

That's funny. (Your reference to 250.114.)

The code is bending, but to a peculiar stopping point. If a new circuit is installed, it makes sense for it to be to current code.

If a minor addition is made to an existing circuit, and there is a current code to remark on it, then it makes sense to match the existing, if there is no imminent danger in doing so.

I think there's a bigger danger in a false sense of "grounding" than to leave a receptacle unbonded in an otherwise unbonded house.

Edit to clarify

[ June 19, 2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Can't you see the credible threat that partial-bonding has presented in my picture?

Not only is the water piping in the house energized with no hope of release, but the ground surrounding the house is energized, with uncertain step potential but potential nonetheless.

If the fault current reaches the ground rod by the service, it will energize the ground rod and the service attached to it. The ground rod is as ineffective absorbing current as it is at dispelling it at 120V, so it won't act to open the OCPD.

 

[iwire]

Re: Ungrounded AFCI?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Can't you see the credible threat that partial-bonding has presented in my picture?

No, you need to label more of the items so I can understand it.

Originally posted by georgestolz:
The ground rod is as ineffective absorbing current as it is at dispelling it at 120V, so it won't act to open the OCPD.

No the ground will not help by itself, but it is connected to the EGC at the panel, this will clear the fault.

If GEC that an electrician connects to is not connected to the panel they are a hack electrician.