- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Ungrounded AFCI?
- Thread starter jeff43222
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
However I do always verify I have a reliably fault path for any equipment I install.
How I would do that would vary depending on site conditions.
But forget that.
Your thought seems to be that the NEC should allow the new installation of an ungrounded outlet as per the OPs question.
OK, how many outlets should they allow one more, ten more, as many as you feel like?
Is that per visit, per month or total for the stucture?
Many of us complain about the complexity of the NEC, here is a section that is clear.
New outlets must be grounded Simple
Now you want to muddy it up?
[ June 23, 2005, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Of course not if the nature of the call is unrelated to the GES.
However I do always verify I have a reliably fault path for any equipment I install.
How I would do that would vary depending on site conditions.
But forget that.
Your thought seems to be that the NEC should allow the new installation of an ungrounded outlet as per the OPs question.
OK, how many outlets should they allow one more, ten more, as many as you feel like?
Is that per visit, per month or total for the stucture?
Many of us complain about the complexity of the NEC, here is a section that is clear.
New outlets must be grounded Simple
Now you want to muddy it up?
[ June 23, 2005, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
If we're talking about finishing a basement, then we have exposed studs and chances are we'll have access to the GES, and will be adding to the panel. It's (even) convenient to wire it to code.
Altered wording can retain clarity that if access is possible, to pull a new home run.
With no interior access and an already finished basement, then already, that scope is going to be self-limiting. It is prohibitive and not reasonable to expect a grounding conductor to be added when a simple device change is needed. That's what 250.130 says.
We have the same predicament, but now we're dealing with one or ten new receptacles, but the panel is still on the other side of the house. It's reasonable to use the existing feed to do the job. It's reasonable to use the bends of 250.130 (A)&(B) to those ends. It's self limiting, and statistically speaking, if 99% of the outlets in the house bear no grounding, the other 1% is a spitwad in the wind.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Turn that around, Bob. How many receptacles in an old house can you replace? One, ten, or as many as you feel like? Why is this any different?
If we're talking about finishing a basement, then we have exposed studs and chances are we'll have access to the GES, and will be adding to the panel. It's (even) convenient to wire it to code.
Altered wording can retain clarity that if access is possible, to pull a new home run.
With no interior access and an already finished basement, then already, that scope is going to be self-limiting. It is prohibitive and not reasonable to expect a grounding conductor to be added when a simple device change is needed. That's what 250.130 says.
We have the same predicament, but now we're dealing with one or ten new receptacles, but the panel is still on the other side of the house. It's reasonable to use the existing feed to do the job. It's reasonable to use the bends of 250.130 (A)&(B) to those ends. It's self limiting, and statistically speaking, if 99% of the outlets in the house bear no grounding, the other 1% is a spitwad in the wind.
How is that structure going to look over time after ten visits from "let's wrap the house in #6"?
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
physis
Senior Member
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
I think George is just saying that no ground would be better than a receptacle EGC that was connected to an earth ground that wasn't also bonded at the service neutral.
I don't think he's advocating leaving the ground out. Just pointing out that unless a grounding electrode is bonded to the neutral at the service then it becomes a hazard if there's a fault on it because it won't clear and the electrodes and earth stay energized.
And that 250.130(C) seems to overlook that without an MBJ using an electrode as a ground only creates a hazard.
Does anyone disagree that a fault on a grounding electrode that isn't bonded to the service neutral is dangerous?
I think George is just saying that no ground would be better than a receptacle EGC that was connected to an earth ground that wasn't also bonded at the service neutral.
I don't think he's advocating leaving the ground out. Just pointing out that unless a grounding electrode is bonded to the neutral at the service then it becomes a hazard if there's a fault on it because it won't clear and the electrodes and earth stay energized.
And that 250.130(C) seems to overlook that without an MBJ using an electrode as a ground only creates a hazard.
Does anyone disagree that a fault on a grounding electrode that isn't bonded to the service neutral is dangerous?
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Morning Sam!
Off topic, I just turned three yesterday!
One more year, one more year...
Morning Sam!
Off topic, I just turned three yesterday!
One more year, one more year...
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
To use a grounding electrode as an equipment-grounding conductor that is not bonded to the grounded (neutral) is a danger.
I think that the debate is that 250.130 is being misunderstood. When reading this section we need to read (A) before going to (C) as it regards to the replacement of non-grounding type receptacles.
In (A) it clearly states that the bonding of the equipment grounding conductor to the grounded (neutral) conductor and the grounding electrode conductor.
This is a step that is being left out in the drawing that George has posted and it is required by the same section that is in debate.
Happy birthday George. Today I make 54 years
To use a grounding electrode as an equipment-grounding conductor that is not bonded to the grounded (neutral) is a danger.
I think that the debate is that 250.130 is being misunderstood. When reading this section we need to read (A) before going to (C) as it regards to the replacement of non-grounding type receptacles.
In (A) it clearly states that the bonding of the equipment grounding conductor to the grounded (neutral) conductor and the grounding electrode conductor.
This is a step that is being left out in the drawing that George has posted and it is required by the same section that is in debate.
Happy birthday George. Today I make 54 years
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Happy birthday George! I made it 27 on Saturday.
Happy birthday George! I made it 27 on Saturday.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
I am having an epiphany. I feel the pressure boiling, I think I'm on the verge of a revelation.
I'm starting to believe that branch circuit extensions aren't even required to have damned EGC in the first place.
As Mike said, take 250.130 as a whole: notice the FPN, which is under (C).
(C) is titled "Non-Grounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions."
250.130(C) is governing both installations!
Both!
All 250.130(C) is doing is laying down the requirements for a new EGC connection in old work. It's not requiring the connection, it's requiring that if a connection is made, that EGC connection shall be in accordance with 250.130(C). That's it!
406.3(D) states clearly, non-grounding receptacles can be replaced with GFI's etc etc under stipulations. It makes no bones about extensions, it simply states that no EGC connection between "bent" receptacles should be made.
Why would there be an EGC between outlets unless some of those outlets on the load side of the GFI were new?
Ha HA!
I am having an epiphany. I feel the pressure boiling, I think I'm on the verge of a revelation.
I'm starting to believe that branch circuit extensions aren't even required to have damned EGC in the first place.
As Mike said, take 250.130 as a whole: notice the FPN, which is under (C).
(C) is titled "Non-Grounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions."
250.130(C) is governing both installations!
Both!
All 250.130(C) is doing is laying down the requirements for a new EGC connection in old work. It's not requiring the connection, it's requiring that if a connection is made, that EGC connection shall be in accordance with 250.130(C). That's it!
406.3(D) states clearly, non-grounding receptacles can be replaced with GFI's etc etc under stipulations. It makes no bones about extensions, it simply states that no EGC connection between "bent" receptacles should be made.
Why would there be an EGC between outlets unless some of those outlets on the load side of the GFI were new?
Ha HA!
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Praise the Lord. Bless you heart George I think we will make it.
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:
90.5 (B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.
Praise the Lord. Bless you heart George I think we will make it.
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:
90.5 (B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
So, if we're all wrong, who won?
So, if we're all wrong, who won?
macmikeman
Senior Member
- Location
- Planet macmikeman
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
I win because I need to add a plug to an existing 2 wire circuit in a bedroom. I will use a gfi receptacle outlet. It will not have any grounding means and so therefore it will have a little sticker attached. Back at the panel the existing breaker is going to be changed to an afci if, and only if the inspector insists on it. (I looked at this panel and it has other issues, so I don't want to touch it with a 10 ft pole unless gen. contractor wants to pay for fix.)
I win because I need to add a plug to an existing 2 wire circuit in a bedroom. I will use a gfi receptacle outlet. It will not have any grounding means and so therefore it will have a little sticker attached. Back at the panel the existing breaker is going to be changed to an afci if, and only if the inspector insists on it. (I looked at this panel and it has other issues, so I don't want to touch it with a 10 ft pole unless gen. contractor wants to pay for fix.)
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Mac....
You are adding a receptacle to a bedroom. That receptacle has come into existence in 2005, and is subject to the requirements of 210.12.
Install the AFCI. Installing a breaker doesn't increase you liability for the entire panel, IMO. Perhaps others will comment on this.
Mac....
You are adding a receptacle to a bedroom. That receptacle has come into existence in 2005, and is subject to the requirements of 210.12.
Install the AFCI. Installing a breaker doesn't increase you liability for the entire panel, IMO. Perhaps others will comment on this.
macmikeman
Senior Member
- Location
- Planet macmikeman
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
George, not to beat this thing to a pulp but I did this same thing on another job recently except on that one I put the AFCI in (actually Im on of the people who like them things for the extra protection they may provide). The Senior inspector for the area inspected my job and told me that our city's official take on this is it's an existing branch circuit, so it is not required to go in by them. On the other hand our building dept requires us to relocate panels out of clothes closets or fix up stuff like grounds on a certain busbar where they dont belong,etc whenever we enter into a panel and do some electrical work
George, not to beat this thing to a pulp but I did this same thing on another job recently except on that one I put the AFCI in (actually Im on of the people who like them things for the extra protection they may provide). The Senior inspector for the area inspected my job and told me that our city's official take on this is it's an existing branch circuit, so it is not required to go in by them. On the other hand our building dept requires us to relocate panels out of clothes closets or fix up stuff like grounds on a certain busbar where they dont belong,etc whenever we enter into a panel and do some electrical work
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
How are existing installations different than new installations?
You lost me there.
I guess your talking about the danger presented to the homeowner.
Would you really like the code to be retroactive?
I am sure the NFPA, the Insurance companies and the electrical industry in general would like to say all ungrounded circuits must now be grounded but they can not.
So instead they stick with what I think is very logical.
New installations meet current rules, a replacement is not a new installation.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Why do you refuse to understand that 250.4 requires anyone working under the NEC to ensure that what they use as a grounding means is in fact a reliable fault path?
If your in a situation with finished ceilings or other reasons you can not verify that the GEC you are connecting to is in fact a bonded then you can not use it.
This is all very straight forward.
You do realize that as an electricians we all have to make decisions that can carry some heavy responsibility's.
The NEC can not make our work responsibility free.
Huh?
How are existing installations different than new installations?
You lost me there.
I guess your talking about the danger presented to the homeowner.
Would you really like the code to be retroactive?
I am sure the NFPA, the Insurance companies and the electrical industry in general would like to say all ungrounded circuits must now be grounded but they can not.
So instead they stick with what I think is very logical.
New installations meet current rules, a replacement is not a new installation.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Why do you refuse to understand that 250.4 requires anyone working under the NEC to ensure that what they use as a grounding means is in fact a reliable fault path?
If your in a situation with finished ceilings or other reasons you can not verify that the GEC you are connecting to is in fact a bonded then you can not use it.
This is all very straight forward.
You do realize that as an electricians we all have to make decisions that can carry some heavy responsibility's.
The NEC can not make our work responsibility free.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Bob, I'm confused. Did you read my last related post?
Bob, I'm confused. Did you read my last related post?
What are your thoughts on this?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
There is no code compliant method of installing a receptacle in a new location, unless you provide an EGC to that receptacle.
Don
There is no code compliant method of installing a receptacle in a new location, unless you provide an EGC to that receptacle.
Don
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Yes, I did read it and Don summed it up nicely.
physis
Senior Member
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
Here's the logical progression as I see it.
Assume that circuit extension includes a new receptacle installation.
Logical items with reference numbers for ease of disagreement:
[1] 250.130. When installing a receptacle where the branch has no EGC the second half of the paragraph grants specific permission to install under 250.130(C).
[2] The phrase "shall be permitted" is used. That means that if the NEC says something contradictory somewhere else, then the NEC is neurotic, and it's still permitted.
[3] 250.130(C) Blah, Blah, Blah, "shall be permitted" to be connected to any of the following. The following being 250.130(C) (1) through (5).
[4] 250.130(C)(1) says I can connect anywhere on the grounding electrode system that's described in 250.50. And it's a good thing it says that because there's no definition for a grounding electrode system in article 100. But even if there were I "shall be permitted" to use the description in 250.
[5] 250.50 describes the grounding electrode system as what most of us know it to be. It doesn't describe it to be connected to anything. (Outside of it's own electrodes)
[6] I've now run out of code requirements related to the EGC of this new receptacle and as far as I can tell I have specific permission to install it with an EGC that connects to only ground electrodes.
The same argument can be made for 250.130(C)(2). But less effectively because the definition for grounding electrode conductor does a slightly better job (not saying much) of putting the EGC on the service neutral.
I'm not taking sides or having preferences or giggling uncontrollably, just reading the code.
Here's the logical progression as I see it.
Assume that circuit extension includes a new receptacle installation.
Logical items with reference numbers for ease of disagreement:
[1] 250.130. When installing a receptacle where the branch has no EGC the second half of the paragraph grants specific permission to install under 250.130(C).
[2] The phrase "shall be permitted" is used. That means that if the NEC says something contradictory somewhere else, then the NEC is neurotic, and it's still permitted.
[3] 250.130(C) Blah, Blah, Blah, "shall be permitted" to be connected to any of the following. The following being 250.130(C) (1) through (5).
[4] 250.130(C)(1) says I can connect anywhere on the grounding electrode system that's described in 250.50. And it's a good thing it says that because there's no definition for a grounding electrode system in article 100. But even if there were I "shall be permitted" to use the description in 250.
[5] 250.50 describes the grounding electrode system as what most of us know it to be. It doesn't describe it to be connected to anything. (Outside of it's own electrodes)
[6] I've now run out of code requirements related to the EGC of this new receptacle and as far as I can tell I have specific permission to install it with an EGC that connects to only ground electrodes.
The same argument can be made for 250.130(C)(2). But less effectively because the definition for grounding electrode conductor does a slightly better job (not saying much) of putting the EGC on the service neutral.
I'm not taking sides or having preferences or giggling uncontrollably,
just reading the code.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Ungrounded AFCI?
As long as your having fun.
- Status