ungrounded extensions for receptacles.

[wireman3736]

I have been under the belief that it was acceptable to extend a circuit that was ungrounded and install an ungrounded receceptacle or a grounded receptacle as long as it was protected with a gfci. I was told today by the ahj that the code is specific in not allowing this. I read 250.130 a couple of times before I came to the conclusion that he is right and it is not exceptable. The way I read it now is that you can extend an ungrounded existing circuit and install a grounding receptacle as long as an equipment grounding wire is run back to the grounding electrode system or the main panel and also connect it to the receptacle ground screw. He was nice enough to tell me outside after the customer left and didn't make me change it. I was just looking for some other opinions to see if i'm reading it right. I'm not sure if it's always been worded like this or not because we have always extended ungrounded circuits and installed grounding receptacles, we just protected them with a gfci and no grounding conducter. I'll have to go down in the basement and dig out an old code book.

 

[ron]

I agree with your current (AHJ) interpretation.

 

[George Stolz]

This is one I'm qualified to answer; from the 2008 ROP:

18-16 Log #1396 NEC-P18 Final Action: Reject
(406.3(D))​

________________________________________________________________​

Submitter:​

George Stolz, II, Pierce, CO​

Recommendation:​

Add new text to read:
(D) Replacement. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.3(D)(1), (2), and (3) as applicable. Receptacles installed to additions to existing branch circuits shall be considered replacements for the purpose of this section.​

Substantiation:​

The section in question (406.3(D)) effectively bends the standard requirements for new installations to provide relief for the installer when dealing with old work. Given the leniency put forth by this section regarding replacement receptacles, it appears that old 2-wire installations, while regrettable, do not present an ?imminent danger to occupants? as stated in 80.5(B).
80.5(C) expresses that ?Additions...shall not cause a building to become unsafe...?. By expressing explicit guidelines for additions to existing circuits, installers will be forbidden to connect an unbonded EGC between receptacles, decreasing the shock hazard in the event of an unbonded fault. In many cases, these existing circuits are extended to add receptacles to conform with 210.52.
The elimination of extension cord use should carry nearly as much importance as EGC?s in this environment.​

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:​

Section 406.3(D) addresses the installation of replacement receptacles. This proposal addresses the installation of new receptacles. Therefore, this text does not apply to this section. The panel rejects the concept of adding new receptacles to an existing two-wire circuit and applying the provisions for replacement receptacles rules. Replacement receptacles rules are to increase the safety of older two-wire branch circuits where a replacement receptacle is desired. Section 406.3(D)(3) does not address the extension of existing two-wire circuits. The applicable rules for extending two-wire branch circuits are contained in Section 250.130(C) and require the extension to provide an equipment grounding conductor. The references to Sections 80.5(B) and 80.5(C) are now contained in Annex G of the 2005 NEC as 80.9(B) and (C). Annex G is not enforceable unless specifically adopted by local ordinance.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results:​

Affirmative: 12​

​

 

[wireman3736]

So lets see if I have this right, there was a proposal to allow grounded receptacles on an existing ungrounded circuit extension if they meet the replacement requirements of 406.3(D) and that proposal was denied, I looked at the 2002 code and see the same wording. It's been common practice to extend circuits and use the replacement section for as long as I remember. Today was the 1st time I have been told otherwise. I guess sometimes you get taught things in the beginning and never question them if it's not obvious.
The info you have supplied gives the intent of the way it is written.

Thanks Stan

 

[brother]

This is one I'm qualified to answer; from the 2008 ROP:

[/LEFT]

Interesting explaination. Ive read that article serveral times myself and unless a person ACTUALLY KNEW the INTENT of the NEC Panel, It can be INTERPERTED to say it was OK to run an extended UNGROUNDED circuit with gfci protection without an equipment ground, or just install 2 prong outlets.


All i can say is that the code does NOT say you CAN NOT do this. It just tell you what you CAN do in this scenerio.
So i would say that if this is the case the NEC panel need to 'clarify' what their INTENT is concerning the extension of the non grounding system.

Seeing how in MOST peoples opinion (mine as well) and in years of FIELD testing, a GFCI IS as good and in some cases BETTER than the installation of an egc on a recepticle. Just think about it, what if you lost your egc for whatever reason OR if you had touch something hot and you were grounded with a good egc, the breaker wouldnt trip until the enuff amps trip the ocp. You would complete a circuit and get shocked!! A GFCI would sense ANY current(0.5 milliamps) whatsoever that is imbalance between the HOT AND NEUTRAL and would cut OFF the power. No need to wait for enuff AMPS (i.e. 20 amp circuit) TO trip the breaker!!

Seeing how most people (not all) get shocked from completing the circuit by GROUNDING themselves to something else (metal box, kitchen sink etc), and not neccessarily between the HOT AND NEUTRAL.
Im going to have to DISAGREE with the NEC panels reasoning on this one scenerio. I do not FEEL that extending a circuit, grounding or non grounding that is PROTECTED by a GFCI is making a building more 'unsafe'. Then again, im just a worker bee, im not a POWER THAT BEE.

Would love to hear others oppinions on this and my statement. .

 

[wireman3736]

I agree if it doesn't make it unsafe extending the circuit (unless there going to add to the load) by using the replacement section then I believe it should be allowed, if your going to run an equipment grounding wire then you may as well run a new circuit, then if it's in the bed room you add an arc-fault breaker. I guess it would make it safer as far as old wiring vs new but it does add to the price of the job. poor old lady on a fixed income, I'm not a very good business man when it comes to old ladies so she would probably get it done at cost anyways.

 

[George Stolz]

So lets see if I have this right, there was a proposal to allow grounded receptacles on an existing ungrounded circuit extension if they meet the replacement requirements of 406.3(D) and that proposal was denied, I looked at the 2002 code and see the same wording.

This was a proposal for the 2008 NEC - it would have changed the 2008.

My proposal was to allow extensions to existing branch circuits without an EGC, yes.

It's been common practice to extend circuits and use the replacement section for as long as I remember. Today was the 1st time I have been told otherwise. I guess sometimes you get taught things in the beginning and never question them if it's not obvious.

I've got a fair share of scars from the practices I was taught that were whipped out of my hide here.

It's just the same as snagging a "ground" from under the kitchen sink in a remodel. It's a technical violation that I was taught from go, and until somebody throws it into the light that it's wrong you may never think twice about it.

Knowledge is power.

 

[George Stolz]

Brother, all receptacles are required to be bonded by 406.3(A)(B) and (C). You don't need to have a prohibition to not do something, if you have a requirement to do it otherwise.

Grounding could last forever. A GFCI will last until the device fails. Much shorter life span.

 

[brother]

Brother, all receptacles are required to be bonded by 406.3(A)(B) and (C). You don't need to have a prohibition to not do something, if you have a requirement to do it otherwise.

Grounding could last forever. A GFCI will last until the device fails. Much shorter life span.

Im not saying that you need a 'prohibition' to not do something ALL THE TIME. just in this particular scenerio!! It wouldve HELPED in knowing what the 'INTENT' of the NEC Panel was. As another member said (wireman3736,) they did this FOR YEARS before they hear that it is wrong!!

As for grounding that COULD last forever, its possible, but that is NOT the usual!! Grounding DOES not last forever it fails just like everything else (lose wirenut, old wire in panel disconnected, deteriation) .

And if you read my POST again, you would see this is MORE about safety to the home owner. A home owner can still get shocked and killed with a GOOD EGC!! AS I stated in my original posts.

As for GFCI will last until it fails, thats the same as grounds, but with GFCIs the new ones that i know of when they fail will NOT reset, instead there will be NO power comming from them at all. This in turn will cause the homeowner to get it REPLACED and in most cases with ANOTHER GFCI.

I m just saying in THIS particular scenerio (not all) , that a GFCI would be the same if not MORE protection for a homeowner in ungrounded systems when extending them. If you disagree then give me PRACTICAL field experience examples where u think it would 'make a building more unsafe' .


And oh by the way i am aware what the CODE says (about recepticles being bonded), I just say i do not agree with them on this scenerio.

 

[George Stolz]

Seeing how in MOST peoples opinion (mine as well) and in years of FIELD testing, a GFCI IS as good and in some cases BETTER than the installation of an egc on a recepticle.

Not so. Connections you can touch and feel are more comforting than come circuitry inside a black box, in my opinion. Charlie Eldridge, one of our moderators (albeit unfortunately absent lately), has actually stated that a good bonding system would make GFCI protection almost unnecessary, in his opinion.

Just think about it, what if you lost your egc for whatever reason...

Of natural causes? I daresay I expect a GFCI to croak before that time. In fact, the UL is driving closer and closer to self-testing GFCI's due to their somewhat fragile design.

...OR if you had touch something hot and you were grounded with a good egc, the breaker wouldnt trip until the enuff amps trip the ocp.

But, that's apples and oranges. An EGC is not designed to do that.

A GFCI would sense ANY current(0.5 milliamps) whatsoever that is imbalance between the HOT AND NEUTRAL and would cut OFF the power. No need to wait for enuff AMPS (i.e. 20 amp circuit) TO trip the breaker!!

No, just enough current passing through the person (4 to 6 mA) to trip the GFCI. A person is still getting shocked, man.

Seeing how most people (not all) get shocked from completing the circuit by GROUNDING themselves to something else (metal box, kitchen sink etc), and not neccessarily between the HOT AND NEUTRAL.

A member who passed before I joined here, Bennie Palmer, has deeply engrained this concept into this forum. You're right; the route the NEC has taken (since the 60's), is to put half the circuit into the hand of the user. But, there's no turning back now. Our bed was made before I was born, and now we're obliged to sleep in it. It's not a perfect system, but it ain't bad either.

Im going to have to DISAGREE with the NEC panels reasoning on this one scenerio. I do not FEEL that extending a circuit, grounding or non grounding that is PROTECTED by a GFCI is making a building more 'unsafe'.

Then submit a comment and support the proposal. It could still change.

 

[George Stolz]

Brother, simmer down. I'm having a good-hearted discussion, I'm not trying to pick on you, swear to God.

Im not saying that you need a 'prohibition' to not do something ALL THE TIME. just in this particular scenerio!!

In order for it to be "just this scenario", there would have to be an exception. Any new receptacle requires an EGC. Period.

It wouldve HELPED in knowing what the 'INTENT' of the NEC Panel was. As another member said (wireman3736,) they did this FOR YEARS before they hear that it is wrong!!

I hear you: but see 90.1(C). It's not their responsibility to educate us, just to make rules. We are seeking our own education as we type.

And if you read my POST again, you would see this is MORE about safety to the home owner. A home owner can still get shocked and killed with a GOOD EGC!! AS I stated in my original posts.

If a homeowner is exposed to a live conductor on a complete NEC-compliant installation, then there is something wrong. The only electrical contact the HO should have is with an EGC.

As for GFCI will last until it fails, thats the same as grounds, but with GFCIs the new ones that i know of when they fail will NOT reset, instead there will be NO power comming from them at all.

That is if the victim is lucky enough to hit the "Test" button before trying to shock himself. A failed GFCI will not trip because it's dead. Someday they might, but not yet.

 

[brother]

No, just enough current passing through the person (4 to 6 mA) to trip the GFCI. A person is still getting shocked, man. .

You may get shocked as u say, BUT it in MOST cases will NOT kill you, unlike getting shocked by being grounded. So the PURPOSE of the gfci is still fufilled!! Safety to the homeowner. Also i did show 0.5 miliamps in my post!!

But, that's apples and oranges. An EGC is not designed to do that..

not design to do WHAT??

Brother, simmer down. I'm having a good-hearted discussion, I'm not trying to pick on you, swear to God. ..

I know you not pickin. LOL and no need to 'swear to God' thats not good. Im just being sure you understand where im comming from.

n order for it to be "just this scenario", there would have to be an exception. Any new receptacle requires an EGC. Period...

You still MISSED my point. u took a part of what i was saying , and in doin so, you took my statement out of context. 'Just this scenerio' they (NEC Panel) should have made it more clear as to what they meant. That article can be read in different interpertations about extending non grounding circuits.

If a homeowner is exposed to a live conductor on a complete NEC-compliant installation, then there is something wrong. The only electrical contact the HO should have is with an EGC....

Ever hear of a homeowner changin bulbs with the power on and wet hands. I know it sounds stupid but it does happen. And even if it was just something touching a metal frame if a light fixture, I agree there is something WRONG, but the fact is a GFCI would more likely SAVE the homeowner Life than an EGC.

I hear you: but see 90.1(C). It's not their responsibility to educate us, just to make rules. We are seeking our own education as we type.....

This was NOT to 'educate' us, but it is THEIR (NEC Panel) to let their INTENT be made known. this is just basic life understanding, No one can really know your INTENT unless you tell them. WE are not mind readers. Just simple clarification on an article would clear up alot of confustion. Im sure that inspector that quoted the INTENT of the panel had to learn it from the panel through some means. Seeing how that ARTICLE can be INTERPERTED either way.

That is if the victim is lucky enough to hit the "Test" button before trying to shock himself. A failed GFCI will not trip because it's dead. Someday they might, but not yet......

It wont trip cause there is NO POWER comming from it. It is my understanding that if a gfci is 'dead' there will be NO power comming from it. whether it was tested or not. In fact i just had one to go bad. without testing it. It did NOT have any power, so how can one get shocked if there is NO power comming from the outlet?? This will alert the homeowner to change the outlet.

Not so. Connections you can touch and feel are more comforting than come circuitry inside a black box, in my opinion. Charlie Eldridge, one of our moderators (albeit unfortunately absent lately), has actually stated that a good bonding system would make GFCI protection almost unnecessary, in his opinion......

Like u said in your OPINION. but NOT in real life.

 

[George Stolz]

not design to do WHAT??

The Equipment Grounding System is not designed to save a person from direct electrical contact with ungrounded conductors. One thing you said was "if you had touch something hot and you were grounded with a good egc". The EGC is not meant to protect people in this scenario. It's whole premise is based around hot stuff being guarded.

When you remove that protection, then your argument (on that count) is weakened.

I know you're not pickin. LOL

Good.

You still MISSED my point. u took a part of what i was saying , and in doin so, you took my statement out of context. 'Just this scenerio' they (NEC Panel) should have made it more clear...

That is a good point. Perhaps on the comment stage, I should drop all hope for the bulk of the proposal going through, and instead focus on how much of the field is unaware of the intent. Perhaps an FPN should be added to this section, to clarify their intent. I think that could be accomplished

It is my understanding that if a gfci is 'dead' there will be NO power comming from it.

If the circuitry fails, the GFCI will continue to provide power until the second coming, unless something opens the circuit. Weird things happen; some GFCI's will trip themselves if they lose power, by design. If there is a hiccup in the power on the line side, then there's a chance the failed GFCI would be tripped when you come to replace it.

Sometimes, the GFCI croaks on it's last trip. Sometimes, on that last "trip", the circuitry itself is destroyed in a puff of smoke. There is no guarantee that a GFCI will not be providing power after it's useful life.

That's from real life.

 

[George Stolz]

For those interested, this thread had a decent discussion on this too. I don't have any idea of thread that spawned the proposal thread. Basically, it boiled down to me saying "What? It's not allowed?" the same way this thread started.

You'll notice Bob (iwire) came out of the gate swinging - I had already beat the topic to death before writing the proposal.

 

[petersonra]

I agree with your current (AHJ) interpretation.

I don't agree with him allowing you to leave an improper installation as is.

 

[wireman3736]

I don't agree with him allowing you to leave an improper installation as is.

I don't know how you can disagree with him allowing me to leave it, you don't have all the facts of the installation, AHJ'S make decisions all the time based on not just the NEC but the safety of the installation, haven't you ever discussed a job where the circumstances just weren't normal and it came down to the AHJ allowing you to deviate from the NEC a little do the job.

Thats why you bring cookies with you on Inspection day,

 

[brother]

The Equipment Grounding System is not designed to save a person from direct electrical contact with ungrounded conductors. One thing you said was "if you had touch something hot and you were grounded with a good egc". The EGC is not meant to protect people in this scenario. It's whole premise is based around hot stuff being guarded.

When you remove that protection, then your argument (on that count) is weakened.

Thats the WHOLE POINT YOU MISSED!! My 'argument' is NOT based on that account. My argument is BASED on safety for the Homeowner (something ive been REPEATEDLY STATING). At least you AGREE that the egc will NOT protect people in this 'scenerio.' Thats why i say a GFCI will provide MORE protection for the homeowner than the egc.

The premises for the statement from the NEC Panel is that 'you cannot make a building unsafe' When in fact you are MAKING it more safe. So in 'THIS' scenerio, and you apparently agree the egc is NOT designed and is NOT capable of this 'type' of protection. Seeing how this is WHERE most people get seriously injured or killed.

Thats why GFCI's are set to trip at 0.5 miliamps. In real life like i said, usually someone has grounded themselves accidently, (kithchen sink, light fixture etc.) and when that metal is well bonded with a egc and that person is touching the hot or has accidently come in contact with a 'energized' part or conductor from somewhere, the GFCI will trip!!. Thats the where my arguement is. Stay on Point.

If the circuitry fails, the GFCI will continue to provide power until the second coming, unless something opens the circuit. Weird things happen; some GFCI's will trip themselves if they lose power, by design. If there is a hiccup in the power on the line side, then there's a chance the failed GFCI would be tripped when you come to replace it.

Sometimes, the GFCI croaks on it's last trip. Sometimes, on that last "trip", the circuitry itself is destroyed in a puff of smoke. There is no guarantee that a GFCI will not be providing power after it's useful life.

That's from real life.

I suppose this is WHERE we disagree in part as well (which is part of the reason for me supporting and you not supporting). Of course there is ALWAYS NO guarrantee that it would stop providing power just like there is NO GUARRANTEE that the egc will stay forever . So lets STAY away from the 'guarrantee comments' ok??

The point im making is that I personally have YET to see where one was still giving out power when it was bad (maybe you have). I have done more than my FAIR share of GFCI's. Maybe its the brand name or something. But each time iv seen or had a call about a GFCI NOT working, it did NOT have power comming from it. The homeowner claim the outlet just wouldnt work and the breaker was on. So i say the more LIKELY hood of a GFCI going 'bad' and still giving out power is very small. Increasing the chances of saving a Homeowners life.
So where the egc would not do, or as you stated is NOT DESIGN to do, the GFCI would. Electrically saving lives or preventing serious injury is what the whole 'COUNT' or 'premise' the NEC is about. SAFETY!!

 

[wireman3736]

The point im making is that I personally have YET to see where one was still giving out power when it was bad (maybe you have). I have done more than my FAIR share of GFCI's. Maybe its the brand name or something. But each time iv seen or had a call about a GFCI NOT working, it did NOT have power comming from it. The homeowner claim the outlet just wouldnt work and the breaker was on. So i say the more LIKELY hood of a GFCI going 'bad' and still giving out power is very small. Increasing the chances of saving a Homeowners life.
So where the egc would not do, or as you stated is NOT DESIGN to do, the GFCI would. Electrically saving lives or preventing serious injury is what the whole 'COUNT' or 'premise' the NEC is about. SAFETY!!

I like to play both sides of an issue so here it goes. If the egc is providing a low impedence path back to the main panel then if it was to short out and energize an item that has been grounded then the overcurrent device should trip and disconnect the hazard. As far as gfci's tripping and not allowing voltage through I have had many experiances where I have seen just the opposite, I had to go in and correct some violations in a rental unit just last week, one of the violations that the Inspector had sited was a gfci in the kitchen and one in a bathroom that were not tripping when he tested them with his gfci tester, when I went to check these I plugged in my Ideal sure test circuit analyzer it showed correct wiring and 120 volt but when I pushed the gfci test button it did not trip the gfci, I then pushed the test button on the device and still no trip. ( And yes it was wired correctly) Neither one would trip with my tester or the test button on the device, I admit I haven't seen allot like this but I have seen some and I don't believe it to be uncommon, I guess it all depends on how it fails, I guess thats why the directions recommend testing them monthly.
I believe the new ul standards require the gfci to disconnect the power if the gfci protection fails in the unit, that would be nice.

 

[M. D.]

How old is the original wiring and what type is it, what is the rating of the conductors?

Adding to the load they see could indeed be a safty issue.

In Massachusetts we can not increase the magnitude of an existing code violation. The addition of receptacles on such a circuit seems ,to me ,to do just that.

For instance would the wiring method meet current listing requirements ,90C for romex ?.If you would not be allowed to use it today, you should probably not be adding to it. IMO

 

[George Stolz]

Here's the original thread that got me to writing the proposal.

Thats the WHOLE POINT YOU MISSED!! My 'argument' is NOT based on that account. My argument is BASED on safety for the Homeowner (something ive been REPEATEDLY STATING). At least you AGREE that the egc will NOT protect people in this 'scenerio.' Thats why i say a GFCI will provide MORE protection for the homeowner than the egc.

The EGC will clear a fault with no shock to the occupants. That's always going to be a leg up to a GFCI. If an old man with a bum ticker gets hit with a GFCI, it could very well be his doom. If the same problem can be solved without shocking the victim, the NFPA is going to take that course every time. It's an excellent complement to an already grounded system, but it's not a bulletproof substitute.

In real life like i said, usually someone has grounded themselves accidently, (kithchen sink, light fixture etc.) and when that metal is well bonded with a egc and that person is touching the hot or has accidently come in contact with a 'energized' part or conductor from somewhere, the GFCI will trip!

If there is an EGS in a house, then they should not be able to touch hot things and get shocked. As in, there should be nothing hot to touch. (I'm really not following you here, not playing stupid.)

Of course there is ALWAYS NO guarrantee that it would stop providing power just like there is NO GUARRANTEE that the egc will stay forever . So lets STAY away from the 'guarrantee comments' ok??

I view temps as being one of the most abusive environments you could ask for. I replace a helluva lot more GFI's than EGC's in temps. I don't come across too many failed EGC's in the field, either. But I don't get out much, either.

The point im making is that I personally have YET to see where one was still giving out power when it was bad (maybe you have).

I seem to recall an event, but can't think of the circumstances. Miswired line to load will do it, but that's not really applicable to our discussion. I seem to recall a GFI in a temp once that failed to trip but continued to provide power. I know for certain it has happened on a 2-pole 50A GFCI breaker once, because I had to physically disconnect the breaker to appease the safety guy. But breakers may be different than the GFCI receptacles in their inner mechanisms.

But each time iv seen or had a call about a GFCI NOT working, it did NOT have power comming from it. The homeowner claim the outlet just wouldnt work and the breaker was on.

Would they call you if the outlet was still giving out power?

It's a great addition to a system, it's an okay substitute for an EGC in a pinch, but I do not see my proposal as having any success in the comment stage. They do not feel a GFI is good enough for new receptacles. I've come a long ways to accepting this, despite a desire to change it. What more can I say?