ungrounded romex

[yonkss]

hi, i have a job rehabbing an old house with the old non metallic sheithed cable, no ground wire. the home inspector is complaining about an open ground at the outlets (someone has previously changed to grounded type receptical). obviously i can"t get a ground wire to these outlets without tearing up the house. can i put these on a gfci breaker and pass inspection abd do i have to change all the outlets to the old polerized ones (if i can still find them)? thanks for your help. mike y. providence electric

 

[roger]

The simplest fix is to change back to two prong receptacles, and they are readily available.

GFCI protection for circuits outside of those that would come under 250.114 is an option for those areas.

Roger

 

[tom baker]

I would suggest a GFCI receptacle, much less money and won't be subject to reverse polarity in other non receptacle parts of the circuit. And perhaps a 120 volt circuit without an equipment ground, but protected by a GFCI safer than having a grounding path present at every receptacle....

 

[George Stolz]

The simplest fix is to change back to two prong receptacles, and they are readily available.

In theory. Some supply houses around here think they're only legal to use in Florida, for some reason. (Not a slam on the Floridians, just repeating what was said to me. )

I ended up going to the Depot last time I needed some!

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Change receptacles or go the gfci route.Either are legal.Problems to both.
Receptacle change will likely take longer and furniture might be in the way.Also dont forget them stickers (worthless but required) .GFCI can be either breaker (if available) or receptacle with slaves,any defects in wiring might make this a problem with tripping.Also old steel boxes wont fit them.Take a good look at what you have first before making bid,better yet do it T&M.

 

[mxslick]

This is one reason why the NEC needs a reality check!!

This is one reason why the NEC needs a reality check!!

Change receptacles or go the gfci route.Either are legal.Problems to both.

Let's look at the alternatives the Code allows from a real-world brutally practical standpoint:

One: Put the affected circuit(s) on a GFCI, starting at the panel or first device.

O.K., I agree that GFCI's are a solid, pretty reliable device that will in most cases enhance safety. My bathroom, despite having no ground wire (older building wired as per this discussion) has a GFCI installed, with the required labels too. So far, so good.

The reality in most older construction is that the kitchen circuit(s) (or at least the one serving the fridge) is simply taken in line from the general-use receptacle circuits. (As is mine.)

So, without doing a total rewire, you now face a tripped GFCI cutting off power to your fridge. And to boot, some older fridges don't work well with GFCI's.

Oh, yeah, some computers, TV's and especially cable boxes don't take to GFCI's as well.

And since most fridges have a three-pronged, grounding type plug, that leads to the problem with :

Two: Replacement receptacles MUST be of the two-prong, non grounding type.

O.k., on one hand, makes sense, right? Since there is no grounding conductor, we don't want to give a false sense of security.

But consider the following:

• The majority of appliances/lamps/TV's, etc. use two prong plugs anyway, which means no grounding is required (This of course can make a point FOR 2p recepts, but the main issue is the lack of a need for grounding in this context);

• Those items that have three-prong plugs will either need an adapter, which is not allowed in some jurisdictions, and introduces additional contact points which could fail (and the quality of some adapters leaves a lot to be desired);

• The adapter, even if used, most likely still would not be grounded anyway;

• An adapter behind a fridge would create clearace issues and lead to damage to the recept., cord and/or plug;

• Or the user will simply cut the ground prong off to fit the receptacle, which will of course compromise the safety of the appliance when it is used on a properly wired receptacle.

So you can equip with a GFCI protecting every bloody receptacle (and since it seems that the first one in line always ends up in the bedroom, behind the bed or dresser) and deal with the consequences of nuisance (rare) trips or a true problem, which you'll now have to unplug everything to find;

or

Put two-prong recepts throughout, and have issues with adapters and cutting off ground prongs.

Simply put, the requirement of two-prong recepts is stupid, presents a potential for greater hazards (immediate or future) and needlessly expensive (not talking huge money here, but c'mon).

And as I've heard before, the NFPA is a tombstone agency. Can anyone, NFPA or otherwise, present valid statistics that prove that the use of three-prong receptacles on ungrounded circuits results in documented, increased risks of fire, death or electric shock ?

This provision of the Code needs a reality check!!

 

[iwire]

As Roger pointed out 250.114 factors in here.

In short you can not plug in an appliance with a 3 wire plug into an outlet marked no-equipment ground. (Yeah that will be followed)

The NEC is between a rock and hard place, you can not make the NEC retroactive and require people to rip up their walls just because the two wire receptacle has worn out and needs to be replaced.

At the same time they do need to do what is reasonable to make the installation safer than it was.

 

[roger]

Tony, you need not worry about what happens to a cord cap after you have followed the NEC and walked out the door.

The end user will do many things that will endanger themselves and those around them and all you can do as an electrician is install per the requirements of applicable codes.

Besides cutting the ground prong off of a cord cap, they will twist the prong of a 20 amp cord cap so it can be used in a 15 amp receptacle, they will over size incandescent lamps for the rating of a fixture, they will install larger fuses, they will install new fixtures on old wiring, they will bag nuisance smoke alarms, they will get creative when it comes to needing a voltage source for an item they have bought, see below, etc...

So simply put, we must keep repairs and additions that we do code compliant, even if we think we have a better idea, then we go home
and sleep well knowing we did.

Roger

 

[iwire]

Nice Pic.

I wonder if they did that hot?

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Let's look at the alternatives the Code allows from a real-world brutally practical standpoint:

One: Put the affected circuit(s) on a GFCI, starting at the panel or first device.

O.K., I agree that GFCI's are a solid, pretty reliable device that will in most cases enhance safety. My bathroom, despite having no ground wire (older building wired as per this discussion) has a GFCI installed, with the required labels too. So far, so good.

The reality in most older construction is that the kitchen circuit(s) (or at least the one serving the fridge) is simply taken in line from the general-use receptacle circuits. (As is mine.)

So, without doing a total rewire, you now face a tripped GFCI cutting off power to your fridge. And to boot, some older fridges don't work well with GFCI's.

Oh, yeah, some computers, TV's and especially cable boxes don't take to GFCI's as well.

And since most fridges have a three-pronged, grounding type plug, that leads to the problem with :

Two: Replacement receptacles MUST be of the two-prong, non grounding type.

O.k., on one hand, makes sense, right? Since there is no grounding conductor, we don't want to give a false sense of security.

But consider the following:

• The majority of appliances/lamps/TV's, etc. use two prong plugs anyway, which means no grounding is required (This of course can make a point FOR 2p recepts, but the main issue is the lack of a need for grounding in this context);

• Those items that have three-prong plugs will either need an adapter, which is not allowed in some jurisdictions, and introduces additional contact points which could fail (and the quality of some adapters leaves a lot to be desired);

• The adapter, even if used, most likely still would not be grounded anyway;

• An adapter behind a fridge would create clearace issues and lead to damage to the recept., cord and/or plug;

• Or the user will simply cut the ground prong off to fit the receptacle, which will of course compromise the safety of the appliance when it is used on a properly wired receptacle.

So you can equip with a GFCI protecting every bloody receptacle (and since it seems that the first one in line always ends up in the bedroom, behind the bed or dresser) and deal with the consequences of nuisance (rare) trips or a true problem, which you'll now have to unplug everything to find;

or

Put two-prong recepts throughout, and have issues with adapters and cutting off ground prongs.

Simply put, the requirement of two-prong recepts is stupid, presents a potential for greater hazards (immediate or future) and needlessly expensive (not talking huge money here, but c'mon).

And as I've heard before, the NFPA is a tombstone agency. Can anyone, NFPA or otherwise, present valid statistics that prove that the use of three-prong receptacles on ungrounded circuits results in documented, increased risks of fire, death or electric shock ?

This provision of the Code needs a reality check!!

As a Cinema Service Technician i would not exspect you to understand the dangers involved.Nec has done all it can really do about this issue.It allows you to keep your 2 prong and replace them.If for whatever reason you need the ground they gave you a choice of ways to do so.A good operating frig will work on gfci but if you dont trust them then simply bypass them when adding the gfci receptacle (assuming it was the first device) or run a dedicated circuit for the frig.

 

[77401]

MXS
Very well written, you spent a lot of time thinking about this.
Never mind Tampa Jims, Rude remark regarding your field of expertise.
I agree with your view of the problem(s)
But what is the solution?

 

[George Stolz]

I agree with Roger's comment. What people do after I leave is neither my business nor my fault.

The NEC has given us some reasonable allowances for old work. I'd like to see them expanded somewhat, but my proposal was resoundingly rejected.

I too am curious to hear MX's optimal solution to the problem of dealing with old work?

 

[iwire]

The NEC has given us some reasonable allowances for old work. I'd like to see them expanded somewhat, but my proposal was resoundingly rejected.

I still can not agree with a proposal that would allow us to wire today using yesterdays rules.

What you where asking for would IMO set a dangerous precedent.

Namely "If its difficult we don't have to do it"

Adding new wiring is a big jump from replacing existing devices.

I am glad it was not accepted.

(Nothing personal George, I respect your effort, I have never turned in a proposal)

 

[al hildenbrand]

Roger,

That is an absolutely great photo!

It never ceases to amaze me what some people will do!

 

[mxslick]

I feel the solution is....

I feel the solution is....

MXS
Very well written, you spent a lot of time thinking about this.
Never mind Tampa Jims, Rude remark regarding your field of expertise.
I agree with your view of the problem(s)
But what is the solution?

First off, I don't think Tampa meant to be (or was) rude, really. My profile doesn't include the fifteen years I have spent working with various EC's, my last EC considered me to be at the journeyman level in knowledge. My current occupation is as a Cinema Service Tech, running my own company.

So, no offence taken, Tampa!

On both this site and others, I have noticed it was maintained in MANY instances that the Code is not intended to be retroactive, i.e. you are in many cases not required to bring older installations up to modern Code, as long as there is no damage or danger already present.

So, if you are simply replacing exisiting receptacles, without making any additions to the circuit, why should the Code force you into using a gfci? (Except of course in the currently required locations, like baths, kitchens or outdoors.) Or re-installing an "outdated" receptacle design?

I reiterate that I'm NOT trying to argue that it would not be safer to use a gfci, but why force it on every receptacle in a residence when it was never required to be on every receptacle in the first place? (and let's leave AFCI's out of this for now, please!)

So I submit that simply replacing devices, which in most cases is a BIG step up in safety, is an area where in this case the Code needs to get in step with reality.

Honestly, how many homes/apts. in the U.S. (not to exclude the rest of the world, but this is an NEC issue) do you all think are still wired with the older two-wire romex? (Let's say millions for giggles.) And how many, of those homes/apts., have had the receptacles changed by the homeowners/landlords? (millions again) And let's not forget that many jurisdictions DO NOT require inspections or permits for device change-outs? And how many of those millions who have done device changeouts bothered to locate and spend the extra cash on two-prong recpts? Maybe a hundred if any.

And the kicker: How many, of those millions, have had reportable, statistically significant incidents of shock/fire/other hazards, simply because they changed out to a three-prong recept.?

Adding new wiring is a big jump from replacing existing devices.

Exactly. And in the case of adding new wiring, the Code specifically (and correctly) addresses the issue by ensuring that the addition complies with current Code standards.

So if you add on to an exisitng two-wire circuit, as painful and expensive as it may be, I agree with the Code that you must bring the circuit up to modern standards.

NOTE: The bold and underlines in the following quote are emphasis added by me:

As Roger pointed out 250.114 factors in here.

In short you can not plug in an appliance with a 3 wire plug into an outlet marked no-equipment ground. (Yeah that will be followed)

The NEC is between a rock and hard place, you can not make the NEC retroactive and require people to rip up their walls just because the two wire receptacle has worn out and needs to be replaced.

At the same time they do need to do what is reasonable to make the installation safer than it was.

That's the point. You cannot make people rip up walls to replace a worn-out receptacle. And you cannot prevent someone from plugging a grounded appliance into an outlet marked no equipment ground. But as i'd pointed out in my first post, the use of an adapter on an older install is no promise of a valid equipment ground anyway.

So what difference, electrically, would there be between a three-prong recept. on a two wire system and a two-prong recept. with an adapter, with the ground pigtail connected to the non-existant ground of the cover screw or box?

There is absolutely NO difference electrically between the two!!!

As for Roger's post, I agree with him 100% all the way up to here:

...So simply put, we must keep repairs and additions that we do code compliant, even if we think we have a better idea,....

Now here's a point I think we can all agree on: The Code is NOT all-knowing, all-seeing, right? It would be impossible to produce such a document, with concrete answers for every possible situation. (Same holds true in my Cinema biz..)

Sometimes the guys (and gals) in the real world DO have a better idea, having the benefit of many situations and years of combined experience.

Bearing in mind all the points we have all brought up, is it possible that the Code is not being realistic on this issue?

To summarize:

The safest solution, but not the most pratical or realistic in the real world, already resides in the Code with the GFCI requirement. But in the thousands(?) of jurisdictions which do NOT require inspections/permits, how can it be uniformly enforced? And like the AFCI's what's to prevent someone (most likely not qualified) from changing the device after the inspection? (Which can be a greater hazard than the one we're supposed to be preventing.)

The reality is that in a two-wire romex system, no EGC exists. So what difference does the use of a two-prong recpt. with adapters or a three-prong recpt. make, in the sense of providing for equipment/appliances which have grounding plugs? Well, other than the need for an extra set of current-carrying contacts in the adapter, or the real possiblilty of a ground prong being cut off, there is absolutely no difference.

So does that now leave us with a new Code proposal, overriding years of precedent, which will now require us to totally rewire any building when we need to replace the two-prong recepts?

The ultimate solution:

Adding a clause to the Code:

Allow the replacement with three-prong recepts., marked with "No Equipment Ground" !!

Sorry for the marathon post, but that's how I see it.

And a big thanks to everyone for thier input!!

 

[iwire]

The code does not force us to use GFCIs at all in older homes.

We can replace the two wire receptacles with two wire receptacles and forget the GFCIs.

I have to be honest I am missing the point you are trying to make entirely.

Can you sum up your thoughts in a few sentences?

 

[George Stolz]

I think the main point was this:

Adding a clause to the Code:

Allow the replacement with three-prong recepts., marked with "No Equipment Ground" !!

I'm not really sure why, though.

 

[George Stolz]

I am glad it was not accepted.

(Nothing personal George...

Nothing taken.

Recently, I forwarded a comment to Ryan that I was afraid he'd take the wrong way, and I was grateful for his response. We all have opinions.

 

[77401]

Allow the replacement with three-prong recepts., marked with "No Equipment Ground"

I'm good with that.
How about... manufacture a receptacle with a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark inside of it on the receptacle. This way your not dependant on a stiker on a face plate.

 

[George Stolz]

A lot of installers have no idea what the EGC is supposed to do. Is Joe Homeowner going to know what the fancy receptacle means?