ungrounded romex

[77401]

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?

Good point, probably no more than a sticker.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

"First off, I don't think Tampa meant to be (or was) rude, "

It wasnt but i did word it poorly ,sorry.
Personally i have no problem with 2 prong untill makeship ways are created when a ground is really needed.Often thow this does couple with old wiring that does need replaced.Its like K&T In itself its fine but after 80 years often is brittle.This does not mean the system was bad,actually it was very safe untill we over fused and insulated.

 

[bjp_ne_elec]

In a replacement situation, how do you deal with metal boxes. Metal boxes shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor - but what about in this situation. Also, someone mentioned needing to add a ground if you "add to the circuit". Can you "subtract from the circuit" - in other words disconnect some branches off of it, and still leave the ungrounded metal boxes installed? Have struggled with this "twist", and would really like someone to point to a code reference that clarifies this "twist".


Here's another "twist" - can I bring a new grounded Romex to the first box, install a GFCI in the new box, and leave the rest of the circuit "as is" - which would be non-grounded receptacles and could include metal JB's - which are obviously non-grouned - as no ground exists in the existing Romex.

Thanks

Brett

 

[George Stolz]

In a replacement situation, how do you deal with metal boxes. Metal boxes shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor - but what about in this situation.

In that case, you did not add a metal box, the metal box was already there - so no action is required, IMO.

Also, someone mentioned needing to add a ground if you "add to the circuit". Can you "subtract from the circuit" - in other words disconnect some branches off of it, and still leave the ungrounded metal boxes installed?

IMO, yes, because the boxes are existing.

Have struggled with this "twist", and would really like someone to point to a code reference that clarifies this "twist".

About the closest thing would be Article 80, which is unenforceable unless adopted.

Here's another "twist" - can I bring a new grounded Romex to the first box, install a GFCI in the new box, and leave the rest of the circuit "as is" - which would be non-grounded receptacles and could include metal JB's - which are obviously non-grouned - as no ground exists in the existing Romex.

First, the new romex to the new first box in the circuit would not require GFCI protection unless otherwise required for the area (as in, 210.8), because this box would have an EGC.

The load side receptacles are all existing, so they would not require GFCI protection unless the receptacles are changed out. You would apply 406.3(D) on a case-by-case basis for each receptacle, as you swap it out.

If you were intending to replace a gaggle of receptacles, then an option would be protecting the load side of the "first new box" with the GFCI, and then attaching stickers to each of the replacement three-pin (grounding) receptacle's cover plates indicating that they have no equipment ground and are GFCI-protected.