ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Canada for the win
by gfretwell - 12/06/22 08:28 PM
Tiny Homes and the NEC
by gfretwell - 12/06/22 01:43 AM
EMC Glands on Motors
by Trumpy - 12/01/22 06:12 AM
Ground Rods: Installation and Hook-Up
by Trumpy - 12/01/22 05:54 AM
Happy Thanksgiving all!
by gfretwell - 11/30/22 05:55 PM
New in the Gallery:
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Now you know.
Now you know.
by Tom_Horne, September 7
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 21 guests, and 12 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#96653 12/16/05 06:06 PM
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 308
S
Steve T Offline OP
Member
In the '99 NEC this section reads--"Where the box is mounted on or at the surface,..."

In the '02 and '05 NEC this section reads--"Where the box is mounted on the surface,..."

What is the intent of this change?

If a drywall ring is flush with the wall, is it acceptable to ground the receptacle by direct metal to metal contact with the ring?

These changes sort of tend to not allowing this anymore.

Thanks

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with these Exam Prep Combos:
 

>> Master Electrician Exam Prep     >> JourneyMan Electrician Exam Prep
 

#96654 12/16/05 06:33 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Quote
If a drywall ring is flush with the wall, is it acceptable to ground the receptacle by direct metal to metal contact with the ring?
No. A self grounding receptacle or a bonding jumper must be used.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#96655 12/16/05 09:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 821
S
Member
Yes, a bonding jumper MUST be used because if you remove the receptacle from the box it would no longer be bonded. Same rule applies to switches for the same reason.

#96656 12/17/05 01:46 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
Both versions also say (in effect) "unless grounded as in 250.146(A) through (D)"

C & D only apply to certain situations, but "B" is required for "Flush Type" boxes. Whatever a flush type box is? I wouldn't consider a 4s ring in plaster a "Flush Type", even if flush. Or a masonary, even if flush. A metal cut-in yes... (Installed so it is flush.)


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
#96657 12/17/05 06:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Quote
Yes, a bonding jumper MUST be used because if you remove the receptacle from the box it would no longer be bonded.

Or as Don pointed out 'self grounding' receptacles.

There is no requirement that the device must remain bonded when removed from the box.


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#96658 12/17/05 06:41 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Quote
Or a masonary, even if flush.

Why not?


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#96659 12/17/05 07:47 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
A flush box is one that is not recessed below the plane of the finished wall. Tile or plaster rings become part of the box, the same as box extensions become part of the box. If the tile ring is flush, and is properly connected to the base with two 8-32 screws, then the receptacle can be properly bonded through the two 6-32 screws made up tight with "self-grounding type receptacles".


Earl
#96660 12/17/05 09:57 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 18
D
Member
would 250-86 exception 3 apply that states a metal elbow underground in a nonmetallic run that is isolated and 18 inches below ground shall not be required to be grounded.250-84 is service but than 250-86 is other conductor enclosures and raceways.i posted this in the wrong topic. can the moderator move it to the gec topic

[This message has been edited by dannynova (edited 12-17-2005).]

#96661 12/17/05 02:02 PM
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 308
S
Steve T Offline OP
Member
Don, I agree that is the intent, is there any documentation that supports this? As older versions of the code had less than perfect language (imagine that). Even the handbook doesn't have good examples to show the intent. (Plus the '02 doesn't have a line next to the wording change. Maybe I have a '99 with printing errors?)

Now 404.9(B) says general use snap swithces are considered effectively grounded if "..the switch is mounted with metal screws to a metal box.."

A general use snap switch by NEC definition appears to be what is regularly used in most buildings to control the lights.

Is ShockME77 wrong about switches and grounding/bonding?

#96662 12/17/05 04:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,362
Likes: 1
Cat Servant
Member
Steve, you've hit on the issue behind this code change. Is the strap in solid contact with the box?

I almost always find a small gap between the strap and the mud ring; even if the box was installed correctly, with the correct mud ring. Maybe the "texture" aplied to the wall is what causes this. It is also quite common to see various things used to 'fill the gap' between the strap and the mud ring, and give the secure mounting we want.

This makes the mounting screws, by default, the ground path. Now, I can personally recount interested parties in the '60's worrying about that fiber retension washer, and whether it might interfere with a good connection. There is a camp out there who are convinced that the mounting screws cannot be relied upon for a ground path, under any circumatances.

Add to this the common use of wiring methods that use plastic boxes and supply a ground wire- it has to go somewhere. So, we've seen the code go through a number of revisions that, bit by bit, are eventually going to mandate that all devices be attached with pigtails to wires in the box. It's creeping in.....

In a parallel developemnet, the code a few cycles back began to require the use of two screws to attach devices to "industrial" or "surface box" covers. So, now you have the strap clamped firmly to the cover with screws/nuts in two places. Under those circumstances, it's kind of hard for the "pigtail" crowd to claim an unreliable ground!

Now, I will admit to lacking enthusiasm for some of these "improvements" to the code- but that's a whole different discussion.

The whole point of the slight change in code language was to require the use of pigtails.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
 
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
The_Lightman
The_Lightman
Orlando, Fl, USA
Posts: 49
Joined: August 2001
Top Posters(30 Days)
Trumpy 6
NORCAL 3
Popular Topics(Views)
300,622 Are you busy
230,304 Re: Forum
215,084 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5