[Rav]

I have a circuit feeding the kitchen that feeds a two-gang box above the counter near a sink, and that box feeds a small fluorescent light above the sink, and a clock plugged into a clock hanger receptacle. There is nothing else on this circuit. The box contains two devices, a duplex receptacle (tabs on both sides NOT broken), and a combo switch and ungrounded two-prong receptacle. Neither is GFCI. The combo switch only controls the fluorescent light; the combo receptacle is always hot.

I want to replace the duplex receptacle with a duplex GFCI receptacle, and replace the combo with a non-GFCI grounded combo and feed it from the new GFCIs load terminals, so it too will be protected. The clocks receptacle will also be on the GFCI's load.

Attached are diagrams of the existing setup, and my proposed new setup. These are the first diagrams I've ever done, so hopefully they make sense.

Two notes on the GFCI: For the purpose of making the diagram easier to make, I reversed which side of the Leviton GFCI the hot and neutral wires go to. Also, I'll be back-wiring the GFCI - there are two slots in each position, for up to two wires in each position.

I'd appreciate comments on my proposed new wiring setup. I'd also appreciate comments on the diagrams themselves, such as how I might make them more understandable.

Thanks.

 

[sparky48]

If the circuit you mention is a 20A small appliance circuit for the kitchen, it's intent is for that purpose. Lighting should not be used from a small appliance circuit. As trivial as it may be a lighting circuit should be in place to take care of the light over the sink and the clock outlet.

 

[Rav]

If the circuit you mention is a 20A small appliance circuit for the kitchen, it's intent is for that purpose. Lighting should not be used from a small appliance circuit. As trivial as it may be a lighting circuit should be in place to take care of the light over the sink and the clock outlet.

It's a 15A circuit (I should have mentioned that). This is an old house (built 1930) with mostly old wiring. There are three 20A circuits elsewhere in the kitchen, as well as other 15A circuits.

 

[brric]

By code the clock recep is allowed on the small appliance branch circuit. The light fixture is not. Would it be problematic as you have it? Most likely not but it is a violation if the circuit is a SABC.

 

[Rav]

OP here. I'm not sure where to go from here. My only intention was to make the existing receptacles in our kitchen safer by changing them, one for one, to GFCIs (or be GFCI protected from an upstream GFCI). I'm not remodeling, not extending or adding any circuit, not adding any outlets, etc. The existing work was done a long time ago, presumably according to the code in existence at that time.

I guess my confusion is this: I could leave everything as it is, including with the light on this circuit (since that's the way it's been for who knows how many decades), and with the existing non-GFCI receptacles (one ungrounded 2-prong), but that isn't safe and doesn't seem to be the right thing to do. Since this circuit and everything on it was installed long ago, is it permissible for me to just replace the receptacles as I have proposed? Or (short of having an electrician come in to install a new circuit just to feed that light, which I'm not going to do), does upgrading the receptacles require that I cap off the wires in the box that come from the light?

Besides this issue, are there any other issues with my proposed wiring of the receptacles? Thanks.

 

[47_47]

Looks ok to me and I'd go with your plan.

 

[Oso954]

Do you have a ground in that location or not?
If you don't, adding the ground wire between the 2 devices and screwing it to the box is worthless.

 

[Rav]

Do you have a ground in that location or not?
If you don't, adding the ground wire between the 2 devices and screwing it to the box is worthless.

Yes. The BX cables going to all the metal boxes in the house (of which this is one) all have a bonding strip. While the existing combo switch/2-prong-receptacle device isn't grounded, the existing duplex receptacle with 3-prong plugs is grounded by contact with the box.

 

[Daniel Holzman]

The confusion is because of the way you framed the question. If your intent were to bring the kitchen up to current code standards, then you would need to separate the light from the receptacles. But it sounds like that is not your intent at all, you just want to improve your existing installation while making minimal changes. Hence the plan to swap out a standard duplex receptacle for a duplex GFCI.

When you ask to confirm the "correctness" of a plan, you need to define what you mean by correctness. The electricians on this forum will generally point out the required code sections, because after all they are electricians, they know the code, and that is what they work under. If you don't want to work to code, then you have a different definition of correctness, maybe you mean "will it work". The answer is certainly it will work, it is always possible to swap a GFCI for a non-GFCI receptacle, assuming the box has the space. And if you then wire the downstream receptacle off the load side, that one is also protected, as you noted. But not to current code. Does that matter? Your call.

You will increase safety, and have what I would consider to be a minor code violation. Very common to have violations of current code in houses, often they are grandfathered in and not a problem. Only your wiring inspector can determine if the change you propose requires a permit, and requires rewiring of the kitchen. If you don't ask the wiring inspector, then you won't get an answer you don't like.

 

[TimPa]

I know my inspector will not pass any lighting that is on the load side of a gfci. his reasoning is that a gfci trip will remove lighting and that could be a safety factor. I never asked if it was actually code.

you may consider keeping the light on the line side if you are replacing the recep with gfci and keeping the light on there.

 

[Rav]

I know my inspector will not pass any lighting that is on the load side of a gfci. his reasoning is that a gfci trip will remove lighting and that could be a safety factor. I never asked if it was actually code.

you may consider keeping the light on the line side if you are replacing the recep with gfci and keeping the light on there.

Good point, though this is only a task light over the sink. The main kitchen light on the ceiling isn't GFCI protected. At any rate, I'm not sure how to accomplish what you are suggesting. Not that I don't know how to run the combo switch-receptacle off the line side of the GFCI, but that would make both the light AND the single receptacle on that device unprotected, and adding protection to all the receptacles was the goal. I suppose I could replace the combo with a simple toggle switch, but then I lose a receptacle (or, more precisely, I don't gain one -- we didn't use the existing one since it wasn't grounded).

Is there any way with a combo to keep the receptacle portion GFCI protected while not protecting the light? If I break the tab on the hot side and feed the top (switch section) from the GFCI line, and feed the bottom (receptacle section) from the GFCI load, will that do it?

 

[rjniles]

I know my inspector will not pass any lighting that is on the load side of a gfci. his reasoning is that a gfci trip will remove lighting and that could be a safety factor. I never asked if it was actually code.

Definitely not code but it might be some weird local amendment. Or might be over reach on the inspectors part. Seems to happen in many areas of governance.

 

[Rav]

The confusion is because of the way you framed the question. If your intent were to bring the kitchen up to current code standards, then you would need to separate the light from the receptacles. But it sounds like that is not your intent at all, you just want to improve your existing installation while making minimal changes. Hence the plan to swap out a standard duplex receptacle for a duplex GFCI.

When you ask to confirm the "correctness" of a plan, you need to define what you mean by correctness. The electricians on this forum will generally point out the required code sections, because after all they are electricians, they know the code, and that is what they work under. If you don't want to work to code, then you have a different definition of correctness, maybe you mean "will it work". The answer is certainly it will work, it is always possible to swap a GFCI for a non-GFCI receptacle, assuming the box has the space. And if you then wire the downstream receptacle off the load side, that one is also protected, as you noted. But not to current code. Does that matter? Your call.

You will increase safety, and have what I would consider to be a minor code violation. Very common to have violations of current code in houses, often they are grandfathered in and not a problem. Only your wiring inspector can determine if the change you propose requires a permit, and requires rewiring of the kitchen. If you don't ask the wiring inspector, then you won't get an answer you don't like.

You're right -- I should have been clearer about what feedback I was looking for, and I understand why electricians would reply from the perspective of meeting all current codes. Yes, I am looking to increase safety without overhauling the entire house wiring and the renovations that would require. I'm doing what I can myself, and will bring in an electrician to do some things that I am not comfortable doing (such as installing AFCI breakers in the panel). At any rate, by "correct" I meant given how the existing devices were wired, am I wiring the replacement devices in an equivalent manner, with all the wires going to the correct terminals, etc.

 

[Rav]

Is there any way with a combo to keep the receptacle portion GFCI protected while not protecting the light? If I break the tab on the hot side and feed the top (switch section) from the GFCI line, and feed the bottom (receptacle section) from the GFCI load, will that do it?

To answer my own question, I called Leviton and asked them about this. They said yes, I would need to separately feed the top and bottom black screws on the combo, but I would also need to separately run the neutrals back to the GFCI (the light neutral to the GFCI line neutral, the combo receptacle neutral to the GFCI load neutral).

Whether code requires this or not, it might be better to not GFCI the light, since I've read that fluorescent lights can sometimes trip GFCI's, and that's the light the combo switch controls.

 

[47_47]

You're right -- I should have been clearer about what feedback I was looking for, and I understand why electricians would reply from the perspective of meeting all current codes. Yes, I am looking to increase safety without overhauling the entire house wiring and the renovations that would require. I'm doing what I can myself, and will bring in an electrician to do some things that I am not comfortable doing (such as installing AFCI breakers in the panel). At any rate, by "correct" I meant given how the existing devices were wired, am I wiring the replacement devices in an equivalent manner, with all the wires going to the correct terminals, etc.

That's the way I took you from your previous posts and recommended the upgrade for personal safety, even though by doing so you will remove all grandfathering.

 

[Rav]

That's the way I took you from your previous posts and recommended the upgrade for personal safety, even though by doing so you will remove all grandfathering.

How far does removal of grandfathering go? I mean, if I replace the two devices in this box with devices that are the same except that they have added grounding and GFCI protection, is it just the issue of a light being on the circuit that would no longer be grandfathered? Or could it require re-wiring all the way back to the panel, or adding more circuits, or adding more outlets if there aren't enough, etc?

By the way, it was stated earlier that having a light on the circuit would be "a violation if the circuit is a SABC" (italics mine), and "If the circuit you mention is a 20A small appliance circuit for the kitchen ..." (again, italics mine). So IS what I have (a 15A circuit) considered a SABC, even though there are three other 20A circuits in the kitchen?

 

[sparky48]

How far does removal of grandfathering go? I mean, if I replace the two devices in this box with devices that are the same except that they have added grounding and GFCI protection, is it just the issue of a light being on the circuit that would no longer be grandfathered? Or could it require re-wiring all the way back to the panel, or adding more circuits, or adding more outlets if there aren't enough, etc?

By the way, it was stated earlier that having a light on the circuit would be "a violation if the circuit is a SABC" (italics mine), and "If the circuit you mention is a 20A small appliance circuit for the kitchen ..." (again, italics mine). So IS what I have (a 15A circuit) considered a SABC, even though there are three other 20A circuits in the kitchen?

If what you have is a 15A circuit as you previously mentioned, than it's nothing more then a lighting circuit. It is in no way considered a small appliance branch circuit. SABC's have to be 20A.

 

[joed]

If it has a receptacle on the counter area is it not automatically consider a SABC?

 

[Oso954]

If it has a receptacle on the counter area is it not automatically consider a SABC?

How could it be an SABC if the SABC was not defined when the circuit was installed ?

I'd lay odds his kitchen doesn't meet receptacle spacing requirements, either.

 

[Rav]

How could it be an SABC if the SABC was not defined when the circuit was installed ?

I'd lay odds his kitchen doesn't meet receptacle spacing requirements, either.

Correct. Our longest counter which spans two perpendicular walls has two receptacle outlets, and they're 7-1/2 feet apart (one on each wall), and on the long (8 foot) section of that counter there is only one receptacle.