Some Stuff to be Aware of.................

[Pierre C Belarge]

The 2011 NEC has some requirements that will affect even those who do not adopt it anytime soon. I will post some of the items over a period of days....ya know, to keep you all in suspense.


1. As of the 2011 NEC, when one is replacing a receptacle that is in the locations the NEC specifies for AFCI protection, one will be required to replace it with an AFCI receptacle device, or at the least, protect the branch circuit. WHATTTTTT....hold on. The effective date for that will be January 1, 2014.


This gives the manufacturers the impetus to design and manufacture the devices. So I am guessing that some time in 2013, we will see the AFCI receptacle, Tamper Proof device for sale in the market.


More good stuff to follow...............................................

 

[jusme123]

The 2011 NEC has some requirements that will affect even those who do not adopt it anytime soon. I will post some of the items over a period of days....ya know, to keep you all in suspense.


1. As of the 2011 NEC, when one is replacing a receptacle that is in the locations the NEC specifies for AFCI protection, one will be required to replace it with an AFCI receptacle device, or at the least, protect the branch circuit. WHATTTTTT....hold on. The effective date for that will be January 1, 2014.


This gives the manufacturers the impetus to design and manufacture the devices. So I am guessing that some time in 2013, we will see the AFCI receptacle, Tamper Proof device for sale in the market.


More good stuff to follow...............................................

makes you wonder who's driven the nec boat

 

[480sparky]

I don't get it.

If the 2011 isn't adopted, how can what's in it be enforced?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Ahh...read what I wrote. I did not say enforced....

 

[480sparky]

Ahh...read what I wrote. I did not say enforced....

So I'll be required to do it, it just won't be enforced?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

So I'll be required to do it, it just won't be enforced?

Well, that can only be answered by the local AHJ


What I meant, is there are going to be quite a few NEW products brought to market that will be available.


If I was your AHJ, I would require it, but not enforce it.......

 

[charlie b]

If I was your AHJ, I would require it, but not enforce it.......

So if you tell me that you require me to install it, and I choose not to install it, that will be the end of the discussion, since you will not take any enforcement action (e.g., red tag) against the installation? Just trying to understand the terms here.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

So if you tell me that you require me to install it, and I choose not to install it, that will be the end of the discussion, since you will not take any enforcement action (e.g., red tag) against the installation? Just trying to understand the terms here.

Charlie
I can only take my reasoning so far...
With you, I have met my match.

Some of you guys may not have read when I posted my motto, so I will repeat it.

"I may not be any good, but I am slow...that is on a good day, today is not a good day"

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I had also heard that AFCI receptacles will be available in the near future.

This also seems to go against what article 406.12 states about TR recep.-- It states that a non grounded recep. may be replaced with a non grounded non TR recep. It's odd that a AFCI would be req. to replace a recep. in an afci area when changing a recep.

I assume this is what you refer to

406.4(D)(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified
elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit interrupter type circuit breaker
This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.

 

[growler]

I had also heard that AFCI receptacles will be available in the near future.

I'm not sure we really need AFCI receptacles. In my opinion the purpose of an AFCI breaker is to protect the whole circuit from arc faults and that's not really a bad idea. I just wish the price of the breakers would come down a bit.

With a GFCI some areas need protection and some don't so a GFCI receptacle makes sense but AFCI protection is needed on the whole circuit so what's the point of having a receptacle?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I'm not sure we really need AFCI receptacles. In my opinion the purpose of an AFCI breaker is to protect the whole circuit from arc faults and that's not really a bad idea. I just wish the price of the breakers would come down a bit.

With a GFCI some areas need protection and some don't so a GFCI receptacle makes sense but AFCI protection is needed on the whole circuit so what's the point of having a receptacle?

I see two competing reasons this has been added to the NEC.

1. Manufacturers what a compeling reason to design/engineer the devices and still make their money.

2. At some point a receptacle will need replacing in a location required by the NEC to be protected by AFCI. If this gets enforced at the local level, the contractor/customer will have a more cost effective way to resolve the issue.

 

[jwelectric]

I had also heard that AFCI receptacles will be available in the near future.

This also seems to go against what article 406.12 states about TR recep.-- It states that a non grounded recep. may be replaced with a non grounded non TR recep. It's odd that a AFCI would be req. to replace a recep. in an afci area when changing a recep.

I assume this is what you refer to

Dennis,
4064(D)(4) requires a AFCI be used if replacing a receptacle, is this correct?

What if I am in an old house where the devices are two wire and the receptacles are run from the over head light? This was a very common practice in years gone by.
Would I replace the receptacle with an AFCI or would I need a GFCI? Just to stir the pot a little this house has Edison Base Fuses. How would I comply with the code?

 

[dmagyar]

AFCI Receptacles

AFCI Receptacles

I'm not sure we really need AFCI receptacles. In my opinion the purpose of an AFCI breaker is to protect the whole circuit from arc faults and that's not really a bad idea. I just wish the price of the breakers would come down a bit.

With a GFCI some areas need protection and some don't so a GFCI receptacle makes sense but AFCI protection is needed on the whole circuit so what's the point of having a receptacle?

I agree with what Growler had to say, what's an AFCI receptacle going to prevent, other than protecting any downstream receptacles? It doesn't make too much sense if it's the last in the circuit; imho.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis,
4064(D)(4) requires a AFCI be used if replacing a receptacle, is this correct?

What if I am in an old house where the devices are two wire and the receptacles are run from the over head light? This was a very common practice in years gone by.
Would I replace the receptacle with an AFCI or would I need a GFCI? Just to stir the pot a little this house has Edison Base Fuses. How would I comply with the code?

Good question. If I had to replace a 2 wire recep. that was fed as you say, I would use a 2 wire recep. and be done. There is no way to comply without adding a new panel, etc. This section has a lot to be desired. Why can I use a 2 wire non TR recep. to replace an old 2 wire recep. but I have to add afci-- screw that. I wouldn't tell anyone. :grin:

 

[pfalcon]

Maybe they're upset that states like Indiana dropped the AFCI requirements.

From what I read if the house is old enough you're talking about a new panel to change a simple receptacle. This defeats grandfathering in an ugly way. Change a receptacle, so go back and replace the fuse panel to install an AFCI breaker, which makes it a renovation, so go pull a license, which means updating ... ACK! Rewire the House!

 

[pfalcon]

406.4(D)(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit interrupter type circuit breaker
This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.

And why are they enumerating the way to protect the circuit. Why not just refer everyone back to the earlier clauses? Do they get paid by the word?

406.4(D)(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall require arc-fault circuit interrupter protection.

 

[renosteinke]

I'd like to start off my response by reminding all that half a loaf is better than none. Or, to put it another way, we should not let 'perfect' become the enemy of 'good enough.'

AFCI's were first put forward as a means to protect us from loose plugs, pinched extension cords, etc. Only after AFCI's were intorduced to the 1996 code (to be effective in 1999) did the breaker makers suddenly discover the 'errant staple' and become so concerned about the 'entire circuit.' At that point, several device makers were ready to distribute AFCI devices.

I question the motives of the breaker makers, but that's not my point here.

Where to use a device instead of a breaker? Well, how about on older homes - the very ones most at risk of having damaged wiring. The home with FPE or Zinsco panels, or even fuse boxes. The ones with multi-wired branch circuits (not everyone has 2-pole AFCI's available). There's also the issue of providing AFCI protection to extensions of existing circuits (only the new work need meet the new code). Or homes with panels stuffed with 'skinny' breakers.

Someone simply is not going to hire a conscientious EC -whose bid for that new outlet includes a complete house re-wire - when "you can do it, we can help" is right around the corner.

Finally, there's the matter of troubleshooting problems. It's nice to have the breaker, AFCI, and GFCI to be separate, so you can see just what sort of problem you have to solve.

Call me a cynic, but I cannot see whay a GFCI breaker has to cost 3X the cost of a GFCI receptacke + a standard breaker. I expect that the same will apply to AFCI devices - that they will be far more affordable than the breakers.

 

[K8MHZ]

And why are they enumerating the way to protect the circuit. Why not just refer everyone back to the earlier clauses? Do they get paid by the word?

Because the earlier wording required that the receptacle be protected and did not allow for the receptacle to be the protection.