laundry room arc fault

[K8MHZ]

I agree.

However, it sounds like MBLES has an authority having jurisdiction that is saying something else.

I re-read the OP and noticed I missed the word 'remodel'.

If the remodel exposes, extends or lengthens the actual wiring, we (Michiganders) would have to bring that room up to current code.

Now, if the remod only dictated changing out a dirty or old GFCI and doing nothing to modify the wiring, that would not require the following of the AFCI rules. At least here in sunny Michigan.

 

[jaylectricity]

406.(4)(D)(4)

I thought this code required you to update to AFCI protection when replacing receptacles. Or are we arguing that the circuit doesn't require AFCI because it was installed before the requirement?

 

[jaylectricity]

Otherwise, what's the point of the article? To tell us to give a receptacle arc-fault protection on a circuit that already has arc-fault protection?

 

[al hildenbrand]

406.(4)(D)(4)

I thought this code required you to update to AFCI protection when replacing receptacles.

It seems that MBLES' inspector or AHJ agrees with you, but we are waiting for a reply from him.

 

[goldstar]

Well, I believe the term in the passage is a three word term, "branch-circuit wiring", but, either way, show a legally binding definition.

I will quote the Article 100 Definition of Premises Wiring (System) which includes "devices".

Sorry Al but I'm not with you on this. If all EI's across the country took this approach we'd be installing AFCI's every time a circuit breaker or a device went bad. What if the house still had fuses, would you still have to make that circuit AFCI protected ? IMHO, same logic applies, if you're not altering the branch circuit wiring you don't need AFCI protection. If the CMP's wanted the wording in "branch circuit wiring" to include devices they would have said so.

 

[goldstar]

Now, if the remod only dictated changing out a dirty or old GFCI and doing nothing to modify the wiring, that would not require the following of the AFCI rules. At least here in sunny Michigan.

That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Sorry Al but I'm not with you on this. If all EI's across the country took this approach we'd be installing AFCI's every time a circuit breaker or a device went bad. What if the house still had fuses, would you still have to make that circuit AFCI protected ? IMHO, same logic applies, if you're not altering the branch circuit wiring you don't need AFCI protection.

Well, the point that is emerging in this thread is that the interpretation is not up to each of us. MannyB and MBLES are both dealing with inspectors that are saying there has to be AFCI on a simple device replacement, and, evidently (although MannnyB hasn't come back yet) one of the inspectors will only accept the combination type AFCI at the panel, which, in the customer's case will require a panel change out.

MannyB and MBLES seem to be asking for alternatives, and admit that the inspector will be a hard mind to change.

The argument of whether "branch-circuit wiring" or "wiring" or "Premises Wiring (System)" includes or does not include "wiring devices" (Art. 100 Premises Wiring Sys definition), or devices is entirely beside the OPs question.

If the CMP's wanted the wording in "branch circuit wiring" to include devices they would have said so.

If the CMP's wanted the wording in "branch-circuit wiring" to NOT include devices they would have said so.

The CMP is silent on the definition of "wiring" and "branch-circuit wiring". Again, there are no definitions in the NEC for "wiring" and "branch-circuit wiring" so we can go on endlessly with opinions, here.

If you read my comments, you will see that my opinion has not changed from other threads and that I agree with your opinion about receptacle replacement. But this thread is about the OPs situation.

If you are working in an inspector's area, and an unyielding inspector says "AFCI breaker only" is required to change out a non-working existing GFCI receptacle outlet device. . . then it just doesn't matter what my opinion on this is. MBLES is asking for "alternatives".

 

[goldstar]

Well, the point that is emerging in this thread is that the interpretation is not up to each of us. MannyB and MBLES are both dealing with inspectors that are saying there has to be AFCI on a simple device replacement, and, evidently (although MannnyB hasn't come back yet) one of the inspectors will only accept the combination type AFCI at the panel, which, in the customer's case will require a panel change out.

MannyB and MBLES seem to be asking for alternatives, and admit that the inspector will be a hard mind to change.

The argument of whether "branch-circuit wiring" or "wiring" or "Premises Wiring (System)" includes or does not include "wiring devices" (Art. 100 Premises Wiring Sys definition), or devices is entirely beside the OPs question.

If the CMP's wanted the wording in "branch-circuit wiring" to NOT include devices they would have said so.

The CMP is silent on the definition of "wiring" and "branch-circuit wiring". Again, there are no definitions in the NEC for "wiring" and "branch-circuit wiring" so we can go on endlessly with opinions, here.

If you read my comments, you will see that my opinion has not changed from other threads and that I agree with your opinion about receptacle replacement. But this thread is about the OPs situation.

If you are working in an inspector's area, and an unyielding inspector says "AFCI breaker only" is required to change out a non-working existing GFCI receptacle outlet device. . . then it just doesn't matter what my opinion on this is. MBLES is asking for "alternatives".

OK Al, I see your point of view but I don't necessarily agree with it. And yes, all posts here are just opinions, even if it's Mike Holt's opinion or interpretation. I agree there are many cases where arguing with an EI is a hopeless case. Fortunately here in NJ I can contact the Code Assistance Unit of the DCA and get their opinion or have them contact the EI and state their point of view if I am correct. If I wanted to pay extra for it I can even get a State inspector to come out and inspect my work. Just for the record, if all it took was to install an AFCI breaker and spend the $45.00 - end of discussion. However, I can't see how any EI or AHJ can compel you upgrade a service just to accommodate an AFCI breaker

 

[kwired]

However, I can't see how any EI or AHJ can compel you upgrade a service just to accommodate an AFCI breaker

They can't. But putting in a sub panel that will accommodate an AFCI is an option. Even in OP situation place a single breaker panel in the laundry circuit and install an AFCI. The original home run is now a feeder and not a branch circuit and doesn't require AFCI on the supply side. Finding readily accessible space with 110.26 working clearance for your new sub feed panel may be a new challenge though.

 

[GoldDigger]

IMHO you could even feed the branch circuit through a blank face AFCI in a box next to the main panel as long as the wiring from panel to box met the code restrictions for first outlet type protection.

 

[goldstar]

They can't. But putting in a sub panel that will accommodate an AFCI is an option. Even in OP situation place a single breaker panel in the laundry circuit and install an AFCI. The original home run is now a feeder and not a branch circuit and doesn't require AFCI on the supply side. Finding readily accessible space with 110.26 working clearance for your new sub feed panel may be a new challenge though.

I agree but I'm still not understanding how you can be compelled to make a circuit an arc fault in an existing laundry room that originally had a GFCI in it. If you do a service upgrade are you required to make all the existing circuits arc fault ? It's one thing to convert it to AFCI if you want to but to be compelled to do so is quite another.

This is what the Code section states :

210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.
Arc-fault circuit interruption protection shall be provided as required in 210.12 (A)(B) and (C). The arc-fault circuit interrupter shall be installed in a readily accessible location.
(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:
(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit
(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit .
Exception : AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8m (6 ft.) and does not include any additional outlets or devices.

Sections A & C deal with new construction.

The OP didn't mention that he was modifying, replacing or extending the branch circuit. If you want to make the argument that the device is part of the branch circuit like Al did then I'll drop out of this thread because I'm not buying into that line of thinking.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I agree but I'm still not understanding how you can be compelled to make a circuit an arc fault in an existing laundry room that originally had a GFCI in it. If you do a service upgrade are you required to make all the existing circuits arc fault ? It's one thing to convert it to AFCI if you want to but to be compelled to do so is quite another.

This is what the Code section states :

210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.
Arc-fault circuit interruption protection shall be provided as required in 210.12 (A)(B) and (C). The arc-fault circuit interrupter shall be installed in a readily accessible location.
(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:
(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit
(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit .
Exception : AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8m (6 ft.) and does not include any additional outlets or devices.

Sections A & C deal with new construction.

The OP didn't mention that he was modifying, replacing or extending the branch circuit. If you want to make the argument that the device is part of the branch circuit like Al did then I'll drop out of this thread because I'm not buying into that line of thinking.

Your punch line: "The OP didn't mention that he was modifying, replacing or extending the branch circuit." does not quote the Code as it is written.

You are dropping the hyphen and the word wiring in order to be able to cling to your point that "branch circuit," as a defined term in Article 100, "the circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s)" is what is said in 210.12(B). That just is not so.

Had the CMP meant modifying, replacing or extending the "branch circuit", they would not have said "branch-circuit wiring", they would have said "branch circuit." Plain and simple.

 

[JDB3]

I was told by a master electrician that works in a box store, that 1/2 space AFCIs & perhaps others are in the works.

 

[brycenesbitt]

There isnt any room for the standard 3/4 because its filled with 1/4'' breakers. we are trying everything not to replace panels.

How many panels are involved and what do the other circuits do in each panel?
Is this a central laundry or one per unit?
Can you combine (and pigtail) two non-laundry non-kitchen circuits, to allow space for a combination AFCI/GFCI like the Siemens B115DF?

 

[kwired]

I was told by a master electrician that works in a box store, that 1/2 space AFCIs & perhaps others are in the works.

And they haven't even come close to perfecting the full space units yet

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
I guess it would be an AHJ call, but I don't think we have to AFCI protect a bedroom circuit just because a broken receptacle was replaced like we do with GFCI receptacles which is discussed somewhere in 406.

You don't have to provide AFCI protection for the bedroom circuit where you are replacing a broken receptacle, but if you don't, you have to install an outlet type AFCI receptacle.

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.

The problem with replacing a receptacle in the laundry room is that you have to comply with 406.4(D)(3), (4) and (5).

 

[al hildenbrand]

You don't have to provide AFCI protection for the bedroom circuit where you are replacing a broken receptacle, but if you don't, you have to install an outlet type AFCI receptacle.


The problem with replacing a receptacle in the laundry room is that you have to comply with 406.4(D)(3), (4) and (5).

I'm curious, Don, if 2014 NEC 406.4(D)(4) requires an AFCI of either the OBC or circuit breaker type, how do you know? I don't see the laundry outlet described in the text of 406.4(D)(4).

That's a rhetorical question.

One turn's to 2014 NEC 210.12.

My real question, Don, is how do you decide that 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception does not apply?

 

[peter d]

IMO the code language does not actually support retrofitting of AFCI's when doing simple device replacements. I'm well aware that was the intent, the way it's written, outlets on branch circuits that were installed prior to AFCI protection don't require AFCI protection when replaced. All the code language says is that devices replaced on branch circuits that are required to have AFCI protection need to remain AFCI protected. If they wanted a retroactive requirement, they failed completely in conveying that.

 

[kwired]

IMO the code language does not actually support retrofitting of AFCI's when doing simple device replacements. I'm well aware that was the intent, the way it's written, outlets on branch circuits that were installed prior to AFCI protection don't require AFCI protection when replaced. All the code language says is that devices replaced on branch circuits that are required to have AFCI protection need to remain AFCI protected. If they wanted a retroactive requirement, they failed completely in conveying that.

I agree with you and Al - It may be the intent of the CMP to include AFCI protection when replacing a receptacle - but if so they have a controversy with 210.12(B) exception.

 

[al hildenbrand]

IMO the code language does not actually support retrofitting of AFCI's when doing simple device replacements. I'm well aware that was the intent, . . .

It may be the intent of the CMP to include AFCI protection when replacing a receptacle . . .

But you see, that's just it. CMP 2, in creating the Exception to 2014 NEC 210.12(B), were explicit in saying their intent was to exempt normal device replacement on existing wiring. Look below at CMP 2's action, from the 2014 ROP, that created the language in 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception.

2-115 Log #536 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(210.12(B))
Submitter:
Dennis Alwon, Alwon Electric Inc.
Recommendation:
Add new text to read as follows:
Exception: Where extension of the branch circuit does not include any added outlets or devices.
Substantiation:
Often times when changing a service in an older home the branch circuit conductors do not reach the new location of the panel. The wire is sometimes just spliced inside the panel to reach the termination points while other times the circuit may need to be extended a short distance to reach the new location. Since many areas are inspecting this differently throughout the country this exception would clarify this section and bring uniformity throughout.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the proposed wording to read as follows: "Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft.) and does not include any additional outlets or devices."
Panel Statement:
The revised wording provides clarity and satisfies the intent of the submitter.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results:
Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1
Explanation of Negative:
KING, D.: This Proposal should be rejected. It is the intent of Section 210.12(B) to provide AFCI protection where circuits that are covered by 210.12(A) are "modified." The submitter has not provided any substantiation to allow for an exception for AFCI Protection in the branch circuit modification described in his substantiation. Accepting the proposed exception would greatly dimish the level of safety currently provided by the requirements of 210.12(B).
Explanation of Abstention:
ORLOWSKI, S.: See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal 2-92.
Comment on Affirmative:
HILBERT, M.: Continue to accept in principle. The issues noted in the substantiation for this proposal and Proposal 2-11 are often topics of discussion at IAEI meetings as well as other educational meetings and do need clarification.
The proposed language as revised by the panel's accept in principle action will go a long way in promoting uniform interpretations. It will clarify that extending branch circuit conductors within an enclosure for the purposes of replacing a device or utilization equipment or for extending a branch circuit to a panelboard being replaced or upgraded does not require an AFCI protective device to be installed.
Six feet was chosen for branch circuit extensions as it should provide a sufficient length for most applications where an existing panel is being relocated out of a clothes closet or to comply with readily accessible requirements, etc