2017 NEC AFCI

[flatlander]

Anyone know what's up for change on for afci in the upcoming 2017 NEC?

Are they finally planning on reducing afci requirements?

 

[infinity]

I would expect to see AFCI protection required just about everywhere. You can look here with Bryan's links.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=173314

 

[electrofelon]

Are they finally planning on reducing afci requirements?

:rotflmao:

 

[flatlander]

I had heard and was reading that the CMP was going to allow rope from the panel to the first outlet afci receptacle without having to use a special listed pair breaker and outlet

 

[ActionDave]

I had heard and was reading that the CMP was going to allow rope from the panel to the first outlet afci receptacle without having to use a special listed pair breaker and outlet

I doubt that. There is something in the code already that you can pipe to your first outlet and use an AFCI device there and rope the rest of the circuit.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I doubt that. There is something in the code already that you can pipe to your first outlet and use an AFCI device there and rope the rest of the circuit.

I really think that the voting members are thinking of doing away with the system combination breaker and outlet and allowing just the outlet AFCI and rope all the way.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I had heard and was reading that the CMP was going to allow rope from the panel to the first outlet afci receptacle without having to use a special listed pair breaker and outlet

You can read the new language of the 2017 in its most recent, though not yet final, state by going to the link that Rob (Infinity) gave, above: 2017 NEC Second Revision Report HERE: http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/Abo...C_SRprelim.pdf which is a large PDF file of about 798 pages. Go to page 67.

NMB is still not a permitted wiring method, but the branch circuit overcurrent protective device is no longer described as a "system combination AFCI". The standards for system combination AFCIs have been "withdrawn" according to the language in this PDF file.

Remember, this is not the final, yet. Changes can still happen.

 

[flatlander]

Thanks Al
Seems weird that they would remove that language.
Does this new verbiage allow for just any old listed breaker or do they really mean some special listed breaker?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Does this new verbiage allow for just any old listed breaker or do they really mean some special listed breaker?

It reads to me, in this present form, that ANY listed overcurrent protective device is acceptable. But what actually goes to the printer next summer may still be tweaked.

This PDF is the "second revision". The Second Draft will be released next.

 

[mbrooke]

It reads to me, in this present form, that ANY listed overcurrent protective device is acceptable. But what actually goes to the printer next summer may still be tweaked.

This PDF is the "second revision". The Second Draft will be released next.

I think its because they have assurance/confirmation standard single pole breakers will mag trip between 200 and 350 amps.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I think its because they have assurance/confirmation standard single pole breakers will mag trip between 200 and 350 amps.

What about fuses. The wording includes fuses. What about time delay type S? (Arguably the most widely installed 15 and 20 Amp fuses in the U.S.)

 

[mbrooke]

What about fuses. The wording includes fuses. What about time delay type S? (Arguably the most widely installed 15 and 20 Amp fuses in the U.S.)

I think the clear before 8 half cycles at those currents, but could be wrong. Though I doubt they are concerned about fuses in that they are not used in new resi construction.

 

[kwired]

Outlet device type AFCI manufactures maybe want a bigger piece of the pie instead of the breaker manufacturers getting nearly the whole pie?

 

[mbrooke]

Outlet device type AFCI manufactures maybe want a bigger piece of the pie instead of the breaker manufacturers getting nearly the whole pie?

Leviton/Hubell/ect must have outbid Schneider/Eaton/Siemens/GE.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Though I doubt they are concerned about fuses in that they are not used in new resi construction.

Fuses are not prohibited in new construction.

Fuses abound in Existing occupancies.

AFCI requirements are for both Existing and New construction.

 

[kwired]

Fuses are not prohibited in new construction.

True, but when was the last time you saw a fuse panel instead of a breaker panel as a new installation in a dwelling unit?

How many fuse panels that were otherwise code compliant have been forced to be replaced by a breaker panel before any insurance company would provide coverage?

 

[al hildenbrand]

True, but when was the last time you saw a fuse panel instead of a breaker panel as a new installation in a dwelling unit?

That's not the point. This is about the new possible 2017 NEC 210.12(A) language for branch circuit extended from a "listed overcurrent protective device" to an Outlet Branch Circuit AFCI device.

As worded, a new branch circuit may be extended from an existing fuse center, using the 2017 NEC 210.12(A) allowed wiring methods between the fuse and the OBC AFCI, and that seems, by the proposed 2017 language, to provide what the 2014 system combination AFCI + matched OBC AFCI intended.

Any OBC AFCI seems to have become EQUAL in "AFCI ability" to any combination-type AFCI circuit breaker.

I doubt that a change in plain-old circuit breaker magnetic trip thresholds has anything to do with why fuses are proposed to be allowed, in lieu of the 2014 NEC "system combination AFCI + OBC AFCI", to equal a combination-type AFCI.

 

[mbrooke]

Fuses are not prohibited in new construction.

Fuses abound in Existing occupancies.

AFCI requirements are for both Existing and New construction.

I know, and neither are a none magnetic trip breakers, but show me of any new construction where that will take place.

 

[flatlander]

I thought I was loosing my mind when I read through the draft and comments. Really tough to sort through in my opinion.
If this is truly their opinion to delete the matched device system then I don't understand why they left in the exception for a Mettalic raceway.

This is so crazy to think that any old listed breaker will do.
how does this arc fault protect the romex between panel and first outlet.

This is just backwards.

why not just.do away with them altogether. We all think they are a nuisance anyway.

 

[mbrooke]

That's not the point. This is about the new possible 2017 NEC 210.12(A) language for branch circuit extended from a "listed overcurrent protective device" to an Outlet Branch Circuit AFCI device.

As worded, a new branch circuit may be extended from an existing fuse center, using the 2017 NEC 210.12(A) allowed wiring methods between the fuse and the OBC AFCI, and that seems, by the proposed 2017 language, to provide what the 2014 system combination AFCI + matched OBC AFCI intended.

Any OBC AFCI seems to have become EQUAL in "AFCI ability" to any combination-type AFCI circuit breaker.

I doubt that a change in plain-old circuit breaker magnetic trip thresholds has anything to do with why fuses are proposed to be allowed, in lieu of the 2014 NEC "system combination AFCI + OBC AFCI", to equal a combination-type AFCI.

The reason being is that they are only concerned about parallel arc faults on NM cable itself. Series arc fault are only a concern at splices and cords. As long as a "parallel arc fault" can clear a break magnetically, the fulfillment of arc protection are met. I will look at the ROPs, but if any research has proven a fuse will clear fast enough with the typical currents seen at 50 feet of home run wiring, then they can be accepted into code.

Im not sure if you were here for the discussion Mr. Hildenbrand, but a "parallel arc fault" is nothing more then a short circuit that takes more then a few cycles to open a breaker.