Replacing 2 wire receptacles with AFCIs

Status
Not open for further replies.
tom baker

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
406.4 (D)(4) requires a replacement receptacle to be AFCI where required else where in the NEC. We can replace a 2 wire recpt with GFCI, but what about a 2 wire with an AFCI? Do we need to run a EGC to the AFCI?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
The way I see it is you would have to have a gfci first then an afci receptacle and then no ECG is required
Click to expand...
You can't fit both in a single gang box... when you are only replacing one receptacle. Even if it is a 2-gang (quad), which gets priority: the AFCI or the GFCI. Neither require an EGC to operate its protection feature.

It's a good question... which I don't believe there is any resolution in present Code.
 
Smart $ said:
You can't fit both in a single gang box... when you are only replacing one receptacle. Even if it is a 2-gang (quad), which gets priority: the AFCI or the GFCI. Neither require an EGC to operate its protection feature.

It's a good question... which I don't believe there is any resolution in present Code.
Click to expand...
GFCI breaker, then just the AFCI in the single gang box.
And if the box is too shallow, extend it out of the wall using a Wiremold adapter ring/box.
 
Smart, no one said it would be easy but I answered based on what I know. IMO, if you install agfci breaker or receptacle ahead of the afci then you would be covered. Yes , a PITA but as I see it that is what needs to happen.
 
tom baker said:
406.4 (D)(4) requires a replacement receptacle to be AFCI where required else where in the NEC. We can replace a 2 wire recpt with GFCI, but what about a 2 wire with an AFCI? Do we need to run a EGC to the AFCI?
Click to expand...
Since we are directed to "elsewhere in the NEC" I believe that includes the Exception to 2014 210.12(B). If the conductors are at all short (and in many cases in the older installs they are) the existing conductors invite the installation of pigtails. Adding conductor less that six foot in length invokes the exception to 210.12(B), and no AFCI protection is needed whether the old two wire nongrounding type receptacle is replaced with a GFCI receptacle, or a similar new nongrounding type receptacle.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Since we are directed to "elsewhere in the NEC" I believe that includes the Exception to 2014 210.12(B). If the conductors are at all short (and in many cases in the older installs they are) the existing conductors invite the installation of pigtails. Adding conductor less that six foot in length invokes the exception to 210.12(B), and no AFCI protection is needed whether the old two wire nongrounding type receptacle is replaced with a GFCI receptacle, or a similar new nongrounding type receptacle.
Click to expand...

Are they TR?

Two choices.

1 AFCI protect at the panel then GFCI first receptacle. AFCI breaker or AFCI blank face
2 GFCI protect at the panel then AFCI first receptacle. GFCI breaker or GFCI blank face.

PS At does not mean 'in' the panel.

The reason for the blank face is to keep it simple if "no other loads/receptacles can be on the circuit.

AFCIs per Leviton can be placed on a 2 wire system. Remember the no equipment ground stickers.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Are they TR?
Click to expand...
Mike, that's a non-issue with new nongrounding type 15 and 20 A 125 V receptacles. The NEC says clearly they don't have to be Tamper-Resistant.

Read 406.12 Exception (4).

The simplest solution to this 2014 NEC 406.4(D)(4) conundrum is to pigtail the conductors between the branch circuit and the replacement device, IMHO, thereby invoking 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Mike, that's a non-issue with new nongrounding type 15 and 20 A 125 V receptacles. The NEC says clearly they don't have to be Tamper-Resistant.

Read 406.12 Exception (4).

The simplest solution to this 2014 NEC 406.4(D)(4) conundrum is to pigtail the conductors between the branch circuit and the replacement device, IMHO, thereby invoking 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception.
Click to expand...

We (Ohio) are using 2011 :

(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper-resistant
receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at
receptacle outlets that are required to be tamper-resistant elsewhere
in this Code.

Can you post the 2014 for me and others?
 
jxofaltrds said:
We (Ohio) are using 2011 :

(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper-resistant
receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at
receptacle outlets that are required to be tamper-resistant elsewhere
in this Code.

Can you post the 2014 for me and others?
Click to expand...
Mike, again, go to 406.12 Exception (4). It is not new Code. The 2011 and the 2014 are unaltered on this point I am making.
 
jxofaltrds said:
We (Ohio) are using 2011 :
Click to expand...
From the 2011 NEC 406.12:
Tamper-Resistant Receptacles for Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all nonlocking-type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.
Exception: Receptacles in the following locations shall not be required to be tamper-resistant:
(4) Nongrounding receptacles used for replacements as permitted in 406.4(D)(2)(a).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
al hildenbrand said:
Since we are directed to "elsewhere in the NEC" I believe that includes the Exception to 2014 210.12(B). If the conductors are at all short (and in many cases in the older installs they are) the existing conductors invite the installation of pigtails. Adding conductor less that six foot in length invokes the exception to 210.12(B), and no AFCI protection is needed whether the old two wire nongrounding type receptacle is replaced with a GFCI receptacle, or a similar new nongrounding type receptacle.
Click to expand...


Here we go again:?

;)
 
jxofaltrds said:
We (Ohio) are using 2011 :

(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper-resistant
receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at
receptacle outlets that are required to be tamper-resistant elsewhere
in this Code.
Click to expand...
Your quoting 2011 NEC 406.4(D)(5) as THE requirement for nongrounding-type receptacles to be TR is how I finally figured out how to read the AFCI requirement that some attribute to 406.4(D)(4). Manufacturers of nongrounding-type receptacles have refused to give us tamper-resistant two wire receptacles, so the Code was written to allow non-tamper-resistant nongrounding-type receptacles. The way one got to the exception was by finding out what receptacle outlets were required to be TR elsewhere in the Code, other than 406.4(D)(5). You have to go to 406.12 to read the actual TR requirement. The actual TR requirement is NOT in 406.4(D)(5).

The AFCI requirement, similarly, is elsewhere in the Code other than 406.4(D)(4). One goes to 210.12. And, new in the 2014 NEC, the Exception to 210.12(B) tells us when AFCI is not required.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Your quoting 2011 NEC 406.4(D)(5) as THE requirement for nongrounding-type receptacles to be TR is how I finally figured out how to read the AFCI requirement that some attribute to 406.4(D)(4). Manufacturers of nongrounding-type receptacles have refused to give us tamper-resistant two wire receptacles, so the Code was written to allow non-tamper-resistant nongrounding-type receptacles. The way one got to the exception was by finding out what receptacle outlets were required to be TR elsewhere in the Code, other than 406.4(D)(5). You have to go to 406.12 to read the actual TR requirement. The actual TR requirement is NOT in 406.4(D)(5).

The AFCI requirement, similarly, is elsewhere in the Code other than 406.4(D)(4). One goes to 210.12. And, new in the 2014 NEC, the Exception to 210.12(B) tells us when AFCI is not required.
Click to expand...

I was stuck in 406.4. TY

That said, it still requires AFCI protection.

If it was outside then you would need a TR WP GFCI.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I was stuck in 406.4. TY

That said, it still requires AFCI protection.

If it was outside then you would need a TR WP GFCI.
Click to expand...



I wait to see how many decades will pass before I am able to find a TR WP ARC FAULT GFI device on the shelves at my Home Depot since they are still selling more non tr devices than tr ones and don't seem to be in any hurry to stop stocking those.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Are they TR?

Two choices.

1 AFCI protect at the panel then GFCI first receptacle. AFCI breaker or AFCI blank face
2 GFCI protect at the panel then AFCI first receptacle. GFCI breaker or GFCI blank face.

PS At does not mean 'in' the panel.

...
Click to expand...
Third choice...

Dual Function breaker and standard receptacle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top