joebell
Senior Member
- Location
- New Hampshire
I don't read it that way at all. What is the major difference between 406.4(D)(3) and 406.4(D)(4)? Maybe the words "branch circuit" is the sticking point.
2014 406.4(D)(4) Replacement Receptacles
- Thread starter shortcircuit2
- Start date
- Status
I don't read it that way at all. What is the major difference between 406.4(D)(3) and 406.4(D)(4)? Maybe the words "branch circuit" is the sticking point.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
So, you think 406.12 Exception (4) is not enough and has to be bolstered by 90.4 last paragraph?
The 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception states flatly "AFCI protection shall not be required" and does not in any way reserve a combination-type AFCI circuit breaker as someway not "excepted".
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
The real difference, to me, is what is actually available "elsewhere in this Code," the very citations I'm posting in this thread.
joebell
Senior Member
- Location
- New Hampshire
I missed the exception in 406.12 my bad:ashamed1:.
How did we get to 210.12(B)? The OP I thought was about replacing a receptacle not extending a circuit. If it is believed that adding pigtails to existing wiring is an extention of the branch then you are correct. The language in 406.4(D) is dealing with the replacement of the device and as such will require AFCI protection by one of the 3 listed methods in (D)(4). again as I stated earlier the only part of 210.12(A) that should be reffered to is the list of locations requiring AFCI protection, similiar to the areas requiring GFCI protection in 210.8.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
210.12(A) isn't the limit of the reference from 406.4(D)(4). We are not directed to only the list of places in 210.12(A). Rather:
That means we take all of the "elsewhere in this Code." To me, that includes the 210.12(B) Exception.
joebell
Senior Member
- Location
- New Hampshire
here is the original post
Item #1 if the branch circuit is not a location covered in 210.12(A) then obiviously no AFCI protection is required for a replacement device. Believe it or not as of 2014 there are still a few circuits not required to be AFCI protected yet.
Item #2 I do not see the connection between 210.12(B) and replacement receptacles.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
I believe shortcircuit2 and I are coming at the same point, just with different approaches.
I absolutely agree that the 406.4 GFCI requirements are buttoned up real tight and there aren't any questions about how to apply 406.4(D)(3).
shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
Yes...al and I can see the language needs revision to apply 406.4(D)(4) AFCI intent to a replacement receptacle.
shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
That's it Joe! "Read the definition of Branch Circuit"
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
The IAEI Analysis of Changes NEC - 2014 gives page 64 and 65 to the 210.12(B) Exception and in their "Analysis" section the IAEI states the following:
shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
Ok...so the intent wasn't to require AFCI on a simple receptacle replacement according to that information.
shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
So now I'm trying to figure out where 406.4(D)(4) would be applicable?
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
It kind of looks that way based upon that quote. . . if it is connected to "the Intent of the CMPs". I don't know.
In the end we only have the Holy Writ (the NEC) itself to look to as it alone is adopted into ordinance.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
To me, I see two cases. The really old housing with Knob & Tube and two-wire non-grounding NM cable is one case. Even with service upgrade(s) some, if not most, of the original as-built wiring will be still energized. Some, if not most, of the receptacles will be in various states of wearing out and will have to be replaced from time to time. In recent years, I have replaced devices by pigtailing white and black conductors as needed to the old rubber insulated original conductors to permit them to be moved less, once I fold them back into the box, and giving me a comfortable length of plastic insulated modern conductor (stranded or solid) to work with at the new device.
This first case, because of the pigtailing, IMO, invokes the 210.12(B) Exception .
The second case is the replacement of a receptacle on grounding wiring methods where conductors extend at least three inches past the face of the box. In this second case, if I choose not to add pigtails, then 406.4(D)(4) doesn't have the exception, and the AFCI protection would be required. . . . but, let's say the receptacle being replaced is in a Living Room and is connected to two-wire with egc in and two-wire with egc out, resulting in all the black and white conductors being spliced by the receptacle terminal screws. Myself, I'd install pigtails to the white and blacks (assume the egc is already pigtailed) as the folding back into the box is a lot easier, and, I believe, the overall quality of the connections are better. Having done the pigtailing, I could follow the 210.12(B) Exception and walk away feeling that I have improved things with the pigtailing, and, likely sidestepped an onerous financial burden for the property owner by not inserting AFCI protection on unknown wiring.
Last edited:
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
I think you are misreading the exception.
If you do not pigtail, you are not extending, so no AFCI requirement.
If you do pigtail the note says this is not considered an extension for the purpose of this requirement so there is still no AFCI requirement.
Tapatalk!
If you do not pigtail, you are not extending, so no AFCI requirement.
If you do pigtail the note says this is not considered an extension for the purpose of this requirement so there is still no AFCI requirement.
Tapatalk!
shortcircuit2
Senior Member
- Location
- South of Bawstin
Hmm...
Maybe if a branch circuit with only lighting outlets is extended or modified...I follow 210.12(B)
But if the branch circuit has receptacle outlets and it is extended or modified...I follow 406.4(D)(4) along with 210.12(B)
???
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
What? ? :?
To remove the triple negative in the Exception: I would paraphrase it as "AFCI protection is required where the extension of the existing conductors is more than 6 ft. and there are one or more additional outlets or devices."
The Exception only talks about where there IS an extension. The Exception is silent about where there is no extension.
--- Added afterthought ----
This Exception is specifically saying "Where there IS an extension under six feet and there are no new outlets or devices there is NO AFCI protection required."
Last edited:
joebell
Senior Member
- Location
- New Hampshire
Lets take the exception out of play by saying the receptacle is supplied by a 14/2 Rx with no ground. The conductor length and condition needs no modification, now does the replacement receptacle require AFCI protection?
I do see your point and believe that Public Input removing "Specified elsewhere in this code" should be replaced with "specified in "210.12(A)". This might tighten this section up a bit.
I do see your point and believe that Public Input removing "Specified elsewhere in this code" should be replaced with "specified in "210.12(A)". This might tighten this section up a bit.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
OK. Great for-instance situation. You don't describe whether the receptacle is the replacement or the old one yet to be replaced.
If the receptacle is the new replacement receptacle, and the conductor length was not extended, then, YES, AFCI protection is required, as I read 406.4(D), and I also check 210.12 and find that where the receptacle is included in the list of areas requiring AFCI. To my reading of this whole set of related Code, if there is already GFCI protection somewhere upstream on this existing "14/2 Rx with no ground", then, I can simply replace the receptacle device with a OBC AFCI and apply the GFCI and No EGC labels, -OR- I can put in a regular non-TR two-wire non-grounding type receptacle and add AFCI upstream, -OR- I can put in a regular TR grounding-type receptacle with GFCI and No EGC labels and add both AFCI and GFCI upstream.
If the receptacle outlet is being opened up for the first time, prior to receptacle replacement, and the person finds what you describe, THEN, it is still up in the air. Nothing I am aware of in the Code will prevent the person from adding pigtails, and, conversely, nothing in the Code will require that the person add pigtails. It is simply the person's choice.
Being the repair person's choice, ultimately means that the person who pays the bill gets to pick whether they pay more to add AFCI and all its pluses and minuses or whether they forego AFCI and pay a potentially tiny amount for the replacement. Given a choice, what will the client chose? Hmmmm?
M. D.
Senior Member
True but that does not relieve the requirement for the receptacle to be AFCI protected
- Status