2014 406.4(D)(4) Replacement Receptacles

[al hildenbrand]

True but that does not relieve the requirement for the receptacle to be AFCI protected

:?:?

You say "True".

Did you read the exception to 2014 210.12(B)? It says flatly, "AFCI protection shall not be required. . . "

 

[M. D.]

:?:?

You say "True".

Did you read the exception to 2014 210.12(B)? It says flatly, "AFCI protection shall not be required. . . "

for the branch circuit yes, not required when extending under 6 feet ...so for a replacement receptacle, pig tails and all , you can use an afci receptacle outlet and leave the rest of the circuit un- AFCI'd with or without pig tails ... one is a requirement for replacement receptacles the other is a requirement for the entire branch circuit ... apples and oranges .

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I just want to add that the extension must be under 6' and it does not add any outlets to the circuit. I wrote a proposal for this that basically said what the new section states however I did not have the 6' rule. Inspectors were making contractors adding afci on panel changes when they would add a short piece of copper in the new panel to make the circuit reason the new bus. This was not the intent.

 

[al hildenbrand]

for the branch circuit yes, not required when extending under 6 feet ...so for a replacement receptacle, pig tails and all , you can use an afci receptacle outlet and leave the rest of the circuit un- AFCI'd with or without pig tails ... one is a requirement for replacement receptacles the other is a requirement for the entire branch circuit ... apples and oranges .

I started out, two months ago, believing exactly your point myself. But then the meaning of six words in the requirement for "oranges" (the receptacle replacement) soaked into my head. The requirement for replacements "requires" us to go "elsewhere in this Code" and part of adding AFCI protection at a receptacle outlet device that is replaced.

2014 NEC
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, . . . .

And, after I saw those six words, I went back to the IAEI Analysis of Changes NEC - 2014 and found that they agree that the words turn the situation into apples and apples.

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:

This new exception will help clarify which extensions and modifications require AFCI protection and which ones will not. This 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 device to be installed.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I wrote a proposal for this that basically said what the new section states however I did not have the 6' rule. . . This was not the intent.

While you may not have intended the application of your proposal to replacement receptacle devices, it seems, after the CMP did its work, that the IAEI says it DOES apply.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Ok...so the intent wasn't to require AFCI on a simple receptacle replacement according to that information.

Says who?

I do not see anywhere that the intent was not just that.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I do not see anywhere that the intent was not just that.

"Intent," whatever it may be, or have been, is not enforceable. Only the legally adopted-into-statute language is enforceable.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Yea I see the intent was to make us install AFCI devices if we replace a receptacle just as though we need to GFCI or Tamper proof. I don't like it but that was the intention. The intention was to sell more AFCI's , replace and phase out old equipment. That was the intention clear to me.

Just because Dennis got a exemption to me that was only pertaining to modifications or extensions witout new devices.

In my state we are using the CA electric code based on the NEC 2011. We are stuck with the code before the Alwon exception.

 

[al hildenbrand]

In my state we are using the CA electric code based on the NEC 2011. We are stuck with the code before the Alwon exception.

I'm also restricted the way you are now. Minnesota will be under the 2011 NEC until next month. Since the morning of Jan. 1, this year, the effect of the replacement requirement for AFCI in existing two-wire ungrounded wiring methods has, in my opinion, been nothing short of draconian for the owners of homes built in the first six decades of the Twentieth Century.

 

[Sierrasparky]

All I know for sure is that a IAEI interpetation is not code. It is unenforceable as is the NEC illustrated books that are sold. So unless our State makes a Errata change we as stuch until at least 2017.

 

[shortcircuit2]

All I know for sure is that a IAEI interpetation is not code. It is unenforceable as is the NEC illustrated books that are sold. So unless our State makes a Errata change we as stuch until at least 2017.

True about the IAEI interpretation. But a lot of those IAEI members are AHJ's and they should be enforcing the code as written by what the language says. Those 6 words as has been pointed out..."as specified elsewhere in this Code" leaves no doubt to me what the meaning is. If it looks like an apple...its an apple.

 

[shortcircuit2]

for the branch circuit yes, not required when extending under 6 feet ...so for a replacement receptacle, pig tails and all , you can use an afci receptacle outlet and leave the rest of the circuit un- AFCI'd with or without pig tails ... one is a requirement for replacement receptacles the other is a requirement for the entire branch circuit ... apples and oranges .

Of the 2 AFCI receptacle outlet devices I have seen so far (Leviton and Eaton)the directions with the device tell me with a very detailed picture that the device must be installed as the FIRST outlet in the branch circuit with the remainder of the branch circuit protected downstream of the device.

Here is Leviton's instructions...

http://waterheatertimer.org/pdf/Leviton-AFCI_Instruction_Sheet.pdf

 

[Sierrasparky]

True about the IAEI interpretation. But a lot of those IAEI members are AHJ's and they should be enforcing the code as written by what the language says. Those 6 words as has been pointed out..."as specified elsewhere in this Code" leaves no doubt to me what the meaning is. If it looks like an apple...its an apple.

And what is your interpetation as I am thourougly confused.:?

 

[al hildenbrand]

So unless our State makes a Errata change we as stuch until at least 2017.

One can hope that your Authority can "see the writing on the wall" with respect to the 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception and do just that and give you, and your clients, relief from 406.4(D)(4).

There have to be CA inspectors listening in on this thread. Also, I'd keep a copy of this thread and share it with your local inspectors, as you get the chance.

In my opinion, the economics of this could be compelling.

 

[flatlander]

Ok you guys are killing me on this one.You'll read it however you wish. An exception adding less that 6 feet of wire has nothing to do with "other places" . It's the same as putting in gfci or tamper proof as a replacement.

So levity has it wrong?
http://www.leviton.com/OA_HTML/SectionDisplay.jsp?section=61273&minisite=10251a

 

[al hildenbrand]

It's the same as putting in gfci or tamper proof as a replacement.

Ya, just like them, only different. 406.4(D)(4) doesn't tell us WHERE a receptacle replacement is required to be AFCI protected, but, instead tells us to go "elsewhere in the Code" period. The AFCI requirement is in 210.12, and so is the Exception so if you want to ignore it, fine with me, I'll get the jobs we bid on. . .

So levity has it wrong?
http://www.leviton.com/OA_HTML/SectionDisplay.jsp?section=61273&minisite=10251a

The language and diagrams in the Leviton OBC AFCI have been creating a 110.3(B) conflict with 210.12(B) since they hit my wholesaler two years ago. And now, the Leviton OBC AFCI instructions also create a 110.3(B) conflict with 2011 and 2014 406.4(D)(4) by only allowing it to be used for replacement if the receptacle outlet is the outlet closest to the branch circuit overcurrent protective device.

Check out the Eaton Installation Instructions. They're different.

 

[shortcircuit2]

Al, that link for the Eaton AFCI device is just a Spec Link. I couldn't find a link to their installation instructions. But, the Eaton device that I picked up at my local supply house has instructions that say the same as the Leviton AFCI instructions with the same location picture. I suspect that the instructions will be similar for all devices because it may be part of the listing. Notice the AFCI device must also be installed in a box with only two 2-wire cables.

So, according to the instructions if I was adding the AFCI device to a branch circuit with a homerun to a lighting outlet...I would have to intercept the branch circuit before the lighting outlet to add the device. Or put it next to the main panel.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, that link for the Eaton AFCI device is just a Spec Link. I couldn't find a link to their installation instructions. But, the Eaton device that I picked up at my local supply house has instructions that say the same as the Leviton AFCI instructions with the same location picture. I suspect that the instructions will be similar for all devices because it may be part of the listing.

Thanks for that. I haven't seen the Eaton in the wild around here yet. I assumed that this was a dual purpose sheet, but understand what you are saying about the package for the Eaton OBC AFCI containing a different document.

Having both Leviton and Eaton instructions conflicting with the Code is just plain crazy. The Forum touched on it a year and a half ago, when the Leviton device became available, towards the end of the thread 210.12(B)(2) -- Where's the 1st Receptacle Outlet?

Notice the AFCI device must also be installed in a box with only two 2-wire cables.

So, according to the instructions if I was adding the AFCI device to a branch circuit with a homerun to a lighting outlet...I would have to intercept the branch circuit before the lighting outlet to add the device. Or put it next to the main panel.

So, now, with 406.4(D)(4) being in a 110.3(B) conflict with the installation instructions, maybe Eaton and Leviton will wake up and realize they are putting a lid on the honey pot of their future sales.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You folks are splitting hairs. what was the intent of the CMP. NOT another group of cronies opinion.

hey I don't like this stuff but some of you are beating a dead horse. The way you are interpeting this there will be no place for such a device. That I can assure you was not the intention of the CMP.

 

[al hildenbrand]

what was the intent of the CMP. . .
The way you are interpeting this there will be no place for such a device. That I can assure you was not the intention of the CMP.

How can you assure me? Document it. I see absolutely no "intent" being adopted into enforceable ordinance. . . only the NEC itself.

And, even if you could document CMP intent, the intent, if different from the language in the published and adopted-into-law NEC wins in court, hands down.