210.12 A 2,3&4 vs. 210.12 B 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
romex jockey

romex jockey

Senior Member
Location
Vermont
Occupation
electrician
I find it confusing that a stand alone afci receptacle outlet ok via 210.12 B2 (extensions & modifications of existing circuitry) , yet requires some "supplemental" and/or "in combination with" an afci ocpd via 210.12 A, 2, 3 & 4 for what appears to be new construction and/or home runs

Any help unfuzzing this appreciated , and thanks in advance

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
I find it confusing that a stand alone afci receptacle outlet ok via 210.12 B2 (extensions & modifications of existing circuitry) , yet requires some "supplemental" and/or "in combination with" an afci ocpd via 210.12 A, 2, 3 & 4 for what appears to be new construction and/or home runs

Any help unfuzzing this appreciated , and thanks in advance

~RJ~
Click to expand...
AFAIK the supplemental panel breaker types referred to do not exist and have never been made.
The difference in use of the AFCI receptacle appears to be entirely based on the nature and length of the home run from the first outlet on the circuit to the panel. (Everything assumes that the first outlet is the receptacle outlet or else a dead front AFCI device is used.)

Note that for GFCI it may make sense to protect only part of a circuit or only a single receptacle outlet, since most of the protection is for use of connected equipment.
With AFCI the protection is also intended for the wiring itself and so that protection has to be upstream of or very close to the point where the circuit enters the area required to be protected.
 
Thank you Gold One

I am somewhat aware the provisions of 210.12 A ,2,3 &4 are impossible to meet due to some UL1699? listing requirement that is not longer (or never was?) manufactured

But i can not put my finger on it....

Second, i see 50' and 70' for #14 & #12 repeated for those code sections.

That said, 21012 B.........."(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications
Dwelling Units." doesn't seem to care what OCPD exists

My contention here is that an OCPD & receptacle outlet possess different qualities , so how one can be expected to function as similar 'protection' as such , especially in light of the aforesaid 2,3&4 escapes me

~RJ~
 
Last edited:
romex jockey said:
Thank you Gold One

I am somewhat aware the provisions of 210.12 A ,2,3 &4 are impossible to meet due to some UL1699? listing requirement that is not longer (or never was?) manufactured

But i can not put my finger on it....

Second, i see 50' and 70' for #14 & #12 repeated for those code sections.

That said, 21012 B.........."(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications
Dwelling Units." doesn't seem to care what OCPD exists

My contention here is that an OCPD & receptacle outlet possess different qualities , so how one can be expected to function as similar 'protection' as such , especially in light of the aforesaid 2,3&4 escapes me

~RJ~
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that as long as the home run from AFCI receptacle to the panel where the conventional OCPD is located is robust enough that it is unlikely to experience a parallel arc fault, then the breaker will provide OCPD for the entire circuit and the receptacle AFCI will specifically provide the same AF protection to the rest of the circuit as would be supplied by a combination AFCI type breaker in the panel.
There must be OCPD of some kind in the first place, and no AFCI receptacle device provides any OCPD at all AFAIK.
 
GoldDigger said:
I think the idea is that as long as the home run from AFCI receptacle to the panel where the conventional OCPD is located is robust enough that it is unlikely to experience a parallel arc fault, then the breaker will provide OCPD for the entire circuit and the receptacle AFCI will specifically provide the same AF protection to the rest of the circuit as would be supplied by a combination AFCI type breaker in the panel.
There must be OCPD of some kind in the first place, and no AFCI receptacle device provides any OCPD at all AFAIK.
Click to expand...



Our 9-22 NEMA speaker first insisted art. 210.12A 3&4 were referring to normal OCPD's. If this is so , why would the code specifically require and refer to them when they are addressed in 240 ....?

Of note, we do not see such a reference for GFCI's in 210.8....

I'll post the actual passage(s)>>>

210.12A(3) A listed supplemental arc protection circuit breaker in-
stalled at the origin of the branch circuit in combination
with a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit
interrupter installed at the first outlet box on the branch
circuit
Click to expand...


210.12A(4) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit in-
terrupter installed at the first outlet on the branch cir-
cuit in combination with a listed branch-circuit over-
current protective device where all of the following
conditions are met:
d. The combination of the branch-circuit overcurrent
device and outlet branch-circuit AFCI shall be iden-
tified as meeting the requirements for a system
combination-type AFCI and shall be listed as such.
Click to expand...

He later informed us the 'listing' for such an install no longer exists , but apparently 3 & 4 will be published unchanged in the '17.

Ergo, according to NEMA & UL, a 210.12 A 3&4 install are impossible to meet , because the OCPD they are talking about no longer exists , at least in the listing sense, to be fully compliant via new construction.


Yet we have 210.12B , which allows any branch to be extended w/o addressing the OCPD at all. In doing so the elements of what are assumably? arc-protective OCPD's referred to in 3 & 4 are NOT required

How then, can similar protection exist A vs. B ?

~RJ~
 
Further, and perhaps of even more weight , would be that 3&4 are predicated on a listing requirement that, to my knowledge, no longer exists in it's original pre '08 form.

Ergo , unless 90-4 trumps 110.3B, one can not install 3 & 4 to compliance .

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
Further, and perhaps of even more weight , would be that 3&4 are predicated on a listing requirement that, to my knowledge, no longer exists in it's original pre '08 form.

Ergo , unless 90-4 trumps 110.3B, one can not install 3 & 4 to compliance .

~RJ~
Click to expand...


Basically thus far from the convos and everything Ive read is that a typical AFCI receptacle is none complaint unless the breaker is listed? But arent all breakers listed? :huh:
 
Well yes, just about every product we install is listed ,rated, thru an NRTL Mr MBrook.

Some even evolve , which is the UL1699 case with arc technology.

Unfortunately said evolution may be purely academic vs. that of any true advancement in technology

For ex, we were under the impression arc faults cleared both series & parallel faults from their late 90's debut until the '08 'combination arc fault' breaker change.

A decade of installs out there still exist ticking along under this marketing via manufacturers

Confronted with this, our nema rep insisted the listing was something all the manufacturers 'walked away from resolving'....

What is suspected is said listing applies to 210.12A 3&4 , ergo under 110.3B becomes unapplicable due to UL1699's inability (or perhaps more refusal ) to address the '08 change. To do so would openly reveal a decade of installs as less than the product they were originally presented as, obviously inviting litigant entities to their doors.

They are not referring to 'normal breakers' in 3 & 4 , which is what nema reps are being told to tell us

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
Well yes, just about every product we install is listed ,rated, thru an NRTL Mr MBrook.

Some even evolve , which is the UL1699 case with arc technology.

Unfortunately said evolution may be purely academic[i/] vs. that of any true advancement in technology

For ex, we were under the impression arc faults cleared both series & parallel faults from their late 90's debut until the '08 'combination arc fault' breaker change.

A decade of installs out there still exist ticking along under said marketing via manufacturers

Confronted with this, our nema rep insisted the listing was something all the manufacturers 'walked away from resolving'....

What is suspected is said listing applies to 210.12A 3&4 , ergo under 110.3B becomes unapplicable due to UL1699's inability (or perhaps more refusal ) to address the '08 change. To do so would openly reveal a decade of installs as less than the product they were originally presented as, obviously inviting litigant entities to their doors.

~RJ~
Click to expand...


So what your saying is that we have no idea what the code is trying to say by "listed"? At least in that said code is not explicit?
 
Yes, the evolution of UL1699 juxtaposed to 210.12 is not clear Mr MBrooke

Nor do i suspect we will be privy to anything more than nema claptrap pursuing clarification....

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
I find it confusing that a stand alone afci receptacle outlet ok via 210.12 B2 (extensions & modifications of existing circuitry) , yet requires some "supplemental" and/or "in combination with" an afci ocpd via 210.12 A, 2, 3 & 4 for what appears to be new construction and/or home runs

Any help unfuzzing this appreciated , and thanks in advance

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Greetings Romex Jockey or as i like to say Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable Jockey...;)

While I do not with to venture down the "wormhole" of AFCI's yet again, since it is only dealing with the NEC aspect of the topic I will gladly chime in. The logic behind the "stand alone" option as you know is and was an attempt to take existing applications and attempt to make them safer in the eyes of the CMP. The limited protection on the line side and complete protection on the load side is in their minds better than nothing at all. That thinking or merit can be questioned but it is the basic premise of the rule.

The items found (or options I should say) in 210.12(A) are for new installations or branch circuits that are newly installed that not subject to the 6' exception. The goal was to protect the circuit in it's entirety or provide methods that ultimately protect from fire (ie metal raceways and or concrete encasement as such). As for the 2017 NEC (which I am referencing) the Listed Supplemental Arc Protection Circuit Breaker is a product the manufacturers said they can produce...just have chosen not to and much like the pre-approval of the OBC Devices before the 2014 NEC....it will come shortly I will assume.

The fact is the modification requirements are simply that....and the NEC and CMP members are making an attempt to protect as much of the existing installation as possible without trying to be overly retroactive in nature. That is my take on it...I am very sure others will disagree and again tha'ts perfectly fine.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Greetings Romex Jockey or as i like to say Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable Jockey...;)

While I do not with to venture down the "wormhole" of AFCI's yet again, since it is only dealing with the NEC aspect of the topic I will gladly chime in. The logic behind the "stand alone" option as you know is and was an attempt to take existing applications and attempt to make them safer in the eyes of the CMP. The limited protection on the line side and complete protection on the load side is in their minds better than nothing at all. That thinking or merit can be questioned but it is the basic premise of the rule.

The items found (or options I should say) in 210.12(A) are for new installations or branch circuits that are newly installed that not subject to the 6' exception. The goal was to protect the circuit in it's entirety or provide methods that ultimately protect from fire (ie metal raceways and or concrete encasement as such). As for the 2017 NEC (which I am referencing) the Listed Supplemental Arc Protection Circuit Breaker is a product the manufacturers said they can produce...just have chosen not to and much like the pre-approval of the OBC Devices before the 2014 NEC....it will come shortly I will assume.

The fact is the modification requirements are simply that....and the NEC and CMP members are making an attempt to protect as much of the existing installation as possible without trying to be overly retroactive in nature. That is my take on it...I am very sure others will disagree and again tha'ts perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

210.12A 3&4 differ from 210.12B ,in that an afci OCPD is required MtNEC

IF you are reading this as i am, it is insisting on the 'supplement' and/or 'combination' addressing the 'load side' together as a unit install

Further, the afci ocpd's incorporate a lower mag trip , about 1/2 that of normal counterpart breakers. This is a key element of their functionality not found in receptacle form, ergo a 'stand alone' 210.12B afci receptacle install can not possibly achieve 'full afci protection' of it's 210.12A 3 & 4 counterpart

~RJ~
 
Assuming you are in the 2014 NEC, I must be reading it differently than you as "B" is not trying to achieve the same level as "A" requirements.

(D) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifcations — Dwelling Units and Dormitory Units. In any of the areas specifed in 210.12(A) or (B), where branch-circuit wiring is modifed, 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 frst receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit

The aspects of "A" are not going to be met in "B" for modifications. Not sure I follow you but I want too.

Again I do not think they are trying to impose the stricter requirements of new installations on existing or modifications of existing branch circuits....sorry I might just be slow today in understanding your comparison. I again am not getting into the dynamics of AFC I functions here....strictly sticking to the NEC and intent of the changes.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
Or I guess (D) now in the 2017 NEC. Which is all I reference now..sorry

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Greetings Romex Jockey or as i like to say Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable Jockey...;)

While I do not with to venture down the "wormhole" of AFCI's yet again, since it is only dealing with the NEC aspect of the topic I will gladly chime in. The logic behind the "stand alone" option as you know is and was an attempt to take existing applications and attempt to make them safer in the eyes of the CMP. The limited protection on the line side and complete protection on the load side is in their minds better than nothing at all. That thinking or merit can be questioned but it is the basic premise of the rule.

The items found (or options I should say) in 210.12(A) are for new installations or branch circuits that are newly installed that not subject to the 6' exception. The goal was to protect the circuit in it's entirety or provide methods that ultimately protect from fire (ie metal raceways and or concrete encasement as such). As for the 2017 NEC (which I am referencing) the Listed Supplemental Arc Protection Circuit Breaker is a product the manufacturers said they can produce...just have chosen not to and much like the pre-approval of the OBC Devices before the 2014 NEC....it will come shortly I will assume.

The fact is the modification requirements are simply that....and the NEC and CMP members are making an attempt to protect as much of the existing installation as possible without trying to be overly retroactive in nature. That is my take on it...I am very sure others will disagree and again tha'ts perfectly fine.
Click to expand...


I can't speak for others, but I myself would like to know what the code is saying rather than what AFCIs may or may not do. In regard to the code I am very confused as exactly what the code is trying to say when the use the term "listed"


(4) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter
installed at the first outlet on the branch circuit
in combination with a listed branch-circuit overcurrent
protective device where all of the following
conditions are met:
Click to expand...

Also you mention that supplemental arc device. Will it come along and if so what the heck is it? :blink: I'd think a branch feeder AFCI would do that same?
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Assuming you are in the 2014 NEC, I must be reading it differently than you as "B" is not trying to achieve the same level as "A" requirements.

(D) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifcations — Dwelling Units and Dormitory Units. In any of the areas specifed in 210.12(A) or (B), where branch-circuit wiring is modifed, 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 frst receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit

The aspects of "A" are not going to be met in "B" for modifications. Not sure I follow you but I want too.

Again I do not think they are trying to impose the stricter requirements of new installations on existing or modifications of existing branch circuits....sorry I might just be slow today in understanding your comparison. I again am not getting into the dynamics of AFC I functions here....strictly sticking to the NEC and intent of the changes.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
Click to expand...

If I may clarify:

(4) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter
installed at the first outlet on the branch circuit
in combination with a listed branch-circuit overcurrent
protective device where all of the following
conditions are met:
Click to expand...


On the outside, one would brush off listed as simply meaning a standard residential breaker listed to UL489. And so far so good. However:


(5) If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel-armored Type
AC cables meeting the requirements of 250.118, metal
wireways, metal auxiliary gutters, and metal outlet and
junction boxes are installed for the portion of the
branch circuit between the branch-circuit overcurrent
device and the first outlet, it shall be permitted to install
a listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at the first outlet
to provide protection for the remaining portion of
the branch circuit.
Click to expand...



(6) Where a listed metal or nonmetallic conduit or tubing
or Type MC cable is encased in not less than 50 mm
(2 in.) of concrete for the portion of the branch circuit
between the branch-circuit overcurrent device and the
first outlet, it shall be permitted to install a listed outlet
branch-circuit type AFCI at the first outlet to provide
protection for the remaining portion of the branch
circuit.
Click to expand...



However, no mention of listed circuit breaker or branch circuit OCPD is seen for either of these alternative wiring method. Why does 210.12 (A) (4) specifically call out the branch circuit breaker as needing to be in combination and not the others?
 
Umm...i think some are reading to deep into it but to each his own. It's all good.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top