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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really...just what the various proponents have stated. I am not arguing with anyone just stating what I believe to be true. I just know that the intent of (D) was never to replace the direction of (A) in the 2017 NEC. You won't have the same level of protection in (D) as (A) but it's the best they could achieve in modified or existing applications.

I would think the folks who dislike AFC'S would be very supportive of the limited guidance in (D). But again I have to dog in the debate...I have no issues with how (A) or (D) is written personally. But I acknowledge other will and respect that my friend.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
[Not really...just what the various proponents have stated. I am not arguing with anyone just stating what I believe to be true.
Click to expand...

All worth it, Im learning a lot here :)


I just know that the intent of (D) was never to replace the direction of (A) in the 2017 NEC. You won't have the same level of protection in (D) as (A) but it's the best they could achieve in modified or existing applications.
Click to expand...

I understand, but the branch circuit OCPD appears to require being listed to meet some combination type deal.



I would think the folks who dislike AFC'S would be very supportive of the limited guidance in (D). But again I have to dog in the debate...I have no issues with how (A) or (D) is written personally. But I acknowledge other will and respect that my friend.

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


BTW, I am gussing up until now, but which D are you referring to? Is it in the 2017?
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Not really...just what the various proponents have stated. I am not arguing with anyone just stating what I believe to be true. I just know that the intent of (D) was never to replace the direction of (A) in the 2017 NEC. You won't have the same level of protection in (D) as (A) but it's the best they could achieve in modified or existing applications.

I would think the folks who dislike AFC'S would be very supportive of the limited guidance in (D). But again I have to dog in the debate...I have no issues with how (A) or (D) is written personally. But I acknowledge other will and respect that my friend.

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

Ok, here is the 2014 and 2017


d. The combination of the branch-circuit overcurrent
device and outlet branch-circuit AFCI shall be identified
as meeting the requirements for a system
combination–type AFCI and shall be listed as such.
Click to expand...


attachment.php






Both seem to stress that the pair need to be listed, but the question is to what? In my view the key word is combination.


Look at it like this. If a normal 15 or 20amp breaker does its job with an outlet AFCI when the run is 50/70 feet and under, then why even talk about a supplemental arc protection device which gives the same 50/70 foot restriction?
 
Remember that in 210.12 (A) 5 and 6 make no mention of the branch circuit OCPD and nothing about the combination being listed. So say I have an old FPE panel. If I have EMT I can happily add an outlet AFCI, but if I have NM at 10 feet from the panel, I now need to worry about my breaker meeting a listing for the system combination?


Sorry if I am not being clear. :ashamed1:
 
It's a combination type AFCI in (D), listed under UL for parallel and series arc detection, not as a listed series combination with a upstream device. Yes, as my tag says I really only comment on 2017 NEC referenced now.

My point is (D) is not (A) so let's not try to make them match. The series listing application in 210.12 (A) is again not an option in (D). You have two options for a combination AFCI OCPD at source or OBC at first receptacle of the extended existing branch...again (D) only demands a combination AFCI in choice #1.

Also remember I'm speaking of the modification aspects of (D) and nothing about (A) in 210.12.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
It's a combination type AFCI in (D), listed under UL for parallel and series arc detection, not as a listed series combination with a upstream device. Yes, as my tag says I really only comment on 2017 NEC referenced now.
Click to expand...

So I must use an AFCI at the panel or the listing comment only applies to the outlet device?



My point is (D) is not (A) so let's not try to make them match. The series listing application in 210.12 (A) is again not an option in (D). You have two options for a combination AFCI OCPD at source or OBC at first receptacle of the extended existing branch...again (D) only demands a combination AFCI in choice #1.

Also remember I'm speaking of the modification aspects of (D) and nothing about (A) in 210.12.

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


Thanks :)
 
Combination AFCI'S are listed...now the dual function OBC'S are listed also. The clarity was needed over the OBC's...we as an industry are a custom to listed combination AFCI'S at the panel location.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Combination AFCI'S are listed...now the dual function OBC'S are listed also. The clarity was needed over the OBC's...we as an industry are a custom to listed combination AFCI'S at the panel location.

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

Are standard breakers listed however?
 
All good....discussions are what it's all about. Arguments not so much and I am open to learning as much as anyone brother.

Comments based on the 2017 National Electrical Code.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
All good....discussions are what it's all about. Arguments not so much and I am open to learning as much as anyone brother.

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

I am hear to discuss this :) Im genuinely wondering. I will let RJ chime in and see his take on it.
 
The problem is that the NEC is making a distinction that does not match the real world. In the real world we will walk into older houses to do work that may not accept an AFCI breaker. The way it should lay out to match the real world is:

(A) - Brand new panel, brand new breaker, brand new circuit solutions
(B) - Existing panel, new circuit solutions
(C) - Existing panel, existing circuit, new extension solutions
(D) - Device replacement solutions

They didn't do that. Their subsections are pretty arbitrary, as are the restrictions and allowances.

In answer to the original question, I think your read on it is accurate. If you find a unicorn at the supply house, you can use it to protect a circuit. You won't, so you can't, but CMP-2 was way too busy to cut away the BS out of this section this cycle.
 
The term 'combination' as pertains to arc fault debuted in the '08 cycle.

I've read no manufacturer forwarding an explanation past it's ability to mitigate both series and parallel faults.

To my knowledge , and i welcome corrections, there was no physical change to this device ,that had been on the market for a decade prior.

Amending UL1699 to portray the former (98-08) afci as less than post '08 marketing would be inviting litigant disaster here.

As i read it, 3 & 4 are referring to the pre '08 version ,ergo impossible to be installed to compliance due to it being off shelves for a while now

~RJ~
 
Nah...this side of the fence is treating me very well...I can't complain;)

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