210.12(A)(4), does this allow home runs not to be arc-fault protected?

Status
Not open for further replies.
texie said:
According to UL the Eaton listing meets 210.12(A)(4) as a "System Combination". In other words a specific breaker and AFCI device tested and listed as a system.
I believe you are correct if you are referring to 210.12(A)(3) as I don't think a "supplemental arc protection circuit breaker" exist due to the standards issue.
Click to expand...
You could be right, I will have to look back at the NITMANs for the 2017 code.
 
bullheimer said:
dont know why i'm even answering or trying to answer this because i dont know wtf everybody is talking about with products that dont meet requirements. i will just go by what i've done. i've been, or state of WA has been on 2017 since 2017. everybody i know makes breakers that are gfi and afci called dual function breakers. yes the home runs have to be protected with afci because i have been given corrections for not useing breakers and saying that i would put an afci recept in at the first box with romex. NO. there is an exception with conduit or mc cable etc withing the footage requirements but like i said i got a correction with romex, ie new house. every mfg i know has a dual function breaker. i prefere to use an afci bkr with a gfi outlet if i can but sometimes you can't like for dishwasher or laundry or wherever the outlet will be behind something (under sink is ok here) and fridge doesnt have to be but washer and dishwasher i beleive are called out. that is actually why i am searching the posts here but not finding anything helpful. the fridge can escape the gfi i believe as it is not a kit. countertop outlet. anyway. you are not in texas so do as you wish, here in wash. i have no choice but to protect the h.r. late (sorry for spelling and hope this helps but sounds like it wont)
Click to expand...
correct, the entire circuit has been required to be protected for the most part until more recent years. They put in a couple situations where a combination AFCI breaker is not required, even though the components needed to comply were not yet on the market. I think this was only done because some products were close to being ready to release to the market. Apparently Eaton is the first to release such product, but if those situations were not in the code this product would not be code compliant.

This is not the first time code was written for products not yet on the market and probably will not be the last.

I have no idea how much Eaton's products will cost, their reliability, or even if they have solved some undesired tripping issues or anything like that, but I don't intend to go out and exclusively install them vs continuing to use the CAFCI's we have been using, even though we may not fully understand those either they are at least familiar. If you only save $5 maybe even $10 vs CAFCI breaker it may not be worth it. It may not even save that $5 or $10 if you need to do a little extra work in order to use them. I assume that first receptacle of the circuit still needs to be readily accessible if it has anything that is identified as an AFCI present.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
You could be right, I will have to look back at the NITMANs for the 2017 code.
Click to expand...
At the time of the technical meeting for the 2017 NEC, June 16,2 2016 there was no listing standard for a device that could be used for (4)(d) and the transcript of the debate on motion 70-1 for the 2017 code indicated it would be very unlikely there ever would be such a standard as the UL Standard Technical Panel members were split enough between breaker and device people that the required 2/3s majority for a standard could not be met.
Maybe that has changed since than and I do not have access to the actual UL Standards to check. On the issue of AFCIs, base on past misleading comments by the manufacturer's involved I have ZERO reason to believe any statement about AFCIs made by manufacturer of AFCI breakers.
 
An Ohioism. Exc. 2
b9afd401d634c11ec12bb7e25d288e63.jpg


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
jxofaltrds said:
An Ohioism. Exc. 2
b9afd401d634c11ec12bb7e25d288e63.jpg


Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
What is their justification for that change?

I am one of those mostly against the AFCI's, but it makes no sense why you would exempt any of the areas that require them unless you are going to exempt them all. Assuming they will do what they are supposed to do it made no sense when they first introduced them but only required them in bedrooms.

I am in for GFCI protection - but don't agree that some the 2017 GFCI changes are necessary either. They seemed to be added "because we have the technology" rather than targeting items where the risks are historically higher. I might be more on board with 30 mA GFP requirement on some of what they required class A GFCI on though.
 
It makes no sense to me why they are digging themselves into a deeper hole than they're already in. Quit while you can, what you already have is bad enough. Sounds to me that they are only doing this because the NEC gave them the opportunity to make more money. More evidence that they are in bed with manufacturers.

-Hal
 
I don't know. If I find anything I will post it.

'Could' be because many people renovate kitchens and builders complained about the need for AFCI protection . My quess.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
jxofaltrds said:
I don't know. If I find anything I will post it.

'Could' be because many people renovate kitchens and builders complained about the need for AFCI protection . My quess.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So non electrical professionals set what your code amendments are going to be?

I may have issues with AFCI's but builders setting electrical requirements isn't right regardless the topic involved.
 
kwired said:
So non electrical professionals set what your code amendments are going to be?

I may have issues with AFCI's but builders setting electrical requirements isn't right regardless the topic involved.
Click to expand...
It was large comm. contractors that got state licensing of specialty contractors in 2001.

Money talks

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 
jxofaltrds said:
It was large comm. contractors that got state licensing of specialty contractors in 2001.

Money talks

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Still somewhat puzzling to me, large comm contractors aren't impacted as much by AFCI requirements as residential contractors and wouldn't have much motivation to do anything to change them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top