210.12(D) Exception 2020

[anthonysolino]

Hey every one, i have recently engaged in a discussion with a friend of mine who does 100% residential, and we were going back and fourth with the language of the AFCI exception related to extensions or modifications to branch circuit wiring, he was informed by his employer that as soon as he installs a new receptacle in that circuit, and i mean, removing the old device out of the wall and installing a new device of the same rating and type. he was instructed to sell the customer an AFCI OCPD and that it is required, the way i read the text is that any modification to BRANCH CIRCUIT CONDUCTORS not devices? i would like to hear yall's input. Think its the way people are twising the code for financial gain on his company's part.

 

[electrofelon]

Hey every one, i have recently engaged in a discussion with a friend of mine who does 100% residential, and we were going back and fourth with the language of the AFCI exception related to extensions or modifications to branch circuit wiring, he was informed by his employer that as soon as he installs a new receptacle in that circuit, and i mean, removing the old device out of the wall and installing a new device of the same rating and type. he was instructed to sell the customer an AFCI OCPD and that it is required, the way i read the text is that any modification to BRANCH CIRCUIT CONDUCTORS not devices? i would like to hear yall's input. Think its the way people are twising the code for financial gain on his company's part.

Mostly true, but it is not the 210.12 requirements that get you here, it is 406.4(D)(4). It could be just an AFCI recep instead of a breaker.

 

[ActionDave]

Look at 406.4(D)(4) before you make any bets with him.

 

[ActionDave]

Black cat was faster than me.

 

[anthonysolino]

Look at 406.4(D)(4) before you make any bets with him.

thank you bolth! i will be writing a big red reference in my 210.12 section that shoots me over to 406, that should be a public input about putting that reference in 210, hey no bets were made we were just having an honest discussion about it, he felt it was wrong and i felt the language was not there to support it there so here i am! i would have never would have thought to go over to 406 to find that exception do either one of you feel it shouldnt be an exception but more so a parenthetical point under the 406.4 or even the 210 section?

 

[tom baker]

That replacement requirement for an outlet to meet current requirements has been in the NEC for several cycles, perhaps was added in 2014.

 

[tom baker]

I think you are considering a public input for the 2023 code. That section in 410 is not well known, might be worth seeing what the CMP says.

 

[anthonysolino]

I think you considering public input for the 2023 code. That section in 410 is not well known, might be worth seeing what the CMP says.

i mean it would seem logcial to maybe insert a little informational note in there that just gives you a little "hey replacements dont apply here go over to 406 to find these rules" i mean for mean AFCI i went straight to 210 and that language in the exception lead me to beleive replacements do not count.

 

[anthonysolino]

this is why i enjoy this trade man every day is somthing new, i love it.

 

[ActionDave]

thank you bolth! i will be writing a big red reference in my 210.12 section that shoots me over to 406, that should be a public input about putting that reference in 210, hey no bets were made we were just having an honest discussion about it, he felt it was wrong and i felt the language was not there to support it there so here i am! i would have never would have thought to go over to 406 to find that exception do either one of you feel it shouldnt be an exception but more so a parenthetical point under the 406.4 or even the 210 section?

As a matter of style and clarity I can see a case being made for a reference from 210.12 over to 406.4. Personally I think 406.4 is immoral so the more obscure it is to electricians and inspectors the better.

 

[anthonysolino]

As a matter of style and clarity I can see a case being made for a reference from 210.12 over to 406.4. Personally I think 406.4 is immoral so the more obscure it is to electricians and inspectors the better.

i agree dave i do not think its fair to the customer if i am replacing a wore out receptacle for them to have a pay a preimum is a little unjust.