AFCI Protection at First Opening

[Jerramundi]

Hey all, having an interesting debate about AFCI protection requirements and wanted to get your input...

We're considering AFCI protection at the first opening via an AFCI receptacle instead of shelling out for the breakers.

The thing is, the first opening in the homerun raceway from the panel is a switch. The second opening on a branch raceway would be a receptacle. The circuit conductors would be pulled through the first opening (i.e. buried) and be truly first "accessible" in the second opening (i.e. the receptacle).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe an opening is defined by the accessibility of the conductors. So if I pull through / bury the conductors in the first box, and they are accessible in the second box... would this be a code compliant way to provide AFCI protection?

I know the code says "first opening" and perhaps I'm playing semantics here, but yea, haha.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If you go by the code wording then you would need afci at the panel. I believe you can try running it by the authority having jurisdiction and see what they think. It would make sense that if the wiring leaves the conduit and goes into another conduit then there is a lack of protection for those conductors in the box. IMO, it needs protection at the panel in your case

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Also the switch needs agfci protection also

 

[McLintock]

Do the lights in the room need to be on the AFCI Per code? I would myself if I was not doing a breaker, with is the best way to do it I think, because when the power goes off in that room most people will go to the panel to check not the outlets in the room, but anyway you should run the homerun to the outlet box then run to the switch box.

Debate closed


“ shoot low boys their riding shetland ponies”

 

[hbiss]

We're considering AFCI protection at the first opening via an AFCI receptacle instead of shelling out for the breakers.

The thing is, the first opening in the homerun raceway from the panel is a switch...

Yeah, no easy way to do this and more trouble than it's worth. Nobody is going to want to move the couch or a book case and look around with a flashlight to figure out why the lights went out either. Nice try!

-Hal

 

[romex jockey]

i want afci main breakers

thx

~RJ~

 

[electrofelon]

I also agree this is a bad idea. I tried it once. Not only could they be behind couches and such, seems like a service call nightmare for the homeowner, particularly if its a rental. The ones I used, pass & seymour, also had a horrible nuisance tripping problems. I ended up taking them out and put one in a small non dwelling bathroom, nothing on the load side, and I know no once uses it and every time I go there the thing is tripped. So dont use the P&S ones whatever you do.

 

[Peter Furrow]

“i want afci main breakers”

AFCI main breakers would be a nightmare..
Imagine the nuisance tripping in that house.. people would be running into walls

 

[readydave8]

i want afci main breakers

thx

~RJ~

and candles?

 

[Jerramundi]

If you go by the code wording then you would need afci at the panel. I believe you can try running it by the authority having jurisdiction and see what they think. It would make sense that if the wiring leaves the conduit and goes into another conduit then there is a lack of protection for those conductors in the box. IMO, it needs protection at the panel in your case

The code has section that allows for AFCI protection at "the first opening." I'd have to get out my code book, but I'm 100% certain it's in there.

 

[Jerramundi]

Also the switch needs agfci protection also

If you mean "AFCI" and that "G" was just a typo, that I'm aware of. The lighting circuit conductors would be 100% accessible at the first opening (i.e. switch box) because they need to be wired to the switches... so there is no room for the semantic argument I'm attempting to make that... an opening is defined by the accessibility of conductors and thus, if I pulled the receptacle circuit through that switch box and buried those conductors, that I could utilize an AFCI receptacle at the next opening (i.e. the first receptacle opening) where those circuit conductors are 100% accessible... and thus that opening meets the semantic argument I'm making of being "the first opening" in the circuit.

 

[Jerramundi]

Another idea I'm toying with is the idea of doing a multigang box or set of boxes next to the panel w/ faceless AFCI devices, but I digress.
I'm just toying with different ideas because $45 per breaker gets really expensive really fast.

 

[Jerramundi]

Do the lights in the room need to be on the AFCI Per code? I would myself if I was not doing a breaker, with is the best way to do it I think, because when the power goes off in that room most people will go to the panel to check not the outlets in the room, but anyway you should run the homerun to the outlet box then run to the switch box.

Yes. Lighting in living spaces needs to be AFCI protected per code. I believe it was introduced in 2011 NEC.

I agree with you about the functionality of "when the power goes off in that room most people will go to the panel to check not the outlets in the room." It would be annoying as crap to have protection devices throughout the house as opposed to one centralized location... but, if it saves $500, I feel it's an idea worth exploring.

For example, I've done AFCI protection at the outlets when I re-did a friends bedroom because he didn't have the funds to redo the panel at the same time, which wouldn't accept an AFCI breaker. The application has its' uses.

Even if I ran the homerun to the outlet box first, I would still have a lighting circuit passing through that opening before it got to the switch (i.e. lighting and receptacle circuits are separate). So that's essentially posing the same question as my OP, just in reverse.

 

[curt swartz]

Have you read 210.12(A)(1-6)? There is more to it than just installing an AFCI device at the first outlet of the circuit.

I really don't see how it will save any $$ by avoiding AFCI breakers. Even if you can comply with a standard breaker and AFCI device the additional material and labor will eat up any savings.

 

[electrofelon]

I'm just toying with different ideas because $45 per breaker gets really expensive really fast.

In theory, the AFCI requirements should not be costing you any money

 

[romex jockey]

all just to meet 'code' for some corporate profit cloaked in the guise of safety

~RJ~

 

[roger]

all just to meet 'code' for some corporate profit cloaked in the guise of safety

~RJ~

Don't you mark up material Steve?

Rogrr

 

[ramsy]

Have you read 210.12(A)(1-6)? There is more to it than just installing an AFCI device at the first outlet of the circuit..

New-work code 210.12 is for new wiring. Replacement code 406.4(D)(4) is for existing wring.

If AFCI not possible at fuse box, using 1st outlet (home run) is not required, but reduces total devices when replacing plugs in dwellings.

If AFCI breakers won't fit and owners refuse upgrade, double-gang switch boxes are an elegant solution for the AFCI devices covering switched outlets.

 

[romex jockey]

Don't you mark up material Steve?

Rogrr

A better question of my ethics would be, do i sell false security Rogrr

~S~

 

[roger]

A better question of my ethics would be, do i sell false security Rogrr

~S~

Oh, don't you mark up false security Stevv?

Roger