AFCI's Tripping -Solution? -No AFCI

Status
Not open for further replies.
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
Does this exception allow me to not install an AFCI receptacle if I feed no other outlets?

Exception No. 1: If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel
armored Type AC cables meeting the requirements of
250.118 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 an outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at
the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion
of the branch circuit.

Sounds like this circuit is safe to the first outlet. So couldn't I install a single or maybe a duplex at that first outlet?
 
so your question, is the first devise (Rec.) part of the branch circuit or more correctly part of the rest of the branch circuit. In other words is their a loop hole in the exception that would allow for a standard rec there defeating that the AFCI protection has to provide combination protection that would extend to cords plug into the receptacle.

I would not allow a standard non protected receptacle as you discribed
 
Last edited:
You must protect the wiring , which the artcile exception address however you still need protection at the outlet for equipment that is plugged in. No, IMO you need an afci receptacle.
 
Disagree. I see nothing that requires that receptacle to be AFCI protected. Now in most cases the receptacle is AFCI protected but I do not see were it is required.

(A) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and
20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in
dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms,
parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation
rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall
be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter,
combination-type, installed to provide protection of the
branch circuit.

Exception No. 1: If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel
armored Type AC cables meeting the requirements of
250.118 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,

No AFCI protection is required to this point.

it shall be permitted to install an outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at
the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion
of the branch circuit.

Now I only have to 'add' AFCI protection if I have a continuation of the branch circuit.

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).
 
david said:
so your question, is the first devise (Rec.) part of the branch circuit or more correctly part of the rest of the branch circuit. In other words is their a loop hole in the exception that would allow for a standard rec there defeating that the AFCI protection has to provide combination protection that would extend to cords plug into the receptacle.

I would not allow a standard non protected receptacle as you discribed
Click to expand...

You admit there is a "loop hole" but you would still 'make' me install one?
 
If the first receptacle is in a space which requires AFCI, I do not see the exception as removing that requirement. All it is doing is removing the requirement for protection of the wires up to that outlet.
If you believe that AFCI is not intended to protect against faults in connected utilization equipment, then I would agree with the logic of Mike's statement. But does the code clearly state that?

Tapatalk!
 
GoldDigger said:
If the first receptacle is in a space which requires AFCI, I do not see the exception as removing that requirement. All it is doing is removing the requirement for protection of the wires up to that outlet.
If you believe that AFCI is not intended to protect against faults in connected utilization equipment, then I would agree with the logic of Mike's statement. But does the code clearly state that?

Tapatalk!
Click to expand...

It says permitted not required.
 
Yes. It is permitted as an alternative to an AFCI breaker. If you choose not to invoke the exception, you still have to provide AFCI protection some other way.
It is not voiding the AFCI requirement in its entirety, it is just excepting the first run (in conduit or MC) from the protection requirement.


Tapatalk!
 
GoldDigger said:
Yes. It is permitted as an alternative to an AFCI breaker. If you choose not to invoke the exception, you still have to provide AFCI protection some other way.
It is not voiding the AFCI requirement in its entirety, it is just excepting the first run (in conduit or MC) from the protection requirement.


Tapatalk!
Click to expand...

True IF the branch-circuit continues past the first outlet.

If you ran a dedicated circuit to a bedroom as in my example I could not fail it.
 
IMHO it still comes down to whether the AFCI requirement is only to protect the building wiring or is also intended to protect utilization equipment. The application of the requirement to the "circuit" leaves that ambiguous.

Tapatalk!
 
jxofaltrds said:
You admit there is a "loop hole" but you would still 'make' me install one?
Click to expand...

i did not make a statement that their is a loop hole. I said your question ask is their a loop hole. I would have to look at all the section in the 2011 to address ArKFault protection I do not have the 2011 NEC here at home nly at the office. We are still under 2008. I see your concern with the exception.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Disagree. I see nothing that requires that receptacle to be AFCI protected. Now in most cases the receptacle is AFCI protected but I do not see were it is required.

(A) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and
20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in
dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms,
parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation
rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall
be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter,
combination-type, installed to provide protection of the
branch circuit.

Exception No. 1: If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel
armored Type AC cables meeting the requirements of
250.118 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,

No AFCI protection is required to this point.

/QUOTE]

No AFCI protection is requred to this point if you opt to use the exception, but, AFCI protection is requie AT this point if you do opt to use it.

(A) Requires you to install AFCI protection. The exception merely allows you the option to install an AFCI at the first outlet location rather than where the circuit originates.
Click to expand...
 
jxofaltrds said:
Disagree. I see nothing that requires that receptacle to be AFCI protected. Now in most cases the receptacle is AFCI protected but I do not see were it is required.

(A) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and
20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in
dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms,
parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation
rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall
be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter,
combination-type, installed to provide protection of the
branch circuit.

Exception No. 1: If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel
armored Type AC cables meeting the requirements of
250.118 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,

No AFCI protection is required to this point.

it shall be permitted to install an outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at
the first outlet to provide protection for the remaining portion
of the branch circuit.

Now I only have to 'add' AFCI protection if I have a continuation of the branch circuit.

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).
Click to expand...

.Mike sounds like you need to write a change proposal to say something like this

Exception No. 1: If RMC, IMC, EMT, Type MC, or steel armored Type AC cables meeting the requirements of 250.118 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 an outlet branch-circuit type AFCI at the first outlet this protection

must also

provide protection for the remaining portion of the branch circuit
 
jxofaltrds said:
You admit there is a "loop hole" but you would still 'make' me install one?
Click to expand...

After having time to review this section i admit that there is a technical loop hole in the language

And to answer your question i still would require you to install the protected receptacle.

Mike when it comes to GFCI protection and now at least for me AFCI protection, I won?t stand before an arbitrator trying to argue a technical loop whole over the stated need for this kind (GFCI or AFCI) protection. You could make the same technical argument when it comes to a GFCI protection at a sited under construction a new installation, or a repair or alteration.

When you stand beside a dear friend holding a portable means of providing GFCI protection and on the plaintiff side is a young man who will never walk again.
The arbitration judge says to your good friend you as a professional should have been standing between the danger and the un-expecting public .

So yes I will require the protection.
 
I realize non of us are using the NEC 2014 at this point, but soon the question he has will be irrelevant. The 2014 will completely agree with his statement of installing the AFCI device & will include nm as a wiring method. As long as the nm is with in a designated lenght & size the AFCI protection starts at the first device. The first device is AFCI Protected even if it is a dedicated circuit. The 2011 IMO will still let you protect the circuit at the first device as long as the wiring methods designated are used. I believe the reason we had not seen much of this is due to the development of the combo AFCI recept is fairly new. I believe the AFCI were design for equipment faults originally but do trip when a bad device connection, or a rodent damaged wire create a parallel or series arc. IMHO
 
Last edited:
david said:
After having time to review this section i admit that there is a technical loop hole in the language

And to answer your question i still would require you to install the protected receptacle.

Mike when it comes to GFCI protection and now at least for me AFCI protection, I won?t stand before an arbitrator trying to argue a technical loop whole over the stated need for this kind (GFCI or AFCI) protection. You could make the same technical argument when it comes to a GFCI protection at a sited under construction a new installation, or a repair or alteration.

When you stand beside a dear friend holding a portable means of providing GFCI protection and on the plaintiff side is a young man who will never walk again.
The arbitration judge says to your good friend you as a professional should have been standing between the danger and the un-expecting public .

So yes I will require the protection.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you using 90.4 and I am glad that you man up and say that is what you are doing. I'm discussing what the code says:

406.4 General Installation Requirements. Receptacle outlets
shall be located in branch circuits in accordance with Part
III of Article 210. General installation requirements shall be in
accordance with 406.4(A) through (F).

III. Required Outlets
210.50 General. Receptacle outlets shall be installed as
specified in 210.52 through 210.63.

No place is a receptacle required to be AFCI protected.

(D) Replacements.
(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a
receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires
arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified
elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this
outlet shall be one of the following:

The branch-circuit in my example does not require AFCI protection. So even if I replace an existing receptacle in this example no AFCI required.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I have no problem with you using 90.4 and I am glad that you man up and say that is what you are doing. I'm discussing what the code says:

406.4 General Installation Requirements. Receptacle outlets
shall be located in branch circuits in accordance with Part
III of Article 210. General installation requirements shall be in
accordance with 406.4(A) through (F).

III. Required Outlets
210.50 General. Receptacle outlets shall be installed as
specified in 210.52 through 210.63.

No place is a receptacle required to be AFCI protected.

(D) Replacements.
(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a
receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires
arc-fault circuit interrupter protection as specified
elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this
outlet shall be one of the following:

The branch-circuit in my example does not require AFCI protection. So even if I replace an existing receptacle in this example no AFCI required.
Click to expand...

I not sure I am using 90.4 . What I am saying is in the case of construction sites and temp services as in the section you are discussing. GFCI protection is mandated through several choices. A GFCI breaker or a GFCI receptacle and lastly in lue of the first two options a portable Cord set providing GFCI protection.
The rule is clear that GFCI protection is mandated but clearly gives options as to how it is provided . The arbitration hearing judge ruled that the potable means clearly would have provided the protection, but the public. That the public (young worker) is un-expecting of a danger that you as a professional understand. We as the professionals have the obligation of protecting the public of the real danger.
In the topic you are discussing the rule mandates AFCI protection to prevent arcing to prevent fires to save property and to prevent deaths in property fires. I as an official i can use 90.4 to state my interpolation is the rule did not mandate the protection at the receptacle.
Based on established case law I am going to lose between a technical argument and the mandated protection in the general rule.
 
david said:
I not sure I am using 90.4 . What I am saying is in the case of construction sites and temp services as in the section you are discussing. GFCI protection is mandated through several choices. A GFCI breaker or a GFCI receptacle and lastly in lue of the first two options a portable Cord set providing GFCI protection.
The rule is clear that GFCI protection is mandated but clearly gives options as to how it is provided . The arbitration hearing judge ruled that the potable means clearly would have provided the protection, but the public. That the public (young worker) is un-expecting of a danger that you as a professional understand. We as the professionals have the obligation of protecting the public of the real danger.
In the topic you are discussing the rule mandates AFCI protection to prevent arcing to prevent fires to save property and to prevent deaths in property fires. I as an official i can use 90.4 to state my interpolation is the rule did not mandate the protection at the receptacle.
Based on established case law I am going to lose between a technical argument and the mandated protection in the general rule.
Click to expand...

It only mandates protection of the branch-circuit. Everything else is a by-product of that protection.

How can you lose? You used 90.4 to required the device.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top