arc fault and EMT

[jaggedben]

How about joining the crowd that want's 210.12 stricken in it's entirety.

-Hal

Just trying to keep my goals realistic.

 

[jaggedben]

Why would it matter if it were one outlet or 50 outlets? The idea is to protect the conductors from parallel and series arcs. Exposed live parts (i.e. non-integrated) has nothing to do with it. An exposed live part faulting to the box would be a ground fault, not an arc fault. I think you're pushing 210.12(A)(5) a little too far.

Then what do the metallic wiring methods in post 2 have to do with anything? Why is that language there at all?

 

[ramsy]

And why would anybody want to do that (AFCI Outlet) instead of a breaker unless you had to?

When breakers won't fit, and client won't upgrade the box, the dirty job of service electricians is properly installing an AFCI outlet when required per 406.4(D)(4), GFCI per (D)(3), and Tamper Resistant outlets per (D)(5).

Safety-outlet replacement / callbacks tend to reveal existing wiring defects, involving disconnecting filthy appliances, finding ext.cords crushed under furniture, power strips wet with soda pop / pet urine, flying splices, loose connections, burned-up terminations, or demonstrating failed megger test, with reset sucess after faults are abated.

Panel-flipper shops specialized in new-work section 210.12 may never see AFCI outlets, or the service world of 406.4(D), much less add an AFCI outlet to home-run switch box for ceiling fans on existing-switched outlets.

 

[hbiss]

When breakers won't fit, and client won't upgrade the box, the dirty job of service electricians is properly installing an AFCI outlet when required... much less add an AFCI outlet to home-run switch box for ceiling fans on existing-switched outlets.

Which is why the ridiculous AFCI requirements are driving that work to not be inspected or done by handymen or other unqualified people.

Nobody in their right mind is going to change to AFCI just because they need to replace their old receptacles.

-Hal

 

[Jerramundi]

Which is why the ridiculous AFCI requirements are driving that work to not be inspected or done by handymen or other unqualified people.

Nobody in their right mind is going to change to AFCI just because they need to replace their old receptacles.

-Hal

That's not just AFCI requirements. That's just people in general in regards to following the code in general.
It's mostly because the code is viewed as an over the top, expensive maximum, when in reality, it is a required minimum.

 

[Jerramundi]

Then what do the metallic wiring methods in post 2 have to do with anything? Why is that language there at all?

The language is there to provide an alternative method for providing AFCI protection, not an excuse to not have protection at all.

I think it's pretty clear that 210.12 is an umbrella requirement for AFCI protection and the subsequent parts are just various ways to provide that protection. You're taking the fact that ONE acceptable method of providing AFCI protection allows for a portion of the circuit to be unprotected as meaning the whole circuit could be unprotected, which clearly flies in the face of 210.12 as a whole.

I would wager the metallic wiring methods premise has to do with having a greater degree of protection of the conductors than say, for example, a drywall screw hitting a cable.

We have already speculated that 210.12(A)(5) is there to provide for a transition period into greater AFCI requirements that deals with (1) the continued use of MWBC's and (2) compatibility issues w/ AFCI breakers and panels.

The only way to know for certain is to find the CMP substantiation associated with 210.12(A)(5) and I don't know how to look that up.

 

[ramsy]

..Nobody in their right mind is going to change to AFCI just because they need to replace their old receptacles.

Hal observes one of several code complexities suffering complete regulatory failure, which the insurance industry leverages to legally VOID claims.

Fire-code violations are not insurable, so claims adjusters finding replacement violations can't pay these claims.
Inspectors called to residential remodels are missing all AFCI, Tamper Resistant, and some GFCI replacements.

My business policy of leaving "No legal cause for property insurance to void claims" could be an advertising campaign.

The equipment manufacturer Leviton publishes this replacement-code chart on their AF/GF Dual-Function Outlet packaging.

Remodel vs Required

Big Orange moves enough of this product SKU 1004605592 to keep its space on the shelf, but don't know who else is buying.

Do any contractors here use proper AFCI replacements or any inspectors enforced it, since the 2011 NFPA-70 406.4(D) replacement code required it?

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . if I install the hard-wired LED fixture fed via the aforementioned wiring methods, I don't need an arc fault device to protect "the remaining portion of the branch circuit" because there is no remaining portion.

Here's the thing, a hardwired luminaire is Utilization Equipment (Art. 100) and the Luminaire (Art. 100) is not part of the Premises Wiring (System) (Art. 100). Therefore, a Luminaire is not part of the Branch Circuit (Art. 100).

A Luminaire "takes current" from the Branch Circuit conductors in order to produce light. This "point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment" is the very definition of Outlet (Art. 100).

To paraphrase, installing a hard-wired LED fixture means there is an Outlet (Art. 100) at the splice of the fixture leads to the Branch Circuit (Art. 100) conductors.

 

[hbiss]

That's not just AFCI requirements. That's just people in general in regards to following the code in general.
It's mostly because the code is viewed as an over the top, expensive maximum, when in reality, it is a required minimum.

We are not people in general. When we give a price, for instance, to change out old receptacles or add a ceiling fan and have to explain to the customer that the price is so high because we now have to provide AFCI protection in addition according to code. What do you think the customer is going to do? We don't get the job and some handyman who doesn't know the code or what AFCIs are gets to do it.

This is why 406.4 is so dangerous. It requires added protection for existing or extended circuits and wiring when even minor changes are made that adds significantly to the cost. Customers aren't stupid and don't want to pay for this extra stuff

My business policy of leaving "No legal cause for property insurance to void claims" could be an advertising campaign.

I have to laugh at that. Maybe that works in California but this is NY and we hate insurance companies and figure they won't pay even if it's a cut and dried case. Even so, I have never heard of an insurance company refusing to pay when there was a fire and there were no AFCI receptacles.

What I can see them refusing to cover is a fire in a building with DIY or jackleg wiring because the owner refused the high price of a licensed contractor due to the predatory requirements of an overreaching Code.

-Hal

 

[Jerramundi]

We are not people in general. When we give a price, for instance, to change out old receptacles or add a ceiling fan and have to explain to the customer that the price is so high because we now have to provide AFCI protection in addition according to code. What do you think the customer is going to do? We don't get the job and some handyman who doesn't know the code or what AFCIs are gets to do it.

This is why 406.4 is so dangerous. It requires added protection for existing or extended circuits and wiring when even minor changes are made that adds significantly to the cost. Customers aren't stupid and don't want to pay for this extra stuff

It's a bit more complicated than that. You could add income inequality to the equation, price gouging by manufacturers, price gouging by contractors, etc., etc.

But you're not wrong about the idea of high costs being prohibitive to the job being done right. I 100% agree with that sentiment.

If the overall cost is inaccessible (and/or someone is just cheap) said individual will likely seek out a cheaper solution... and sometimes cheaper equals less knowledgeable/skilled and incorrectly done (but not absolutely so).

Let's remove AFCI's from the equation and just look at idea of higher costs being prohibitive.

If we were discussing this under a different topic, say opening / line item costs, you and I would likely flip positions and you would be saying "it costs what it costs and there are plenty of other jobs out there. You deserve to earn a good living!" ...and I would be arguing for the collective socioeconomic responsibility of making sure quality work is accessible/affordable (as I've done in the past).

 

[Jerramundi]

What it really comes down to is the collective socioeconomic responsibility of making sure quality work is accessible/affordable.. and it is a collective issue.. but we don't approach it that way here in the West. Here in the West individualism reigns supreme (and not without good reason in some cases, but we take it to the extreme).

If we really cared about the collective socioeconomic responsibility of making sure quality work is accessible/affordable, I'm sure Leviton could afford to knock a few percentage points off their profit margin for the greater good, but that's not what Capitalism dictates. Capitalism dictates endless growth in a world of finite resources. But now I'm getting into politics, economics, etc.

 

[Jerramundi]

Generally speaking, I think the idea of modifying a circuit requiring one to bring the entire circuit up to current codes is a good idea.
But again, it's a complex issue.

 

[Fred B]

We are not people in general. When we give a price, for instance, to change out old receptacles or add a ceiling fan and have to explain to the customer that the price is so high because we now have to provide AFCI protection in addition according to code. What do you think the customer is going to do? We don't get the job and some handyman who doesn't know the code or what AFCIs are gets to do it.

This is why 406.4 is so dangerous. It requires added protection for existing or extended circuits and wiring when even minor changes are made that adds significantly to the cost. Customers aren't stupid and don't want to pay for this extra stuff.........

-Hal

Upstate here, GC will do it for $30, handiman maybe $20, electrician working by code has to charge just for parts $70. This disparity in part because no universal license or requirements for electrical work be done by electrician in upstate NY. How does one compete like that. We are required ethically and by knowledge to do an installation correctly and code compliant. (At least to the best we can). It is evident by the response in these forums even when discourse becomes "heated" there is an overall desire to have a safe, compliant installation to the best of our ability. We are trying to continue to expand our knowledge of an ever changing field that technology constantly is changing (for better or worse). I can't say that is true for most GCs or handiman, otherwise they would not be deriding proper installation as "thats a stupid rule" and do as they will. While we may may say "that's a stupid rule", we also recognize the code is the code like it or not, but also recognize a proper venue to try to get a stupid rule changed and to get documentation to substantiate a change. That is the difference, that is a professional, that is what we have here, thank you.
Sorry for ranting.

 

[jaggedben]

The language is there to provide an alternative method for providing AFCI protection, not an excuse to not have protection at all.

I think it's pretty clear that 210.12 is an umbrella requirement for AFCI protection and the subsequent parts are just various ways to provide that protection. You're taking the fact that ONE acceptable method of providing AFCI protection allows for a portion of the circuit to be unprotected as meaning the whole circuit could be unprotected, which clearly flies in the face of 210.12 as a whole.

I would wager the metallic wiring methods premise has to do with having a greater degree of protection of the conductors than say, for example, a drywall screw hitting a cable.

We have already speculated that 210.12(A)(5) is there to provide for a transition period into greater AFCI requirements that deals with (1) the continued use of MWBC's and (2) compatibility issues w/ AFCI breakers and panels.

If the intention is an umbrella requirement, then that raises the question of why metallic wiring methods are sufficient to exempt certain portions of the circuit from the requirement. Nothing you've said really addresses that.

To give another example, suppose I use a metallic wiring method for a circuit where it runs through areas covered by 210.12, but transition it to NM where it ends up in some other part of the building (e.g. garage) that is not covered. Do I need any arc fault protection? What is the rationale?

You also admit that you are basically just speculating as to the intent and rationale. I was hoping someone on this thread might actually have some knowledge about how we got the code language we've got. So far no luck.

The only way to know for certain is to find the CMP substantiation associated with 210.12(A)(5) and I don't know how to look that up.

You go to nfpa.org, login, and look up the last edition. Unfortunately they have made it a lot harder for the last couple cycles by not providing searchable PDFs.

 

[jaggedben]

Here's the thing, ...

That was a fair number of words to explain something that no one has questioned on this thread.

 

[hbiss]

You also admit that you are basically just speculating as to the intent and rationale. I was hoping someone on this thread might actually have some knowledge about how we got the code language we've got. So far no luck.

Oh, we do know the intent but that is another subject beyond the topic of this thread because it has nothing to do with anything electrical or safety related.

-Hal

 

[Jerramundi]

If the intention is an umbrella requirement, then that raises the question of why metallic wiring methods are sufficient to exempt certain portions of the circuit from the requirement. Nothing you've said really addresses that.

False. Many things said here have addressed that. Granted most are guesses, but educated guesses. We've speculated that it has to do with (1) the continued use of MWBCs, (2) breaker and panel compatibility, and (3) a greater degree of conductor protection when installed in metallic wireways.

I believe Chicago actually has an amendment to 210.12 that exempts the ENTIRE circuit from AFCI protection if installed in metallic conduit. If true, the only logical explanation to that is the higher degree of protection provided.

Plenty of knowledge has been provided. Definitive proof from a CMP, no... but knowledge, yes.

 

[al hildenbrand]

That was a fair number of words to explain something that no one has questioned on this thread.

Note that I quote you saying " I don't need an arc fault device to protect "the remaining portion of the branch circuit" because there is no remaining portion. " You also suggest in Post #11 that some LED luminaires don't require AFCI even though they are in the areas listed in 210.12.

 

[jaggedben]

Note that I quote you saying " I don't need an arc fault device to protect "the remaining portion of the branch circuit" because there is no remaining portion. "

There is no remaining portion in my example. Your previous post doesn't speak to that, whatsoever. The branch circuit is the conductors between the overcurrent device and the outlet. Ergo the outlet is not part of the branch circuit.

You also suggest in Post #11 that some LED luminaires don't require AFCI even though they are in the areas listed in 210.12.

Yes. To be clear, it is my opinion that, in so much as the current code may be read to require AFCI for such a luminary fed by aforementioned metallic wiring methods, the code ought to be revised so that it doesn't. You may not refute that opinion by merely repeating what the current code says.

 

[jaggedben]

...

Plenty of knowledge has been provided. Definitive proof from a CMP, no... but knowledge, yes.

The intent of the CMP was what I originally asked about. Speculation and stating the obvious meaning of the code language does not speak to that. I also expressed an opinion that the code is badly written on this point. Repeating what the code says doesn't speak to that either. Sorry if I missed something that goes beyond those categories, but I didn't notice it.