Cost of AFCI breaker vs Receptacle

[DrSparks]

So AFCI receptacles have really come down in price. What are your thoughts on the cost difference of using AFCI receptacles at the first outlet box and running MC for the HR? Aluminum MC is not much more than Romex in my area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sierrasparky]

So AFCI receptacles have really come down in price. What are your thoughts on the cost difference of using AFCI receptacles at the first outlet box and running MC for the HR? Aluminum MC is not much more than Romex in my area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its something to consider. The receptacles are much less finicky.

 

[electrofelon]

So AFCI receptacles have really come down in price. What are your thoughts on the cost difference of using AFCI receptacles at the first outlet box and running MC for the HR? Aluminum MC is not much more than Romex in my area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My inspector in upstate NY (private third party agency) allows an AFCI recep at first outlet, even fed with ramen. Its pretty sweet, I run with it. Although I often still use breakers for the general lighting/receps as I see it as a hassle down the road if a recep behind a couch were to trip = service call, etc....

 

[Sierrasparky]

My inspector in upstate NY (private third party agency) allows an AFCI recep at first outlet, even fed with ramen. Its pretty sweet, I run with it. Although I often still use breakers for the general lighting/receps as I see it as a hassle down the road if a recep behind a couch were to trip = service call, etc....

Under what grounds is the inspector allowing rope to the first receptacle ( AFCI) . I thought there still was no listed pair breaker/ Outlet combo. Is this something to look forward to in the 2017 code?

 

[electrofelon]

Under what grounds is the inspector allowing rope to the first receptacle ( AFCI) . I thought there still was no listed pair breaker/ Outlet combo. Is this something to look forward to in the 2017 code?

He just says he is the AHJ and its his interpretation.

 

[hbiss]

Well, he's wrong. We in NY are on the 2014 code.

Aside from the code requirements, AFCI receptacles are like putting a GFI receptacle behind a refrigerator.

-Hal

 

[JFletcher]

Not to get too off-topic, but here, generally, the inspectors will allow an easier version of the code if it supersedes the one we are currently on
(And if you point it out). I may be wrong, however I believe they have the authority to do that. I don't know if the 2017 NEC allows Romex to an afci receptacle.

 

[electrofelon]

Well, he's wrong.

-Hal

Yup

 

[hbiss]

Not to get too off-topic, but here, generally, the inspectors will allow an easier version of the code if it supersedes the one we are currently on
(And if you point it out). I may be wrong, however I believe they have the authority to do that. I don't know if the 2017 NEC allows Romex to an afci receptacle.

Nope. No change in the 2017. The receptacle has to be part of a listed receptacle/breaker combination and the receptacle has to be located in an accessible location. AFAIK there are no listed receptacle/breaker combination devices being made.

So that should answer the OPs question.

-Hal

 

[augie47]

Nope. No change in the 2017. The receptacle has to be part of a listed receptacle/breaker combination and the receptacle has to be located in an accessible location. AFAIK there are no listed receptacle/breaker combination devices being made.

So that should answer the OPs question.

-Hal

Leviton is putting there brand of panelboard on the market. Since the have AFCI receptacles I would not be surprised to see their recept/breaker combo bing listed.

 

[GerryB]

An inspector I know who allows it uses the reasoning if they don't make it (in this case the listed breaker) then he can't enforce it. (using the plug). Is alum mc ok? I thought it had to be armor or emt. And if anyone cares to answer what exactly is the difference since you have a ground in romex. How is the home run protected with 2 ground paths opposed to one if using a afci device?

 

[hbiss]

An inspector I know who allows it uses the reasoning if they don't make it (in this case the listed breaker) then he can't enforce it. (using the plug).

Then he shouldn't allow the use of AFCI receptacles to begin with because they are non-code compliant. Every one of those things are illegal!

And if anyone cares to answer what exactly is the difference since you have a ground in romex. How is the home run protected with 2 ground paths opposed to one if using a afci device?

It's not the ground paths but rather that the "AFCI unprotected" run of cable is protected from damage by virtue of it's armor or raceway and any potential arc-fault within will be contained. :slaphead:

-Hal

 

[GerryB]

Then he shouldn't allow the use of AFCI receptacles to begin with because they are non-code compliant. Every one of those things are illegal!



It's not the ground paths but rather that the "AFCI unprotected" run of cable is protected from damage by virtue of it's armor or raceway and any potential arc-fault within will be contained. :slaphead:


-Hal

Interesting but I don't get it still because mc alum is not protected from damage by the alum. If subject to damage it must be protected, just like romex. 330.17

 

[JFletcher]

If you have to use a listed breaker, one that is rated for use with a afci receptacle, and have to pull in MC or AC cable, why even bother? It seems to me that putting an afci breaker in the panel, or if the panel is too old, putting a small sub panel directly next to the original panel that can accept breakers would be a more logical choice than pulling in new home runs and using basically what amounts to half a product.

 

[hbiss]

If you have to use a listed breaker, one that is rated for use with a afci receptacle, and have to pull in MC or AC cable, why even bother? It seems to me that putting an afci breaker in the panel, or if the panel is too old, putting a small sub panel directly next to the original panel that can accept breakers would be a more logical choice than pulling in new home runs and using basically what amounts to half a product.​

Interesting but I don't get it still because mc alum is not protected from damage by the alum. If subject to damage it must be protected, just like romex. 330.17

Hey, it took all their brain power just to come up with this cockamamie idea, now you want them to think of everything?:lol:

-Hal

 

[hbiss]

Actually this looks like a way for device manufacturers (like Leviton) to get into the panel and breaker market.

By the way, 330.17 makes no distinction between steel and aluminum sheathed MC or AC cables. All must be protected from damage with nail plates where necessary where it is run through framing members.

-Hal

 

[GerryB]

Actually this looks like a way for device manufacturers (like Leviton) to get into the panel and breaker market.

By the way, 330.17 makes no distinction between steel and aluminum sheathed MC or AC cables. All must be protected from damage with nail plates where necessary where it is run through framing members.

-Hal

I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.

Why?

 

[LarryFine]

I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.

Why?

Because, when it comes to protection from possible damage, MC is treated more like NM than like FMC,

 

[Sierrasparky]

I found out the hard way with mc down to an outlet box below counter height in a comm. kitchen. Had to change it to emt.

Why?

Because, when it comes to protection from possible damage, MC is treated more like NM than like FMC,

I don't see the code violation here .