Dual function and AFCI receptacles

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leespark57

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Is it code compliant to install all of your AFCI / GFCI protection in the form of receptacles at the first receptacle in a circuit and protect everything downstream from it in a new construction application? Per 210.12 (A)(3)b requires the device to be within 50' for 14ga and 70' for 12ga from the OCPD. Am I missing something?

Seems like a much less expensive alternative ($23 for a dual function receptacle, vs. $50+ for DF breaker). All devices would have to be readily accessible.

Thanks
 
They need to take that section out of the book because it so common to not understand it and also because there is no device that meets this criteria.

210.12(A)(3) states you must use a listed supplemental overcurrent protective device in combination with a downstream afci receptacle. This means that the circuit breaker must be listed to work in combo with the afci device and then those distance apply. Unfortunately, as I stated above they do not exist.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
That would be compliant to install an afci receptacle at the first outlet-- 210.12(A)(5)
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's what I thought, too.

Now, as for the OP's question, would it be cheaper to add a box with AC or conduit than to stick in a breaker? What if there is a problem later on and the AFCI makers decide you need the latest version of their ever being updated product? Which will be cheaper to swap, labor included, a breaker or a recep. with a line and load side to deal with?
 
Leespark57 said:
It seems as though there really isn't much of a use for AFCI receptacles without a listed combination of OCPD and AFCI receptacle?
Click to expand...
If you are only doing new construction of dwellings, that is pretty much true.

If you do service work, and receptacle replacement, it is a whole new story. The 2017 NEC 406.4(D) Replacements now requires tamper resistance, ground fault interrupters and arc fault interrupters, in the locations of a dwelling specified over in 210.12, 210.8 and 406.12 regardless of the existing wiring method or existing device.

So, as a case in point, if you replace a plain old worn out loose grounding-type duplex receptacle at an existing kitchen counter, generally, the simplest, lowest-cost-to-customer solution is to put in a dual function AFCI/GFCI receptacle with TR .
 
al hildenbrand said:
If you are only doing new construction of dwellings, that is pretty much true.

So, as a case in point, if you replace a plain old worn out loose grounding-type duplex receptacle at an existing kitchen counter, generally, the simplest, lowest-cost-to-customer solution is to put in a dual function AFCI/GFCI receptacle with TR .
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm going to jump on that band wagon :happyno:
 
electricguy61 said:
I don't pull a permit to replace a receptacle. I meant no insult to you Al. Just sick of the whole AFCI debacle.
Click to expand...

Yes, since device replacements don't need Permits per CA electrical code 2016 CEC, Section 89.108.4.1(b)(2), avoiding some rules in 406.4(D)(1-6) does level the playing field, between you and the gardener who does electrical work on the side. The only thing your missing is Duct Tape, and Paint to hide flying splices behind the walls.
 
electricguy61 said:
Oh, I'm going to jump on that band wagon :happyno:
Click to expand...

electricguy61 said:
I don't pull a permit to replace a receptacle. I meant no insult to you Al. Just sick of the whole AFCI debacle.
Click to expand...

Totally with you on that one. Just about every electrician and EC that I know doesn't abide by the AFCI rules unless it's getting inspected. And they certainly aren't installing a dual function receptacle to replace one broken receptacle. That's the height of absurdity.
 
al hildenbrand said:
If you are only doing new construction of dwellings, that is pretty much true.

If you do service work, and receptacle replacement, it is a whole new story. The 2017 NEC 406.4(D) Replacements now requires tamper resistance, ground fault interrupters and arc fault interrupters, in the locations of a dwelling specified over in 210.12, 210.8 and 406.12 regardless of the existing wiring method or existing device.

So, as a case in point, if you replace a plain old worn out loose grounding-type duplex receptacle at an existing kitchen counter, generally, the simplest, lowest-cost-to-customer solution is to put in a dual function AFCI/GFCI receptacle with TR .
Click to expand...


Please read 406.4(D)(4) ex #2, as well as 406.4(D)(5)

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
Please read 406.4(D)(4) ex #2, as well as 406.4(D)(5)
Click to expand...

2017 NEC 406.4(D)(4)Exception No. 2 increases the situations requiring AFCI. Your point is. . . ?

2017 NEC 406.4(D)(5) applies to an existing grounding type duplex receptacle. Your point is. . . ?
 
al hildenbrand said:
2017 NEC 406.4(D)(4)Exception No. 2 increases the situations requiring AFCI. Your point is. . . ?

2017 NEC 406.4(D)(5) applies to an existing grounding type duplex receptacle. Your point is. . . ?
Click to expand...

Unless i'm reading this wrong, my point is one can change out a 2 banger with a 2 banger non TP Al

~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
..my point is one can change out a 2 banger with a 2 banger non (tamper resistant)
Click to expand...

Insurance adjusters look for cause to deny claims, such as skipping AFCI protection where required, for the new 2-prong plug replacement.

Are you sure, skipping the 406.4(D)(4) AFCI protection won't provide the cause Property or GL insurance adjustors need to void claims?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top