Dual function and AFCI receptacles

Status
Not open for further replies.
romex jockey said:
Unless i'm reading this wrong, my point is one can change out a 2 banger with a 2 banger non TP Al

~RJ~
Click to expand...
If a "2 banger" is a nongrounding type receptacle, yes, it is exempted from the Tamper Resistant compliance. That is not new. That has been written in 406.12 in the 2014 NEC, as it is now.

Here's the thing RJ, 2017 NEC 406.4(D)(5) nongrounding type receptacle replacement does not relieve you from any of the rest of 406.4.

For me, and the work I get from time to time in dwellings with ungrounded wiring methods, with a worn out two wire receptacle, using a Dual Function AFCI GFCI TR device and labeling "No Equipment Ground" is the bee's knees.
 
Then i'm at a loss as to what 406.4(D)(4)exception #2 is 'excepting' here Al

It's new for '17, and referres to 210.12(b)ex

The '14 has a 210.12(b) ex. , the '17 seems to have moved it to be after 210.12(d)



~RJ~
 
romex jockey said:
Then i'm at a loss as to what 406.4(D)(4)exception #2 is 'excepting' here Al

It's new for '17, and referres to 210.12(b)ex

The '14 has a 210.12(b) ex. , the '17 seems to have moved it to be after 210.12(d)
Click to expand...

RJ, in my opinion, 2017 NEC 406.4(D)(4) Exception No. 2 as published in the First Printing is in dire need of being corrected in an Errata. Of all the Errata shown at The NFPA web page for the 2017 this problem is not corrected.

To your actual question, RJ, in my opinion, 2017 NEC 210.12(D) Exception says adding pigtails at an existing receptacle outlet exempts the outlet from needing AFCI. . . but the new Exception No. 2 at 406.4(D)(4)says that we can't use it.

It's an Exception that takes away the effect of another Exception.
 
al hildenbrand said:
RJ, in my opinion, 2017 NEC 406.4(D)(4) Exception No. 2 as published in the First Printing is in dire need of being corrected in an Errata. Of all the Errata shown at The NFPA web page for the 2017 this problem is not corrected.

To your actual question, RJ, in my opinion, 2017 NEC 210.12(D) Exception says adding pigtails at an existing receptacle outlet exempts the outlet from needing AFCI. . . but the new Exception No. 2 at 406.4(D)(4)says that we can't use it.

It's an Exception that takes away the effect of another Exception.
Click to expand...

Nice catch Al

~S~
 
Eaton makes a 'universal afci' , not sure if they have a DF as well, we've been using them a lot.

This whole 'readily accessible' doctrine has me rattled about installs behind furniture, the other side of the coin being in a basement panel

It's case by case, for ex. we just did a 'smoke job' on a 2nd flr of an older 'One BX circuit does all' apt house, installed a DF in the cellar panel , the older steel device boxes were crammed as it was, a WM extension would have been needed to install a bigger device....pita

I guess if the AHJ sees that that is readily accessible , it'll pass. It's to the point where i have to ask every other ahj what their interpretation is these days, and even they waffle....somebody please tell the nec they need a 'plain english' committe.....:) ~RJ~
 
peter d said:
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.
Click to expand...
A little like having an old car, making repairs to it and being required to update to current safety and emissions standards. Do they make air bags for 1957 Chevy?

ramsy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes adjusters do look for every out they can find. If your house burns down and the cause wasn't related to the "improperly replaced receptacle" that isn't right in my book either. And if it is related, they better prove the thing was replaced after the code changed, otherwise it very well could have been original or an older legal replacement.

This is the kind of thing that should be looked at before the policy is issued, non currently code compliant items may be acceptable, but at a higher premium.
 
ptonsparky said:
Who offers this dual function device? One of my local suppliers does not know if they are available in the line he sells. I haven't asked the other yet.
Click to expand...

Few supply houses stock these. Its usually special order, with no volume discount.

Found 1 supplier & 1 Big-Box that stocks a 15A version with 20A pass thru, Dual Function Link. Unfortunately, this Big-Box store is known to remove low volume items from shelves. Every time I look for them, packages are dusty, sometimes hidden, and don't seem to be moving.

My clients with old fuse boxes are lucky to have these where required, since AFCI / GFCI circuit breakers are not made for them. Sometimes, its seems I'm alone in following 406.4(D)(1-6) fire code for replacement devices, and alone in my policy to deny insurance adjusters any cause to void claims.
 
ptonsparky said:
Who offers this dual function device? One of my local suppliers does not know if they are available in the line he sells. I haven't asked the other yet.
Click to expand...
I have been using Leviton for over a year now. Graybar stocks a selection, up here.

There is also the Cooper Industries - Eaton unit that has been stocking since last summer.

And the latest entry is from Hubbel released just last month.
 
kwired said:
A little like having an old car, making repairs to it and being required to update to current safety and emissions standards. Do they make air bags for 1957 Chevy?
Click to expand...

Precisely. I've lost track of how many times I've heard that expressed in total disgust.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
That would be compliant to install an afci receptacle at the first outlet-- 210.12(A)(5)
Click to expand...
Little confused here. So if a GFI is needed somewhere it can be a breaker at the panel or a device at the location. But a bedroom arc fault has to be an arc fault breaker or if a device is used the metal wireway and distance must be involved and a regular breaker?
 
GerryB said:
Little confused here. So if a GFI is needed somewhere it can be a breaker at the panel or a device at the location. But a bedroom arc fault has to be an arc fault breaker or if a device is used the metal wireway and distance must be involved and a regular breaker?
Click to expand...

Yes- To meet 210.12, you can do any of the wiring methods listed in 210.12(A)(5) and use a standard breaker at the panel w/ an afci receptacle at the first outlet on the ckt to protect everything ahead of that point. GFCI can be either p.o.u or breaker. Of course, 210.12 A(5) likely never gets done anywhere nm is allowed for dwellings- why do mc/pipe and worry about the 1st rec, when you can do nm and just put in the breakers?
 
user 100 said:
Yes- To meet 210.12, you can do any of the wiring methods listed in 210.12(A)(5) and use a standard breaker at the panel w/ an afci receptacle at the first outlet on the ckt to protect everything ahead of that point. GFCI can be either p.o.u or breaker. Of course, 210.12 A(5) likely never gets done anywhere nm is allowed for dwellings- why do mc/pipe and worry about the 1st rec, when you can do nm and just put in the breakers?
Click to expand...
Right, my next question is what is the reasoning behind mc or pipe.
 
GerryB said:
Right, my next question is what is the reasoning behind mc or pipe.
Click to expand...

Because obc afcis will not provide parallel arc fault protection for the HR- thus leaving a portion of the ckt in violation of 210.12 and it was felt that those methods would be less resistant to damage that may result in arc faults.
 
user 100 said:
Because obc afcis will not provide parallel arc fault protection for the HR- thus leaving a portion of the ckt in violation of 210.12 and it was felt that those methods would be less resistant to damage that may result in arc faults.
Click to expand...
Yet most of the problems that cause fires are either a glowing connection (which no AFCI will detect, until it reaches a point where there is ground fault current involved) or problems with equipment plugged into a receptacle:roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top