GFCI and AFCI

[growler]

BTW: How many arc fault receptacles or circuits have you installed for replacements?

They can water-board me all they want and I'll never tell.

Have you seen any that other contractors have installed?:?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Absolutely correct.

BTW: How many arc fault receptacles or circuits have you installed for replacements?

well put it this way. I started to carry them on the truck a while back just in case I had a service call for replacing a AFCI.

I got a service call a few months back. I got chased of the property by the owner screaming and yelling at me because I wanted to charge 40.00 for the receptacle. I keep a copy of the code section with me in my clipboard.

So what do you think I do now on service calls!

By the way the lowes out here had those AFCI Repts in the closeout bin for real cheap. I bought a few. It was not a huge investment I can pass the savings on to a willing customer or use them on a remodel or extension of a circuit. We will see.

 

[electricguy61]

They can water-board me all they want and I'll never tell.

Have you seen any that other contractors have installed?:?

Exactly. It seems we debate stuff here and often common sense goes out the window.

IMHO, I'm an extremely conscientious contractor. But if not installing arc fault protection when changing out a receptacle makes me a bad contractor, "let me give you a quarter and you can call someone who cares".

 

[MBLES]

I agree with the others that the GFCI protection of the replacement, where specified in the current Code that applies in your customer's jurisdiction, is required, and there is no way to avoid it.

However, AFCI is another matter. If you pigtail the new replacement receptacles onto the existing wiring with just a little bit of new conductor, this pigtail allows you to invoke 210.12(B) Exception and waive the AFCI. This works under the 2014 NEC only, and is so solid (though heretical to some of the safety minded) that the removal of it applying to 406.4(D) Replacements is having to be added to the 2017 NEC.

you are sayiing if i install a pig tail at each receptacle. i dont have to install AFCI per NEC2014. IYO.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't see it as Al does. IMO, these are two separate animals. Although I understand where he is coming from IMO those who believe this are stretching the codes intent for this. The main intent of 210.12(B) exception was for panel changes. Replacing a receptacle falls in a different category.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

you are sayiing if i install a pig tail at each receptacle. i dont have to install AFCI per NEC2014. IYO.

Yes, Al is trying to invoke 210.12(B) exception by adding a short piece of wire. What he is saying is if you don't install the extra conductor (pigtail) then 210.12(B) ex. cannot be used-- but pit a 6" pigtail and you can use 210.12(B) ex. This is an attempt to work around a code article that IMO, is clear. It would make no sense to approve one install and not the other. The intent is to install afci when you change the receptacle if it is in an area where afci's are required

 

[Shawn pavich]

I have not done a residential project since the whole sprinkler thing came out, so correct me if I'm wrong.i believe if you install afci receptical then the home run feeding that first AFCI has to be protected can not just be Romex? I remember reading that but did not give it much mind cause at that time there was only CB AFCI

 

[al hildenbrand]

you are sayiing if i install a pig tail at each receptacle. i dont have to install AFCI per NEC2014. IYO.

Yes. In my opinion, the 2014 NEC AFCI requirement for replacement receptacles does not occur in 406.4(D) and one is told in 406.4(D) to follow the rule "elsewhere in this Code." This invokes 210.12 in its entirety, including the 210.12(B) passage on modification, which is in turn specifically given the Exception.

I don't see it as Al does. IMO, these are two separate animals. Although I understand where he is coming from IMO those who believe this are stretching the codes intent for this. The main intent of 210.12(B) exception was for panel changes. Replacing a receptacle falls in a different category.

While you claim to "know" this Dennis, the differentiating between panels and devices is simply not to be found. In fact the IAEI in The Analysis of Changes in the 2014 NEC themselves did not make the distinction.

The 210.12(B) Exception is so solidly linked to 406.4(D) that NEW text is being added (it looks like) to the 2017 NEC to say that the exception can't be used with replacement receptacles.

It doesn't matter what you claim the "intent" is if the language actually says something other than your intent. The language is the "law", not your "intent".

 

[MBLES]

Yes. In my opinion, the 2014 NEC AFCI requirement for replacement receptacles does not occur in 406.4(D) and one is told in 406.4(D) to follow the rule "elsewhere in this Code." This invokes 210.12 in its entirety, including the 210.12(B) passage on modification, which is in turn specifically given the Exception.



While you claim to "know" this Dennis, the differentiating between panels and devices is simply not to be found. In fact the IAEI in The Analysis of Changes in the 2014 NEC themselves did not make the distinction.

The 210.12(B) Exception is so solidly linked to 406.4(D) that NEW text is being added (it looks like) to the 2017 NEC to say that the exception can't be used with replacement receptacles.

It doesn't matter what you claim the "intent" is if the language actually says something other than your intent. The language is the "law", not your "intent".

I see what you mean. I appreciate the info. i will discuss with the inspector. we are only bidding the job. i want to make sure we arent getting into something we are gonna regret. You break You Buy!

 

[Dennis Alwon]

While you claim to "know" this Dennis, the differentiating between panels and devices is simply not to be found. In fact the IAEI in The Analysis of Changes in the 2014 NEC themselves did not make the distinction.

I wrote the section and the 6' was added to basically what I wrote. I am doing a bit more than assuming as I used the panel change out as my substantiation

 

[al hildenbrand]

I wrote the section and the 6' was added to basically what I wrote. I am doing a bit more than assuming as I used the panel change out as my substantiation

I do understand your sense of ownership of this, Dennis. But, even with your testimony to your intent in writing the proposal, that doesn't change the fact that "intent" is not Code.

 

[electricguy61]

Where's the answer to the question already asked: why require AFCI for a receptacle change when it isn't required for a panel change?:?

And I'm being a good boy and not bringing up the total unreliability of AFCI technology, as it has been debated extensively already.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Where's the answer to the question already asked: why require AFCI for a receptacle change when it isn't required for a panel change?:?.

That's just it, isn't it. This question's answer is, in my opinion, still evolving. I can't wait until the 2017 NEC text is finally bedded. At this point it seems that there will be some new exceptions to add to how to answer your question.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I do understand your sense of ownership of this, Dennis. But, even with your testimony to your intent in writing the proposal, that doesn't change the fact that "intent" is not Code.

I do not feel ownership as it technically isn't my proposal in toto but often times we have used the substantiation to understand the intent. I have not look that up because I am lazy but I assumed it was similar to what I stated.

Also I agree intent is not in the code I just don't agree with your interpretation as I see the 2 sections as different animals regardless of intent

 

[Sierrasparky]

I do understand your sense of ownership of this, Dennis. But, even with your testimony to your intent in writing the proposal, that doesn't change the fact that "intent" is not Code.

Intent is not code but generally used in how to interpret the code

Where's the answer to the question already asked: why require AFCI for a receptacle change when it isn't required for a panel change?:?

Because you are not touching a outlet during a panel change. The code is referring to changing of outlets. Just as we have done for years with GFCI and installing them where it was not code at the time but because we are replacing and now making replacements.

That's just it, isn't it. This question's answer is, in my opinion, still evolving. I can't wait until the 2017 NEC text is finally bedded. At this point it seems that there will be some new exceptions to add to how to answer your question.

We will see and you are free to state your opinion.

I do not feel ownership as it technically isn't my proposal in toto but often times we have used the substantiation to understand the intent. I have not look that up because I am lazy but I assumed it was similar to what I stated.

Also I agree intent is not in the code I just don't agree with your interpretation as I see the 2 sections as different animals regardless of intent

I agree with Dennis on this.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I just don't agree with your interpretation as I see the 2 sections as different animals regardless of intent

Well, the Code Making Panel sure disagrees with you, as they seem to be adding to the 2017 NEC that the 210.12(B) Exception CAN'T be used with 406.4(D). . . which means that, in the CMP's mind, the 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception CAN be used with 406.4(D).

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Well, the Code Making Panel sure disagrees with you, as they seem to be adding to the 2017 NEC that the 210.12(B) Exception CAN'T be used with 406.4(D). . . which means that, in the CMP's mind, the 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception CAN be used with 406.4(D).

Or it can mean that since many are interpreting this incorrectly and clarification is needed.

 

[GoldDigger]

One would hope that the change process record would show whether the CMP members thought it was a change or a clarification. (Or were split on that but agreed on the result...)

 

[al hildenbrand]

Or it can mean that since many are interpreting this incorrectly and clarification is needed.

Ok. So, here: This is your proposal. CMP2 says, unambiguously, that YOUR intent is satisfied. That is to say, given all your certainty that it is an "incorrect interpretation" to apply 210.12(B) Exception to replacement of receptacle devices, here, below, in YOUR proposal, M. Hilbert clearly states that 210.12(B) Exception does, in fact, apply to the replacement of devices.

2-115 Log #536 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(210.12(B))
Submitter:
Dennis Alwon, Alwon Electric Inc.
Recommendation:
Add new text to read as follows:
Exception: Where extension of the branch circuit does not include any added outlets or devices.
Substantiation:
Often times when changing a service in an older home the branch circuit conductors do not reach the new location of the panel. The wire is sometimes just spliced inside the panel to reach the termination points while other times the circuit may need to be extended a short distance to reach the new location. Since many areas are inspecting this differently throughout the country this exception would clarify this section and bring uniformity throughout.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the proposed wording to read as follows: "Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the existing conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft.) and does not include any additional outlets or devices."
Panel Statement:
The revised wording provides clarity and satisfies the intent of the submitter.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results:
Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1
Explanation of Negative:
KING, D.: This Proposal should be rejected. It is the intent of Section 210.12(B) to provide AFCI protection where circuits that are covered by 210.12(A) are "modified." The submitter has not provided any substantiation to allow for an exception for AFCI Protection in the branch circuit modification described in his substantiation. Accepting the proposed exception would greatly dimish the level of safety currently provided by the requirements of 210.12(B).
Explanation of Abstention:
ORLOWSKI, S.: See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal 2-92.
Comment on Affirmative:
HILBERT, M.: Continue to accept in principle. The issues noted in the substantiation for this proposal and Proposal 2-11 are often topics of discussion at IAEI meetings as well as other educational meetings and do need clarification.
The proposed language as revised by the panel's accept in principle action will go a long way in promoting uniform interpretations. It will clarify that extending branch circuit conductors within an enclosure for the purposes of replacing a device or utilization equipment or for extending a branch circuit to a panelboard being replaced or upgraded does not require an AFCI protective device to be installed.
Six feet was chosen for branch circuit extensions as it should provide a sufficient length for most applications where an existing panel is being relocated out of a clothes closet or to comply with readily accessible requirements, etc

 

[Sierrasparky]

Comment on Affirmative:

HILBERT, M.: Continue to accept in principle. The issues noted in the substantiation for this proposal and Proposal 2-11 are often topics of discussion at IAEI meetings as well as other educational meetings and do need clarification.
The proposed language as revised by the panel's accept in principle action will go a long way in promoting uniform interpretations. It will clarify that extending branch circuit conductors within an enclosure for the purposes of replacing a device or utilization equipment or for extending a branch circuit to a panelboard being replaced or upgraded does not require an AFCI protective device to be installed.
Six feet was chosen for branch circuit extensions as it should provide a sufficient length for most applications where an existing panel is being relocated out of a clothes closet or to comply with readily accessible requirements, etc

Interesting that the CMP places words or intent the commenter and author of the proposal did not write.
And secondly adding a section and exemption to the code that directly conflicts with another code.

The intention of the original AFCI CMP was to upgrade to AFCI as devices were replaced. Then to say different is just hypocritical and preposterous. Otherwise why add the section on replacements. This is what is wrong with the code and the laws in this country.