laundry room arc fault

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was just starting to come around to Al's way of thinking when I read this :
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter circuit breaker is not commercially available.

(4) There is no GFCI/AFCI combination receptacle commercially available.
Click to expand...
Don't you think the CMP's should have thought of this back in 2011 when this section of the Code first appeared ? How can you write Code when products intended for use aren't even commercially available ? Then suddenly when one or a few manufacturers produce a product (that BTW is hard to find) to fit this section, EI's from coast to coast instantly find reasons to fail a job based on this section.

Unless I missed this somewhere in this thread, doesn't installing an AFCI receptacle downstream of the over-current device violate the exceptions to 210.12(A)?
 
goldstar said:
I was just starting to come around to Al's way of thinking when I read this :

Don't you think the CMP's should have thought of this back in 2011 when this section of the Code first appeared ? How can you write Code when products intended for use aren't even commercially available ? Then suddenly when one or a few manufacturers produce a product (that BTW is hard to find) to fit this section, EI's from coast to coast instantly find reasons to fail a job based on this section.

Unless I missed this somewhere in this thread, doesn't installing an AFCI receptacle downstream of the over-current device violate the exceptions to 210.12(A)?
Click to expand...
When the replacement receptacle rule was put in the code, I don't think there were any locations that required both GFCI and AFCI protection. The rules requiring both went into the 2014 NEC. Maybe that issue should have been caught by the correlating committee when they reviewed the 2014 code, but it wasn't.

As far as the rules in 210.12, the rule in 406.4(D) a totally separate rule as far as the installation rules go. The only interaction is that you look to 210.12 to find out if the location where you are installing the replacement receptacle would require AFCI protection.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
As far as the rules in 210.12, the rule in 406.4(D) a totally separate rule as far as the installation rules go. The only interaction is that you look to 210.12 to find out if the location where you are installing the replacement receptacle would require AFCI protection.
Click to expand...
Again, Don, you are putting your assumption into the language of 406.4(D)(4), and it is a restrictive assumption at that.

"as specified elsewhere in this Code," in no way gives you the requirement to ignore the entire body of 210.12 and ONLY read the first sentence of 210.12(A). Had CMP 18 wanted you to be restricted to the first sentence of 210.12(A) the language in 406.4(D)(4) would have expressed the limit.

As written, you, as the Code user, HAVE to look elsewhere in the ENTIRE Code, including, but not limited to, 550.25, etc.

You are cherry picking what you WANT to have the Code say.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Again, Don, you are putting your assumption into the language of 406.4(D)(4), and it is a restrictive assumption at that.

"as specified elsewhere in this Code," in no way gives you the requirement to ignore the entire body of 210.12 and ONLY read the first sentence of 210.12(A). Had CMP 18 wanted you to be restricted to the first sentence of 210.12(A) the language in 406.4(D)(4) would have expressed the limit.

As written, you, as the Code user, HAVE to look elsewhere in the ENTIRE Code, including, but not limited to, 550.25, etc.

You are cherry picking what you WANT to have the Code say.
Click to expand...

You can read it any way you want to and I will read the code the way I want to.
 
goldstar said:
I was just starting to come around to Al's way of thinking when I read this :
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter circuit breaker is not commercially available.

(4) There is no GFCI/AFCI combination receptacle commercially available.
Click to expand...

Don't you think the CMP's should have thought of this back in 2011 when this section of the Code first appeared ? How can you write Code when products intended for use aren't even commercially available ? Then suddenly when one or a few manufacturers produce a product (that BTW is hard to find) to fit this section, EI's from coast to coast instantly find reasons to fail a job based on this section.
Click to expand...
If this proposed language in the Draft of the 2017 NEC survives the comment stage as is, it will be interesting
to learn how it will be interpreted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction. Personally, I think tying a requirement to the commercial availability of a product is better than the ways we have had to endure in the recent past. I'm thinking, in particular of the Tamper-Resistant requirement that had no initial allowance for two-wire non-grounding type 15 and 20 Amp 125 Volt receptacles. A whole Code cycle passed before the CMPs understood that manufacturers were flat out refusing to make a TR rated two-wire non-grounding type receptacle, and then the CMPs wrote the exception to allow new two-wire non-grounding type non-TR receptacles to be installed.

And look at the 2011 requirement for AFCI for replacement receptacles, 406.4(D)(4), with a delayed start date to Jan. 1, 2014, fully half a decade after the passage was written in proposal, and the manufacturer's just barely, kinda, sorta made that deadline. . . I think it's better to tie the Code passage to the "commercial availability" of the product rather than the promised delivery date.
goldstar said:
Unless I missed this somewhere in this thread, doesn't installing an AFCI receptacle downstream of the over-current device violate the exceptions to 210.12(A)?
Click to expand...
The only exception to 2014 NEC 210.12(A) is for an individual circuit for a fire alarm system. . . which doesn't mention the OBC AFCI.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
You can read it any way you want to and I will read the code the way I want to.
Click to expand...
Don, I am quoting to you, from the CMP's published words, the way they "read" the code they wrote, for 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception, I am not reading it the "way I want".
 
al hildenbrand said:
Don, I am quoting to you, from the CMP's published words, the way they "read" the code they wrote, for 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception, I am not reading it the "way I want".
Click to expand...
I still don't see any interaction, other than telling you what circuits need AFCI, between 406.4(D) and 210.12.
We are not going to agree on this.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I still don't see any interaction, other than telling you what circuits need AFCI, between 406.4(D) and 210.12.
Click to expand...
So, in an existing dwelling, with existing branch circuits, it becomes necessary to replace the receptacle that supplies an existing closet-mounted "fire alarm system." Does your reading of the 2014 NEC 210.12, interacting with 406.4(D)(4) permit 760.41(B) and 760.121(B) to interact with 210.12(A) Exception and, in turn, interact with 406.4(D)(4)?

The closet in which this fire alarm system is installed is unambiguously in the "living area" of the single family dwelling.
 
al hildenbrand said:
So, in an existing dwelling, with existing branch circuits, it becomes necessary to replace the receptacle that supplies an existing closet-mounted "fire alarm system." Does your reading of the 2014 NEC 210.12, interacting with 406.4(D)(4) permit 760.41(B) and 760.121(B) to interact with 210.12(A) Exception and, in turn, interact with 406.4(D)(4)?

The closet in which this fire alarm system is installed is unambiguously in the "living area" of the single family dwelling.
Click to expand...
Assuming that you have an actual fire alarm system the rule in Chapter 7 is permitted to modify the rules in Chapters 1-4.
 
al hildenbrand said:
So, in an existing dwelling, with existing branch circuits, it becomes necessary to replace the receptacle that supplies an existing closet-mounted "fire alarm system." Does your reading of the 2014 NEC 210.12, interacting with 406.4(D)(4) permit 760.41(B) and 760.121(B) to interact with 210.12(A) Exception and, in turn, interact with 406.4(D)(4)?

The closet in which this fire alarm system is installed is unambiguously in the "living area" of the single family dwelling.
Click to expand...
In all fairness Al if an actual FA (only) panel is installed in a closet the branch circuit wiring will come from the breaker panel directly into to the FA panel and that branch circuit shall supply no other loads. There will not be a receptacle that the panel plugs into. If you're a betting man the chances of that branch circuit developing an arc-fault problem are a shot in a million. On the other hand if a combo security/FA panel is installed where a plug-in xfmr is used, then yes, that xfmr would plug into that receptacle. However, I don't think that type of system would fall under sections 760.41(B) or 760.121(B). IMHO.
 
goldstar said:
In all fairness Al if an actual FA (only) panel is installed in a closet the branch circuit wiring will come from the breaker panel directly into to the FA panel and that branch circuit shall supply no other loads. There will not be a receptacle that the panel plugs into.
Click to expand...
Two years ago I supplied a branch circuit to a brand new install of sprinkler system for an old horse drawn fire engine house that was now a theatrical performance space and offices. The fire alarm system installer supplied a junction box and duplex receptacle of his companies choice, which I wired up. The fire alarm system transformer plugged into this duplex receptacle. There was a cover over the assembly held by a single screw.

This fire alarm system and sprinkler system could easily be installed in a dwelling.

But this is just my experience. I suspect there are a range of acceptable solutions across this land of fire regulations.
don_resqcapt19 said:
As far as the rules in 210.12, the rule in 406.4(D) a totally separate rule as far as the installation rules go. The only interaction is that you look to 210.12 to find out if the location where you are installing the replacement receptacle would require AFCI protection.
Click to expand...
The more important point, in this discussion, is that Don is allowing that "Special Conditions" apply that are linked through 210.12(A) Exception ; and that "location" is not the ONLY criteria that one can read 2014 NEC 210.12 for.

If one can read one Exception how can one possibly ignore another Exception in the same rule
 
al hildenbrand said:
T....
The more important point, in this discussion, is that Don is allowing that "Special Conditions" apply that are linked through 210.12(A) Exception ; and that "location" is not the ONLY criteria that one can read 2014 NEC 210.12 for.
....
Click to expand...
It remains my opinion that the only thing you use 210.12 for when applying the rule is 406.4(D) is to see if the location where the receptacle is being replaced at is on a branch circuit that where 210.12 would require AFCI protection for. Nothing you have said and nothing in the code leads me to thing otherwise.

I am not using anything in 210.12 to say that you don't need it for your fire alarm system receptacle. I am using the rules in 760.
 
romex jockey said:
This is why many states adopted the fire alarm 120 w/batt BU btw...

~RJ~
Click to expand...

Just to be clear here....the standard smoke alarms used in dwelling units are required to be on AFCI protected circuits.

The rules in Article 760 do not apply to smoke alarms....the only apply to fire alarm systems. Such systems will have smoke detectors, a fire alarm control panel and indicating devices.
 
The inclusion of afci protection vs. smoke detection efficacy (meaning line voltage , NOT system) went round & round for quite some time

The crux being afci's shutting smokes down before or after incendiary events could achieve notification

The end result being many states and localities insisting on battery b/u 120V models.

This makes sense ,given afci's will never address GC's

~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top