mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
Not sure how to ask the question- but how do others read this? Is "listed" simply a UL approved thermal magnetic circuit breaker or is there more to it?
Listed branch-circuit overcurrent protective device
- Thread starter mbrooke
- Start date
- Status
As it was explained to me, the "listed" device must be listed in association with the arc fault interrupter somewhat like series rating of breakers.
To my knowledge, no such listing exists at this time.
Take the above with a grain of salt as that info has not be verified
To my knowledge, no such listing exists at this time.
Take the above with a grain of salt as that info has not be verified
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
Its what I have also heard- but at the same time I have trouble believing it. Not that you are wrong- in fact a few ROPs even make a good case why they should be listed- but at the same time I see branch outlet AFCIs sold without any special instructions that the breaker ought to be listed.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Afci receptacles are made as stand alone. There are no afci receptacle/breaker combinations made as yet. I believe these will be a special type of breaker that will somehow work as a unit with a special afci receptacle. I have no idea how this is accomplished and quite frankly I cannot believe that rule hasn't been deleted as it has caused more problems than anything. Perhaps the mfgs. are working on iot, IDK.
The rule as written is completely useless.
Even if the combo did exist, the only times it even makes sense to install afci receptacles is when trying to comply w/ the requirement for replacements in 406/ extensions for 210.12(B)while also dealing w/ a vintage panel that won't allow afci breakers or when dealing with a new nm prohibited sitch and using pipe, but there you could skip the recs and do the breakers.
In new installations everywhere else that allow nm, the afci breakers go in protecting the bc.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Here is my thinking.. Afci breakers make a mess of a panel so if this combo unit entails a standard type of breaker listed for use with an afci receptacle then you may see more of those installs. The problem with that is there will be these afci receptacles all over the house which makes it harder for a home owner to find the device that may be tripped.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
How about a system where the receptacle device detects an arc signature and not only cuts off its own output but sends a signal to the "dumb" breaker telling it to open too?
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I believe that is what the idea is supposed to be but how does it sense an arc on the line side?
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
I've never seen this before so until I can get to my PC to read that code section, I'm flying blind. But at face value of the portion posted, all they seem to be saying is that the branch circuit device must be listed, and in the load center world, I could take that to mean "as opposed to being classified". So what it could be saying is that if you get a classified breaker that fits in a panel but is not actually UL listed for that panel, you cannot use that in conjunction with this AFCI receptacle. It might be yet another quirk of how they allow classified breakers at all.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Not well written but...........
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
The heart of the issue seems to be that UL has never issued a test standard for "supplemental arc protection circuit breakers", so naturally enough none have ever been listed.
There are branch and feeder circuit protection breakers, but no "supplemental" ones.
Classified is not the problem.
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
Well, this is a really messy system, that's for sure. I found this that seems to boil it down in a more coherent manner though.
http://jadelearning.com/jadecc/courses/UNIVERSAL/NEC05.php?imDif=644
http://jadelearning.com/jadecc/courses/UNIVERSAL/NEC05.php?imDif=644
The heart of the issue seems to be that UL has never issued a test standard for "supplemental arc protection circuit breakers", so naturally enough none have ever been listed.
There are branch and feeder circuit protection breakers, but no "supplemental" ones.
Classified is not the problem.
UL may be the most common nationally recognized listing lab, but they certainly aren't the only one:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html
I'm not claiming anyone else has come up with a test standard for these, just pointing out that it wouldn't necessarily have to be UL.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
As a practical matter, although there are many NRTLs, only UL also develops the US standards that they all test against.
UL and some other NRTLs may also test to other (e.g. Canadian) standards just as CSA is a US recognized NRTL.
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
The heart of the issue seems to be that UL has never issued a test standard for "supplemental arc protection circuit breakers", so naturally enough none have ever been listed.
There are branch and feeder circuit protection breakers, but no "supplemental" ones.
Classified is not the problem.
They were about to- but they scrapped the idea.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There is no existing standard for that breaker and they are not planning on developing one.
The 2nd draft would have removed this and permitted any standard breaker in combination with the receptacle AFCI to provide the required branch circuit protection, however the rule was kept in the code by a floor motion at the NFPA annual meeting where the 2017 NEC was accepted.
It is interesting that there were about twice as many votes cast on that motion, compared to the other motions. It appears that the breaker manufacturers want to keep this restrictive rule in place as a way to limit the use of the AFCI receptacle.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Other than CSA, I don't think the other testing labs are ANSI standard writing organizations.
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
The circuit breaker manufactures expect that the breaker vs receptacle pricing for AFCIs will go the way that it did for GFCIs.
Without that special non existent breaker you can't use the AFCI receptacle for the required branch circuit protection.
mbrooke
Batteries Included
- Location
- United States
- Occupation
- Technician
But the way its written is being flat misinterpreted. People are installing those AFCI outlets on standard breakers. In fact when I first read it I assumed by listed they meant UL listed like all resi breakers.
- Status