listed breaker for afci/gfci receptacle

[mikesimpson5]

If one installs a combination afci/gfi receptacle, what would be the listed breaker combination if for example the device is leviton

 

[Buck Parrish]

Unless I am missing some thing. It's no different then when you install a gfci outlet , It's all protected down side of your outlet.

 

[ramsy]

Just called Leviton tech-support, to find out if the AGTR1&2 is listed for the requirements of NFPA-70 210.12(A)4a. thru d., specifically item (d).

Must wait for answer from home office on east coast, currently closed.

Don't believe any products exists for 210.12(A)3

 

[romex jockey]

the key word being 'listed'........~RJ~

 

[ramsy]

Unless I am missing some thing. It's no different then when you install a gfci outlet , It's all protected down side of your outlet.

No, unlike GFCI's these AFCI are being triggered by upstream and utility side events.

the key word being 'listed'........~RJ~

As RJ said, just because they do it, doesn't mean squat if not listed by testing standard for doing it correctly, as intended by the standard.

 

[romex jockey]

I think i'm listed to agree Ramsy ~RJ~

 

[Buck Parrish]

No, unlike GFCI's these AFCI are being triggered by upstream and utility side events.


As RJ said, just because they do it, doesn't mean squat if not listed by testing standard for doing it correctly, as intended by the standard.

Okay, so I was missing some thing. Been in Indiana to long ... Come on man ...

 

[texie]

If one installs a combination afci/gfi receptacle, what would be the listed breaker combination if for example the device is leviton

I think you are referring to 210.12(4). As I recall no one ever made a breaker that was listed for this even tough it was written into the code.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This is just part of the code fight between the breaker manufacturers and the device manufacturers. If you go back and look at the vote on the floor motion to keep this in the code a cycle or two ago, you will find that there were about twice as many people voting on the motion to keep the rule in the code as there were on any of the other motions made that day.
There is no device on the market that will permit this.

 

[ramsy]

As Don suspected, Leviton support explained this morning UL has no standard for breaker-AFCI outlet combination listings, and when asked to explain this to AHJ's, many inspectors dealing with permited jobs, that were kept in the loop early on, are waiving the parts 210.12(A)(3&4) that describe such breaker-AFCI outlet combo-listing options, since they don't exist.

The tech said, other inspectors don't waive anything, perhaps when dealing with missing permits, UN-licensed contractors, or DIY's.

No surprise AFCI-code confusion exists among AHJ's, which requires manufacturer-tech support to point out the lack of UL standards and product offerings. No surprise either, that AHJ's use such impossible code sections against unqualified persons, to ensure they can't pass inspections.

 

[augie47]

I was surprised that when Leviton introduced their own brand of loadcenter they didn't come up with a "listed" breaker to be used with their AFCI receptacle to meet that requirement.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I was surprised that when Leviton introduced their own brand of loadcenter they didn't come up with a "listed" breaker to be used with their AFCI receptacle to meet that requirement.

I don't believe that there is a completed standard that such a breaker can be listed to.

 

[ramsy]

Someone else at Leviton customer support emailed me this morning.

"Please see below regarding 210.12.A4:"
"Exception No 4: AFCI protection shall not be required for branch circuits that serve an appliance that is not easily moved or that is fastened in place."

Does such an exception exist with 2020 NEC?. Can't find it with the 2017 NEC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Someone else at Leviton customer support emailed me this morning.

"Please see below regarding 210.12.A4:"
"Exception No 4: AFCI protection shall not be required for branch circuits that serve an appliance that is not easily moved or that is fastened in place."

Does such an exception exist with 2020 NEC?. Can't find it with the 2017 NEC.

Not in the NEC. Maybe a state amendment from where the person who answered the question is located?

 

[texie]

I don't believe that there is a completed standard that such a breaker can be listed to.

As I recall, that is the case. I recall having this discussion with the UL guys some time back.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

This is just part of the code fight between the breaker manufacturers and the device manufacturers. If you go back and look at the vote on the floor motion to keep this in the code a cycle or two ago, you will find that there were about twice as many people voting on the motion to keep the rule in the code as there were on any of the other motions made that day.
There is no device on the market that will permit this.

I sent in a comment to remove it-- I lost...hahaha

 

[texie]

I sent in a comment to remove it-- I lost...hahaha

LOL... as in lot's of luck.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I sent in a comment to remove it-- I lost...hahaha

That change did pass at the panel level for the 2017 code, but was reversed at the NFPA meeting. It appears that the meeting was "packed" as there were almost twice as many floor votes cast on the motion than on any of the other motions to change what the code making panels did.

Shades of "Allied Tube V Indian Head" where the packing of the NFPA meeting to vote down ENT kept that product out of the code for an additional 3 years. In that case, the steel tube people paid employees to join the NFPA and go to the meeting and vote a competitive product out of the code. That case resulted in a rule that requires you must be an NFPA member for at least 180 day before being permitted to vote on any motions at the meeting.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

That change did pass at the panel level for the 2017 code, but was reversed at the NFPA meeting. It appears that the meeting was "packed" as there were almost twice as many floor votes cast on the motion than on any of the other motions to change what the code making panels did.

Shades of "Allied Tube V Indian Head" where the packing of the NFPA meeting to vote down ENT kept that product out of the code for an additional 3 years. In that case, the steel tube people paid employees to join the NFPA and go to the meeting and vote a competitive product out of the code. That case resulted in a rule that requires you must be an NFPA member for at least 180 day before being permitted to vote on any motions at the meeting.

Wow, that is unbelievable. So it is true that the manufacturers control much of the code....

 

[romex jockey]

Wow, that is unbelievable. So it is true that the manufacturers control much of the code....

this is an epiphany Den?

~RJ~