Replacement Receptacles 2011 NEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
renosteinke said:
My objection to such a requirement is that it is an attempt by this code to determine what will be required by the next code.

It's well established that legislative bodies - such as Congress - are not allowed to 'bind' future assemblies. I see no reason for the NFPA to not follow this principle. For all we know, the next code panel will vote to outlaw electricity :D
Click to expand...

I think it is more an incentive for the device manufacturers to get on the ball and start rolling these out. The technology has obviously been around for awhile, but there was really not much of a market for an AFCI device, or an incentive for the device manufacturers to market one. Hopefully this will give them time to list, test, and get the manufacturing cost down to a reasonable level.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Actually, its highly likely we will see AFCI receptacles. This thread is about the new 2011 NEC 406.4(D)(4). Check it out.
Click to expand...

210.12(A) still requires metallic conduit or cable to be installed between the overcurrent device and first recep.

210.12(B) allows the use of an AFCI recep for circuit modification or extension, but i think you have to refer back to exception #1 of 210.12(A), which still has the requirement of metallic conduit/cable between the circuit breaker and first device.

neither 210.12(B) or 406.4(D)(4) negate this requirement.

The only purpose of adding the wording of AFCI receptacle to 406.4 was to make clear that they are allowed.

I can't see any cost justification for replacing a section of NM w/ conduit just to use an AFCI recep.
 
brantmacga said:
210.12(A) still requires metallic conduit or cable to be installed between the overcurrent device and first recep.

210.12(B) allows the use of an AFCI recep for circuit modification or extension, but i think you have to refer back to exception #1 of 210.12(A), which still has the requirement of metallic conduit/cable between the circuit breaker and first device.

neither 210.12(B) or 406.4(D)(4) negate this requirement. . .
Click to expand...
Consider a bedroom non-AFCI protected branch circuit grounding type receptacle that wears out and needs to be replaced.

No new outlet is installed, so 210.12 is not invoked. Therefore there is no metallic raceway/cable requirement.

The worn out receptacle, if in an area described in 210.12, is required to be replaced as per 406.4(D)(4). Once you face this, you will find the economy of 406.4(D)(4)(2).
 
Last edited:
brantmacga said:
210.12(B) allows the use of an AFCI recep for circuit modification or extension, but i think you have to refer back to exception #1 of 210.12(A), which still has the requirement of metallic conduit/cable between the circuit breaker and first device. . .
Click to expand...
(B) doesn't say install by (A). (B) only invokes the list of areas / rooms in (A).

Then, "where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following". . . and (2) very clearly states the receptacle type AFCI is to be located at the first point of replacement or modification.
 
al hildenbrand said:
(B) doesn't say install by (A). (B) only invokes the list of areas / rooms in (A).

Then, "where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following". . . and (2) very clearly states the receptacle type AFCI is to be located at the first point of replacement or modification.
Click to expand...
The rule in 210.12(B) rule is for where the branch circuit wiring is modified, replaced or extended.

The rule in 406.4(D)(4) applies when you are only replacing the receptacle itself, and does not require any changes in the branch circuit wiring.

These rules do not interact with each other. You have to use the rule that applies to what you are doing. If you are adding to or replacing the branch circuit wiring you have to put the AFCI device at the first outlet on the circuit. If you are only replacing a receptacle, then the AFCI receptacle is installed where the old receptacle was installed.

Neither case requires the use of metallic raceway or cables for any part of the circuit.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The rule in 406.4(D)(4) applies when you are only replacing the receptacle itself, and does not require any changes in the branch circuit wiring.
Click to expand...

this confirms my belief that CMP's are just full of it.


if it's okay to change a recep to AFCI in old work w/o using conduit, then why the hell can't you do it on new work?

it was explained to me once by a breaker rep that having NM between the breaker and an AFCI recep would defeat the purpose of using the AFCI.


now its okay to have that risk so they can sell a higher priced recep, while five years ago they would not have considered allowing it.
 
brantmacga said:
this confirms my belief that CMP's are just full of it.


if it's okay to change a recep to AFCI in old work w/o using conduit, then why the hell can't you do it on new work?

it was explained to me once by a breaker rep that having NM between the breaker and an AFCI recep would defeat the purpose of using the AFCI.


now its okay to have that risk so they can sell a higher priced recep, while five years ago they would not have considered allowing it.
Click to expand...

It is a compromise to provide additional protection where there is none now. The cost of replacing the branch circuit wiring just to change a receptacle or extend the branch circuit could be excessive.

I am not a fan of AFCIs and don't really believe that the fixed wiring of a building is the major cause of the fire problems. It is my opinion that many of the fires originate on the load side of the outlet and the AFCI receptacle device will provide protection for those types of problems.

It also provides protection for seires arcing faults where the series arcing fault is on the line side of the AFCI receptacle and the load is on the load side of the AFCI receptacle.
 
I'm not a big fan of ACFI's myself however I do think that an receptacle device should be a good and log awaited alternative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top