Replacing 2 wire receptacles with AFCIs

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoldDigger said:
When one code section says "you must do A, no exceptions" and another section says "well, in case B you are not required to do A", then we have a job for the TCC.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. I tried to word the addition to 406.4(D)(4) so as not to interfere with the application of the exception to 210.12(B). While I don't agree with the Exception, I understand the reason for its existence. What I am trying to prevent the exception's application to 406.4(D)(4).
 
al hildenbrand said:
Well, isn't that interesting. The authors of the Analysis of Changes NEC - 2014 are "QUOTING" the CMP panel member M. Hilbert word for word.

So it seems that even a member of the CMP is saying what I am saying.
Click to expand...

It is not clear to me that Mr. Hilbert and I disagree. "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."

I'm not sure that "replacing a device" is meant to cover a 406.4(D)(4) replacement.
 
fmtjfw said:
I'm not sure that "replacing a device" is meant to cover a 406.4(D)(4) replacement.
Click to expand...
So, you aren't sure if a 15 or 20 Amp 125 Volt duplex receptacle on a single yoke is an Article 100 Definitions "Device"?
 
fmtjfw said:
"406.4(D) General Installation Requirements.
....
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable. Arc-fault circuit-interrupter type and ground-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacles shall be installed in a readily accessible location.
....
(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker

This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014."[NEC]
Click to expand...
Fmtjfw, is this, then, your showing me in the language of the NEC that a receptacle device replacement requires AFCI? All I can tell is that you underlined the readily accessible requirement.

Now, I do understand that you WANT AFCI required at ANY receptacle device replacement, but I can't find that statement of requirement in 406.4(D)(4). What you WANT, and what the Code says, may not be the same.

And I note that you WANT the statement of requirement for AFCI limited to the list of locations in 210.12(A), but, again, I don't see "as specified elsewhere in this Code," as providing you that limitation.
 
al hildenbrand said:
So, you aren't sure if a 15 or 20 Amp 125 Volt duplex receptacle on a single yoke is an Article 100 Definitions "Device"?
Click to expand...

I know perfectly well what a device is and that it applies to receptacles. I'm just not certain that the intention of 210.12(B) Exc. is to trump 406.4(D)(4).

You keep harking back to non-Code text in the ROP and Analysis of Changes. I prefer to look at the Code text:

(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications ? Dwelling Units.
In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected y one of the following: ....

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.

Once again this is an exception to 210.12(B) which tells you that when you extend or change a branch circuit in an area that s required to have AFCI protection according to 201.12(A), then you must protect it. The exception tells you that under limited circumstances you need not AFCI protect an extension.

Note that 210.12(B) does not mention replacement receptacles, only wiring. So replacing a receptacle under 406.4(D)(4) is not covered by 210.12(B) and is therefore not covered by the exception. I do not know how to make it any clearer and thus this is my final attempt.

al hildenbrand said:
Fmtjfw, is this, then, your showing me in the language of the NEC that a receptacle device replacement requires AFCI? All I can tell is that you underlined the readily accessible requirement.

Now, I do understand that you WANT AFCI required at ANY receptacle device replacement, but I can't find that statement of requirement in 406.4(D)(4). What you WANT, and what the Code says, may not be the same.

And I note that you WANT the statement of requirement for AFCI limited to the list of locations in 210.12(A), but, again, I don't see "as specified elsewhere in this Code," as providing you that limitation.
Click to expand...

At the bottom of my long screed about this I indicated that underlined denoted text added to 2014. This is the text with the gray background in 2014.

I want any receptacle in a location required by current Code to be ACFI protected, to be AFCI protected, and I don't want any interpretation of 201.12(B) Exc. to interfere with that.

I have not altered the text of 406.4(D)(4) in this forum thread.
 
ON IGNORE LIST

ON IGNORE LIST

iwire said:
So you feel a six inch extension is a dangerous application of the exception but five foot extension is a safe and correct application of the exception.

That makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

A lack of response to your questions or statement implies nothing -- you are still on my personal ignore list.
 
Last edited:
Please bear with me. I'm going to do a couple posts off of this last one of yours.

fmtjfw said:
Note that 210.12(B) does not mention replacement receptacles, only wiring.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to supply for the Forum a published definition of the term "wiring".

I have tried.

Also, I would argue that 210.12(B) is using the THREE WORD term, "branch-circuit wiring" as opposed to the single word term without adjectives.

I believe the term "branch-circuit wiring" is specifically describing that assembly which is part of the Premises Wiring (System). Premises Wiring (System) is defined and includes devices.

Had 210.12(B) been written to exclude devices, and only apply to conductors, then the correct term to use would have been "branch circuit." "Branch circuit" IS defined (in Article 100 Definitions) and is what you WANT to have been said. However, the Code clearly DOESN'T say "branch circuit", rather, it says "branch-circuit wiring", and that is very different in meaning, whatever the meaning actually is.
 
fmtjfw said:
I'm just not certain that the intention of 210.12(B) Exc. is to trump 406.4(D)(4).
Click to expand...

You assume that 406.4(D)(4) is a stand alone requirement, which it is not. I, again, challenge you to use it's language to say "replacing a receptacle device requires the new receptacle device to have AFCI protection."

406.4(D)(4) does not say that, THEREFORE, there is NOTHING TO TRUMP.

"The AFCI requirement," as you have called it, for replacement receptacle devices is BOTH 406.4(D) and 210.12 along with any other Code passages having sway.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Please bear with me. I'm going to do a couple posts off of this last one of yours.



I challenge you to supply for the Forum a published definition of the term "wiring".

I have tried.

Also, I would argue that 210.12(B) is using the THREE WORD term, "branch-circuit wiring" as opposed to the single word term without adjectives.

I believe the term "branch-circuit wiring" is specifically describing that assembly which is part of the Premises Wiring (System). Premises Wiring (System) is defined and includes devices.

Had 210.12(B) been written to exclude devices, and only apply to conductors, then the correct term to use would have been "branch circuit." "Branch circuit" IS defined (in Article 100 Definitions) and is what you WANT to have been said. However, the Code clearly DOESN'T say "branch circuit", rather, it says "branch-circuit wiring", and that is very different in meaning, whatever the meaning actually is.
Click to expand...

I'll try:

110.8 Wiring Methods. Only wiring methods recognized
as suitable are included in this Code. The recognized methods
of wiring shall be permitted to be installed in any type
of building or occupancy, except as otherwise provided in
this Code.


300.1 Scope.
(A) All Wiring Installations. This article covers wiring
methods for all wiring installations unless modified by
other articles.

II. Installation
310.10 Uses Permitted. The conductors described in
310.104 shall be permitted for use in any of the wiring
methods covered in Chapter 3 and as specified in their
respective tables or as permitted elsewhere in this Code.

310.104 Conductor Constructions and Applications. Insulated
conductors shall comply with the applicable provisions
of Table 310.104(A) through Table 310.104(E).

From this I conclude that wire or wiring or wiring method means the conductor(s).
 
jxofaltrds said:
I'll try:

110.8 Wiring Methods. Only wiring methods recognized
as suitable are included in this Code. The recognized methods
of wiring shall be permitted to be installed in any type
of building or occupancy, except as otherwise provided in
this Code.


300.1 Scope.
(A) All Wiring Installations. This article covers wiring
methods for all wiring installations unless modified by
other articles.

II. Installation
310.10 Uses Permitted. The conductors described in
310.104 shall be permitted for use in any of the wiring
methods covered in Chapter 3 and as specified in their
respective tables or as permitted elsewhere in this Code.

310.104 Conductor Constructions and Applications. Insulated
conductors shall comply with the applicable provisions
of Table 310.104(A) through Table 310.104(E).

From this I conclude that wire or wiring or wiring method means the conductor(s).
Click to expand...

Both 110.8 and 300 apply to far more than conductors.
 
fmtjfw said:
I want any receptacle in a location required by current Code to be ACFI protected, to be AFCI protected, and I don't want any interpretation of 201.12(B) Exc. to interfere with that.
Click to expand...
In engaging in this banter about the meaning of 406.4(D) (and, do, please notice this is the second successive use of 406.4(D) I have deliberately written) you are getting some clear nudging about the incompleteness of your effort to effect what you WANT . . .

To get what you want, in terms of AFCI protection, you have to do, IMHO, a lot of jiggering of the structure of 406.4(D) and 210.12, which I have not seen yet in your Proposals in the other two threads.

Just saying . . .

AND, for that matter, using 90.1 Practical Safeguarding as substantiation, . . . well, "practical" is a real world limit on the all out "safety mind" of "safeguarding". Many will argue that it is more practical to safeguard dwelling occupants by having new replacement receptacle devices with contacting means that minimize resistance of contact, than it is to require AFCI protection that mandates Premises Wiring (System) upgrade in order to accept the limited physical formats that the AFCI protection is available in -- OR, than it is to do nothing (as the occupant of the dwelling) at all.

The word "Practical" is a significant moderator to thwart what you WANT, in these threads about AFCI protection and replacement of receptacle devices.
 
iwire said:
We disagree it is about much more than conductors. Conductors are addressed in 310.

Would you agree boxes and conduit bodies are 'wiring'?
Click to expand...

Conductors are addressed in 300.3 right off the bat. I believe that Chapter 3 Wiring Methods and Materials is all about (revolve around) how the conductors are to be installed.

No I disagree. Boxes and conduit bodies 'protect' the wiring. They are part of the 'wiring method'.
 
al hildenbrand said:
Uses of the term aren't going to help. We need a DEFINITION of "branch-circuit wiring".
Click to expand...



I think the amount of reaching being done to get the result some want is of Olympic proportions.

When some one has jump all over the NEC and try to split hairs over device and other such nonsense it becomes laughable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top