Square D CAFI breaker age?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whackit

Member
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Hi Folks,

I can get a great deal on a bunch of SQUARE D CAFI breakers but I can't tell how old they are. They look pretty new. They are the plug on type QO120PCAFI (Issue no DP-3640). Does anyone know if these are recent or if there have been any mid production changes to be weary of? I would be buying a lot of them so I want to be sure. As usual the Schneider site is not making finding any info easy.

Thanks
 
whackit said:
Hi Folks,

I can get a great deal on a bunch of SQUARE D CAFI breakers but I can't tell how old they are. They look pretty new. They are the plug on type QO120PCAFI (Issue no DP-3640). Does anyone know if these are recent or if there have been any mid production changes to be weary of? I would be buying a lot of them so I want to be sure. As usual the Schneider site is not making finding any info easy.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Personally if they are a version that was problematic I would not touch them.
 
I would think if they are the new plug on neutral type they should be fairly new. Square D plug on neutral has only been available for about a year or so.
 
kwired said:
2013? Maybe 2013 CA code?

2017 from what I understand will be even more of virtually everywhere.
Click to expand...
From the first draft report for the 2017.
(A) Dwelling Units.
All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling units shall be protected by any of the means described in 210.12(A)(1) through (6):
Click to expand...
 
I think it was you that posted this somewhere before, my comment was just recollection of seeing that but wasn't quite certain the exact wording.
don_resqcapt19 said:
From the first draft report for the 2017.
Click to expand...
Good or bad, it does eliminate us from needing a list of what is or is not required to be AFCI protected, where in 2014 the shorter list was those areas not required.
 
In addition to the first revision posted by Don, there are several other key revisions to this Section:

> 210.12(A)(4)(d) has been deleted. This is actually a pretty big deal, but something tells me it isn't going to make it into the final edition...

> Metal wireways and auxiliary gutters have ben added to the Exception to 210.12(A).

> A revised 210.12(B) adds bathrooms to Dormitory Units.

> Dormitory Units have been added to a revised 210.12(C) for BC modifications or extensions.

> A new 210.12(D) adds Guest Rooms & Guest Suites to the Section.

The last (4) listed above have a solid chance of making it all the way. There could be a couple of other surprises before its all said and done...
 
bphgravity said:
In addition to the first revision posted by Don, there are several other key revisions to this Section:

> 210.12(A)(4)(d) has been deleted. This is actually a pretty big deal, but something tells me it isn't going to make it into the final edition...

> Metal wireways and auxiliary gutters have ben added to the Exception to 210.12(A).

> A revised 210.12(B) adds bathrooms to Dormitory Units.

> Dormitory Units have been added to a revised 210.12(C) for BC modifications or extensions.

> A new 210.12(D) adds Guest Rooms & Guest Suites to the Section.

The last (4) listed above have a solid chance of making it all the way. There could be a couple of other surprises before its all said and done...
Click to expand...


So conduit systems would not require them? Im confused.
 
bphgravity said:
In addition to the first revision posted by Don, there are several other key revisions to this Section:

> 210.12(A)(4)(d) has been deleted. This is actually a pretty big deal, but something tells me it isn't going to make it into the final edition...

> Metal wireways and auxiliary gutters have ben added to the Exception to 210.12(A).

> A revised 210.12(B) adds bathrooms to Dormitory Units.

> Dormitory Units have been added to a revised 210.12(C) for BC modifications or extensions.

> A new 210.12(D) adds Guest Rooms & Guest Suites to the Section.

The last (4) listed above have a solid chance of making it all the way. There could be a couple of other surprises before its all said and done...
Click to expand...

Without a bit of substantiation to prove AFCIs are doing the job they are expected to nor without any substantiation that increasing the areas they are used in will reduce property damage, injury or deaths.

A win win for the manufacturers.
 
Maybe we should all push to get them required in Article 517....nuisance trips would probably get more attention there:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top