GFCI and AFCI

[Sierrasparky]

Oh and how does this really clarify things?
210.12(B says to install afci where circuit is modified,

So then what is the purpose of 406.4(D)?

406.4(D) is specifically targeted at a replacement receptacle is it not?
As per your argument Al, you refer to the exception in 210.12. (extensions less than 6') and then say you do not need to add AFCI.

So I ask once again when would 406.4(D) apply if ever in your mind.

If never why is the code there?

There must have been a reason?

There must have been intent!


I could care less , however i'd like to make my installations code compliant and not have any backlash for doing so.

 

[al hildenbrand]

As per your argument Al, . . .

:blink: You're kidding, right?

You're arguing. I'm quoting the published Code Making Panel statements. That's fact.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Interesting that the CMP places words or intent the commenter and author of the proposal did not write.

Yes, it is interesting. Do note that "Panel Statement" is that "The revised wording provides clarity. . ."

Saying it again, the CMP 2 makes a unified statement that this added Exception with wording revised, by them, provides clarity. Clarity as to what CMP 2 INTENDS.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Where's the answer to the question already asked: why require AFCI for a receptacle change when it isn't required for a panel change?:?

That's just it, isn't it. This question's answer is, in my opinion, still evolving. I can't wait until the 2017 NEC text is finally bedded. At this point it seems that there will be some new exceptions to add to how to answer your question.

OK. So, returning to your question, as you've seen in the CMP 2 results of the proposal for the 2014 NEC that Dennis wrote, that I posted a copy of above, there is no difference between the receptacle and panel change, under the published and locally adopted without amendment 2014 NEC.

If the conductors are not extended by more than six feet and there are no additional devices or outlets, no AFCI is required on a receptacle replacement.

Now, the 2017 is developing, and I took a moment to copy the changes that are receiving Comment at NFPA.org till Sept. 25, 2015.

210.12 wording is not changing, with respect to the discussion in this thread, but some interesting things are in development in 406.4(D)(4):

DRAFT of the 2017 NEC

406.4(D)(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

Exception No. 1: Arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection shall not be required where:

(1) The replacement complies with 406.4(D)(2)(b).

(2) It is impracticable to provide an equipment grounding conductor as provided by 250.130(C).

(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter circuit breaker is not commercially available.

(4) There is no GFCI/AFCI combination receptacle commercially available.

Exception No. 2: 210.12(B) exception does not apply to replacement of receptacles.

 

[Sierrasparky]

OK. So, returning to your question, as you've seen in the CMP 2 results of the proposal for the 2014 NEC that Dennis wrote, that I posted a copy of above, there is no difference between the receptacle and panel change, under the published and locally adopted without amendment 2014 NEC.

If the conductors are not extended by more than six feet and there are no additional devices or outlets, no AFCI is required on a receptacle replacement.

Now, the 2017 is developing, and I took a moment to copy the changes that are receiving Comment at NFPA.org till Sept. 25, 2015.

210.12 wording is not changing, with respect to the discussion in this thread, but some interesting things are in development in 406.4(D)(4):

That pretty much does away with AFCI receptacle use in most cases.
So what do we do here in California where the 2017 NEC won't be adopted until 2020 or so.
The state is currently creating the new Ca electric code.

 

[al hildenbrand]

That pretty much does away with AFCI receptacle use in most cases.

On the contrary, this does nothing to affect the use of OBC AFCI receptacles at the first outlet of the existing branch circuit for the addition of a new outlet or device on that branch circuit.

But, the Exceptions noted above in this thread, DO help, in my mind, in a social justice level, to soften the economic impact of safely maintaining existing dwelling wiring devices in Premises Wiring (Systems) that were installed to the Code of their day.

So what do we do here in California where the 2017 NEC won't be adopted until 2020 or so.
The state is currently creating the new Ca electric code.

It seems to me to be an advantage, as you don't have to be on the "bleeding" edge of installation warranty satisfaction of your customer's and you can benefit from what some of the rest of us share and have to endure as we are forced to hook up these finicky devices (all AFCIs) to things you don't have to, yet.

 

[Sierrasparky]

So if the 2017 code is clarified then what do you do when you add less than six feet of wire and change the outlet to a new one because of color.....hmy: