# 2014 NEC Article 210.12(A) (2)



## lighterup

New topic.
Can anyone explain , why would we use an afci circuit breaker
and an afci receptacle outlet. Who would do this? I'm trying to
understand the panels thinking (intent) here.

Also , the other section 210.12 (A) (5) seems to insinuate a
fire will not occur if run in various conduits. I personally have
witnessed steel armored cable flame up , while throwing flames
and sparks as the fire traveled through it toward and in the 
dirction of the problematic load. what the heck are they thinking?


----------



## backstay

So now you want us to explain how these panels think? You're kidding, right?


----------



## Dennis Alwon

You can ignore that completely because there isn't a device out there that is listed for the purpose. 

I asked the cmp member why would anyone choose that if it were available and he said it gives better protection---who knows but the manufacturers still have not made one yet


----------



## lighterup

backstay said:


> So now you want us to explain how these panels think? You're kidding, right?


I don't know if anyone on this forum is close to the situation.

Believe me , I realize we're beating this subject to death. The newest
codes are taking me from confusion to utter disbelief. Guess I'm
just grasping at straws now.


----------



## lighterup

Dennis Alwon said:


> You can ignore that completely because there isn't a device out there that is listed for the purpose.
> 
> I asked the cmp member why would anyone choose that if it were available and he said it gives better protection---who knows but the manufacturers still have not made one yet



The best analogy I can come up with to further explain my perplexity at this
code is that it would be similar to putting a gfci outlet receptacle on a circuit that has a gfci circuit breaker on it already????


----------



## macmikeman

All night long sex and coke parties when the CMP's meet to discuss the NEC is what leads to this . 



Sort of like the British Parliament.


----------



## chicken steve

> *(2) * A listed branch/feeder-type AFeI installed at the origin
> of the branch-circuit in combination with a listed outlet
> branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed
> at the first outlet box on the branch circuit. The first
> outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to in-
> dicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit.


Correct me if i'm wrong here, but i'm under the impression *listed branch/feeder* is different from *listed combination-type * afci ocpd.

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon

Steve I am not sure what you are saying. The article say in combination with-- not a combination type....

Basically they are talking about a afci circuit breaker that is listed to be in combination with an afci receptacle. These would be specially design device that are design to work together (in combination with each other)


----------



## lighterup

:001_huh:


macmikeman said:


> All night long sex and coke parties when the CMP's meet to discuss the NEC is what leads to this .
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like the British Parliament.


----------



## chicken steve

Dennis Alwon said:


> Steve I am not sure what you are saying. The article say in combination with-- not a combination type....
> 
> Basically they are talking about a afci circuit breaker that is listed to be in combination with an afci receptacle. These would be specially design device that are design to work together (in combination with each other)


My bad ,late nights tend to bring out the _chickenese_ Denny....:no:

There are a few _potential_ issues i see here at play, first would be the branch/feeder afci ,think a double pole 50-60A ,which to my understanding was _'listed' _,but was never manufactured.

The jist being we could simply feed any given sub via one.....

<<<:blink:>>>

Next would be the afci ocpd* vs.* the afci receptacle outlet. They incorporate different characteristics ,one is a mag trip/thermal w/electronica, the other is no more than a fancy gfci.

Now if you read some of the '14 rop's ,it's evident a few better educated to the aforementioned differences wished them clarified 

Despite them going into the cmp roundfile, i agree there is a difference......

<<< :whistling2:>>> 

So.....i read the article as not so much a _redundancy _of applicable electrical goods, as i do an _admission_ that in fact, they ARE different

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19

Dennis Alwon said:


> You can ignore that completely because there isn't a device out there that is listed for the purpose.
> 
> I asked the cmp member why would anyone choose that if it were available and he said it gives better protection---who knows but the manufacturers *still have not made one *yet


They can't make one...a standard for that device was never issued.


----------



## chicken steve

don_resqcapt19 said:


> They can't make one...a standard for that device was never issued.


I'd like to know more about that Don

~CS~


----------



## papaotis

perhaps a little lean to something the mfgs have coming some day, or maybe just something thrown in withuot much thought to make it look like they got more accomplished?:whistling2:


----------



## chicken steve

Perhaps if the intent were clarified Papa

for ex.,_ assuming_ validity, what good does _'solo arc detection' _@ the first receptacle outlet do for the rest of the circuit from the panel on up to it?

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19

chicken steve said:


> I'd like to know more about that Don
> 
> ~CS~


Sorry, wrong section...I was thinking of 210.12(A)(3).

That being said, does anyone still sell the original branch circuit/feeder AFCIs that are called for by (A)(2)? Other than that section, there is no code use for that product.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Sorry, wrong section...I was thinking of 210.12(A)(3).
> 
> That being said, does anyone still sell the original branch circuit/feeder AFCIs that are called for by (A)(2)? Other than that section, there is no code use for that product.


I didn't know they ever existed


----------



## chicken steve

It's hard to get one's head around a code requiring a product that doesn't exist....:blink:~CS~:blink:


----------



## Dennis Alwon

chicken steve said:


> It's hard to get one's head around a code requiring a product that doesn't exist....:blink:~CS~:blink:


Not the first time -- TR recep, afci all code issues made before the product was available in anticipation that it would be available soon.


----------



## chicken steve

I suppose Denny.....It kinda makes the NEC appear like some _marketing tool weirdness_ though.....~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19

Dennis Alwon said:


> I didn't know they ever existed


That is what we had before the code was changed to require the "combination" AFCIs that are used now.
The first code to require the "combination" type was the 2005 code but it has an effective date of 1/1/2008. Combination type devices hit the market in 2007, so ones installed prior to that were the branch circuit/feeder type.


----------



## chicken steve

Now i'm _really_ confused......~CS~


----------



## Frizratz

chicken steve said:


> I suppose Denny.....It kinda makes the NEC appear like some _marketing tool weirdness_ though.....~CS~


We always joked that the people on the panels for the NEC had some financial gain like stock in the products that they required !


----------



## Dennis Alwon

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is what we had before the code was changed to require the "combination" AFCIs that are used now.
> The first code to require the "combination" type was the 2005 code but it has an effective date of 1/1/2008. Combination type devices hit the market in 2007, so ones installed prior to that were the branch circuit/feeder type.



I don't think that is what A (2) is talking about-- it says in combination with a listed outlet ....afci




> (2) A listed branch/feeder-type AFCI installed at the origin
> of the branch-circuit in combination with a listed outlet
> branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter installed
> at the first outlet box on the branch circuit. The first
> outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate
> that it is the first outlet of the circuit.


----------



## don_resqcapt19

Dennis Alwon said:


> I don't think that is what A (2) is talking about-- it says in combination with a listed outlet ....afci


The device required by list item #3 is the device they never made.


> (2) A *listed branch/feeder-type AFCI installed at the origin* of the branch-circuit in* combination with a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupter* installed at the first outlet box on the branch circuit. The first outlet box in the branch circuit shall be marked to indicate that it is the first outlet of the circuit.


The first text in bold requires the use of the original branch circuit/feeder type AFCI at the origin of the circuit. The second text in bold requires the use of a receptacle type AFCI at the first outlet.

Not sure why you would ever do this....


----------



## chicken steve

Don, 

Mark C Ode of trade rag fame penned an article AFCI's now more integral in '14....

I find the dif between 210.12(A)(3) & 210.12(A)(4) absolutely confusing.:blink:

Even Ode acknowledges this, pointing toward UL studies in this article ,citing 210.12's info note>


> Since these changes are fairly extensive and complex, a thorough study may be necessary to understand them.


>>>



> *Informational Note No.1:* For information on
> combination-type and branch/feeder-type arc-fault circuit
> interrupters, see _UL 1699-2011, Standard for Arc-Fault
> Circuit Interrupters._
> 
> For information on outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit interrupters, see _UL Subject 1699A, Outline of Investigation for Outlet Branch Circuit Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupters.
> _
> 
> For information on system combination AFCIs, see _UL Subject 1699C, Outline of Investigation for System Combination Arc-Fault Circuit
> Interrupters_.


Ode furthers by informing us>>


> Again, this requires a system installation but using a listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI and a listed branch circuit overcurrent protective device—not an AFCI breaker as was required in (3).


Which i take as meaning an afci receptacle outlet _can be a stand alone branch circuit installation arc protective device _, given some older panels simply have no afci retrofit....

Correct me if i'm wrong , but Dr Engel did try and address this >>>>



> 2-77 Log #2097 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
> (210.12)
> ________________________________________________________________
> Submitter: *Joseph C. Engel*, Monroeville, PA
> Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
> 210.12 Are-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection.
> Exception No. 1 (delete entire exception)
> Exception No. 2 (delete entire exception)
> Exception No. 3:
> (B) Branch Circuit Extension or Modification – 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 by one of the
> following:
> (1) A a listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch
> circuit
> (2) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the
> existing branch circuit
> *Substantiation:* The Problem:
> The text to be deleted is required to insure that a home’s receptacles are safely protected, including “the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit”. It is assumed that the performance of an AFCI packaged as a receptacle is equivalent to one packaged as a circuit breaker. *This is not true*.
> 
> There at least two major safety related differences:
> Short Circuit Current Tests:



<<<<<<<snip>>>>>>>


> *Panel Statement:* The submitter’s substantiation does not support his
> recommendation.



~CS~


----------



## MechanicalDVR

macmikeman said:


> All night long sex and coke parties when the CMP's meet to discuss the NEC is what leads to this .
> 
> 
> 
> Sort of like the British Parliament.


Something tells me the Brits aren't as much fun with no women there.


----------



## don_resqcapt19

chicken steve said:


> Don,
> ....
> Which i take as meaning an afci receptacle outlet _can be a stand alone branch circuit installation arc protective device _, given some older panels simply have no afci retrofit....


No, an outlet type device cannot be a stand alone device to provide the AFCI protection for the complete circuit.

It must be used with a breaker as specified in list items (2) or (3) and (4)(d).

There was an approved change to remove (4)(d) by the CMP, but that was restored on a vote on motion 70-1 at the NFPA technical meeting yesterday. It is interesting that there were many more votes cast on that motion than any other motion. This is seen as a way to eliminate the breaker monopoly on complete branch circuit AFCI protection. It appears that the breaker people sent a bunch of people to the meeting to preserve their monopoly.


----------



## chicken steve

Thank you Don

So i guess changes will be revealed in '17.....

~CS~


----------



## macmikeman

don_resqcapt19 said:


> No, an outlet type device cannot be a stand alone device to provide the AFCI protection for the complete circuit.
> 
> It must be used with a breaker as specified in list items (2) or (3) and (4)(d).
> 
> There was an approved change to remove (4)(d) by the CMP, but that was restored on a vote on motion 70-1 at the NFPA technical meeting yesterday. It is interesting that there were many more votes cast on that motion than any other motion. This is seen as a way to eliminate the breaker monopoly on complete branch circuit AFCI protection. *It appears that the breaker people sent a bunch of people to the meeting to preserve their monopoly.*


Didn't you say it was a fair process and there was no advantage given to manufacturer's in earlier postings?


----------



## don_resqcapt19

macmikeman said:


> Didn't you say it was a fair process and there was no advantage given to manufacturer's in earlier postings?


Any one who is a NFPA member for at least 180 days has the opportunity to vote on the NEC and the amending motions at the technical meeting where any NFPA document is voted on.


----------



## chicken steve

I'll forgo the politics , and simply say that there is much confusion on a stand alone afci receptacle outlet vs. a '_system installation_' requiring both afci receptacle outlet & afci ocpd.

Even my ahj is at a loss.....

~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19

chicken steve said:


> I'll forgo the politics , and simply say that there is much confusion on a stand alone afci receptacle outlet vs. a '_system installation_' requiring both afci receptacle outlet & afci ocpd.
> 
> Even my ahj is at a loss.....
> 
> ~CS~


While the code does not directly require it, the term "identified" is often read as "listed". There is no listed "system" for the combination of an OCPD and an outlet type AFCI to meet the requirements of 210.12. 


> Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable
> for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, application, and so forth, where described in a particular Code requirement.
> 
> Informational Note: Some examples of ways to determine suitability of equipment for a specific purpose, environment, or *application include investigations by a qualified testing laboratory* (listing and labeling), an inspection agency, or other organizations concerned with product evaluation.


----------



## papaotis

not a derail, i think this good here. ajh told me this morning that iowa just okd making ALL circuits AFCI and or GFCI in resi. didnt have time to elaborate so thats all i heard. as of 7-1-16. i dont know if that means it starts then or it becomes accepted then


----------



## papaotis

try 340.12oops wrong thread


----------



## Wiresmith

lighterup said:


> New topic.
> Can anyone explain , why would we use an afci circuit breaker
> and an afci receptacle outlet. Who would do this? I'm trying to
> understand the panels thinking (intent) here.


long branch circuit conductors may reduce effectiveness of breaker, breaker would still give some protection to conductors upstream of receptacle.




lighterup said:


> Also , the other section 210.12 (A) (5) seems to insinuate a
> fire will not occur if run in various conduits. I personally have
> witnessed steel armored cable flame up , while throwing flames
> and sparks as the fire traveled through it toward and in the
> dirction of the problematic load. what the heck are they thinking?



can still occur, just far better odds it won't over nm cabling


----------



## chicken steve

don_resqcapt19 said:


> While the code does not directly require it, the term "identified" is often read as "listed". There is no listed "system" for the combination of an OCPD and an outlet type AFCI to meet the requirements of 210.12.



According to a recent NEMA rep who graced our Green Mountain Chpt IAEI, all the manufacturers '_walked away_' from said listing (methinks it UL1699)


What that translates to is , they didn't want to _correct _it. Keep in mind afci's were on the market for a decade until the '_combination_' ones debuted , essentially doing the job we all thought was being done prior.

So you see, correcting the listing would obviously invite litigants into a class action suit the manufacturers didn't want....

~CS~


----------

