I would like some clarification on how to interpret 210.12(A)(3)(a).

[Marc M]

I would like some clarification on how to interpret 210.12(A)(3)(a).
a. The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
Debating with people about what continuous means in this situation. There are 3 scenarios we have been wondering if it is acceptable or not. This is in regards to AFCI receptacles because an AFCI breaker pretty much can't not follow this requirement.
These are in order of most acceptable to most questionable:

1. From a standard breaker a continuous, un-spliced connection to the AFCI receptacle.
   
2. From a standard breaker a continuous, spliced connection (a junction box in between) to an AFCI receptacle.
   
3. From a standard breaker a continuous, but this time it is spliced and goes to two separate AFCI receptacles.

Any insight is appreciated.





Similar Threads:

• For Clarification
• No two electricians interpret NEC codes the same! The more I know the less I know....
• Firewall Clarification Please
• Clarification Help
• clarification

[david shapiro]

It's up to the AHJ, but were I to inspect such an installation, I would take "continuous" as equivalent to "unspliced," a usage that I believe remains only in Art 250.
The issue is that we don't want someone to come along later, see a splice in a junction box, and decide to tap the conductors before there's AFCI protection.

I would like some clarification on how to interpret 210.12(A)(3)(a).
a. The branch-circuit wiring shall be continuous from the branch-circuit overcurrent device to the outlet branch circuit arc-fault circuit interrupter.
Debating with people about what continuous means in this situation. There are 3 scenarios we have been wondering if it is acceptable or not. This is in regards to AFCI receptacles because an AFCI breaker pretty much can't not follow this requirement.
These are in order of most acceptable to most questionable:

1. From a standard breaker a continuous, un-spliced connection to the AFCI receptacle.
2. From a standard breaker a continuous, spliced connection (a junction box in between) to an AFCI receptacle.
3. From a standard breaker a continuous, but this time it is spliced and goes to two separate AFCI receptacles.

Any insight is appreciated.

[Jerry Peck]

It's up to the AHJ, but were I to inspect such an installation, I would take "continuous" as equivalent to "unspliced," a usage that I believe remains only in Art 250.
The issue is that we don't want someone to come along later, see a splice in a junction box, and decide to tap the conductors before there's AFCI protection.

I agree. but have an added reason: 210.12(A)(3)(a) must first meet the requirements stated in 210.12(A)(3).

(bold is mine for highlighting)
210.12(A)(3). A listed supplemental arc protection breaker 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 where all the following are met:

If a splice junction box could potentially be used as an outlet box, then that is where the listed outlet branch-circuit-type arc-fault circuit interrupter would be required to be installed.

[Marc M]

I see... appreciate the feedback as always.

[david shapiro]

Jerry, I'm glad we interpret "continuous" the same. However, . . .
I call that AHJ position a stretch, one that risks writing code in the field, as it were. I'll go at it from three angles (without citing Pythagoras).
First, I believe the idea, "has the potential" is much more secure ground for allowing a practice than forbidding one that doesn't violate the letter of the code; it goes with "as practicable."
Second, "outlet box" is a colloquial usage, like "switch box"; Art 100 defines an outlet as a point at which electricity is taken from the system--not as a point at which additional work could allow electricity to be taken from the system.
Third and most unintentional-consequences, a strict reading of the interpretation you suggest goes beyond the rule to say that the conductors may not pass through any j-box en route to the AFCI, even if unspliced. I agree that this would reduce the risk that someone down the road &c, but such an additional restriction ought to be incorporated in an amendment.

I agree. but have an added reason: 210.12(A)(3)(a) must first meet the requirements stated in 210.12(A)(3).

(bold is mine for highlighting)
210.12(A)(3). A listed supplemental arc protection breaker 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 where all the following are met:

If a splice junction box could potentially be used as an outlet box, then that is where the listed outlet branch-circuit-type arc-fault circuit interrupter would be required to be installed.

[Jerry Peck]

David, "Art 100 defines an outlet as a point at which electricity is taken from the system" is precisely my point.

When, at some point in the future, that "is" (becomes) an "outlet box", that outlet box now becomes the required location of the arc-fault interrupter.

Thus, that 'should' be one of the code considerations. Thus why I stated as an additional reason.