Since the wording in 210.12(B) is a requirement for AFCI protection on the branch circuit installed for the bedroom outlets, we would not be required to protect an outlet if we were just adding an outlet to an existing branch circuit in the bedroom. As the attorney says "What say you?"

210.12(B)...uses the wording "outlets installed"

If you install an "outlet" in a bedroom...AFCI protection is required for the entire branch circuit as you have described.

shortcircuit

That seems to be the issue here. The wording in 210.12(B) is talking about branch circuit(s) installed to supply outlets in bedrooms shall be protected by an AFCI device that protects the entire branch circuit. So it's talking about a branch circuit rule. This is the way it was presented at a recent IAEI seminar code panel session. I personally am still wrestling with it.

Ok george, I just reread the paragraph(210.12(G) 5 times in a row and I can see where some confusion could arise.

But I still interpret it as so...

Branch circuits that supply power to outlets installed shall be AFCI protected.

With the "outlets installed" meaning...the act of installing an outlet...with outlet meaning just as it is described in article 100.

shortcircuit

Okay- I understand how you have interperted this text. Your stress is on "outlets installed." I too see how it could be enforced that way. But, and this is a big but, if we install an outlet and I agree with you I'm sure what an outlet is, the code requires it to be grounded 410.18 for lighting outlets and 406.3 receptacle outlets. There is a whole list of reguirements for GFCI protection for receptacles installed in location itemized in 210.8. When we get t0 210.12 they are talking about installing a circuit to feed the outlets in the bedrooms. It is clear that this circuit is required to have AFCI protection for the entire circuit. There is no wording that says "AFCI protection is required for an existing bedroom circuit." There was some talk about asking for AFCI protection on bedroom circuits when there a Service change involving the breakers feeding the bedrooms but that didn't make it into the code. So the more I think about the issue I can accept the fact that adding an outlet to an existing circuit will not necessarily trigger changing to AFCI protection of the existing circuit. Adding a circuit on the other hand does require AFCI protection.

[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 03-12-2005).]

Keen observation there George...but I question the intent here. Maybe some re-wording here is necessary?

Why stop at allowing only 1 outlet then? Lets rewire the bedrooms on a renovation with the exsisting branch circuits, there-by eliminating the need for the electrician to use AFCI protection at all?

I don't believe this was the intent of 210.12(B)

shortcircuit

To break it down:
I believe this is all field judgement call stuff. The intent of the code section is to provide arc hazard protection in sleeping rooms.
New constuction w/ panel that will accept AFCI: arc-fault circuit (easy call)!
New outlet in existing room with 2w NM, no ground, exist. panel that cannot accommodate AFCI-no question: no AFCI.
Everything in between: if there's a way to add AFCI protection to the existing circuit, or to REASONABLY revise wiring so that AFCI protection can be provided to some or all of the room outlets, then require it.
P.S. if we're only adding smoke's to the bedroom, do you require a separate circuit w/AFCI protection for the smokes?

Does an AFCI require a ground?
The new code does address adding an AFCI to a panel that won't take an AFCI breaker.
210.12(B) exception

[This message has been edited by gfretwell (edited 03-14-2005).]

Greg,
The AFCI will work on a circuit that does not have an EGC, but it will not be near as effective. Much of the time it is the GFP part of the AFCI and not the arc detection circuit itself that opens the circuit. If there is no EGC, it is harder to create a ground fault.
Don

George,

the phrase "installed in... bedrooms" describes one of two things:

1) the outlets as in "circuits that supply...(outlets installed in ... bedrooms)"

or
2) the circuits as in "circuits installed in bedrooms that supply outlets"

I believe the first one is what is intended, since the phrase is nearest the outlets in the sentence and not separated by a comma. If the panel had intended #2 that's how they would have said it.

Going with #1, if an outlet is installed in a bedroom on a circuit that previously did not supply bedroom outlets, the circuit now does supply a bedroom outlet and must be AFCI protected.

If we were to go with #2 then any circuit installed in a bedroom wall that supplies an outlet, whether the outlet is in the bedroom or not, would require AFCI protection.

Note that the words "installed for" are not in the code wording, rather "installed in"

Okay- I'm not saying all these comments are accurate (including mine) but it does show me that there is confusion in the code. I look at 210.8 and this covers GFCI protection of "Outlets". The code in every case says the receptacles in such and such area must have GFCI protection. I wish the code would say all outlets in bedrooms must have AFCI protection. Then I would be able to understand it clearer. Since the code is primarily written for new installations, instead of existing installations and we are not installing a new branch circuit that would have to comply with 210.12, there is reason to believe that we could extend an existing circuit and forgo converting this circuit to an AFCI protected circuit.

Hi,

GEO YOU SAID: "I can accept the fact that adding an outlet to an existing circuit will not necessarily trigger changing to AFCI protection of the existing circuit"...WRONG!

I beleive the code is VERY clear that ALL NEW OUTLETS (Existing or not)in bedrooms must have arc fault protection. This covers new installations.

the nec is NOT allowing you to extend or install a new outlet without afci protection.

there is NO article that will allow you to extend an existing circuit or install a new branch circuit/outlet or receptacle or whatever you care to call without this protection.

new installation doesnt mean a new building...it means any new install since right now! if you are allowing or installing NEW outlets even if the house is a 100 years old...if it is in the bedroom you MUST have afci protection without it, it IS a violation of the NEC no matter how you try to twist the words or invent new meanings to existing words.

if i have a residence with a two wire circuit, then the service MUST be UPGRADED to meet the new requirement...plain and simple...you cant go around second guessing the code...if a receptacle or smoke detector or whatever is NEW in a bedroom then IT MUST HAVE AFCI..i did not see in the code where it says that the exception is a two wire service or that if the panel wont accept the breaker etc. etc..those comments are made up and does not exsit anywhere except in that persons mind..

the code is written for an 8th grade education...pretty simple stuff...

regards

greg

Im in at a job right now where they exstended a bedroom 5 feet out.I put all the new plugs and lights on a arc-fault breaker. The exsisting bedroom is not, do i comply with code?

Hi,
There is no requirement to retrofit existing installations with AFCI.

-regards

Greg

seems like Greg speaks with forked tongue?? In your previous post you had us believing that we had to change existing bedroom circuits to AFCI if we extended them???

Hi,
Geo- I do NOT speak with a forked tongue!

you are good at twisting things up!

I NEVER said what you just posted!

You may want to re-read the post.

What i said was that according to the VERY CLEAR NEC that ANY NEW installs had to be AFCI. that means ANY Extension of the circuit or ANY NEW OUTLETS..i want to hear you justify extending a circuit in a bedroom as not being NEW!

If you go to a 100 year old house and want to ADD an outlet in a bedroom THAT OUTLET MUST BE AFCI. so to meet that requirement AFCI must be added. How would you prpose to do that?

There are no AFCI receptacles...so the whole circuit would then have to be AFCI protected..just because the panel is a two wire panel or KNOB and tube or the panel wont accept is STILL not allowed! The code did that so that the PANEL WOULD GET UPGRADED!

I am guessing that you are an inspector..if you allow ANYBODY to extend or install A NEW OUTLET IN A BEDROOM and it is not AFCI protected you are NOT following the same NEC as the rest of us. Maybe you decide what is right or wrong where you are and that is fine.

I guess if you go to a house to change the service out to a new one you dont go in and add laundry circuits, GFCI or anything else? If you do you are VIOLATING THE CODE! The intent is that when a service change is needed and there is no GFCI or laundry circuits then, at the time of service upgrade you need to bring the rest of the dwelling into compliance! A lot of homeonwers dont like this but when else would it get done?

I will send a request for clarification to the NEC and let you know what THEY say.

thats what I said or tried to say..

it seemed to me in your post you were either misinterpreting or trying to put your spin on it.

pretty simple stuff, but I just wanted to clear up a lot of BS that gets posted by some folks who should really know better!

nothing personal and I am not picking on you...it is just that you admit to making broad statements and in several post of yours you are DEAD WRONG!!

I will be glad to match witts with you any day of the week! All in good fun though!

-regards

Greg



[This message has been edited by mustangelectric (edited 03-16-2005).]

Hi,
Geo- one more clarification..there is no requirement to go back and add AFCI to EXISTING circuits UNLESS NEW OUTLETS ARE ADDED or the CIRCUIT IS EXTENDED..i hope that clears it it up better.

-regards

Greg

Hi,
Actually after looking at my post i will stand behind that!

"There is no requirement to retrofit existing installations with AFCI." There is no restrictions on doing it.

that means to go back and re-fit the circuit with AFCI..NO REQUIREMENT TO DO THAT...THERE is a requirement to do that IF YOU ADD TO OR EXTEND THE CIRCUIT! WHY else would they say on new installations? New as used in the code is a reference to time...it means after right now in time... not a new receptacle you just bought! anything before right now is OLD..

the key word is EXISTING AND RETROFIT...I SAID NOTHING ABOUT NEW..your going to have to try and twist a little harder..i guess you got upset because I called you/commented about your comments on motors not be classified as continuous! That is speaking with a forked tongue...just another way to call someone a liar. I guess your an old hand around here and people just accept what you say as gospel...i am sorry if i stole your thunder! I hope you are not upset and we can still be friends! It's all in good fun..no hard feelings ok? I am the kind of guy who is not afraid to stand up and be heard even in a place where there are obviosuly some very knowledgable folks...if your wrong most of the time it will get pointed out..i just dont beleive everything i hear!

right?

-regards

Greg



[This message has been edited by mustangelectric (edited 03-16-2005).]

Just as a point of interest I ran a conversion of an average utility transformer's kAIC value into Horsepower...
450 kAIC = 289,000 horsepower at 480V 1 phase.

hum...289,000 HP traveling at the speed of light...personally I'd install AFCI receptacles everywhere.

Greg- I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I understand where you are coming from and if you are mistaken, you certianly are erroring in the safe direction. I know several people on Code panels and have had discussions with them and I am quite comfortable not asking for AFCI on an existing circuit when it is extended. If they install a new circuit- I ask for AFCI since it's a branch circuit requirement not a outlet requirement. If we had wording that said " all outlets in bedrooms shall have AFCI protection I would feel differently. And I take back the "forked tongue" remark. Must have looked rather cold in print.

Hi,
Geo-No need for any apologies..i appreciate the comments.

I can be hard headed at times..

your a stand up guy..and right 99% of the time..thats better than I can claim!

i have pondered this question before..

and wanted to jump in...

sorry to take over the thread if i did!

my apologies to any offended parties!

-reagrds

greg

If we get to involved with this, and the Home Owner sees to many $$$$, their solution will be extension cords and plug strips much to our dismay, regardless of what side of the fence we are on.

Roger

Hi,
My solution? make AFCI required for ALL circuits. Why not?

Wal-mart requires it for ALL of their panels at their stores.

I had several homeowners ask for ALL GFCI and ALL afci before...did not bother me!

-reagrds

Greg

Greg, we have to be careful with the GFCI part since NFPA 72 11.6.3(5) doesn't allow "smoke alarms" on GFCI protected circuits.

Roger

Hi,
roger, I am glad you pointed that out...in my haste to post I may have made too general of a statement...

good call..

-regards

greg

[This message has been edited by mustangelectric (edited 03-16-2005).]

Greg
I don't want not put words in your mouth so let me ask are you saying that when I do a heavy up of the service I am required to add laundry, small appliance, bathroom basin, and any other circuit I would be required to install in new construction? That would certainly be an effective way to force electrical upgrading work into the gray market.
--
Tom Horne

Hi,
YES that is EXACTLY what I am saying! THIS IS NOT REQUIRED ON A BURNOUT..

When you do a service upgrade (it is required in MANY cities now and is coming to a city near you!)

A service UPGRADE is NOT a service upgrade UNLESS these items are addressed.

The homeowner gets a new service and the parts of the house that need updating get it too.

What good is a new 200A service on a 50 year old home unless these items are upgraded?

Sure we can't go in and jerk out all that 2 wire bx/ac cable but, we can install GFCI and AFCI protection and provide the laundry circuits.

I know that I will catch a lot of hell for this but I am a firm beleiver in the practice!

I NEVER install a NEW service at a place where there is NO GFI and no laundry circuits in place WITHOUT adding them.

GFi in the bath, kitch, garage, outdoors etc..

Sometimes it is a hard sell but it IS required in MANY CITIES NOW!

Better get used to it!

Expect to see this in the next code, because I am going to submit it for consideration to the NEC. I hope they bite!

-regards

greg


[This message has been edited by mustangelectric (edited 03-17-2005).]

[This message has been edited by mustangelectric (edited 03-17-2005).]

First of all, those who know me know that I am not a fan of the AFCI requirements.
I also think we are confusing ourselves with our cleverness.

Principles long established, and usually now incorporated in building codes, say thay new rules apply only to new work, while simplly maintaining or repairing something only requires that you meet the rules in effect at the time the work was first done.

For example, if you were replacing a painted-over two-prong receptacle in an old bedroom, you would be allowed to use a new two-prong receptacle.
If you were replacing a damaged fuseholder or a faulty breaker that happened to serve a bedroom, you would be able to use a similar item.

But....if you are installing a NEW outlet in a bedroom, today's code requires it to be on an AFCI-protected circuit. This could very well leave the new receptacle as the only AFCI protected outlet, as there is no requirement that all the outlets in the bedrom be on the same circuit. (A more likely result, in an older house, is that this would result in AFCI protection to receptacles in many different parts of the house.)
Only the part (circuit) you are doing new work on (adding to) needs to meet current code.

Following the issue "upstream," if the existing service cannot take an AFCI breaker, you will have to make a change there. As I see it, this could be accomplished with a complete service change, installing a sub-panel to serve the circuit, or (in the 2005 NEC) installing an AFCI device, in a metal raceway, within six feet of the main panel, wired to protect the rest of the circuit.
(Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone is selling AFCI devices).


Keep it simple...NEW work meets NEW code. And keep it honest- let's not try to fit "new receptacle" into the "fix an old one" exception.
"Congress shall not pass any ex poste facto laws".

If it is a rich person you make them upgrade the whole circuit.

If it is a poor person you let them just add the extra outlet to the existing branch circuit in the bedroom so they quit using extension cords.

Do you think I should submit this wording for the 2008 NEC?

Last time I had to install new outlets in bedroom fed from existing bedroom circuit, I extended the existing circuit on an exterior wall to an exterior nema 3r 2 pole 4 space crouse hinds plastic load center, with the existing branch circuit lugged into the line side of said load center. I then installed an ark fault and fed my downstream loads off of that. Now I know that the load center feed is not sized as #8 or larger since it was from an existing branch circuit, but the ark fault is on my extension.

Check out 80.9 NEC

Few places if any actually adopted Article 80 when it was Article 80 in the front of the code.

Now for 2005 it is located in Annex G which is not part of the code and serves no purpose unless specifically adopted in your area.

Around these parts (Va.), the only time an entire structure must be brought to present code is if more than half of the building is being renovated; otherwies, a service upgrade does not require new/updated branch circuits.

Otherwise, I agree with Greg; any new work must meet the code in effect at the time. One new receptacle installed in a bedroom must be grounded and have AFCI protection, even if the rest of the room is knob-and-tube supplied.

Additionally, it's easy to forget that the term "outlet" refers to any electrical access point for utilization equipment (meaning just about everything except switches), not just receptacles. Why is this important? Because:

Code version should be included with code references given here; for example, the '99 NEC requires all bedroom receptacles be AFCI protected, while the '02 NEC requires all outlets (lighting, smokes, etc.) be so protected.


(spelling corrections)

[This message has been edited by Larry Fine (edited 05-08-2005).]

Since I've seen that misquoted a couple times here already, and since I think it's important to accurately quote the Constitution to avoid "urban rumors" about what it says (for example, nowhere does it say anything about "separation of church and state," a misquote which is causing all kinds of strife in this country; but that's a whole 'nuther argument...), I'll mention that the correct quote from Article I, Section 9 is:


(If this seems a bit pickly, I apologize. I'm rather a zealot, in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Janice Rogers Brown, about reading what the Constitution actually says. And I agree that, in this particular case, the two statements mean the same thing.)

Oh, and many, many kudos for actually knowing that that's in the Constitution. If you asked ten kids from our local high school who just finished the class that's supposed to cover the Constitution, I'd be surprised if more than one knew it said that.


[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 05-09-2005).]

Thank you, Solar, for looking up the exact quote. I also agree with your observation.....to often, regulatory wonks look at me as if I am from Mars when I suggest this limit to their enforcement authority.

Now, considering the reality of remodelling, does anyone still doubt the need for an AFCI receptacle?

So you go on a job where the homeowner wants to tap an existing outlet and install a 2nd one about 2 feet away so he can quit using an extension cord (because the last one had a poor connection and caused a little fire).

You arrive and find a 100 year old house, nothing is grounded but the neutral bond at the entrance, and every thing is protected by fuses. How much does it cost to extend that circuit so this home will be at least one step safer, and so the homeowner (who can't afford to replace the panel or rewire the house, much less both) won't have to keep using an extension cord (something the NEC seems to want to get rid of).

Of course one lower cost option can be a tiny 2-circuit subpanel right next to the old main with a couple of AFCI breakers in it.

How about this: submit a code change request to the NEC for 2008 (6 months remain to do this) that gets very specific about requiring AFCI whenever an existing non-AFCI protected circuit in a location that requires one is extended. They might accept it. Or they might refuse it and say the code already covers that. Or they might refuse it and say that this is not desireable. This could readily be a way to get an answer out of the appropriate committee (sometime over the next couple of years).

Re: Ex post facto.
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Warning, We may need a lawyer.

A law passed today making you guilty if you did have an AFCI installed yesterday. This is ex post facto.
A law passed today requiring that starting tomorrow all circuits in use shall have AFCI protection.
Then you could either upgrade them tonight or shut them off. This law would NOT be ex post facto!


[This message has been edited by JimMichaels (edited 06-23-2005).]

Scenario
I have a 57 Chevy. If I drive it without a seatbelt on I will get a ticket. They have forced me to install seatbelts "ex post facto".
Where is the difference?

I can't say I follow your example, gfretwell. I know that here in Nevada such a ticket would not hold up, assuming the vehicle has not been signifigantly altered (to the point DMV has to re-certify it). And, in meighboring California, they are not able to apply current air pollution regs to older vehicles; they can only require them to meet factory specs when they were made.

Now, if you are saying that courts are unreliable, unfair, and illogical, and sometimes overstep their bounds....well, that's such a classic complaint Solomon put it in the Bible. That doesn't take away the fact that "no retroactive laws" is one of our basic principles.

Which is why I fight such attempts whenever I can.

I don't like ex post facto laws either but they do creep into the codes through the back door.

BTW you really need to look at each state law before you make blanket statements about retrofitting seatbelts. In Florida the only exception in 316.614 F.S. is for pickup trucks
"(b) The number of front seat passengers of a pickup truck required to wear a safety belt pursuant to this section shall not exceed the number of safety belts which were installed in the front seat of such pickup truck by the manufacturer."
Autos are not exempted.

The point is that the law does not say you will get a ticket because you drove without a seatbelt in 1958. Therefore the law is NOT ex post facto.

A law that changes something that was previously OK to something prohibited is just a NEW law.

Jim I can not agree with your reasoning.

Generally laws will not make you change something that is existing in order to comply. FLs craziness not withstanding.

Auto emissions would be an example of a new law that does not force old vehicles to comply.

Building codes are certainly another that allow existing to remain 99% of the time.

Sprinkler systems and ADA requirements are a couple items that break that rule but they do not apply to single family homes.

Greg if I got a seat belt ticket in a car that was manufactured before seat belts where installed I would fight it as far as I had to,.... or more realistically as far as I could afford to.

I just came up with a new plan to make me rich and un-famous. I'm going to go to each and every house in my area and tell the homeowners and businessmen that the electrical code has changed and now I want them to install AFCI and GFCI protection on all the circuits that are now required to have said protection. I want EGC's installed in all homes that currently have the 2-wire ungrounded system. Yea, that will happen.Oh, I almost forgot GFP on all 480v. systems over 1200a.

Did you catch the one about AFCI's on existing circuits?? Message here- adding an outlet to a bedroom circuit does not require AFCI protecting the circuit no more than adding a feeder or branch circuit requires adding GFP to an existing 480v. 1200a.Service. Now installing a NEW bedroom circuit requires AFCI on that circuit. The rule is a branch circuit requirement.

George FWIW I think your conclusion is correct and reasonable.

It's nice when both of those conditions are met.

Bob

George, I'm glad you are an inspector. You are reading the Code the same way I do.
I explain to contractors that downstream of what they did has to comply with the Code. If they change the service equipment then they have to add a lot of Code required items. Changing or adding an outlet at the end of a circuit, in my opinion doesn't require upgrading what is upstream of the work.
There are AFCI devices but the Code hasn't caught up to them , it would be nice to be able to add an AFCI receptacle as easily as a GFI receptacle.
Alan

I would say that if there is as much confusion and debate covering the interpertation as is present here then I would fall back on 90-1 practical safeguarding. The reason for the AFCI protection is to give the protection they afford. Until NFPA resolves this dispute then err on the side of safety.