AFCI conundrum - What to do when current code is more lax than your State!

[Sierrasparky]

Ok another AFCI thread. Before you read my post I am aware of the obvious however I think it is worth a dicussion.

Ok If I understand correctly the 2014 code regarding when AFCI is required in a remodel situation allows for 6 feet of wire and no additional outlets added you do not need to install AFCI in the circuits.
However in the 2011 code if you do any modifications to the branch circuit you will need to add AFCI. In other words move a panel 1 foot and you need AFCI.

The code never seems to retro active correct a previous code. However When it came to the AFCI thing first coming online the code read Effective by 2003 or something like that.

Whay can't we jump to the more relaxed code or the one that clarifys the poorly written one. Instead we are dealt with 3 or more years of rediculousness.

 

[tom baker]

Ok another AFCI thread. Before you read my post I am aware of the obvious however I think it is worth a dicussion.

Ok If I understand correctly the 2014 code regarding when AFCI is required in a remodel situation allows for 6 feet of wire and no additional outlets added you do not need to install AFCI in the circuits.
However in the 2011 code if you do any modifications to the branch circuit you will need to add AFCI. In other words move a panel 1 foot and you need AFCI.

The code never seems to retro active correct a previous code. However When it came to the AFCI thing first coming online the code read Effective by 2003 or something like that.

Whay can't we jump to the more relaxed code or the one that clarifys the poorly written one. Instead we are dealt with 3 or more years of rediculousness.

AFCIs were first required in the 1999 NEC. the requirement for a remodel situation is in the 2011 NEC effective Jan 1, 2014.
However you many want to review that section in 201.12

 

[tom baker]

And in Washington, our state code rules superceed the NEC. I don't kow how it works where you are.

 

[augie47]

I'd say it's a matter of legality.
Once a Code is adopted that is the legal document until it is changed by ordnance or law.
It has been my experience that many jurisdictions have allowed the use of less strigent or clarified sections to be used as a matter of policy. I have been told that "by policy" is a legal means of doing so, but that is only what I have been told.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I guss what I am trying to get at is this.
As soon as we adopt the new code in CA which is based on the 2011 NEC we will have to install AFCI for a panel upgrade.

At the same time the 2014 code says as long as the conductor is not altered more than 6'

So in today we have to AFCI and in 2017 we would not ( 2017 is an assumed adoption of the 2014 NEC)

Seems very obsurd to me.

 

[mgookin]

I guss what I am trying to get at is this.
As soon as we adopt the new code in CA which is based on the 2011 NEC we will have to install AFCI for a panel upgrade.

At the same time the 2014 code says as long as the conductor is not altered more than 6'

So in today we have to AFCI and in 2017 we would not ( 2017 is an assumed adoption of the 2014 NEC)

Seems very obsurd to me.

You have to comply with all codes. If putting in the AFCI under the 2011 code will not cause a violation of the 2014 code, that's what needs to be done.

I'm curious though, why are you mixing two codes?

If the basis of your new CA code is the 2011 NEC, why would you even read the 2014 NEC? Are you saying they're both in effect at the same time? Sounds pretty strange. A code that is not adopted should not be brought into the equation.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You have to comply with all codes. If putting in the AFCI under the 2011 code will not cause a violation of the 2014 code, that's what needs to be done.

I'm curious though, why are you mixing two codes?

If the basis of your new CA code is the 2011 NEC, why would you even read the 2014 NEC? Are you saying they're both in effect at the same time? Sounds pretty strange. A code that is not adopted should not be brought into the equation.

CA is always several years behind the current NEC as is many other states. With so much controversy over AFCI's. I have a problem that today I have to install theme in a panel relocate and in a couple of years in the same instance I will not have to. I have a problem ignoring the future code.

The CMP needs to get on the same page and stick with their decisions!

 

[mgookin]

CA is always several years behind the current NEC as is many other states. With so much controversy over AFCI's. I have a problem that today I have to install theme in a panel relocate and in a couple of years in the same instance I will not have to. I have a problem ignoring the future code.

The CMP needs to get on the same page and stick with their decisions!

Here in Florida the code that applies is the code (edition) in effect on the date the permit was applied for. The job is vested to that code for the life of the building unless or until modifications to the building are made. Can't speak for CA though. That's building code talk.

Now ADA is a whole 'nother story. In ADA everyone had to modify their buildings. We're now about 20 years into ADA and plenty of buildings still are not in compliance.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

In some areas if you show the inspectors the intent of the code by referencing the new rules they may allow it.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I wrote a proposal because some areas were making contractors add afci just for changing the panel. I wanted to clarify that you should not need to add it if you do a service chnge and have to extend the wires . The CMP or another submitted added the 6' rule.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Dennis I don't fault you for the proposal for one second. Kudos for them to listen to us.

What I have issue with is that the words of the code need to reflect the intention and not be ambiguios. Its not like when AFCI came to be there was not such thing as a remodel, or a addition , or the need to replace a panel or to move one.

These boards need to get rid of the politices and market influences.