Local rules limit arc fault

Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think, especailly about the smoke detector limits. ;)


012 Arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection.

(4) NEC 210.12(B) is amended to require AFCI protection only for dwelling unit bedroom spaces.

(a) Dwelling unit bedroom spaces include spaces that:

(i) Are used as the bedroom;

(ii) Are accessed only through the bedroom;

(iii) Are ancillary to the bedroom's function (e.g., closets, sitting areas, etc.); (iv) Contain branch circuits that supply 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere, outlets; and

(v) Are not bathrooms.

(b) If a new circuit(s) is added in an existing dwelling unit bedroom, an existing outlet(s) that is not connected to the new circuit(s) does not require arc-fault circuit interrupter protection if the outlet(s) was installed before December 1, 2005.

(c) If an existing circuit, installed before December 1, 2005, is extended, arc-fault circuit interrupter protection is not required.

(d) Arc-fault circuit interrupter protection is not required to be used for smoke or fire alarm outlets.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
That looks very much like the language of the Washington Administrative Code.

I agree with the removal of the smoke detectors and fire alarms from AFCI requirements. I would like to see the requirement be limited to receptacle outlets only. I believe that the greatest danger of arcing comes from wires that are outside the walls and ceiling spaces.
 

wawireguy

Senior Member
I like WA rules for the most part. The WAC and RCW can be a little onerous at times but decisions like this one tell me that the AJH has the best interests of the public and the electricians in mind. Good to see WA standing up to regulations made by corporations.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
It is interesting to note that, although the State of Washington decided to reduce the requirements for AFCI protection (i.e., making them less restrictive than those stated in the NEC), the City of Seattle will not. Seattle is planning to issue its local amendments with the NEC version of 210.12, not the WAC (Washington Admin Code) version of 210.12.
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
The Washington Code adoption process is very fair and they do a good job of fixing the mistakes in the NEC> I was on the advisory committee last year.
 
It is interesting to note that, although the State of Washington decided to reduce the requirements for AFCI protection (i.e., making them less restrictive than those stated in the NEC), the City of Seattle will not. Seattle is planning to issue its local amendments with the NEC version of 210.12, not the WAC (Washington Admin Code) version of 210.12.

Thats the only thing I dont like about 'city' amendments, this is only going to cause 'confusion' seeing how this will be in one city and just 30 miles (or less) up the rode it will be a different enforcement. I just wish it could just be 'state' amendments only when it comes to 'NEC CODES'. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top