Article 210.12(B) AFCI Requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
cowboyjwc said:
A code cycle ago no one liked AFCI's now suddenly half of you want to install them where they're not required.

How many guys put GFCI's next to sinks in commercial buildings even though it's not required?

I would agree that a laundry room is not a similar area, unless you eat, sleep or sit in there.
Click to expand...

210.8(b)(5).

This is a duplicate. I type too slow.
 
Last edited:
al hildenbrand

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
jxofaltrds said:
The original intent was for the entire structure. This is not what happen. Since it is poorly written and laundry is not listed I changed my mind.

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f5/arc-faults-everywhere-281/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, Mike.

I read the image of the ROP that MDShunk posted.

The CMP commented:
Panel Statement: The panel accepts the submitter's concept of a more limited approach to the expansion of AFCI. The panel has used language that is arranged in a manner that parallels the language in 210.52(A) and has also included hallways and closets to address previous proposals about those areas. The panel did not accept the submitter's deletion of the words "supplying outlets," because it would introduce confusion regarding branch circuits that passed through these areas but did not supply any outlets in the area.
Click to expand...
It was the submitter (a P&S employee) that said "AFCI protection for all branch circuits . . .", NOT the CMP.

Unless you can quote some exact phase, I'd say this is not "the intent" that you are looking for.

And anyway, if the Code language is different than a ROP CMP statement, which is enforceable?

Only the language adopted into law by the local jurisdiction is enforceable.

If the enforceable language of the NEC is different than the CMP statement, then one is stuck. One has to work to change the enforceable language. Until changed one can only enforce the language actually adopted.
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
al hildenbrand said:
Thanks for the link, Mike.

I read the image of the ROP that MDShunk posted.

The CMP commented: It was the submitter (a P&S employee) that said "AFCI protection for all branch circuits . . .", NOT the CMP.

Unless you can quote some exact phase, I'd say this is not "the intent" that you are looking for.

And anyway, if the Code language is different than a ROP CMP statement, which is enforceable?

Only the language adopted into law by the local jurisdiction is enforceable.

If the enforceable language of the NEC is different than the CMP statement, then one is stuck. One has to work to change the enforceable language. Until changed one can only enforce the language actually adopted.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I changed my mind. I was looking for the exceptions rather than the 'requirements'. Thank you for helping me see that I was wrong.
 
jaylectricity

jaylectricity

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
Occupation
licensed journeyman electrician
I wash my clothes in the bath tub and hang them on the shower curtain rod. I instruct all of my customers to do the same.

It really takes this silly argument completely out of my life. :):cool::grin:
 
M

MikeBower

Member
Location
Mt Hope, WV
My AHJ has decided that all residental single pole breakers be either GFCI or AFCI except for the garage door receptacle. This includes built in appliances, garbage disposals etc. I cant use MWBC now. They have interperted the code as entire house.
 
480sparky

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
MikeBower said:
My AHJ has decided that all residental single pole breakers be either GFCI or AFCI except for the garage door receptacle. This includes built in appliances, garbage disposals etc. I cant use MWBC now. They have interperted the code as entire house.
Click to expand...


Have they interpreted that way, or did they adopt it as such?
 
al hildenbrand

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
jxofaltrds said:
Does it matter which they did?
Click to expand...
I think what Ken may be asking Mike Bower is aimed at finding out whether a single inspector is taking this stance, or whether a local AHJ has taken the stance, or whether there is local amendment to the NEC creating other enforceable statute.

Knowing this permits, then, a response to Mike Bower about how to handle an enforcement situation that is requiring that jurisdiction's dwelling wiring to diverge so radically from the requirement of the NEC.

I, for one, am interested in Mike Bower's answer.
 
L

Lloyd Welborn

New member
Electrical Commercial Division Manager

Electrical Commercial Division Manager

Based on my understanding of 2005 NEC 210.12(B) combination type arc fault breakers are required after January 1, 2008 therefore I interpet this as meaning that branch / feeder type AFCI's would not be allowed. My point is that branch / feeder type AFCI's should not be used to meet the requirements of 2005 or 2008 NEC 210.12 Please comment.

Thanks for your help, Lloyd Welborn - ARS Electrical Charleston SC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top