Why does the NEC seem to purposely seem to be ambiguous my pet peve!

[Sierrasparky]

For example: In 2003 NEC cycle we had to start using AFCI breakers for Receptacles in bedrooms. Then in 05 we needed to protect any type of outlet in a bedroom. In 2008 it is required in almost any room in a dwelling. At no time was there any discription as to handle repair, replacements, modifications to these original non AFCI circuits.

Jump to 2011 and Wa La there is a description as to deal with this. Why so many years to decide? It makes no sense just confusion.

 

[pfalcon]

Not sure what the confusion is. NEC is phasing in the use of AFCI like some other things.

1) Mandate a few expensive installs in very limited areas of a house.
2) Usage drives the cost of AFCI down some.
3) Ramp up mandate to match the price drop until AFCI is required throughout.
4) Change mandate from NEW install or MAJOR rewire to include ALL repair.

 

[frankft2000]

Not sure what the confusion is. NEC is phasing in the use of AFCI like some other things.

1) Mandate a few expensive installs in very limited areas of a house.
2) Usage drives the cost of AFCI down some.
3) Ramp up mandate to match the price drop until AFCI is required throughout.
4) Change mandate from NEW install or MAJOR rewire to include ALL repair.

Did I miss the price drop on the AFCIs?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Phasing is not the issue. That sort of thing couldT have been addressed early on.
For example :
The code could have said : AFCI for new circuits only ! existing systems need not comply, or You touch it you bring it up to current code.

No they don't do this for this code section and many others the result leaves interpetation and confusion.

What is wrong with specificity? Huh!

 

[pfalcon]

Did I miss the price drop on the AFCIs?

It worked in theory.

Phasing is not the issue. That sort of thing couldT have been addressed early on.
For example :
The code could have said : AFCI for new circuits only ! existing systems need not comply, or You touch it you bring it up to current code.

No they don't do this for this code section and many others the result leaves interpetation and confusion.

What is wrong with specificity? Huh!

It's wrong because repair of old equipment is outside the scope of the NEC. State and Federal laws already state that new versions of the NEC do not apply to old installations so "AFCI for new circuits only !" would be a waste of space in the NEC. State and Federal laws define when a repair is major enough to be treated as NEW.

Take 406.3(D)(2) which states that repairing a non-GFCI outlet where the current code calls for a GFCI outlet means making the upgrade. Because of our country's belief that Ex Post Facto is inherently evil that paragraph can and should be challenged. It probably won't because of the cost/benefit ratio. It should still be struck.

 

[Sierrasparky]

It worked in theory.



It's wrong because repair of old equipment is outside the scope of the NEC. State and Federal laws already state that new versions of the NEC do not apply to old installations so "AFCI for new circuits only !" would be a waste of space in the NEC. State and Federal laws define when a repair is major enough to be treated as NEW.

Take 406.3(D)(2) which states that repairing a non-GFCI outlet where the current code calls for a GFCI outlet means making the upgrade. Because of our country's belief that Ex Post Facto is inherently evil that paragraph can and should be challenged. It probably won't because of the cost/benefit ratio. It should still be struck.

where is out of scope of the NEC for repairs!

Most States and AHJ take the approach as if you leave it as is then you are grandfathered. Replace it bing it up to code. That is the way it is in this state. It might not be held up that way but it is the law!

 

[steve66]

Take 406.3(D)(2) which states that repairing a non-GFCI outlet where the current code calls for a GFCI outlet means making the upgrade. Because of our country's belief that Ex Post Facto is inherently evil that paragraph can and should be challenged. It probably won't because of the cost/benefit ratio. It should still be struck.

I don't think that's quite ex post facto. You can't cry "ex post facto" everytime a rule or law changes. Rules can dictate when a receptacle has to be changed, without being ex post facto, and they can dictate new standards for that new receptacle. Just my 2 cents, right or wrong.

But I do agree - the arc fault interrupters are being driven by commercial intrests.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Just to let you all know in regards to this pst facto stuff. Ca state just made it mandatory to install carbon monoxide detectors in ALL dwellings new or old if they have fossile fuel or wood burning devices installed in the home.....
Yes every homeowner is in violation after july 2011.......THAT is the law!

 

[electricguy61]

Just to let you all know in regards to this pst facto stuff. Ca state just made it mandatory to install carbon monoxide detectors in ALL dwellings new or old if they have fossile fuel or wood burning devices installed in the home.....
Yes every homeowner is in violation after july 2011.......THAT is the law!

In my humble opinion, there is a vast difference between a CO monitor, which can save hundreds of lives due to a colorless, odorless killer that is easily generated but easily detected, and AFCI's, which unless I've missed all the news reports, supposedly protect against a very seldom occurring issue, but nonetheless has created a vast new means of generating revenue for the electrical equipment manufacturers.

Just in case you can't tell, it's a pet peeve of mine as well:rant:

 

[pfalcon]

where is out of scope of the NEC for repairs!

Most States and AHJ take the approach as if you leave it as is then you are grandfathered. Replace it bing it up to code. That is the way it is in this state. It might not be held up that way but it is the law!

Out of NEC scope because state and federal laws dictate when compliance is required not the NEC. When states adopt by reference they may exclude such Ex Post Facto requirements at their own discretion just as they can exclude any portion of the NEC.

Overwhelmingly most Ex Post Facto (after the fact) requirements are despised, hated, and shunned. Except by some small group that feels this particular issue should be the exception because ...

Tamper Resistant outlets sound really great because they might save the lives of 100 or so kids every year. Until the unintended consequence kicks in. Then uncaring tenants will take off the bothersome plates and leave the sides of the outlets exposed and we'll have 300 some kids die from exposed wiring. But TR is a GREAT idea and we need to retroactively make it required on all property :doh