User Tag List

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: replacing ceiling light with paddle fan - AFCI required?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    woodbridge, ct. USA
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    He would typically be hired by the town manager, or board of selectman. But they cannot overrule his professional decision. We have a procedure to appeal his decision to the State Board of Electrical Examiners. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that.



    This was the Town wiring inspector, not an inspector from the Housing Authority. I've run into housing and health regulations/ codes that require more than is required by the NEC.
    Our code addresses modifications, extensions, and in 406 replacement receptacles. No mention of luminaires or fans. Guess you'll have to try and point that out to him. You would probably have to protect the whole circuit via a breaker. Could have issues, especially in a housing authority unit. If it's landlord owned they do all their own work and only call the electrician when they can't figure it out or need a permit.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    LA basin, CA
    Posts
    2,001
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GerryB View Post
    ..Was it a city AHJ or a housing authority inspector? We have them here for section 8 inspections, sometimes require things above the code, like an ungrounded outlet you can't just put in a gfi, you have to run a ground.
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    ..This was the Town wiring inspector, not an inspector from the Housing Authority. I've run into housing and health regulations/ codes that require more than is required by the NEC.
    Our Housing inspectors also fail GFCI's protection of 2-wire cables, demanding grounding wire. The culprits are municipal inspectors, hired on behalf of section 8 housing authorities, with multiple layers of immunity from appeals.

    These inspectors terrorize property owners right into arms of dirt-bag contractors, who charge thousands in unnecessary remodel construction. The response of private-property owners behind the Orange curtain (Orange county, CA), is to stop accepting HUD & section 8 vouchers.

    Gulf-War veterans are the casualties of this exploit, since their Housing vouchers expire before finding a property. Some private holdouts still taking HUD are already occupied in Orange county. A small public-housing compound remains in Anaheim, but the last private owners opening new Housing vouchers are down to a few retirement communities, exclusively for age 62 & over.

    Complaints about Housing inspectors are still raised at our Orange Empire IAEI meetings, where the education chair & senior municipal planner tries to describe all the barriers for appeal, which are never successful.

    Jurisdiction is the first barrier to appeal:
    Inspection agents hired by State or Federal Housing authorities are not subject to the NEC, nor GFCI's per 406.4(D)(2) replacement code, unless Housing Authorities are specifically included by local or State laws.

    Neither is IAEI, their education chair, nor municipal planners legally allowed share copies of any such laws, without being subject to prosecution from private publishers. The critical laws regarding jurisdiction are hidden behind proprietary firewalls, searchable only by appellate attorneys, and those with access to private-legal databases, such as the old Lexis Nexis.

    Bureaucracy Delays are another barrier to appeal:
    Property owners trying to appeal unnecessary construction, and remodel contractors --imposed by Housing inspectors-- can get their occupancy revoked, waiting months to find out if any AHJ, much less any court is willing to hear the case.

    Every one of my clients surrendered to this exploit, after getting screwed by these jerks that carefully avoid specific-contractor recommendation, since a conflict of interest would breach their Vail of immunity. Good luck if you decide to appeal.
    Roger Ramjet NoFixNoPay

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    (44.057116, -123.103394)
    Posts
    499
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsy View Post
    Our Housing inspectors also fail GFCI's protection of 2-wire cables, demanding grounding wire.
    I have run into this with fridges, freezers, ceiling and bathroom fans on older two wire cable, as fans are motors 250.112(C) Applies, 410.44 Exception 3 does not apply to anything other than a 'luminaire' (fixture). If there is an accessible attic I often see a #12 Green fished in to retrofitted fan boxes where old two wire cable is still the supply.
    There is no AFCI requirement when replacing fixtures like-for-like.
    However 410.21 is a Gotcha for buildings built before 1985 with older 60C type TW and 'NM' cable. There have been many documented fires attributed to overheated wires in lighting boxes. I have never seen any residential wiring rated over 60C in an un-renovated older than 1985 building. Therefore 2 feet of new 90C wiring would need to be run to the fixtures that require 90C wire.
    And in this case 210.12(D) Exception would still exempt you from AFCI.
    Cheers

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    woodbridge, ct. USA
    Posts
    1,177
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tortuga View Post
    I have run into this with fridges, freezers, ceiling and bathroom fans on older two wire cable, as fans are motors 250.112(C) Applies, 410.44 Exception 3 does not apply to anything other than a 'luminaire' (fixture). If there is an accessible attic I often see a #12 Green fished in to retrofitted fan boxes where old two wire cable is still the supply.
    There is no AFCI requirement when replacing fixtures like-for-like.
    However 410.21 is a Gotcha for buildings built before 1985 with older 60C type TW and 'NM' cable. There have been many documented fires attributed to overheated wires in lighting boxes. I have never seen any residential wiring rated over 60C in an un-renovated older than 1985 building. Therefore 2 feet of new 90C wiring would need to be run to the fixtures that require 90C wire.
    And in this case 210.12(D) Exception would still exempt you from AFCI.
    Cheers
    What do you mean by run 2 feet of new wire, to where? I may have heard something about this in the past. A new fixture has 90C leads, can you install it on a box that has K&T in it?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    40,603
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    He would typically be hired by the town manager, or board of selectman. But they cannot overrule his professional decision. We have a procedure to appeal his decision to the State Board of Electrical Examiners. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that.



    This was the Town wiring inspector, not an inspector from the Housing Authority. I've run into housing and health regulations/ codes that require more than is required by the NEC.
    Sorry you have a one man inspection authority - that is often never good, especially if you get one of those people that think they are never wrong. Also too bad you appear to have a state authority that thinks they are too busy to do their job.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    LA basin, CA
    Posts
    2,001
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tortuga View Post
    I have run into this with fridges, freezers, ceiling and bathroom fans on older two wire cable, as fans are motors 250.112(C) Applies, 410.44 Exception 3 does not apply to anything other than a 'luminaire' (fixture)..
    Yes, I see. Prior to the 1960's grounding & NEC section 250 is not required, if exiting building wiring is not modified. However most existing structures have been modified.

    Adding any window/wall/central HVAC, or attic/ceiling/bath/range-vent fans, or appliances missing extra-hard usage cords, triggers NEC 250.110/.112. Bonded outlets are now required for those appliances, but the existing building does not require a total rewire / remodel.

    For the rest of the existing building replacement code NEC 406.4(D)(2) applies, where GFCI's provide superior protection to antiquated grounding systems that remain hazardously energized during low-level faults.

    AFCI's should only be required for replacement receptacles 404.4(D)4, and new work over 6ft 210.12, which includes new switch legs >6ft for ceiling fans.
    Roger Ramjet NoFixNoPay

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    13,801
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by qcroanoke View Post
    I wouldn't. Even if it was.
    Best answer yet.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Milford, MA
    Posts
    1,678
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My original email to him in red, followed by his reply in blue:

    Hi Ted,

    I just want to follow up on our phone conversation from Friday, regarding the paddle fan/ lights we installed to replace existing ceiling lights at XXX Rd. I agree that article 210.12A requires Arc-Fault protection for all 120-volt, single-phase, 15-and 20-amp branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling unit kitchens, family rooms, etc. However, my interpretation is that based on the definition of an outlet, (a point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment) this isn’t a new outlet. It’s a new box and new fan/ fixture. It also is not a new device, as it isn’t a device based on that definition. So I don’t believe that adding AFCI protection is required. I’m hoping you will reconsider your interpretation.

    I did post up this question on the Mike Holt Forum. Here is the link:
    https://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=196109&p=1974396#post1974396

    I don’t know if it will get many responses, as it is a topic that has been discussed a few times over the years. This forum has some of the foremost code experts in the country that participate in many discussions. I’ve been on the site for a long time, and I’ve really learned a lot over the years. As I said, these opinions and interpretations carry no more weight than yours or mine, but it’s a good site, with many helpful members.

    Sincerely,

    John


    John,

    The work you did was a modification of the branch circuit wiring per Article 210 Branch Circuits 210.12 arc-fault circuit interrupter protection 210.12(D) extensions or modifications. The addition of the paddle fan is an additional outlet that requires arc fault protection. Article 100 Definitions - Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. Article 210.12 (A) arc-fault circuit protection would then apply.

    If anyone has any additional suggestions on how to convince him that he is misinterpreting this code, it would be appreciated. Otherwise I am still waiting as to whether the customer wants me to appeal his decision, or come up with the money to install AFCI breakers (and any associated troubleshooting/ repairs, if necessary).
    Formerly J Erickson as username.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    40,603
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnE View Post
    My original email to him in red, followed by his reply in blue:

    Hi Ted,

    I just want to follow up on our phone conversation from Friday, regarding the paddle fan/ lights we installed to replace existing ceiling lights at XXX Rd. I agree that article 210.12A requires Arc-Fault protection for all 120-volt, single-phase, 15-and 20-amp branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling unit kitchens, family rooms, etc. However, my interpretation is that based on the definition of an outlet, (a point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment) this isn’t a new outlet. It’s a new box and new fan/ fixture. It also is not a new device, as it isn’t a device based on that definition. So I don’t believe that adding AFCI protection is required. I’m hoping you will reconsider your interpretation.

    I did post up this question on the Mike Holt Forum. Here is the link:
    https://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=196109&p=1974396#post1974396

    I don’t know if it will get many responses, as it is a topic that has been discussed a few times over the years. This forum has some of the foremost code experts in the country that participate in many discussions. I’ve been on the site for a long time, and I’ve really learned a lot over the years. As I said, these opinions and interpretations carry no more weight than yours or mine, but it’s a good site, with many helpful members.

    Sincerely,

    John


    John,

    The work you did was a modification of the branch circuit wiring per Article 210 Branch Circuits 210.12 arc-fault circuit interrupter protection 210.12(D) extensions or modifications. The addition of the paddle fan is an additional outlet that requires arc fault protection. Article 100 Definitions - Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment. Article 210.12 (A) arc-fault circuit protection would then apply.

    If anyone has any additional suggestions on how to convince him that he is misinterpreting this code, it would be appreciated. Otherwise I am still waiting as to whether the customer wants me to appeal his decision, or come up with the money to install AFCI breakers (and any associated troubleshooting/ repairs, if necessary).
    I think depending on how one interprets things you both can be right. I myself lean more toward a new outlet wasn't created, but can see it being interpreted otherwise by the AFCI extremists.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    1,753
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Changing a standard light box to a fan rated box in NO way alters or extends the circuit.
    Same goes for changing the luminaire to fan/light.
    Ron

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •