210.12(B)(2) -- Where's the 1st Receptacle Outlet?

[Dennis Alwon]

And what about:

PANEL > LO1 > LO2 > LO3 > LO4 > NLO5
.........................|
........................R1

Where R1 is tagged off LO2, and one can say that the exisiting branch circuit HAS a receptacle outlet, but there is no way, short of additional circuit modification, for the OBC AFCI to be wired in a "feed thru" manner. Am I required, when using 210.12(B)(2), to place the OBC AFCI at R1? (NLO = New Lighting Outlet)

Why would there be no way to feed thru. I would have the afci at LO2 and feed thru to R1. In some cases you may have to go back to the panel or at LO1.

Again the intent is to protect any new wiring.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I realize I am assuming intent here to some degree but I believe this is the basic interpretation of what this section is requiring.

We can spend a lot of time on "intent". . . but, if I may, I'd like to invoke "Charlie's Rule" to deal with the simple morass of the words as published in the NEC.

I think we all agree that the intent is to AFCI protect wiring. . . the fun is to derive a construction practice in the physical world that is compliant with the enforceable words of the NEC itself.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

We can spend a lot of time on "intent". . . but, if I may, I'd like to invoke "Charlie's Rule" to deal with the simple morass of the words as published in the NEC.

I think we all agree that the intent is to AFCI protect wiring. . . the fun is to derive a construction practice in the physical world that is compliant with the enforceable words of the NEC itself.

As much as I respect and love Charlie's rule I also think we can get bogged down with language to the point where almost everything written becomes suspect. Personally I don't see this article as one of those problem areas simply because of the words-- addition and modification--along with changes that were made in the past and the proposals for 2014

 

[al hildenbrand]

Why would there be no way to feed thru. I would have the afci at LO2 and feed thru to R1. In some cases you may have to go back to the panel or at LO1.

LO2 is a Lighting Outlet, not a Receptacle.

R1 is an existing receptacle on an existing branch circuit. It is, arguably, the "first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit."

The new extension is " > NLO5" - New Lighting Outlet 5

 

[al hildenbrand]

As much as I respect and love Charlie's rule I also think we can get bogged down with language to the point where almost everything written becomes suspect. Personally I don't see this article as one of those problem areas simply because of the words-- addition and modification--along with changes that were made in the past and the proposals for 2014

So far, all the hypotheticals are simply dealing with "where" the first outlet is. I agree that "addition and modification" are vague, as well, but that is not my OP question.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

LO2 is a Lighting Outlet, not a Receptacle.

R1 is an existing receptacle on an existing branch circuit. It is, arguably, the "first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit."

The new extension is " > NLO5" - New Lighting Outlet 5

Yes so if L02 is a lighting outlet we addressed the answer earlier-- the afci would have to be anywhere before new wiring is added. For me it is that simple and I believe that is the way most inspectors will look at it.

 

[iwire]

As much as I respect and love Charlie's rule I also think we can get bogged down with language to the point where almost everything written becomes suspect. Personally I don't see this article as one of those problem areas simply because of the words-- addition and modification--along with changes that were made in the past and the proposals for 2014

But Dennis, it is a code, misinterpretation costs money.

As much as you are sure you know the intent and the proper interpretation there will be many others including inspectors that will see it another way.

The only way to avoid that is to make sure the section of code is written clearly and IMO it is not currently clear.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But Dennis, it is a code, misinterpretation costs money.

As much as you are sure you know the intent and the proper interpretation there will be many others including inspectors that will see it another way.

The only way to avoid that is to make sure the section of code is written clearly and IMO it is not currently clear.

Not necessarily. As long as I know that the inspectors in my area agree with my interpretation then I am good. Sure- write a proposal to clarify it if it is a problem. I am not sure it is worth the effort for me as I see it as the local inspectors here are calling it.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

misinterpretation costs money.

Along the lines of this statement, I'd list all the possibilities that could be allowed by the ambiguities in this code section and then work through to their possible outcomes in the event of a fault.

Some outcomes must be worse than others, and some outcomes more likely. The outcomes that are both should be hashed over and decided upon as a first priority.

 

[iwire]

Along the lines of this statement, I'd list all the possibilities that could be allowed by the ambiguities in this code section and then work through to their possible outcomes in the event of a fault.

Some outcomes must be worse than others, and some outcomes more likely. The outcomes that are both should be hashed over and decided upon as a first priority.

I am glad you are not writing code sections.:huh:

 

[iwire]

Not necessarily. As long as I know that the inspectors in my area agree with my interpretation then I am good. Sure- write a proposal to clarify it if it is a problem. I am not sure it is worth the effort for me as I see it as the local inspectors here are calling it.

OK than, it is clear to Dennis so everyone get on board.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

OK than, it is clear to Dennis so everyone get on board.

Sorry Bob but I really don't see the issue. It is clear to me so should I make a big deal about it when I don't feel the need. I read the words and I feel comfortable with it.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

I am glad you are not writing code sections.:huh:

Thank you, too much:lol:

I think almost any tech writer could do better than some of the code language you have to put up with. Don't the code panels consider how this might be misinterpreted?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Yes so if L02 is a lighting outlet we addressed the answer earlier-- the afci would have to be anywhere before new wiring is added. For me it is that simple and I believe that is the way most inspectors will look at it.

OK. If the "intent" is not to modify the wiring of the existing branch circuit, and, as in my example:

PANEL > LO1 > LO2 > LO3 > LO4 > NLO5
.........................|
........................R1
there are NO receptacle outlets before LO2, how do I use 210.12(B)(2) to protect the new extension " > NLO5" ? Look at it. There is a receptacle outlet on the existing branch circuit . . . but puttting a OBC AFCI there as "the first receptacle outlet" doesn't do a thing to protect the new extension.

But it is correct to the letter of the NEC. And, while you have "intent" from a CMP action on a proposal that is not yet Code, may never be, and won't be until adopted into law after the Fall of 2014 at the earliest.

 

[Smart $]

[laughing] The forum software eats "spaces." [/laughing]

I put a string of periods ahead of the pipe and the R1, and then I changed their color to that of the background off white.

I've done similar before because of spaces.

Another way to do it is to insert a Table (easiest in WYSIWYG editor mode).

PANEL	>LO1>	LO2>	LO3>	LO4>	NLO5
		|
		R1

 

[Smart $]

Late entering the actual discussion, but here's my take on the issue.

210.12(B)(2) is only one of two options. The general statement of (B) says the AFCI must protect the branch circuit. I take that to mean the entire branch circuit, excepting the portion from breaker to first outlet, and not just the extension or modification. That means the first receptacle outlet must also be the first and only first outlet after the ocpd. Otherwise it's AFCI breaker.

 

[hurk27]

To me if I trusted AFCI's and they worked as advertised (but that is another thread)

Depending upon how a circuit is wired here is a few ways I would do it:

MWBC:
Put an AFCI receptacle at the first location the MWBC splits up, why worry if we protect some of the existing receptacles?

Single neutral circuit home run to first existing receptacle:
Install AFCI in this first existing receptacle, so what if we protect some of the existing wiring.

Home run to lighting outlet and all receptacles are spidered from L/O to each receptacle, very common in older houses:

This one can present a problem if the circuit is a MWBC, but it seems that code allows that only the new extension has to be protected so in this case just put the AFCI receptacle or blank face AFCI device (when they come out) at the point of the beginning of this extension, or use a two pole to protect both circuits on the MWBC shared neutral.

one problem we might run into is that it was common on older houses to find that a bedroom might have two circuits to it, as it was very common to find that the receptacles on a common wall between two rooms were jumpered from the other room, like a wall between a bedroom and living room would have a circuit that fed receptacles in both rooms on the same circuit.

I think we need to know this and just adapt our installations as we encounter each type of installation, but like was said we need clearer interpretations so we know how we can apply the rule to what we run into.

So far here (in Indiana) we don't have to deal with this as 210.12 was removed from our state codes, and we are jumping from the 2008 to the 2014 NEC and it hasn't been determined yet as to when the 2014 will be put into effect, but I know AFCI requirements will be coming if they can prove to the state AHJ that they do function as the manufactures claim, unlike what has taken place in the past.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The general statement of (B) says the AFCI must protect the branch circuit.

If the "general statement of (B)" used the word "if" or "when" instead of "where" I'd be more inclined to agree with you, however (B) is written:

2011 NEC 210.12(B) . . .where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:

(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit.

Not only does (B) tell you "the branch circuit shall be protected [AFCI]" but it tells you where the AFCI protection shall be and that is "where branch-circuit wiring is . . . extended". (B)(2) does not modify that "where".

(B)(1) does modify the "where" by stating "located at the origin of the branch circuit."

OBC AFCI at the first receptacle outlet does not tell us "first" compared to what as second. . . but we do know "where". The AFCI protection has to be where the branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced or extended.

 

[kwired]

Not necessarily. As long as I know that the inspectors in my area agree with my interpretation then I am good. Sure- write a proposal to clarify it if it is a problem. I am not sure it is worth the effort for me as I see it as the local inspectors here are calling it.

Most AHJ's will inform you how they are interpreting something that is not all that clear, but that does not mean you will get same interpretation from another AHJ.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Most AHJ's will inform you how they are interpreting something that is not all that clear, but that does not mean you will get same interpretation from another AHJ.

Around here we have a local chapter of the NC assoc. of EC. We have a few inspectors in the group so communication is very good between EC's and EI's. It does not take long to know what is expected as there are only a few jurisdictions that we work in. This thread is the first I heard of anyone questioning what needs to be done to be compliant. I am really not worried about this section at all-- Bob can worry for me.