AFCI

[infinity]

Let me guess.... you did a bathroom remodel and added a light over the shower on the existing lighting circuit and the inspector is saying you need AFCI protection because the circuit was modified? When I asked the question about adding under cabinet lights in a kitchen the consensus on this site was "not needed". Inspector insisted anyway and I had to change the breaker. His reasoning was the circuit feeding the lights went through rooms which were listed as requiring AFCI. Just had the same scenario on a back porch remodel. Good luck!

The light may not need AFCI, but in that scenario it would get it anyways since the bedroom circuit would already be AFCI, no?

I'm guessing that in Dave's scenario the existing circuit was not AFCI protected so the inspector wanted it added because the existing circuit was modified by adding the light.

 

[jumper]

I'm guessing that in Dave's scenario the existing circuit was not AFCI protected so the inspector wanted it added because the existing circuit was modified by adding the light.

Ah, okay. Then I agree with you, AFCI would be required.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Sure if the bedroom had afci then it is not an issue but the extension of more than 6' would only apply to circuits that require afci. Since the lighting outlet that was added was in the bathroom then I don't see a need for afci.

Would you require afci for this light if I ran it back to the panel? Isn't the protection the same. Just because it is tied to a load side of a circuit that requires afci doesn't, imo, mean the light in the Shower needs that protection.

If you add a afci receptacle then you are only protecting that receptacle and the light in the shower which does not need afci protection. .... If the wire that was connected at the device was the issue then afci should be required for the same wire that goes back to the panel for a bath circuit--It is not required

Again I can see the argument either way but IMO, afci is not req.

 

[jumper]

Sure if the bedroom had afci then it is not an issue but the extension of more than 6' would only apply to circuits that require afci. Since the lighting outlet that was added was in the bathroom then I don't see a need for afci.

Would you require afci for this light if I ran it back to the panel? Isn't the protection the same. Just because it is tied to a load side of a circuit that requires afci doesn't, imo, mean the light in the Shower needs that protection.

If you add a afci receptacle then you are only protecting that receptacle and the light in the shower which does not need afci protection. .... If the wire that was connected at the device was the issue then afci should be required for the same wire that goes back to the panel for a bath circuit--It is not required

Again I can see the argument either way but IMO, afci is not req.

Infinity is not saying the light itself requires AFCI, it is that if you add an outlet to a circuit that now requires AFCI, you have to AFCI that circuit. It does not matter that the outlet is in in area that does need it. The outlet ends up AFCI because it is on the end of. a circuit that now requires it.

 

[ramsy]

..consensus on this site was "not needed". Inspector insisted anyway..

No Forum consensus, Inspector, or Building Permit matters if you touched it, even if they testify on your behalf as expert witnesses.

"Under joint and several liability or all sums, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment."(1)

(1) The Wikipedia reference cites 2 recent cases from 2017 that upheld this legal doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

William J. Ferguson, General Council, Babcock Power, describes Joint & Several liability in court, with counterfeit equipment cases.
Taken from ECM Video - Fast FWD to 44min mark

1% responsibility = 100% liability. You Touch it, your responsible for all the installers before you.

Without prior notice of policy cancellation from the insurance carrier, which legally voids anticipated property claims of aging pensioners, the property owners often settle claims for peanuts before testing joint and several liability in court. If contractors are involved, their GL policy / attached assets are used to satisfy losses not covered by insurance settlements. The property owner is also responsible without required Building Permits, when acting as General Contractor under Owner-Builder Permits, or when using unlicensed contractor(s) that required licensing.

 

[ramsy]

If unnecessary AFCI reduces probability of liability claims, then unneeded AFCI reduces your chance of going to court.

 

[infinity]

Infinity is not saying the light itself requires AFCI, it is that if you add an outlet to a circuit that now requires AFCI, you have to AFCI that circuit. It does not matter that the outlet is in in area that does need it. The outlet ends up AFCI because it is on the end of. a circuit that now requires it.

Yes that was my perspective. You take a circuit that under the 2011 NEC requires AFCI protection but does not have any, then you modify that circuit by adding the light now it requires it.

I can see Dennis' point, you could run a new circuit through the bedroom back to the panel and that would not require AFCI protection but that doesn't really apply because its the original non-AFCI circuit that is being modified.

 

[jumper]

Yes that was my perspective. You take a circuit that under the 2011 NEC requires AFCI protection but does not have any, then you modify that circuit by adding the light now it requires it.

I can see Dennis' point, you could run a new circuit through the bedroom back to the panel and that would not require AFCI protection but that doesn't really apply because its the original non-AFCI circuit that is being modified.

So in short, you are both troublemakers.

In your scenario, AFCI is needed.

In Dennis’ scenario, not needed.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Infinity is not saying the light itself requires AFCI, it is that if you add an outlet to a circuit that now requires AFCI, you have to AFCI that circuit. It does not matter that the outlet is in in area that does need it. The outlet ends up AFCI because it is on the end of. a circuit that now requires it.

The bedroom circuit does not require afci if you do not add any outlets to that area... What you have added is in an area that doesn't need afci protection.

I will ask this question at our march meeting with the cmp members

 

[jumper]

The bedroom circuit does not require afci if you do not add any outlets to that area... What you have added is in an area that doesn't need afci protection.

I will ask this question at our march meeting with the cmp members

I do not see where it says the extension, modification etc has to be only in the area the circuit is located, but rather that that is where the circuit is located to start with.


(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or ex- tended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:

The extension begins in the bedroom, but does not have to end there IMO.

 

[infinity]

I do not see where it says the extension, modification etc has to be only in the area the circuit is located, but rather that that is where the circuit is located to start with.


(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or ex- tended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:

The extension begins in the bedroom, but does not have to end there IMO.

I agree and this is the reason that the 6' exception was added to the 2014 NEC. If you're doing a service upgrade and need to modify the length of the existing circuits because they are short the 6' exception allows you to do so. If we apply Dennis' theory the 6' exception would not be needed since the panel is probably in an area that doesn't require AFCI protection. Sorry Dennis.

 

[peter d]

Yes. Even VA with its slack AFCI requirements still requires all bedroom outlets AFCI protected.

That's still far better than almost the whole house. :thumbsup:

 

[kwired]

Sure if the bedroom had afci then it is not an issue but the extension of more than 6' would only apply to circuits that require afci. Since the lighting outlet that was added was in the bathroom then I don't see a need for afci.

Would you require afci for this light if I ran it back to the panel? Isn't the protection the same. Just because it is tied to a load side of a circuit that requires afci doesn't, imo, mean the light in the Shower needs that protection.

If you add a afci receptacle then you are only protecting that receptacle and the light in the shower which does not need afci protection. .... If the wire that was connected at the device was the issue then afci should be required for the same wire that goes back to the panel for a bath circuit--It is not required

Again I can see the argument either way but IMO, afci is not req.

The bedroom circuit does not require afci if you do not add any outlets to that area... What you have added is in an area that doesn't need afci protection.

I will ask this question at our march meeting with the cmp members

Similar situation - what if you extended from an existing non AFCI protected bedroom outlet to supply an outdoor receptacle? Do you need to add AFCI protection after this change?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Similar situation - what if you extended from an existing non AFCI protected bedroom outlet to supply an outdoor receptacle? Do you need to add AFCI protection after this change?

I don't see that as an different then what I was saying earlier. The only issue may be that the connection comes from a receptacle rather than a panel. I agree that the 210.12 is not clear but think about it. That section was written to avoid installing afci on circuits that had to be extending when there is a panel or service change. The intent is only for circuits that would require afci. Look at the wording and you guys are correct-- I just don't think that was the intent. I did say IMO.... However, if a panel was in a hallway or some area where afci was required would you require afci on circuits that had to be extended more than 6' that fed bathrooms, a furnace, etc? By the wording you would have to, or does it really mean to say if the circuit is extended in those areas not extended outside those areas

210.12(D) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling
Units and Dormitory Units. In any of the areas specified in
210.12(A) or (B), where branch-circuit wiring is modified,
replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by
one of the following

 

[kwired]

I don't see that as an different then what I was saying earlier. The only issue may be that the connection comes from a receptacle rather than a panel. I agree that the 210.12 is not clear but think about it. That section was written to avoid installing afci on circuits that had to be extending when there is a panel or service change. The intent is only for circuits that would require afci. Look at the wording and you guys are correct-- I just don't think that was the intent. I did say IMO.... However, if a panel was in a hallway or some area where afci was required would you require afci on circuits that had to be extended more than 6' that fed bathrooms, a furnace, etc? By the wording you would have to, or does it really mean to say if the circuit is extended in those areas not extended outside those areas

After 2014 added "or devices" to 210.12, one can possibly say that all 15 and 20 amp 120 volt breakers need to be AFCI if the panel is in a room mentioned in 210.12, doubt that was intent either.

 

[infinity]

Not sure if the CMP comments shed any light on the subject. Maybe the submitter will comment.

This is for the change to the 2014 NEC:

2-115 Log #536 NEC-P02 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(210.12(B))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dennis Alwon, Alwon Electric Inc.
Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows:
Exception: Where extension of the branch circuit does not include any added
outlets or devices.
Substantiation: Often times when changing a service in an older home the
branch circuit conductors do not reach the new location of the panel. The wire
is sometimes just spliced inside the panel to reach the termination points while
other times the circuit may need to be extended a short distance to reach the
new location. Since many areas are inspecting this differently throughout the
country this exception would clarify this section and bring uniformity
throughout.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the proposed wording to read as follows:
“Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where the extension of the
existing conductors is not more than 1.8 m (6 ft.) and does not include any
additional outlets or devices.”
Panel Statement: The revised wording provides clarity and satisfies the intent
of the submitter.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1
Explanation of Negative:
KING, D.: This Proposal should be rejected. It is the intent of Section
210.12(B) to provide AFCI protection where circuits that are covered by
210.12(A) are “modified.” The submitter has not provided any substantiation to
allow for an exception for AFCI Protection in the branch circuit modification
described in his substantiation. Accepting the proposed exception would greatly
dimish the level of safety currently provided by the requirements of 210.12(B).
Explanation of Abstention:
ORLOWSKI, S.: See my Explanation of Vote on Proposal 2-92.
Comment on Affirmative:
HILBERT, M.: Continue to accept in principle. The issues noted in the
substantiation for this proposal and Proposal 2-11 are often topics of discussion
at IAEI meetings as well as other educational meetings and do need
clarification.
The proposed language as revised by the panel’s accept in principle action
will go a long way in promoting uniform interpretations. It will clarify that
extending branch circuit conductors within an enclosure for the purposes of
replacing a device or utilization equipment or for extending a branch circuit to
a panelboard being replaced or upgraded does not require an AFCI protective
device to be installed.
Six feet was chosen for branch circuit extensions as it should provide a
sufficient length for most applications where an existing panel is being
relocated out of a clothes closet or to comply with readily accessible
requirements, etc.