Afci

[al hildenbrand]

The code does not state that power is required in a garage. But the code does state that all bedroom circuits will have AFCI protection.

210.12(B) Dwelling Unit Bedrooms All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.

I think the real focus is on the tense of "installed".

It does not read "that have been and are installed".

 

[M. D.]

Larry,I agree , to remove the wiring in the garage would be o.k.

Like I said, the permit was pulled "today" for the A.F.C.I, in the current code cycle , that installation is not inspected to the standards of yesterday , so that part of the circuit must remain compliant and cannot be changed regardless of the relative compliance of the rest of the wiring.

Unless the wiring system is not compatible with the breaker in which case a mistake was made.

 

[M. D.]

Al, outlets were not added , a circuit breaker was, presumably to comply with 210.12, Once in compliance you can't decide that you don't want to be any more. Lots of folks expierance A.F.C.I. neusince tripping .

 

[charlie b]

I think the real focus is on the tense of "installed".

Interesting observation, Al. The tense of the word "installed" does impact the meaning of the requirement. However, I don't think there is room for interpretation here. It is not ambiguous.

"Installed" is the past participle of the verb "install." It does not, and cannot by itself, convey a future tense. According to the dictionary I just read, a participle can only convey tense by virtue of the context surrounding it in the sentence. I can say "the outlet was installed last week," and I can say "an outlet will be installed tomorrow." It is the context surrounding the participle "installed," and not the word itself, that conveys tense.

So which tense (past or present or future) is conveyed by the context of 210.12(B)? I submit that it can not be future. The NEC does not govern future installations. You cannot cite a violation for an installation that has not been performed. A "Plans Examiner" may deny permission to build something, if the plans show a design that would violate the NEC. But nobody can issue a violation against the plans themselves. An Inspector can issue a "stop work order" against a project that is only partially installed, if it is clear that the work cannot be completed without creating a code violation, or if the part that is already installed violates the code in some way. But a citation of a violation can only be issued against something that has been built or against the portion of a project that has been built. So the tense of "installed" must necessarily be past or present.

But whether the tense is past or present, the meaning of the code article is the same. If the bedroom outlet is there, whether it was installed ten years ago of whether its installation is being completed at this very moment, the rule requires AFCI.

 

[eprice]

Since this discussion concerns a single family residence, the applicable building code in much of the country would be the IRC. IRC R102.7.1 deals with additions, alterations, or repairs to existing structures:

[EB] R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. Addi-
tions, alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to
that required for a new structure without requiring the exist-
ing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this
code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations or re-
pairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe
or adversely affect the performance of the building.

The UBC has a similar section (I assume the CBC is not too different)

3403.2 ... Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any of the provisions of this code and such additions or alterations shall not cause the existing building or sturcture to become unsafe...

Based upon these sections, my opinion is, that the code in affect when the house was built did not require the AFCI. There was no requirement to install them. But it could be argued that, once they are installed, a further change to remove them would violate either of the above code sections in that it would make the building unsafe. This is based upon the assumption that the code now considers AFCIs on bedroom circuits to be necessary for safety.

 

[George Stolz]

This is based upon the assumption that the code now considers AFCIs on bedroom circuits to be necessary for safety.

That is a compelling argument.

(As much as I may personally disagree) I think the NFPA might tend to agree with the principle that replacing a regular circuit breaker with an AFCI is necessary for safety.

 

[sandsnow]

Looks like I'm all alone on this one.

I like being a maverick.

We can pick this up again, if you want. I'll be gone until Monday.

 

[brother]

very interesting topic. Its a good thing inspectors do have jurisdiction over this issue for the LOCAL area.

Me personally I do not like Afci's . I believe too much faith is put into something and made a requirement when it hasnt had enuff field testing. its just not good.

As for the tripping, I would trouble shoot to see what was going on, it would probably take a while in these old homes. Especially with these knob and tube wiring.

I would LIKE to NOT have to replace a breaker with an afci, that had an afci in an OLD HOME after i had FOUND that the circuit it self was fine and was NOT causing the breaker to trip. The breaker was tripping because it was just a nusiance and maybe not capable with that EXPENSIVE celing fan that was PROPERLY wired WITHOUT any defects.

But im afraid i would have to agree with others, because of the WORDING and (interpertation) of the code. I dont like it, but I will follow it. I would put an Afci back where an Afci was already installed, they would just have to DEAL with the nusicance trippin.