AFCIs and "OUTLETS"

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

speedypetey

Senior Member
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Here is a disagreement I am having.
Is a 120v fract hp fan in a hydronic heater in a bedroom an "outlet", thereby requiring AFCI protection?
In other words, the unit is hard wired.
Is the small splice box located inside the unit considered an outlet to any of you?
 
speedypetey said:
Is the small splice box located inside the unit considered an outlet to any of you?
Click to expand...

Yes it is, without a doubt in my mind.

If they meant only receptacle or lighting outlets they would have said so.

As they do in 210.8
 
I think the intention of the article was to cover things such as fans, and lighting,and receptacles, etc. In light of that I beleive the term outlet is any point at which power is used.

However, there must be limits to everything. How could one AFCI protect baseboard heating in a bedroom? I wouldn't consider your application as needing AFCI protection.

I am interested as to what others think though.
 
Here is the definition of "Outlet" in the NEC

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

Is the j-box where you have hard-wired this piece of equipment in the bedroom? If so then the "outlet" would be the j-box where you made a connection to the wiring system to supply the utilization equipment.

This is similar to a lighting fixture needing to meet the requirements of 210.12(B) IMO.

JMHO, Chris
 
hey_poolboy said:
How could one AFCI protect baseboard heating in a bedroom?
Click to expand...

If it's 240 volt it is not covered by 210.12.

Only 15 and 20 amp 125 volt outlets are presently required to have AFCI protection.:cool:
 
The "outlet" at the fan is not the box that the splice is in, but rather the transition from the branch circuit conductors that are part of the Premises Wiring (System) to the conductors that are part of the utilization equipment.
 
:D

I don't know about you, Bob, but I don't sleep even a little bit inside my bedroom wall.
 
iwire said:
Does anyone ever have to sleep in a bedroom to make it a 'bedroom'?
Click to expand...
That's a zen koan!

Much like, "If a man is alone in the woods and he speaks, is he still wrong?"
 
al hildenbrand said:
Much like, "If a man is alone in the woods and he speaks, is he still wrong?"
Click to expand...

My wife says yes. ;)


Not to worry the NFPA is fixing this demarcation point problem for 2008.:p
 
That may, or may not be. But until then, we have the current NEC. Below is an excerpt from the 2008 ROP that states, in effect, that if the "outlet" is not inside the finished surface of the bedroom, it is not in the bedroom; AND the intent of the Committee was to cover branch circuits supplying outlets IN the bedroom, only.
2-124 Log #401 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject

(210.12(B))
__________________________________________________
Submitter: David Miklos, Miklos Electric Inc.
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
210.12(B) Dwelling Unit Bedrooms. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms and all 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere outlets supplying equipment installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by an arc-fault circuit interrupter listed to provide protection of the entire branch circuit.
Substantiation: 2005 NEC 210.12(B) Does not require AFCI protection for electric fireplaces that are installed in bedrooms because the outlets are not located in the bedrooms. The outlets are located outside of the finished bedroom walls, accessible only after removing the fireplace. The outlets are located in unfinished areas of the dwelling unit. This “Dead Space” is not within the bedrooms. Therefore, the outlet is NOT required to be AFCI protected even though the equipment it supplies is located in the bedroom.​

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel intends that the current requirement applies only to branch circuits supplying outlets in bedrooms. The use of the term “equipment” is too broad in the context of the submitter’s recommendation.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

Comment on Affirmative:
BROWN, L.: Please see NAHB’s Ballot Comment on Proposal 2-142, especially the use of dwelling unit fire data to support the expansion of AFCI protection.
KING, D.: The panel action on proposal 2-142 satisfies the submitter’s intent.​

​
Click to expand...
 
al hildenbrand said:
Below is an excerpt from the 2008 ROP that states, in effect, that if the "outlet" is not inside the finished surface of the bedroom,
Click to expand...

That is a bit of a spin, it is not what it says.

I see do not see finished surface anywhere in it.

Taken literally than no outlets are 'in' the bedroom they all are, even the contacts in a receptacle in the wall.

It matters little to me, I still have not touched an AFCI breaker.:D

BTW I also do not see that ROP as saying they mean that the fireplace outlet is not already covered by 210.12.

Read it in context without the highlight.

Panel Statement: The panel intends that the current requirement applies only to branch circuits supplying outlets in bedrooms. The use of the term ?equipment? is too broad in the context of the submitter?s recommendation.
Click to expand...

It seems they are more concerned with using the term equipment than deciding if the fireplace outlet is in or out of the bedroom.
 
al hildenbrand said:
It's there, Bob. . .just not with the word "surface".
Click to expand...

IMO the substantiation in this case can not be used to prove or disprove a code fact.

The panel statement really did not say anything about that issue of the substantiation only that the term equipment was to broad.

Now had the panel said.....

The outlets are located in unfinished areas of the dwelling unit. This ?Dead Space? is not within the bedrooms. Therefore, the outlet is NOT required to be AFCI protected even though the equipment it supplies is located in the bedroom.
Click to expand...

.....I would be with you.....but they did not.
 
iwire said:
IMO the substantiation in this case can not be used to prove or disprove a code fact.

The panel statement really did not say anything about that issue of the substantiation only that the term equipment was to broad.

Now had the panel said.....



.....I would be with you.....but they did not.
Click to expand...

Let's not overlook the final comment of one of the panel members: "The panel action on proposal 2-142 satisfies the submitter?s intent."

In other words, it's moot - they've already decided to make you protect all 120v circuits with AFCIs.
 
Mike03a3 said:
Let's not overlook the final comment of one of the panel members: "The panel action on proposal 2-142 satisfies the submitter?s intent."

In other words, it's moot - they've already decided to make you protect all 120v circuits with AFCIs.
Click to expand...
. . .in the 2008 NEC. In other words, in the 2005, the fireplace outlet inside the area "outside of the finished bedroom walls" is NOT covered by 210.12(B) now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top