210.52(B)

[crossedwire]

Article 210.12 (B) All 120-volt, 15- and 20- ampere branch circuits supplying outlets in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by listed arc fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit. Proposal recommends new text: All 120 volt branch circuits supplying outlets in dwelling unit rooms not protected by ground fault circuit interrupters shall be protected by a listed arc fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Proposal: NFPA statistics show that every year damaged or defective cords and plugs cause thousands of fires which result in hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries and damage in the billions of dollars. More extensive use of this new technology should result in the reduction of these numbers.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)

...not protected by ground fault circuit interrupters shall be protected...

Your proposal would let me install a GFCI instead of an AFCI in bedrooms.

You're not broadening the AFCI's scope, you're eliminating it.

 

[crossedwire]

Re: 210.52(B)

I am not trying to eliminate AFCI protection only trying to have the whole house protected by AFCI except those that are protected by GFCI until one unit will do both jobs

 

[iwire]

Re: 210.52(B)

How about we wait on expanding the requirements until the AFCIs actually work as they are supposed to?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 210.52(B)

As far as I know there are no AFCIs currently on the market that provide more than limited protection for cords and cord connected equipment. The fact that the currently available AFCIs do not provide this protection is the very reason for the new rule that will require the use of "combination" type AFCIs effective Jan 1, 2008.
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)

Originally posted by crossedwire:
I am not trying to eliminate AFCI protection only trying to have the whole house protected by AFCI except those that are protected by GFCI until one unit will do both jobs

The bigger issues aside, do you see the error I mentioned?

Bigger issues: Why stoke the flames?

 

[crossedwire]

Re: 210.52(B)

I would have to suggest that everyone read the NFPA press release dated January 13, 2005, which accompanied the release of the 2005 NEC, which states in part "the 50th edition of the NEC requires more comprehensive arc fault circuit interrupter protection ", along with statistics and the purpose of AFCIs. If these things don't work, you'd never know it by reading this. If they don't work, why is 210.12(B)in the NEC?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 210.52(B)

If these things don't work, you'd never know it by reading this. If they don't work, why is 210.12(B)in the NEC?

I have no idea except that someone needed a way to recoup a large investment. The currently available AFCIs do not function as promised and that is why we have to start using a new design in 2008. Maybe this version will actually do what we were told that the original ones did. I'm still not convinced that they will do much in the way of preventing a large number of fires. I say this because the electrical fire statistics used to show the need for AFCIs, tell us that 85% of these fires occurred in dwelling units over 20 years old. I don't really expect that an AFCI installed today will still be fully functional when needed 20 or more years in the future.
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)

That's an excellent point, Don.

Crossed, the problem that a lot of us in the field have with them, is that we were forced to use an untested product, or at least a marginally tested one.

If I were testing these in a lab, the first pieces of common equipment that would pop into my head to test on an AFCI would be a fluorescent light, a computer with accessories, a fan, etc. All of these things at some point in time have tripped AFCI's. Siemens AFCI's would not tolerate a fluorescent at all, when AFCI's were first required. That leaves us holding the bag, explaining to a customer why they couldn't have that nifty energy saving light in little Tiffany's bedroom.

This AFCI thing is going to grow, despite our efforts to stop it or encourage it, IMO. I think a proposal along these lines is really jumping the gun. When they've totally ironed them out, we'll probably see them expand to cover a whole house.

I see you're a student, what do you study?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 210.52(B)

I can remember when GFCI was first introduced to the NEC. These same words were being said about them. I feel that the Arc Fault rule will save lives and with out a doubt already has. I see someday the whole house being protected by Arc Fault, as you purpose.

As to the trouble contractors are having with Arc Fault I can find no basis for the reasons. I have yet to have a problem with them that I couldn?t explain. Every time I have had to trouble shoot one even the Square D brand I have found problems with the wiring methods used and not with the Arc Fault. The one thing I have learned while working with AFCIs is that an electrician will scream at the top n his lungs that the problem is with the breaker yet I take the same breaker and install it in a house that I have wired and have no problems, go figure.

In my home I have a surge protector on my desk top computer, a ceiling fan and the smoke alarm all on an arc fault. There is a florescent fixture in the closet and when I find a Siemens that won?t hold for some one I install it on this circuit and let me say with out problems, not one.

crossedwire send in your proposal and maybe it will go a long way at teaching the electrician how to wire.

 

[crossedwire]

Re: 210.52(B)

Yes, I am a student.The NEC is one of several courses I am currently taking, and this proposal is an assignment. This article was suggested to me by an old friend of many years who is an engineer. My instructor warned me that it would probably not receive much support on this website.Before writng it, I spent several weeks reading and downloading reports, fact sheets and other data from NFPA webpages, one of which was a report entitled "Catastrophic Mutiple Death Fires in the US-2002" It reads like a horror story: four fires killed six people each, one started by an extension cord supplying a window AC unit, another by placing furniture over an extension cord. A short circuit in a wall outlet started a fire in which five people died. Who is going to tell me that arc faults cannot prevent at least some of this?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 210.52(B)

crossedwire,
If you will take the time to review all of the fire statistics and the types of fires that will be prevented by the currently available AFCI device, you will come up with a very small number. If every new dwelling unit built this was in full compliance with 210.12, you would except to prevent less than 20 fires in the following year. The most important part of all of the fire statistics used to show the need for AFCIs is the one that says 85% of dwelling unit electrical fires originate in homes that are at least 20 years old.
Yes they can prevent some fires, but it will be many years before they will provide much relief. Will they still be functional when they are needed? Remember that GFCIs installed in areas with lighting storms have about a 50%failure rate after 7 years. It is very important to note that neither AFCIs nor GFCIs are fail safe. They both continue to supply power to the circuit even if the electronics are not functional.
Don
Don

 

[hurk27]

Re: 210.52(B)

By Don:

It is very important to note that neither AFCIs nor GFCIs are fail safe. They both continue to supply power to the circuit even if the electronics are not functional .
Don
Don

Don the newer GFCI's are now required by UL to be fail safe. If the electronics fail they can't be reset. Even if they are mis-wired you can't reset them. or if the power fails for more than a few hours some will trip and you have to go around and reset them when the power returns. :roll:

But your right about AFCI's they will keep on supplying power, Square D proved that.

 

[crossedwire]

Re: 210.52(B)

This will be my last post on this subject, since this assignment is due tomorrow. My thanks and all due respect to all of you for your opinions, good and not good, all have been helpful. However, I am going forward with this proposal for this reason: AFCIs, while not perfect, will save lives. Who knows how many lives they will save? Maybe hundreds, maybe thousands, maybe just one-but that one could yours. Again, thanks.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)

Originally posted by crossedwire:
However, I am going forward with this proposal for this reason: AFCIs, while not perfect, will save lives.

Crossed, I'm not making this up! The way your proposal is written, if I install a GFI, I don't need to use an AFCI! I'm dead serious, read it again!

Don't run off!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: 210.52(B)

Wayne,

Don the newer GFCI's are now required by UL to be fail safe. If the electronics fail they can't be reset.

Not exactly...they only "lockout" after a failed test. If the electronics have failed they continue to provide power to the circuit until the test button is pushed.
Don