AFCI Michigan

[iwire]

Combination meaning parallel & series arc protection Mr Iwire.

Iirc, this debuted in the '08 code.....

Some technical inquiries would be apropos , don't you think?

First and foremost, just what changes occurred in the manufacture of the prior afci, to elevate it to combination status ?

2ndly, what was the status of the prior code cycles installs ? We're talking some big $$$ from sea to freakin' shinin' sea here

Last but not least Assuming all this documented history public information, why is the public totally unaware they've bought into a a product fraudulent of it's performance claims? Where is the manufacturers recall....?

~RJ~

RJ, you have made your opinion of me crystal clear, that being the case ....

 

[romex jockey]

RJ, you have made your opinion of me crystal clear, that being the case ....

You are a victim of your own volition Mr Iwire

Which has little to do with my query other than it's pearls upon swine effect....

~RJ~

 

[mivey]

So you have proof then?

I remember a summary by (NEMA?) that said the manufacturers mislead. I would have to look back but it was posted on this site more than once.

Besides, it is public knowledge the manufacturers claimed they had what they did not. They were not ready but pushed for the requirement anyway and sold the CMP. The public thus paid for their experiments.

 

[romex jockey]

Got Link......?


~RJ~

 

[peter d]

I will put it like this. Its irritating when someone says X to be untrue when you know first hand it is not. The down side is others tag along and it sets off a chain. In the end I look like the clown. And lets be serious, I know the real reason why Iwire left ET.

I have an idea. Let's keep the discussion focused on AFCI's and you can leave your personal problems out of it.

 

[user 100]

it doesn't seem to make sense for any EC to go off anything other then the most recent code. If this great and very possible liability is out there....

By the line of thinking here an ec could be sued successfully if someone gets hit with a ground fault somehow in their living room or bedroom because the ec ​could have installed gfci breakers or outlets for those areas. They are not required for those areas mind you but could have been put there.:happyno:

 

[kenman215]

Yeah, that's exactly what we're trying to get to the bottom of here. BPH is asserting that such things can and do happen without a shred of evidence, as counterintuitive as that may be. We're just asking him for the case law that backs up what he's saying.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[ADub]

So where'd my post go? One sentence in it may have been off topic, but the rest describing "mbrookes" obsessive and vehement nature when it comes to his afci crusade is relevant to this thread. It looks like any character attack on bphgravity is ok but don't you dare say anything to mean to mbrooke, I'm seeing a trend here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mbrooke]

So where'd my post go? One sentence in it may have been off topic, but the rest describing "mbrookes" obsessive and vehement nature when it comes to his afci crusade is relevant to this thread. It looks like any character attack on bphgravity is ok but don't you dare say anything to mean to mbrooke, I'm seeing a trend here


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You said I was run off other forums which is completely untrue and uncalled for.


Second, we are not (at least I am not, and it is not my intention to) personally attack BPH. BPH himself is a fine man, our disagreements stem regarding his views on AFCI. I feel as though NEMA has mislead BPH, and NEMA fails to admit they have insufficient evidence to substantiate their claims.

 

[mbrooke]

I remember a summary by (NEMA?) that said the manufacturers mislead. I would have to look back but it was posted on this site more than once.

Besides, it is public knowledge the manufacturers claimed they had what they did not. They were not ready but pushed for the requirement anyway and sold the CMP. The public thus paid for their experiments.

If you find it, thank you in advance. But IMO, I believe this ROP is even more eye opening (thank you Mr. Pharon ):

__________________________________________________ __
2-65 Log #1274 NEC-P02 Final Action: Hold
(210.12)
__________________________________________________ __
Submitter: James W. Carpenter, International Association of Electrical
Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 2-153
Recommendation: We support the panel’s action for rejection of this proposal.

Substantiation: AFCI technology was first introduced in the early 1990s and has been included in the code development process in the 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008 editions. AFCI requirements have been a progressive process, as well as substantiated over the past four NEC Code cycles.

Accordingly, this Code Panel has gradually expanded the AFCI protection
requirements over numerous code cycles with the intent to increase electrical safety in the home, but do so on a gradual basis. However, the expansion of AFCI requirements didn’t come without extensive deliberation by the panel, based on sound technical substantiation and data.

The following past ROPs & ROCs below clearly establish the Panel’s long
history and technical discussions, which has resulted in an equitable code that ensures a minimum level of safety.

NFPA 70 1999 Proposals 2-128, 2-129, 2-130
NFPA 70 1999 Comments 2-56, 2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-85
NFPA 70 2002 Proposals 2-102, 2-103, 2-106, 2-110, 2-112, 2-113, 2 115, 2-116
NFPA 70 2002 Comments 2-71, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82
NFPA 70 2005 Proposals 2-123, 2-133, 2-134, 2-142, 2-146, 2-149, 2 150, 2-134a, 2-161, 2-167
NFPA 70 2005 Comments 2-87a, 2-93, 2-105, 2-108, 2-110
NFPA 70 2008 Proposals 2-142, 2-126
NFPA 70 2008 Comments 2-95, 2-129, 2-137

As stated by CMP 2 Members F. Coluccio, R. LaRocca and J. Pauley, acceptance of this proposal would remove AFCI protection for parallel arcing faults from the first portion of the branch circuit, which is in direct conflict to past panel actions to increase safety. Rejecting this proposal will ensure the level of safety for these branch circuits are not reduced.

The submitter’s substantiation lacks merit as the Standard for AFCIs, UL 1699, doesn’t consider as a component, the proximity to an arcing source.

Regarding costs associated with metal raceways or cables, the submitter has not provided any cost analysis or data to demonstrate what is too cost prohibitive. In addition, CMP 2’s panel statement from the 2002 ROP (2-106) further supports this concept:

“AFCIs Listed to UL 1699 are available, and the standard addresses efficacy, unwanted (nuisance) operation and operation inhibition. Cost should not be an issue for the panel to resolve. The panel reviewed a large amount of data, heard presentations on various positions on AFCIs, and received public comment on the topic. Upon that review, the panel arrived at the requirements in the 1999 NEC and continues to support that established position.”

With respect to the state adoption, states throughout the U.S. continue to recognize and adopt the important safety provisions included in the 2008 NEC, despite the opposition from some industry groups. The panel needs to rise above the political battlefield and continue to move forward with what is in the best interest of safety for citizens.

In the panel statement ROP 2-166, the Code-Making Panel stresses that “AFCI protection is for protection from fire ignition for branch circuits.” Consequently, with this statement and others in the past... the entire branch circuit shall be protected.”

In the panel statement from ROP 2-155: “AFCI devices are widely available in the market and the panel notes that the cost has already come down since the introduction of AFCIs into the 1999 NEC.” Therefore, cost should not be considered.

With regards to the substantiation that “wiring insulation has dramatically improved in the past 50 years.” This is a consideration that should be addressed from the original proposal in 1999 and reviewed as to the comparison of Consumer Product Safety Commission fundamental data as to eliminate the AFCI requirement completely based on the introduction of 90 degree C insulation.

As indicated with this substantiation, the crisis with home structure fire civilian death, it appears that “Cord and Plugs” cord-and-attachment-plug connection accounts for the significant share in 2002-2005 concerning this issue. If it is the cords of appliances and equipment that are of apprehension, then AFCI and/or leakage-current detector-interrupter protection may need to be applied to the product standard as with NEC section 440.64 and addressed by Code-Making Panels 17 and 18.

Should we disregard the past panel action concerning AFCI outlets many other consequences will occur. This will challenge the wisdom that the electrical industry’s leaders have credible knowledge. We have discussed, assessed, informed, and legislated the concept of the entire branch circuit being protected as referenced from zone 1 Consumer Product Safety Commission study, where 36% of residential electrical fires occur. This change will provide the information for state and local jurisdictions to amend this entire section from the National Electrical Code.

 

[peter d]

Yeah, that's exactly what we're trying to get to the bottom of here. BPH is asserting that such things can and do happen without a shred of evidence, as counterintuitive as that may be. We're just asking him for the case law that backs up what he's saying.

Just a quick memory refresher because it was at the beginning of the thread, and I haven't been back there in a while.

And it doesn't have to be class-action. Let's say a contractor wires a single-family dwelling and an apartment dwelling sometime later this year. He installs AFCIs for the apartment because they are required by code but does not install them in the single-family dwelling because the code doesn't require them. Now lets say an electrical fire occurs within the dwelling two-years from now. Again, a smart law firm will question why AFCI protection wasn't installed? It won't matter that the state doesn't require them, what matters is that the contractor chose not to install them when he knew and installed this type of protection as required for other dwelling types. People that follow the letter of the law are sued all the time and found negligent and responsible for the losses imposed onto a victim.

Still waiting for evidence of this, especially as it pertains to the industry and specifically the issue at hand, intentionally exceeding the NEC or local code amendments.

 

[romex jockey]

Perhaps you could search the CSPC website Pete....

for example>>>

West Elm Recalls Bar Stools Due to Fall Hazard

the horror! :lol:

~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

Perhaps you could search the CSPC website Pete....

for example>>>

West Elm Recalls Bar Stools Due to Fall Hazard

the horror! :lol:

~RJ~

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


I think its safe to say the CPSC commission has no idea. But being they identified a problem that would help sell a new gimmick, manufacturers gave it full attention. In the end its was the CPSC idea, not a manufacturer funded farce. Look at the millions of great ideas by more powerful organizations that are swept under the rug or ignored. Only reason the CPSC commission went further with arcing cords was because manufactures entertained the idea like no other.

 

[romex jockey]

I'll wager more CPSC history involved subvertly than overtly via their constant presence in any afci related bureaucracy Mr MBrooke .....~RJ~

 

[mbrooke]

I'll wager more CPSC history involved subvertly than overtly via their constant presence in any afci related bureaucracy Mr MBrooke .....~RJ~

Id say the same. But if anything, it comes across as one more "official" source raving for AFCIs.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

By the line of thinking here an ec could be sued successfully if someone gets hit with a ground fault somehow in their living room or bedroom because the ec ​could have installed gfci breakers or outlets for those areas. They are not required for those areas mind you but could have been put there.:happyno:

That is correct...you can be sued for anything that you do or that you don't do....however, you would likely win the case you outlined after spending thousands of dollars on your defense.