AFCI Situation

[renosteinke]

Right, Sierra ... let's back up a moment.

We have, in this thread, numerous responses where the posters have supplied references to their AHJ's saying you need not install AFCI's with a service change. I'm not sure who are the 'most jurisdictions' you are referring to.

Otherwise, you underscore my point that one can stretch 'modify' to an absurd extent.

IMO, there is no requirement that AFCI's be used when simply replacing a service. You're working on the service, not the circuits.

It appears that you missed my point about all the other things you would also be required to do if changing the service was considered as 'modifying' the circuits. Such an extension would simply eliminate the possibility of ever doing a simple service change- only complete-gut rewires would be allowed.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

Thanks Rick,

When adding a receptacle from an existing non afci protected circuit, I'm assuming afci for that circuit and receptacle would not be required.......correct???

Thanks again.
Rich

That's right no afci required.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Thanks Rick,

When adding a receptacle from an existing non afci protected circuit, I'm assuming afci for that circuit and receptacle would not be required.......correct???

Thanks again.
Rich

How is this not an extension!

That's right no afci required.

I think that depends as to what code cycle your jurisdiction is using. If it is 3011 then I feel you are misinterpeting the section. The code panel would not have ment to add extensions , modifications or replaced. The code is not reffering to new construction as most here seem to be interpeting this as. Why any of you would think that a panel change is not a modification I don't get the analagy. If you leave the old panel there and don't add Jboxes or extensions then I would probably agree. Otherwise please define Modifications,
Extensions

 

[Speshulk]

If you are on the 2011 code it is pretty clear what the intentions of the NEC are. I have yet to see this report that Dennis Alwon claims that the NEC authors have stated to clarify what is already written.

Check the third to last post on page 2 of this thread. The blue writing in Dennis's post is a link that takes you to the report. Go to page 100. It's there.

 

[nysprkdude]

Kwired and others.

Being an inspector in a medium to small municipality, the housing stock in the urban portion is nicely put, lesser maintained. An arc-fault that won't hold on an existing circuit is more than likely the result of an actual fault, however; AFCI's will "kick" for shared neutral, reverse polarity & loose connections to name a few reasons. Some types of Compact Florescents will also get a reaction from the AFCI.

I contend that many of the above ARE indeed problems that should be addressed.

I also contend that the extensive utililzation of BX wiring in many of these homes is also a contributing factor to AFCI woes. As you may be aware, when BX conductors fault, they fault to the jacket which is the root cause of many house fires in this area. In fact, significantly more fires than knob and tube.

A customary circuit breaker sees the fault to jacket of BX merely as an additional load and therefore does not result in deactivation of the circuit.

The result is that the poor conductor that the steel jacket is gets very warm, actually hot.

I have personally seen these jackets glow cherry red and never kick a circuit breaker.

In an area where blown-in cellulose insulation was popular in the 70's to 80's, which is fire resistant, that cherry red jacket glows, smoldering in the insulation until it reaches a wooden framing member.

Then that glow ignites the wood and we have a fire.

An AFCI circuit breaker recognizes this as a problem and does it's intended duty by deactivating the circuit.

I'm not here to extol the virtues of these devices because I am aware of the nuisance trips these devices are responsibile for and the many unwarranted service calls that are the result of such, however; in older homes with BX wiring, they can be the early warning device that prevents the inevitable fire of which this city averages 1.36 per day.

Additionally, per NYS interpretation of the Code, if you ADD "any" branch circuit wiring to an existing circuit that is located in an area denoted to be covered by 210.12, you bought the code requirement.

So......here where the State mandates that each occupiable room of a dwelling unit requires at least two receptacle outlets (except bathrooms), building inspectors often cite properties for lack of receptacle outlets and electricians attempt to EXTEND such PRE-EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING (grandfathered) circuits via Wiremold, etc.

Unfortunately, we are instructed to interpret extension of an existing circuit to be a NEWLY installed circuit and therefore are compelled to enforce the AFCI requirement.

As an aside, I thought I read about a device in developement that would replace the dreaded by electrician device known as an AFCI. No more info on that as of this writing.

And finally.....electrical contractors naturally oppose any device that is mandated.

They universally detested GFCI's when they were introduced in the 70's and now the hatred is projected toward AFCI.

The sad but true fact is that AFCI's WILL save lives.

They are here, so let's get used to them.

 

[RICK NAPIER]

How is this not an extension!




I think that depends as to what code cycle your jurisdiction is using. If it is 3011 then I feel you are misinterpeting the section. The code panel would not have ment to add extensions , modifications or replaced. The code is not reffering to new construction as most here seem to be interpeting this as. Why any of you would think that a panel change is not a modification I don't get the analagy. If you leave the old panel there and don't add Jboxes or extensions then I would probably agree. Otherwise please define Modifications,
Extensions

We are refrencing how the NEC is applied in NJ as modifed by the NJ Uniform Construction Code a rather large and ponderous book. This book defines repairs, alterations, renovations and reconstruction and changing a panel is considered a repair. Again this is particular to NJ only.

 

[renosteinke]

Nysparkydude ...

You make enough assertions that your post is worthy of starting a new thread. A few things I'd like to see addressed in that new thread:

1) I'd love to see some pics of this glowing MC / AC / flex that progressed through the cellulose insulation until it reached and ignited the wood framing;

2) NEMA asserts that there has never been an instance of a listed product, in good repair and operating properly, tripping an AFCI. This conflicts with your statement about CFL's. Data, please;

3) The entire AFCI debate is quite involved, and beyond the scope of this thread. Let's just say there are still issues to address; and,

4) The idea that an AFCI will detect anything has been challenged by no les a person than the guy who pioneered the dang thing. It appears that his assertion that the laws of physics preclude the existance of a maintained arc at household voltages, between copper electrodes, deserves some serious consideration.

"Get used to it?" I expect that this debate is far from over.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Check the third to last post on page 2 of this thread. The blue writing in Dennis's post is a link that takes you to the report. Go to page 100. It's there.

When referencing another post it is best to use the post number. The number of posts per page is user selectable. The post in question (#18) is the 18th post on the first page for me.

 

[kwired]

Kwired and others.

Being an inspector in a medium to small municipality, the housing stock in the urban portion is nicely put, lesser maintained. An arc-fault that won't hold on an existing circuit is more than likely the result of an actual fault, however; AFCI's will "kick" for shared neutral, reverse polarity & loose connections to name a few reasons. Some types of Compact Florescents will also get a reaction from the AFCI.

I contend that many of the above ARE indeed problems that should be addressed.

I also contend that the extensive utililzation of BX wiring in many of these homes is also a contributing factor to AFCI woes. As you may be aware, when BX conductors fault, they fault to the jacket which is the root cause of many house fires in this area. In fact, significantly more fires than knob and tube.

A customary circuit breaker sees the fault to jacket of BX merely as an additional load and therefore does not result in deactivation of the circuit.

The result is that the poor conductor that the steel jacket is gets very warm, actually hot.

I have personally seen these jackets glow cherry red and never kick a circuit breaker.

In an area where blown-in cellulose insulation was popular in the 70's to 80's, which is fire resistant, that cherry red jacket glows, smoldering in the insulation until it reaches a wooden framing member.

Then that glow ignites the wood and we have a fire.

An AFCI circuit breaker recognizes this as a problem and does it's intended duty by deactivating the circuit.

I'm not here to extol the virtues of these devices because I am aware of the nuisance trips these devices are responsibile for and the many unwarranted service calls that are the result of such, however; in older homes with BX wiring, they can be the early warning device that prevents the inevitable fire of which this city averages 1.36 per day.

Additionally, per NYS interpretation of the Code, if you ADD "any" branch circuit wiring to an existing circuit that is located in an area denoted to be covered by 210.12, you bought the code requirement.

So......here where the State mandates that each occupiable room of a dwelling unit requires at least two receptacle outlets (except bathrooms), building inspectors often cite properties for lack of receptacle outlets and electricians attempt to EXTEND such PRE-EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING (grandfathered) circuits via Wiremold, etc.

Unfortunately, we are instructed to interpret extension of an existing circuit to be a NEWLY installed circuit and therefore are compelled to enforce the AFCI requirement.

As an aside, I thought I read about a device in developement that would replace the dreaded by electrician device known as an AFCI. No more info on that as of this writing.

And finally.....electrical contractors naturally oppose any device that is mandated.

They universally detested GFCI's when they were introduced in the 70's and now the hatred is projected toward AFCI.

The sad but true fact is that AFCI's WILL save lives.

They are here, so let's get used to them.

I do not object to the intent of what AFCI's are supposed to do.

I also do not feel they are perfected and will have issues.

I also predict they will improve. Will they ever be as reliable as we want them to? Who knows. You have to remember that many see any safety device that shuts down an operation as a nuisance as opposed to a safety issue.

Old AC cable carrying fault current would trip GFCI's and at a lower current level than an AFCI. Does it trip AFCI because of arcing fault or because current is traveling outside intended current path?

 

[Sierrasparky]

We are referencing how the NEC is applied in NJ as modified by the NJ Uniform Construction Code a rather large and ponderous book. This book defines repairs, alterations, renovations and reconstruction and changing a panel is considered a repair. Again this is particular to NJ only.

This whole AFCI thing becomes a very interesting subject matter in the many different ways the code section is interpreted. We now have the submission by Dennis Alwon post 15 where NEC panel votes not to include panel change-outs. Dennis states in his thread that the NEC never intended this for a panel change out. I am not so sure on that. I think the NEC is seeing issues with the AFCI and doing some back-peddling.

To no have AFCI installed when you replace a panel with a new one is reduculous if in fact the AFCI does what they are supposed to do. Manufactures make two pole versions to use on MWBC's for this very purpose. I am not a proponent of AFCI but not to require them upon panel change or modification, extension is like allowing a person to change out his windows using single pane units or mail ordering some lead based paint from some third world country because you like the way it works. or using some new asbestos insulation because you found some in an old barn. We just don't do that kind of stuff. ( most of us)

If it were not for the vagueness of the NEC's writing we would not have these discussions and related issuesand problems. The NEC knows what they are creating problems and they don't care about clarifying.

My take is that the NEC implemented AFCI in the bedrooms first as sort of a trial and because that was the most serious place to protect. Then when the technology evolved the NEC expanded the requirement. Then in the last code cycle the intention was to make as much AFCI aas possible. So we have if its not AFCI it's GFCI. If I were a betting man I would think it's the GF protection circuit that is doing much of the work!


Enough for now.......

 

[readydave8]

Kwired and others.



And finally.....electrical contractors naturally oppose any device that is mandated.

They universally detested GFCI's when they were introduced in the 70's and now the hatred is projected toward AFCI.

The sad but true fact is that AFCI's WILL save lives.

They are here, so let's get used to them.

I detested GFCI's in the 70's, now I don't mind them. Partly because they work better than they used to.

 

[kwired]

I detested GFCI's in the 70's, now I don't mind them. Partly because they work better than they used to.

Not saying GFCI's have not had any improvements made over the years but are they really that much better or have we found and fixed most of the neutral to ground faults that we didn't know existed before?

I still run into 70's GFCI's that still appear to work just fine.

 

[kwired]

To no have AFCI installed when you replace a panel with a new one is reduculous if in fact the AFCI does what they are supposed to do. Manufactures make two pole versions to use on MWBC's for this very purpose. I am not a proponent of AFCI but not to require them upon panel change or modification, extension is like allowing a person to change out his windows using single pane units or mail ordering some lead based paint from some third world country because you like the way it works. or using some new asbestos insulation because you found some in an old barn. We just don't do that kind of stuff. ( most of us)

I agree that the old wiring probably needs the AFCI more so than (most) new wiring assuming the AFCI does what it is supposed to do.

single pane windows is not a safety issue as much as it is energy use issue. You don't have to order lead base paint from third world countries. It just is not available at hardware stores and home centers that sell primarily to homeowners. Lead base paint is used AFAIK in some harsh environment conditions where it is superior to other options. I don't know how easy it is to get but it is still used at times. I think paints used for road striping contained lead for a long time after the ban for lead paint in general was issued. Don't really know if it is still that way.

 

[nysprkdude]

Nysparkydude ...

You make enough assertions that your post is worthy of starting a new thread. A few things I'd like to see addressed in that new thread:

1) I'd love to see some pics of this glowing MC / AC / flex that progressed through the cellulose insulation until it reached and ignited the wood framing;

2) NEMA asserts that there has never been an instance of a listed product, in good repair and operating properly, tripping an AFCI. This conflicts with your statement about CFL's. Data, please;

3) The entire AFCI debate is quite involved, and beyond the scope of this thread. Let's just say there are still issues to address; and,

4) The idea that an AFCI will detect anything has been challenged by no les a person than the guy who pioneered the dang thing. It appears that his assertion that the laws of physics preclude the existance of a maintained arc at household voltages, between copper electrodes, deserves some serious consideration.

"Get used to it?" I expect that this debate is far from over.

Reno,

I'd like to start a new thread as per your request but cannot locate the post new thread button.

So....I'll respond here.

1) Entering my 9th year as an inspector. I've seen the actual glowing BX cable only twice but have seen the charred trail in the insulation leading up to the wood framing member a handful of times. I'll try to snap a pic next time I encounter such.

2) Can't speak to NEMA's statement but many state and federally funded housing projects here require installation of CFL's in the construction or renovation of properties. On numerous occasions, electricians have reiterated that they had an AFCI trip problem that was solved once they removed, replaced or even re-oriented the CFL. Other than that, I personally have no experience with such, just what is reiterated to me as an inspector.

3) Again.....I don't believe I am authorized to "start" a new thread.

4.) AFCI's were developed by Cutler Hammer. I cannot find any information where they question the effectiveness of the device.
Of course that may not serve thier needs so I guess obtaining info of that nature is difficult at best to locate. I wish I had saved a link to what I previously read about some new device. I believe it may have been in an IAEI newsletter.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Reno,

I'd like to start a new thread as per your request but cannot locate the post new thread button.

So....I'll respond here.



4.) AFCI's were developed by Cutler Hammer. I cannot find any information where they question the effectiveness of the device.
Of course that may not serve thier needs so I guess obtaining info of that nature is difficult at best to locate. I wish I had saved a link to what I previously read about some new device. I believe it may have been in an IAEI newsletter.

Yes Eaton has some patents on the AFCI. One of the Engineers who was retired Engle is his name has been campaining as to the efectiveness of the combination AFCI. Engle is one of the Engineers named on the patent along with Eaton.
GO figure that one out.

 

[kwired]

Reno,

I'd like to start a new thread as per your request but cannot locate the post new thread button.

So....I'll respond here.

...


3) Again.....I don't believe I am authorized to "start" a new thread.

May be more than one way but try this: click the "Forum" that should be at top of this page.

Near the top of the page it takes you to is a button that says "+New Topic or Question".

Check bottom right of this page to see your permissions. If you can reply you should be able to start new topics.

 

[readydave8]

Not saying GFCI's have not had any improvements made over the years but are they really that much better or have we found and fixed most of the neutral to ground faults that we didn't know existed before?

I still run into 70's GFCI's that still appear to work just fine.

good point

 

[nysprkdude]

May be more than one way but try this: click the "Forum" that should be at top of this page.

Near the top of the page it takes you to is a button that says "+New Topic or Question".

Check bottom right of this page to see your permissions. If you can reply you should be able to start new topics.

I do not see the "+New Topic or Question" when I select the "Forum" button.

Maybe a moderator could explain how one goes about starting a new thread.

Thank you,

 

[kwired]

I do not see the "+New Topic or Question" when I select the "Forum" button.

Maybe a moderator could explain how one goes about starting a new thread.

Thank you,

Look near bottom right of this page. Do you see something like this:

You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

 

[cowboyjwc]

You guys need to read this article on the history of AFCI's and quit blaming the manufactuers and blame the CPSC instead or UL.

http://www.sea.siemens.com/us/Produ...AFCI/Documents/SIE_WP_History of the AFCI.pdf