another 2008 code challange

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie,

I can't debate with you, at least intelligently, on whether or not the AFCI's perform as they should but one of the opponents of the AFCI expansion was also Larry Brown who represents the NAHB and sits on CMP 2. To that you could reply that one of the 10 proponents was Jim Pauley with Square D.

So, to even the score, lets take out the "special interests" in this group. That would leave 9 for and 1 against. I find it hard to imagine that the 9 fellows that were for the AFCI were "duped" into taking a wooden nickel.

Again, I'm not claiming that the AFCI works or doesn't but I have to believe that CMP 2 did it's homework and was convinced that it does (at least the 10 that voted down Mr. Browns proposal that 210.12 be deleted in it's entirety).

Pete
 
al hildenbrand said:
Conrad,

This Minnesota State Statute is interesting. I think there are two distinct changes in the 2008 NEC that are, in my opinion, running afoul of this Statute.
  1. 210.12(B) -- The expansion of the area of coverage by AFCI and the unproven new combination AFCI. The trip mechanism of existing combination AFCIs is operated when an integrated circuit chip counting buffer exceeds a set threshold. This counter, and the sources of the incremental "counts" placed in it, are a secret, that is, they are the manufacturer's proprietary algorithms. The troubleshooting electrician is not permitted knowledge of the sophisticated analysis the AFCI has performed. The electrician, and the homeowner, must, therefore, assume the cost of testing Premises Wiring and Utilization Equipment in an attempt to isolate the source of the "trip", with the full realization that algorithms, themselves, are untestable. It is unreasonable that the information created in the AFCI is unavailable, thereby financially penalizing those working to find the AFCI indicated unsafe condition.
  2. 210.8(A)(2) & (5) now require sump pumps and freezers to be GFI protected when such equipment is installed in Garage space, certain Accessory Buildings or Unfinished Basements. The homeowner will need to install power loss alarms, at a minimum, in an attempt to stave off property flood damage and/or food loss. The small amount of safety gained is not reasonable when one must install safety items to protect us from the operation of other safety items.
Click to expand...

Good after noon al..I just got done downloading the new building and fire codes and have not got through them yet..with the new state wide enforcement of codes it brings a little more to the table to deal with..I do however agree with your comments..I am not for sure how to purpose to deal with this issue yet and I just got the notice that they need twenty five requests to have a hearing and the requests have to be in by 4:30pm on 4/30/08..
I am reasonably sure that the NEC is not going to rescind their decision..But do you purpose that we in MN opt out of the NEC arc fault arena for a few months or go for an amendment to the code in an attempt to nullify the arc fault regulations..I find the statics on with the NEC based their decision flawed and don't warrant the drastic changes that were adopted..Yet with such little time it will be tough to draft as many proposals as necessary to amend the code..

edited to add: I am impressed it took 14 post to have someone read and address this issue..:smile: Now I do appreciate your humor as well..:smile: And God said wow only couple thousand years and they figured out how to use electron movement..:grin:
 
Last edited:
amptech said:
Have you heard if Indiana is going to remove the AFCI requirements in the 2008 NEC like they did with the 2005?
Click to expand...
We will meet again this Thursday on the adoption process. As it stands right now, the Indiana Residential Code (IRC) has been signed into law and the AFCI requirement was removed. The Indiana Electrical Code (IEC) Committee has rejected the attempt to remove the AFCI requirements so far. After the committee work is done, it will be presented to the Indiana State Building Commission who will make the final decision. If the IEC stands as it is now, the IRC will be changed to match. The commission may reject the committee's work and match the provisions of the IRC. :grin:
 
charlie said:

We will meet again this Thursday on the adoption process. As it stands right now, the Indiana Residential Code (IRC) has been signed into law and the AFCI requirement was removed. The Indiana Electrical Code (IEC) Committee has rejected the attempt to remove the AFCI requirements so far. After the committee work is done, it will be presented to the Indiana State Building Commission who will make the final decision. If the IEC stands as it is now, the IRC will be changed to match. The commission may reject the committee's work and match the provisions of the IRC. :grin:
Click to expand...

Charlie can you post some of the arguments used to promote their position or maybe post a link..
 
cschmid said:
I just got the notice that they need twenty five requests to have a hearing and the requests have to be in by 4:30pm on 4/30/08..
Click to expand...
Conrad,


The Minnesota Board of Electricity chose to schedule a special meeting a week from Friday, April 25, at 10 AM. I just spoke with Annette Trnka, at the Department of Labor and Industry, and confirmed that the meeting is to be held in the:
Minnesota Room
443 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155

​
The purpose of the meeting is to "address concerns with amending the 2008 NEC."

Annette Trnka told me there will be a portion of the meeting given over to those present who wish to make presentations, statements, etc.

She also said to watch the Board of Electricity webpage at the Department of Labor and Industry website, saying that the minutes of the April 8th meeting will be posted soon, and that a posting of the agenda for the April 25th meeting will also be posted.
 
Thanks Al for the info..

I have seen allot of opposition to the AFCI on this site and slim agreeance..so how do you guys think this situation should be handled in MN..I myself am kind of neutral but feel that due to the lack of performance results and lack of proper technical data from the manufactures, coupled with the absorbent prices of trouble shooting along with the negative connotations associated with the AFCI to our trade, I believe I will promote the removal of the AFCI requirements for the complete 3 year cycle in Mn..

If any of you could produce some verifiable evidence of cost related losses and increased customer costs please PM me. I would appreciate any help from with in MN as well..any links to technical data that I have not located or communications from manufactures would also be appreciated..

research in any form is good and to tell the truth I have no gain from this effort in any fashion except the education I gain..
 
The Special Meeting Agenda for the Minnesota Board of Electricity (BOE) has been posted.

The meeting is 9 AM, not the "10 am" I wrote in a earlier post.

The meeting is this Friday, 9 AM in the Minnesota Room
Department of Labor and Industry
443 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155

I have received a copy of the Draft of the April 8, 2008, BOE meeting, along with a copy of the letter and Proposed NEC Amendments submitted by the Builders Association of Minnesota.

I also have a copy of the "Open Forum Presentation Request" mentioned in the agenda, above.

Send me a PM (private message) if you wish copies of these documents.
 
You know it seems like we are bucking the system..yet there needs to be an amendment because of the improper method used to refine the product..It is morally wrong for the manufacturer to encourage a law pertaining to AFCI usage when the product is still under developement..I hope that is a correct analysis..What do the rest of you think..
 
We work in the field of prolong the inevitable! And a whole lot of thoughts w/ that!

The job will end, a code cycle is inevitable! :smile: And a whole lot of thoughts w/ that!

inevitable
 
blue spark said:
Hey MF, I grew up across the river from you! Go Packers!
Click to expand...
oh no not a packer backer..

Nope I don't remember anything ever being removed from the NEC code in MN..But I do believe a couple of amendments can be had..Al has several interesting points concerning this issue..
I think I might propose that when a circuit is extended like in a room remodel that we do not have to bring it up to AFCI standards..that seems to be one of the trouble areas and costly for the Home owner..also pain in butt and the back lash from the extra costs can be devastating..
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but when Mn adopted the 2005 NEC, didnt we delete or not except Article 90, Introduction? I believe it was something to do with the enforcement(90.4).
 
I think an exception should at least be made for interconnecting the new smoke detector with the old ones. That has been a pain lately. As a minnesotan I can appreciate th epacker backers for at least having the sense to sell beer on sunday's. And real fireworks. That's about it though. I lived in Hudson for awhile and my friend grew up in roberts.
I asked my Dad and he says he can't ever remember Minnesota removing anything. There's a first for everything though I guess.
Are you Minnesotans picking up finally?
 
MF Dagger said:
I think an exception should at least be made for interconnecting the new smoke detector with the old ones.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Are you thinking about an exception for . . .what hard wired smokes added to existing hardwired smokes?

I'd say that the exception is already in the State smoke detector rules. In an existing dwelling, the added smokes can be battery powered only, when there is no hardwire present. Local ordinances and, sometimes, local fire marshalls may require more.

The Code Making Panel (CMP) was clear when they wrote the '02 NEC and changed the word from "receptacles" to "outlets" that they meant to include smoke detector outlets on the AFCI protection. Later attempts to amend 210.12(B) to exclude smokes resulted in them actually saying so in the comments in the Report on Proposals.
 
jesse_mickelson said:
when Mn adopted the 2005 NEC, didnt we delete or not except Article 90, Introduction?
Click to expand...
I wonder if you aren't thinking about the NFPA relocating Article 80 to Annex G? That was done to clarify that the Article 80 language is not intended to be part of the enforceable Code, unless specifically adopted by a jurisdiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top