Deletion of AFCI and Tamper Resistant

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother

Senior Member
Location
"I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewi
I was checking out the adoption of the NEC code list and it appears that Indiana deleted the afci and tamper resistant receptacles back in 2008 NEC and never adopted anything new after that.

I have my own opinion about some of these required devices that had not been proven in the industry yet and things that appear to be more of a design issue vs a safety issue being required in the code. Basically a nesting ground for manufacturers to sell products. I think the surge suppressor requirement is more for the protection of AFCIs because of their electronics, just my opinion.

Since we had some time in the use of these devices, I was curious as to any data from Indiana on them not having these requirements. Did Indiana have any 'more' fires without the afcis or was it about the same? and the tamper resistant receptacles as well. If there is no data to really support it then maybe we need to delete them too.

Whats your opinion?
 
AFCI advantages are debatable, TR less so, estimated additional cost was .50 each when first introduced. Likely less expensive now due to lowered production costs.
 
Indiana requires AFCI per Indiana Residential Code E3902.16 However, TR is deleted.
 
brother said:
I was checking out the adoption of the NEC code list and it appears that Indiana deleted the afci and tamper resistant receptacles back in 2008 NEC and never adopted anything new after that.

I have my own opinion about some of these required devices that had not been proven in the industry yet and things that appear to be more of a design issue vs a safety issue being required in the code. Basically a nesting ground for manufacturers to sell products. I think the surge suppressor requirement is more for the protection of AFCIs because of their electronics, just my opinion.
Click to expand...
The substatination for the surge protection rule was about the protection of the electronics in GFCIs, AFCIs, alarm systems an electronic entertainment devices.

Since we had some time in the use of these devices, I was curious as to any data from Indiana on them not having these requirements. Did Indiana have any 'more' fires without the afcis or was it about the same? and the tamper resistant receptacles as well. If there is no data to really support it then maybe we need to delete them too.
Click to expand...
There will be no stastically valid information about the effectiveness of AFCI for a few more decades. That is for two reasons. First the small number of new dwelling units as compared to the total number of dwelling units, and second because 85% of the dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin occur in dwellings at least 20 years old.
I think we construct just over a million new dwelling units in a year. In one year, with one new million dwelling units, and assuming that AFCIs could prevent 100% of the fires said to be of electrical origin, you could expect to prevent ~55 fires. Even the manufacturer's do not claim that AFCIs can prevent 100% of the fires on protected circuits and not all circuits require AFCI protection. There are ~50,000 dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin per year in the US, so 55 less would not even show up in the stats.

Whats your opinion?
[/QUOTE]
 
Buck Parrish said:
What year ? What jurisdiction ?
Click to expand...
The 2020 Indiana Residential Code which is based on the IRC was adopted by the State in December of 2019. I am in a City just north of the Indianapolis / Marion Co. line.
 
I have yet to find a jurisdiction in Indiana that does any thing with consistency much less in unison.
Getting ready to start a new custom home north west of Indy. I called to see what they require. The inspector said we'd be going off the NEC 09😬
 
Agreed with that for sure. Here in City of Lawrence:
We have adopted the 2020 Indiana IRC which contains requirements from 2011, 14 and 17 which IMO is great. However, getting all on board has been a challenge at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top