New Jersey Adoption of 2005 NEC/AFCI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pierre C Belarge

Pierre C Belarge

Senior Member
Location
Westchester County, New York
I see on the NJ State site that the NEC was adopted on May 1, 2006 with 20 amendments.
The amendment in Chapter two states this:

" Section 210.12(B) of Article 210, entitled "Branch Circuits," is amended to insert the following sentence at the end of the section, "This requirement shall be considered optional.""

Does this mean the whole requirement of 210.12(B) is optional? Or does it mean the last paragraph of 210.12(B) is optional?
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
I see on the NJ State site that the NEC was adopted on May 1, 2006 with 20 amendments.
The amendment in Chapter two states this:

" Section 210.12(B) of Article 210, entitled "Branch Circuits," is amended to insert the following sentence at the end of the section, "This requirement shall be considered optional.""
Click to expand...
For NJ EC's (or anyone else), here is a link to the amendments Pierre mentions:
http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/codealerts/20060505nj.cfm


Pierre C Belarge said:
Does this mean the whole requirement of 210.12(B) is optional? Or does it mean the last paragraph of 210.12(B) is optional?
Click to expand...

I take it to mean that the whole AFCI protection is optional.
 
Celtic
You take this to mean the whole section. I am curious if we know for a fact it is the whole section.

Are you saying the Arc Fault circuit breakers are not required to be installed in NJ? Is there a site I can locate that may have an answer that is more definitive?
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Celtic


Are you saying the Arc Fault circuit breakers are not required to be installed in NJ?

Is there a site I can locate that may have an answer that is more definitive?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying AFCI's are NOT a requirement in NJ, but rather they are optional.

No, I do not have anything more concrete than my own opinion, which is based on conversations with other NJ EC's and EI's - but I will do some research to locate a link to support this opinion.
 
During a recent CEU course at our contractors' association Suzanne Borek of the DCA-Code Interpretations Dept mentioned that AFCI protection was an option in the 2005 code cycle (with respect to NJ that is).
 
Pierre , I'm no english teacher but , seeing how that is the last thing stated , I would say it is pertaining to the whole of 210.12 Arc-Fault Cicuit-Interrupter Protection
 
M. D. said:
Pierre , I'm no english teacher but , seeing how that is the last thing stated , I would say it is pertaining to the whole of 210.12 Arc-Fault Cicuit-Interrupter Protection
Click to expand...

So even 210.12(A) is affected ;)
 
Upon further review , you are still required to know what it is, that you are deciding whether or not to install. :eek: :)
 
I see future law suits with this. As a contractor, would you want to carry the liability of opting out? It's well established that many home fires are blammed on electrical faults, fact or not. Lawyers will have a field day with this one and claim the electrical contractor that did not choose to install the devices carries the risk that an electrical fire will happen and not be prevented by the afci device. Even though we all know they don't really work.
 
Thanks for the replies.


As to Bryan's post, I have spoken to a construction attorney in NY about that very topic. NY does not require arc fault devices yet. He says that the liability is put on the EC and that there is a fairly simple solution to this issue. If bidding work is so tight, and you do not want to bid AFCI devices, put an option in the contract for the homeowner to sign, not the GC.
The option tells the homeowner that a "life safety" device exists called an AFCI. Explain it a little and give the owner the option of installing it or not. The option to not install it should be in writing so you can keep it for your files.
 
bphgravity said:
I see future law suits with this. As a contractor, would you want to carry the liability of opting out? It's well established that many home fires are blammed on electrical faults, fact or not. Lawyers will have a field day with this one and claim the electrical contractor that did not choose to install the devices carries the risk that an electrical fire will happen and not be prevented by the afci device. Even though we all know they don't really work.
Click to expand...
I had "heard" - I have no hard documentation - that a NJ EC must, at a minimum, offer the AFCI's to a customer.

I am assumming the logic goes something like this:

The NJ EC is not required to install an AFCI protection as per the amended NEC, but must allow the HO, GC, etc the option of making that decision themselves. This would relieve the EC of making the decision on this "optional" installation, thus removing the EC from liability. As 210.12(B) is not required, the only requirement is that the EC offer the option.


Personally, the whole "optional" concept seems kind of silly and *could* expose the EC to liability. Make 210.12(B) a requirement - or delete 210.12 in it's entirety.
How many HO, GC, etc are going to spend the extra cash on an "option" that was the subject a huge recall?

http://search.cpsc.gov/query.html?col=pubweb&qt=AFCI&x=12&y=14
or just search for AFCI at http://www.cpsc.gov/
 
I mus have been typing while you replied...

Pierre C Belarge said:
If bidding work is so tight, and you do not want to bid AFCI devices, put an option in the contract for the homeowner to sign, not the GC.
Click to expand...

How is that going to work on tract housing or large scale condo/apartment complexes?
How is a non-exisitant HO going to sign-off on that?
 
bphgravity said:
I see future law suits with this. As a contractor, would you want to carry the liability of opting out? It's well established that many home fires are blamed on electrical faults, fact or not. Lawyers will have a field day with this one and claim the electrical contractor that did not choose to install the devices carries the risk that an electrical fire will happen and not be prevented by the afci device. Even though we all know they don't really work.
Click to expand...


Whether they work or not when the $#!& hits the fan they will ask why you did not choose to install this protective device? The answer " because the law allows me to decide" Is there more liability ?? We decide a whole lot of things when installing wiring . I decided to place a receptacle 9.5 " from my tub /shower , If the "$#!& hits the fan" , while I'm mixing /blending frozen margaritas :) :) while bathing and they ask I'll say "because the law allows me to decide how close to install the receptacle".

Lawyers can have a field day any day. What if someone trips down the steps
going to reset the breaker because they decided to change speeds on their paddle fan , and dies of a broken neck? It has been established that many trip falsely in this situation . Are we to be blamed for choosing to knowingly install such a device??? I'm sure some Lawyer will try it . :)
 
What prevents us from being sued if we don't install them every where??

GFCI protection saves lives too ,.... I don't install them everywhere. This is getting ridiculous . WE have some states that require more than 210. 12(b) some that don't yet require them and one that says you have an option and we have a proposal to dramatically expand the requirement for 2008.

I feel a bit like a lab rat. :(
 
Bryan,
Even though we all know they don't really work.
Click to expand...
The lawyers will have a field day with that too, if a contractor recommends AFCIs as a safety device and they don't work.
Don
 
I doubt a contractor will be liable for a properly intalled device not performing per the manufacturer's claims. That is realy out of their control. But I do see your point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top