Proposal #2-142 (AFCI's): What Do You Think?

[celtic]

Just a few short years ago, they said this was not a true statement when I and others were telling this to the public.
Don

The American public ?
They don't need to know.

 

[George Stolz]

Bump for those away around Christmastime...

(The poll is set to end 1/30/07, I'll quit then... )

 

[George Stolz]

Last call...

 

[brian john]

I am not involved in residential work, so my opinion is, well worthless? But for my house if they were proven, and I am not sure they are (having completed ZERO [0] research on the subject) I would install them. As I mentioned sometime ago all my branch circuits are GFCI. 4 plus kids (mine, their friends and foster children) , 4 dogs, 5 cats and assorted vermin, when I built I figured why risk it.

Big question for me was mentioned early on, if I am asleep what happens with a arcing short with the dryer branch circuit? I thought I heard in the early 90?s that they were looking at AFCI for the Main CB?

 

[dnem]

post#12 Bryan
210.12

(B) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sun rooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination type installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.

post#16

I see an upsurge in the labeling of areas like Office, Study, Workshop, etc. I also note that attics, unfinished basements, garages, sheds, utility rooms, atriums, foyers, vestibules, lounges, home theaters, studios "and similar areas" are not listed.

:smile:

Does the code panel always have to find the most convoluted way of wording things ? . Don?t they realize the interpretation nightmares or don?t they care ?

post#31

Tom,
It is the combination type device that is required to be used 1/1/08. It can either be a breaker or a stand alone device. Also under the 2008 code the AFCI device can be at the first outlet if the branch circuit is run from the panel to the first outlet in metal conduit or cable. My point is that the original proposals to require the AFCI device said that is could provide protection beyond the outlet. This is the type of protection that the combination device is said to provide, but it is not yet on the market as fas as I know.
Don

?Also under the 2008 code the AFCI device can be at the first outlet if the branch circuit is run from the panel to the first outlet in metal conduit or cable.?
I?m assuming that you?re implying that the 6? rule will be gone. . So now us inspectors get to go on an ?Easter Egg? hunt on every house. . It wasn?t bad enough that we have to search for the one bathroom that has the GFCI and the hiding place for the basement/garage/outside GFCI, now we get to look for a couple dozen AFCI HR boxes scattered throughout the house.

I assume I?ll be seeing a lot of 14/3 MC HRs to 2gang boxes that will have side by side AFCI plugs on the final.

David

 

[jwelectric]

As written in the 2008 draft

(B) Dwelling Units.​

​

​

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and
20-ampere branch circuits installed in dwelling units shall
be protected by a listed arc-fault circuit interrupter, combination
type installed to provide protection of the branch
circuit. [ROP 2?105, 2?142, 2?111]
​

FPN No. 1: For information on types of arc-fault circuit
interrupters, see UL 1699-1999,​

​

Standard for Arc-Fault
Circuit Interrupters.
FPN No. 2: See 11.6.3(5) of NFPA 72?-2007, National
Fire Alarm Code? for information related to secondary
power supply requirements for smoke alarms installed in
dwelling units. [ROP 2?118a]​

FPN No. 3: See 760.41 and 760.121 for power supply
requirements for fire alarm systems.​

​

[ROP 2?143]
​

Exception: The location of the arc-fault circuit interrupter
shall be permitted to be at other than the origination of the
branch circuit where the arc-fault circuit interrupter is installed
within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the branch circuit overcurrent device as mesured along the branch circuit conductors​

 

[al hildenbrand]

Mike,

That's the ROP.

Bryan, in his post, #12 in this thread, is quoting a NEMA report and language very different from the ROP.

The NECDigest, December 2006 issue, has an article by Stallcup and Ode. They are reporting on the important changes in the 2008 NEC. In the print version they include changed text of 210.12(B) that I talk about here. I include the exact text that Stallcup and Ode published as the "next 210.12(B)".

The ROP is different from NEMA's report is different from Stallcup & Ode.

I recall at least one other in earlier discussions at this Forum.

 

[George Stolz]

Does the code panel always have to find the most convoluted way of wording things ? . Don?t they realize the interpretation nightmares or don?t they care ?

It's too bad Physis hasn't been hanging out as much lately, you and he would have a grand old time picking on CMP-2.

I would join in as well.

The funny thing is, according to the 2008 ROP somebody referred to the bedroom as "an easily defined space to have the preliminary requirement" or something along those lines.

That was probably written after about five or twenty threads around here complaining about the difficulty of doing just that! I feel that the field is far out of the loop on this one, and that stinks.

 

[cosmos]

Show me the money!

Show me the money!

Since most complaints are excessive false tripping and questionable benefit, I would hope that the NFPA would investigate better solutions and justifications before mandating additional use of these costly AFCI devices..

 

[George Stolz]

I am looking at Comment 2-95 in the ROC, and it appears that this text is the last call for 210.12(B):

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle

The panel revised the wording in the recommendation of the comment to read as follows:
“(B) Dwelling Units. All 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sun rooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by a listed arcfault circuit interrupter, combination-type, installed to provide protection of the branch circuit.”
Panel Statement: The panel accepts the submitter’s concept of a more limited approach to the expansion of AFCI. The panel has used language that is arranged in a manner that parallels the language in 210.52(A) and has also included hallways and closets to address previous proposals about those areas.
The panel did not accept the submitter’s deletion of the words “supplying outlets,” because it would introduce confusion regarding branch circuits that passed through these areas but did not supply any outlets in the area.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 12​

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8 Negative: 4

So, dust off your wallets or contact your electrical boards, gentlemen.
Edit to add:​

Lawrence Brown, CMP-2 member, submitted several proposals (or maybe, the same proposal several times) to get rid of the requirement. I would also like to quote his response to his negative vote to the comment:​

BROWN, L.: The Panel’s Action to not require AFCI protection only for the receptacles that typically require GFCI protection is backtracking from the Panel’s Actions and Statements shown in the Report on Proposals (ROP). If they felt the entire house should be protected what relevant fire data changed their minds? Please read NAHB’s Comment 2-79. Calling this a “limited approach to the expansion of AFCI” still results in no cost-benefit for society, it just needlessly increases the costs of housing. No jurisdiction should burden its citizens with this unneeded expense.

There was never any fire study or costbenefit study to support installing these devices only for bedrooms in the 1999 NEC. Since then NO data or study has ever been assembled to support the expansion to the whole house. The fact still remains that home buyers in the U. S. will spend approximately 2 BILLION, 130 MILLION, 230 THOUSAND, and 956 DOLLARS per year to cover losses of only $17,720,000. That is a ratio of 119 times the money spent relative to the monetary loss of $17,720,000.​

And, that is if the devices work 100 percent of the time. If you break that down by each state, that lack of a cost-benefit becomes apparently clear. All jurisdictions that contemplate adopting the 2008 NEC, especially those jurisdiction that by law must show a cost-benefit in the adoption, are encouraged to look closely at this cost-benefit fact and not adopt the 2008 NEC until all provisions requiring AFCIs is stricken (Section 210.12).​

​

 

[celtic]

So, dust off your wallets ...
​

​

Got a hot stock tip?

 

[dnem]

George that's one hell of an edit you added to the end of your post !

So, dust off your wallets or contact your electrical boards, gentlemen.
Edit to add:

Lawrence Brown, CMP-2 member, submitted several proposals (or maybe, the same proposal several times) to get rid of the requirement. I would also like to quote his response to his negative vote to the comment:

BROWN, L.: The Panel?s Action to not require AFCI protection only for the receptacles that typically require GFCI protection is backtracking from the Panel?s Actions and Statements shown in the Report on Proposals (ROP). If they felt the entire house should be protected what relevant fire data changed their minds? Please read NAHB?s Comment 2-79. Calling this a ?limited approach to the expansion of AFCI? still results in no cost-benefit for society, it just needlessly increases the costs of housing. No jurisdiction should burden its citizens with this unneeded expense.


There was never any fire study or costbenefit study to support installing these devices only for bedrooms in the 1999 NEC. Since then NO data or study has ever been assembled to support the expansion to the whole house. The fact still remains that home buyers in the U. S. will spend approximately 2 BILLION, 130 MILLION, 230 THOUSAND, and 956 DOLLARS per year to cover losses of only $17,720,000. That is a ratio of 119 times the money spent relative to the monetary loss of $17,720,000.


And, that is if the devices work 100 percent of the time. If you break that down by each state, that lack of a cost-benefit becomes apparently clear. All jurisdictions that contemplate adopting the 2008 NEC, especially those jurisdiction that by law must show a cost-benefit in the adoption, are encouraged to look closely at this cost-benefit fact and not adopt the 2008 NEC until all provisions requiring AFCIs is stricken (Section 210.12).

Everyone should copy this comment from this CMP-2 code member and bring it to their state officials. . Each state should be fully informed before they decide about adoption of the 2008NEC.

A couple dozen non-adoption, stay with the 2005, will hit the NFPA very heavily in the pocketbook. . It should get their attention and might even get a response that includes something other than damage control.

Each of us need to make sure our individual state governments are aware of what's going on. . There shouldn't be any automatic rubber stamp adoption.

David

 

[mdshunk]

The fact still remains that home buyers in the U. S. will spend approximately 2 BILLION, 130 MILLION, 230 THOUSAND, and 956 DOLLARS per year to cover losses of only $17,720,000. That is a ratio of 119 times the money spent relative to the monetary loss of $17,720,000.

I'll have to thank him for doing the math for me. :grin:

That's a $2,130,230,956.00 bonanza for electrical vendors and electrical contractors.

 

[George Stolz]

I guess Marc definutely views the issue as the glass being "half full".

 

[brian john]

I am not taking sides on this topic, just providing some info I know about.

I have stayed out of this discussion, because I know little or nothing about AFCI's. The limited amount of residential we do, keeps us out of the bedrooms.

The basic idea (AFCIs) sounds solid, and I had thought about installing them in my house, but based upon discussions I have read here (over the last few years) I have held off waiting for positive feedback.

I have worked with one Standards Committee and was surprised at the influence the manufactures have. I doubt most non-manufacture committee members have the monetary backing to spend their full time working on codes and standards.

And I think this (manufactures) issue is the real problem facing all of us.

 

[George Stolz]

I hadn't glanced through, but I'm pretty sure a link to the article in EC&M wasn't posted in this thread yet.

Click on the picture to see the article.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

And based on the comments received on the original article, they are planning a second look.
Don

 

[ampacellc]

Profit for the ones that do not need it

Profit for the ones that do not need it

I believe AFCI for all major circuits is a waste of time , no one but the
manufacturers will profit from it. I t will bring the coast of building up and their is already problems and complains about this issue. I strongly advise against it.

 

[Physis 3]

C'mon George, you Know I'd enjoy life less without CMP 2. :grin:

 

[George Stolz]

C'mon, it's what unites us all!