The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Industrail Control Panel bonding per 409.108
by sparkyinak
12/08/16 03:17 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by aussie240
12/07/16 02:39 AM
Photo Upload Tutorial
by DanK
12/06/16 11:35 PM
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 8
Trumpy 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 214 Guests and 7 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#125180 - 06/28/04 07:26 PM AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Microphone 7.
13 MR. SMITTAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14 Walter Smittal representing National Association
15 of State Fire Marshals.
16 I'd like Comment 2-91, Log #510,
17 located on page .70--or page .85 of the ROC.
18 CHAIR ISMAN: And you're moving
19 acceptance of that comment, Mr. Smittal?
20 MR. SMITTAL: Yes, sir.
21 CHAIR ISMAN: Is there a second? I
22 heard a second from over here.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. SMITTAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 The comment that is proposed simply
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 110
1 expands the use of arc-fault circuit interrupter
2 technology to all living areas of a dwelling.
3 The panel statement in rejecting the
4 comment identifies that the waiting on a
5 combination device and as well as wanting to gain
6 further experience with the AFCIs already in the
7 field. The problem that I have dealing with more
8 experience is, how much experience is enough?
9 What is the formula? Where do we say it is
10 sufficient to move forward in expanding it?
11 The current requirement covers
12 basically one-third of the dwelling areas where we
13 have experienced the electrical fires. We want to
14 cover the other areas and begin saving lives and
15 reducing the property loss.
16 AFCIs have been available now for two
17 cycles. It's estimated that there are around 6
18 million of these devices in the field gaining
19 experience. The proposed combination device the
20 committee has proposed with an implementation date
21 of year 2008. You don't have to be a rocket
22 scientist, because this technology currently
23 available then will no longer exist.
24 The NEC language deals with practical
25 safeguarding. Expanding AFCIs at this time is
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 111
1 practical. It also discusses the adequacy. The
2 code contains provisions considered necessary for
3 safety. Let's cover the dwelling with the safety
4 application.
5 Finally, I would call attention to the
6 negative votes, especially the Chair, and I
7 compliment the Chair on his wisdom and his writing
8 of his negative reaction when he explained that
9 the time span that we're dealing with continues to
10 go on and sometimes we're very slow at growth.
11 But to wait another cycle to expand means we're
12 not going to grab a hold of the opportunity to
13 save lives and reduce property loss.
14 Throughout this country they're
15 adopting these requirements, all of them are
16 working. There's been retrofit application
17 already occurring in many jurisdictions, and we
18 encourage--National encourages and recommends to
19 this membership to support the comment so we can
20 expand the opportunity of saving lives and
21 property.
22 I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
23 opportunity to move the comment.
24 CHAIR ISMAN: Thank you.
25 Mr. Carpenter.
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 112
1 MR. CARPENTER: I'd like to defer to
2 the Chair of Panel 2, Ray Weber at Mic. 2.
3 CHAIR ISMAN: On two, please.
4 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 My name is Ray Weber from the great state of
6 Wisconsin. I am the Chair of Code Making Panel
7 2.
8 Mr. Smittal is in fact correct. He
9 gave a very eloquent presentation at both the ROP
10 phase and ROC phase on expansion of the AFCIs.
11 As you can see by the ballot results in the
12 affirmative, nine affirmative and four in the
13 negative, that it came close to passing muster.
14 The panel's position, however, is that,
15 in fact, they do want to see more case study.
16 Mr. Smittal in both his ROC and ROP and ROC
17 substantiation did provide data, but I guess at
18 this time the panel's position was a wait-and-see
19 attitude as such.
20 CHAIR ISMAN: Thank you.
21 Microphone 4. Microphone 4, did you
22 want to address this issue?
23 MR. ROSS: I'm going to address the
24 issue, but not on Mr. Smittal's.
25 CHAIR ISMAN: Oh, okay. Why don't you
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 113
1 go ahead and step away from the mike a little bit
2 and when we're ready to address new motions?
3 Microphone 3 I saw next.
4 MR. KING: Yes, sir. My name is Donald
5 King. I am a Code Making Panel Principal of
6 Panel 2, and I represent the IBEW.
7 As well I rise in support of the motion
8 for Comment 2-91. Going back to Proposal 2-140,
9 the Consumer Product Safety Commission provided
10 adequate data to support this motion to expand the
11 use of arc-circuit protection to all living areas.
12 There was a lot of panel discussion at
13 the comment stage on this motion. The panel--many
14 of the panel members, I felt, supported the
15 expanding use of the AFCI protection, and I stand
16 in support of the motion.
17 CHAIR ISMAN: Thank you. Microphone 7.
18 MR. BECKER: My name take Dick Becker.
19 I'm a consulting electrical engineer, and I'm a
20 principal member for IEEE on Code Making Panel 2.
21 My concern on the AFCI product is that
22 the text--or the data that we've been given does
23 not distinguish between failures that are arcing
24 versus burning. And it is my feeling that the
25 test data is--does not prove conclusively that the
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 114
1 arc-fault circuit technology can detect and
2 prevent the fires that have been--that we've been
3 led to believe that it will detect. It's quite
4 an expensive device compared if it is not doing
5 what we expected.
6 The distinction between burning the I-
7 squared-R or the jewel heating is a significant
8 difference that wires in the premise wiring or in
9 the cords can absolutely start and not be detected
10 by the arc-fault circuit technology.
11 I feel very strongly that we need
12 substantial data that distinguishes between the
13 two different events at this point. I don't
14 think we received that. And the arc-fault
15 technology, I think, really needs some detailed
16 research on exactly whether we're preventing the
17 fires we started or that we thought we were. My
18 concern is that the AFCI is now putting people
19 at--they think we've solved the problem. I don't
20 believe we have solved the problem. We don't
21 have any way of recording that we're getting fewer
22 fire events in cords or premise wiring. And if
23 we're not, we're misleading ourselves. We need to
24 get focused back on what the problem is, and I
25 don't think we've found that yet. So to proceed
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 115
1 with this without the additional detail, I think
2 we're hurting ourselves.
3 CHAIR ISMAN: Thank you.
4 Microphone No. 5.
5 MR. PAULEY: I'm Jim Pauley with Square
6 D Company. I represent NEMA on Code Panel 2.
7 I was going to sit silently and see
8 where this went, but when Mr. Becker got up, I
9 had to at least respond to some of the issues.
10 The issues that raises--or ones that he
11 has raised in the panel, and they've had extensive
12 discussion, if he and I would both say we
13 disagree with each other on perhaps where this is
14 in total. If you look at the ballot statement, I
15 certainly voted to support this comment.
16 But as the Chairman said, the panel
17 went through some long deliberations to arrive at
18 where they were. I certainly believe the
19 technology can be expanded to other areas of the
20 unit and not constitute any problems to be able
21 to do this. So I believe that that can be done.
22 I do also want to point out for the
23 body that this particular comment ends up being
24 sort of a blend of items. If you look at this
25 comment, what it really does is change the words
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 116
1 "dwelling unit bedrooms" to "living areas," which
2 means it would expand to those areas.
3 There are other changes that Panel 2
4 has made to this same section dealing with some
5 particular exceptions, dealing with the fact that
6 accommodation protection in 2008, a fine-print
7 note to deal with that. If this were accepted by
8 the body, it would sort of have to be blended
9 together, because this issue deals specifically
10 with the location where AFCIs would be installed.
11 So it's a--it's an item that I think the body
12 could seriously consider.
13 I think the technology can certainly be
14 handled to expand that way, and I do want to
15 assure--and I think my Panel 2 members would agree
16 that the lengthiest discussions that we have at
17 the Panel 2 meetings are on AFCIs to address
18 these many issues that have been raised. Thanks.
19 CHAIR ISMAN: Microphone 4.
20 DR. HIRSCHLER: Marcelo Hirschler, GBH
21 International, speaking for myself and speaking in
22 support of the motion.
23 I remember in the opening session the
24 president, Jim Shannon, said that 80 percent of
25 fire fatalities occur in homes, dwellings. So
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 117
1 what we're talking here about is potentially
2 expanding protection from fire in homes, so I
3 think we should support this motion and expand the
4 AFCIs. Thank you.
5 CHAIR ISMAN: Microphone 7.
6 MR. SMITTAL: Mr. Chairman, Walter
7 Smittal, National State Association of Fire
8 Marshals.
9 Two comments. Unfortunately, in the
10 fire service we collect negative data. Only when
11 a fire occurs does a fire service respond. If we
12 have the AFCIs in place, if they respond and
13 prevent a fire, no fire department responds. It's
14 done its job. We say all the AFCIs today are
15 working. Collecting that data is being done in a
16 different manner, a different environment, the
17 manufacturers themselves with the guarantee and
18 warranties that may exist.
19 Secondly, and last, this technology is
20 the best technology we have. There will always
21 be improvements. We look forward to those
22 improvements. But if this technology can
23 eliminate 75 percent of the fires occurring in
24 this country, then it is well worth it.
25 I wanted to--I just bought a brand-new
Hearing (Volume I of II) 5/26/04
Page 118
1 car--I should say the bank bought it, and I
2 wanted a car that got 250 miles a gallon--or 250
3 miles per gallon of gas. None available. But I
4 did go to find the next best thing with the best
5 available technology until that car comes out.
6 That's what we're dealing with.
7 I encourage a vote in the affirmative.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIR ISMAN: Is there any additional
10 discussion on the motion to accept Item 2-91?
11 Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All
12 those in favor of accepting 2-91, please raise
13 your hands. And all those opposed to the motion.
14 That motion carries.
15 Additional motions
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#125181 - 06/29/04 06:43 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
ElectricAL Offline
Member

Registered: 10/10/01
Posts: 615
Loc: Minneapolis, MN USA
Thanks, Joe.

This is interesting reading.

The comment by Dick Becker, consulting electrical engineer and principal member for IEEE on Code Making Panel 2, points to the heart of the issue, for me.

And the fact that Jim Pauley, Square
D Company representative for NEMA on Code Panel 2, "was going to sit silently" until Dick Becker spoke, then side stepped any response, further underscores the obfuscation of the heart of the issue.

The dirth of publicly publicized technical information on the operation of any one installable model of AFCI is, in my opinion, glaring, turning the basis of the decision into nothing much more than a physical beauty pagent. The beauty is only skin deep. Is there bone cancer or a healthy body here?


Edited June 29, about 9:12PM, to remove a double negative by changing substatially lacking into glaring. I needed more coffee and a spell checker.

[This message has been edited by ElectricAL (edited 06-29-2004).]
_________________________
Al Hildenbrand

Top
#125182 - 06/29/04 08:25 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Here is the entire transcript for anyone who wants to read the actions. My time on the floor was not easy for me, and I lost again because of the politics and procedures:
http://www.nfpa.org/ProfessionalDev/EventsCalendar/WFCSExpo/ws04code/ws04code.asp

The young fellow Jim is the one who dictates what happens in the manufacturing industry and ..... oh well??
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#125183 - 06/29/04 10:44 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
CharlieE Offline
Member

Registered: 04/23/04
Posts: 204
Loc: Indianapolis
Jim Pauley is an extremely sharp professional engineer who has developed an international reputation as a true expert on the NEC as well as the other US and international standards. If you do not have a very good argument against his point, he will cut you to shreds. Jim does not have any real authority in the Code making process but he is connected to a lot of people though a strong engineering background, common sense, being a strong public speaker, being a very capable teacher/lecturer, and having a great personality. There are a lot of issues that I do not agree with him on, including this one, and argue, and vote against him. Most of the time, I am voting against George Gregory (the alternate to Clive Kimblin) who is also with Square D (Clive and George are the NEMA representatives on CMP-10).

About the floor action, the motion was to accept that comment and the motion passed. The result is that it was sent back to the Code Making Panel. If the panel does not change its mind, the comment still does not pass. On the other hand, the president (I think) of the NFPA made an address to the body where he really pushed hard for the acceptance of the AFCIs. If this passes the panel, it will be because of the joint efforts of a lot of people, not because of Jim Pauley.
_________________________
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Utility Power Guy

Top
#125184 - 06/29/04 03:02 PM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Thanks Charlie and I knew that you would take the bait!! I spent many long years long before you were ever on the committees and have only the best intention when I make a comment and you know as well as I do that NEMA runs the show, just do a search and review of the total list of committee members and find out for yourself. I like Jim and sure he is tops and he is a nice person and all that you say about him is true, but if you sat at the entire NEC TCC Meeting as I did you may have other thoughts.
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#125185 - 06/29/04 07:41 PM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
ElectricAL Offline
Member

Registered: 10/10/01
Posts: 615
Loc: Minneapolis, MN USA
 Quote:
CharlieE said: Jim Pauley is an extremely sharp professional engineer. . .
I find this all the more ironic. I presume the PE is as an electrical engineer?

Square D makes AFCIs. These AFCIs were designed, tested, probably fine tuned through a couple redesign iterations, manufactured, and further improved by Square D engineers. Some of the internal documentation on the performance and circuitry must be publishable, no?

CharlieE, from your ring side seat, is there new technical data on the operation, circuitry, block diagram of any of the currently manufactured AFCI's that can be accessed by "the rest of us"?

And, with all due deference to Jim Pauley's credentials and capability, I am not trying to single him out. I understand that there are other individuals, besides him, acting singly and as representatives of group interests who are working to expand the use of the existing AFCI technology in dwellings. I am interested in this group for the technical data that they bring to the public discussion.

Bottom line: Show me the data.
_________________________
Al Hildenbrand

Top
#125186 - 06/30/04 05:15 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
CharlieE Offline
Member

Registered: 04/23/04
Posts: 204
Loc: Indianapolis
 Quote:
There are a lot of issues that I do not agree with him on, including this one, and argue, and vote against him. Most of the time, I am voting against George Gregory (the alternate to Clive Kimblin) who is also with Square D (Clive and George are the NEMA representatives on CMP-10).
I do not agree with NEMA on this issue and this subject is in the purview of CMP-2, not CMP-10. I am just not interested in the comment that Joe made that Jim runs things because he doesn't run things, neither does NEMA. If NEMA ran things, how would George Ockley be able to get the engineered series rating into the Code? NEMA fought it all the way over several cycles. They are still fighting it through George Gregory's appeal to the Standards Council.

The bottom line is that Joe is off base. Take his advice and take a look at the various panel make-ups. I do not agree with all of the work that Jim does but I respect him and his position. Jim doesn't get involved in character assassination either.

I am opposed to the introduction of AFCIs into the Code at all until they are a proven product. IMO, the Code should not be used to sell a product. As time passes, I believe the combination type AFCI will perform as advertised and, at that time, it should be required. As they are at this point in time, I do not believe they perform much better than a standard circuit breaker. The combination type has been developed, listed, and they are ready for production. I do not believe any are on the market yet.

Yes, to the best of my knowledge, Jim is a professional engineer. An unlicensed engineer can not rise to the level that Jim has raised (inside and outside his company) without having a PE license.
_________________________
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Utility Power Guy

Top
#125187 - 06/30/04 07:18 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
To Charlie:

Where do you see a character assassination?

Also, you represent the Edison Electric Institute, and the electric utilities and have a directed vote!

Save the investor's money, that's the bottom line!

I am prepared to bring my story to the media and show some of the serious hazards that can be found everywhere, at poles, transformers, and at the rear, and at the sides of buildings.

Electric Utilities and their lack of proper Maintenance is the most violated area.

I have 100's of pictures to prove this!

PS: I am prepared to challenge the Electric Utilities, and I can support my arguments through the lenses in my camera!

_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#125188 - 06/30/04 07:55 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
Joe, all due respect, you post above is drifting quite a distance from the topic of this (your) thread.

As an aside though, the same short comings can be seen on the NEC side of many of your pictures too.

Roger

Top
#125189 - 06/30/04 08:10 AM Re: AFCI 2005 NEC annual meeting transcript
CharlieE Offline
Member

Registered: 04/23/04
Posts: 204
Loc: Indianapolis
 Quote:
Where do you see a character assassination?
In your insinuations and the fact that I know you.
 Quote:
Also, you represent the Edison Electric Institute, and the electric utilities and have a directed vote!
As do most of the panel members including your former employer, the IAEI. The directed vote for the EEI comes from the rest of the panel members that represent the EEI. If you were an EEI panel member and had an issue that effected our customers or our companies, you are instructed to bring it to the group. The group (all of the principal and alternate panel members) will vote on the issue to give you direction. Joe, if you can't convince the group that what you are doing is correct then, just maybe, you may not be correct.
 Quote:
Save the investor's money, that's the bottom line!
Our purpose is to look out for our interests, the same as everyone else. Do you really think that NEMA is concerned about a lot of other things than their own bottom line? We all have that purpose, to support the company/organization that we work for.

The other purpose that EEI has taken on is to look out for the customer. We attempt to keep the costs as low as possible without compromising safety. That is why EEI has supported more use of plastics, type NM cable, slowing the spread of AFCIs until a proven track record, and the list goes on. These items do not effect us but they effect our customers.

I am done with this thread Joe. Arguing with you is like wrestling with a skunk in every sense of the word.
_________________________
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis Utility Power Guy

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals