|
0 members (),
79
guests, and
11
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,006 Likes: 37
OP
Member
|
_______________________________________________________________
18-30 Log #3561 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(406.3(D)(4) (New) )
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: James T. Dollard, Jr., IBEW Local 98
Recommendation: Add a new list item to 406.3(D) as follows:
406.3(D)
(4) Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupters. Arc-Fault circuit-interrupter protected
receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets
that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this Code.
Substantiation: The NEC presently addresses receptacle replacement in
406.3(D). This proposal seeks to expand the present receptacle replacement
requirements to include arc fault protected receptacles where required
elsewhere in the NEC. The existing requirement in 406.3(D)(2) requires GFCI
protected receptacles where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are
required to be so protected elsewhere in the NEC. There is no practical reason
to limit the level of safety provided by AFCI’s to new homes only.
The benefits of 210.12 have been well substantiated over the last few NEC
cycles, but it is highly unlikely that the fire-reducing provisions of 210.12 will
ever result in AFCI protection for existing dwelling units unless branch-circuit
circuit breakers are replaced or the service is upgraded. There is no practical
reason to limit the level of safety provided by an AFCI to new homes only.
This proposal will provide that extra protection for older homes by requiring
the gradual replacement, over time, of non-AFCI-protected receptacles with
new AFCI-protected ones.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Add a new (4) to 406.3(D) as follows:
406.3(D)
(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupters. Listed combination arc-fault circuitinterrupter
receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at
receptacle outlets that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this code.
Exception: Unless the receptacle is protected by an upstream AFCI.
Panel Statement: CMP-18 edited the proposed text for clarity.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2
Basically if you just replace ONE receptacle in a dwelling (even if George Washington slept there)in family rooms, dining room, living room, parlor, library, den, bedroom, sunroom, recreation room, closet, hallway, or similar room or area you need to make that an AFCI. First, has that elusive AFCI "device" ever seen the light of day? If not, you have to use the breaker, does this mean you need to do a panel upgrade or add a load side panel of a style that the breaker is available for? This is NFPA creating a requirement for something that we really have never seen ... again.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,476 Likes: 3
Cat Servant Member
|
Thank you for bringing this to our attention .... only weeks after the time for comments has closed 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
Member
|
They are obviously intent on driving the resi electrical service business into the hands of handymen and DIYer’s who will not use the ultra expensive AFCI devices, when and if they become available, since they can just use a 45-cent standard 15A duplex receptacle from the hardware store or home center.
I also accept this proposal in principal, but REJECT it based on reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,006 Likes: 37
OP
Member
|
I just saw it in the IAEI magazine.
Again, this is the problem with a 3 year NEC cycle.
By the time anyone actually gets to read and discuss that 1500 page ROP, the comments are closed.
Half the states haven't even adopted one code before the process is closed for the next one.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,337
Member
|
It is easy to dictate safty when you are not the one underrighting it. What the heck will they think of next? Suck as it may but I am glad it does not already apply. I am about to embark on replacing about 1500 receptacles and switches, over the next few months and yes, they are the TR types.
"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
Member
|
Greg,
This is one of my biggest gripes! We are just stating to use the '08 NEC fully and we are still struggling with the Rehab code. Granted we had to switch to the '08 NEC by Oct. of 2009, but many houses and additions still being built are using the '05 code. So I don't even know what I hate about the '08 and the code making for '11 is now closed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 466 Likes: 1
Member
|
So the question becomes if the device is not available and you need to replace the receptacle what are your options? Knowingly create a violation and install a duplex, cap off the wires and leave the owner without a receptacle and force them to use an extension cord?
Not that it is justified but in the tight economy why is the HO going to pay several times the price to have it done in a code compliant manner vs the handyman price? I think we know who will be losing money on this deal. After all the HO only wants it to work.
Will an AFCI receptacle protect only something plugged in to it or will it also protect devices downstream like a GFI?
I just thought of this, if AFCI and GFI's are compatible technologies why does the code leave out AFCI protection for kitchen and bath receptacles? Are these circuits somehow inherently safer and installed better therefore arc faults do not or cannot occur in them?
Last edited by Jim M; 01/11/10 03:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,411 Likes: 8
Member
|
I would hope that the powers that be here in NJ would NOT adopt his requirement, if & when the 2011 NEC becomes adopted here.
We (NJ) have dodged the AFCI bullet from inception until October 6, 2009 when it became 'adopted' with the '08 NEC.
At present we are sorting out the 'rules' for AFCI; we need them in new construction, we need them in additions that have new branch circuits, we don't need them if an existing feeder/branch is 'extended', etc.
Where oh where is the elusive AFCI device??
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
Member
|
I just thought of this, if AFCI and GFI's are compatible technologies why does the code leave out AFCI protection for kitchen and bath receptacles? Are these circuits somehow inherently safer and installed better therefore arc faults do not or cannot occur in them?
The reason is that AFCI’s will nuisance trip constantly when used with certain types of motors, especially the universal motors found in many small appliances. They probably have known issues with split-phase motors found in clothes washers, as well as things like hair dryers etc, that contain heating elements switched under load, since the NEC doesn’t require them in laundry or bathroom areas either. I have to believe that the code making panel was made aware of these issues from the manufactures at the get go and I have little doubt that this is the only reason why their use was not mandated in those areas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,476 Likes: 3
Cat Servant Member
|
KJay, you MUST document such a claim!
As things now stand, NEMA asserts that there has NEVER been an instance of a properly operating, listed appliance of any sort causing nuisance trips with AFCI's.
We need to literally accumlate a list of dozens of instances where using "appliance X" causes problems - even when the appliance is fresh out of the box and UL listed.
|
|
|
|
Posts: 27
Joined: December 2004
|
|
|
|
