ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Arc Fault Breakers

Problems in home wiring, like arcing and sparking, are associated with more than 40,000 home fires each year. These fires claim over 350 lives and injure 1,400 victims annually.

Badly collected stat's........

IAEISept/Oct , pg 86;
Concern;
Most of the wiring fires included in the fire studies used by proponents to support the requirements for AFCI's have occured in older dwellings.

Ul's David Dini's reply ........

The tests for UL 1699 for use with NM cable require NM cable with ground, as the NEC requirement section 210-12 would apply to new construction where branch circuit wiring with an equipment ground would be required.

Additional requirements are being proposed for some types of AFCI's to be tested with NM cable without a ground.

You may want to consider adding AFCI protection for both new and existing homes. Older homes with ordinary circuit breakers especially may benefit from the added protection against the arcing faults that can occur in aging wiring systems.

Which would be a listing violation to do....

Don,
This isn't an insult to our fixed wiring.
We are merely the first line of defense.
When GFI's first came out, they were considered by many to be a pain in the tail. We installed them nonetheless. Countless lives have been saved by our installations. Now you get one on the blow dryer you buy.

I see the AFCIs as the same thing. I sleep under an electric blanket that is 5 yrs. old. We have a table lamp that is more than 15 yrs. old in the bedroom. I'm not going to throw them away.
Rather than have a protective device installed on the fixed wiring for your new or remodelled home, do you propose a mandate that all table lamps and electric blankets be thrown away if they don't meet the new Code? Good Luck!
Does anybody in your area use an extension cord or 2? Most homeowners are going to.
A complete educational system for homeowners? Good Luck!
Anything we can do to save lives is a good thing. If it costs the home owner 2 or 3 hundred dollars extra, so be it. It's a lot cheaper than adding the protection to all their plug-in equipment, because they can't get it and won't do it! Ask one!!
We're just the first line of defense. As a fireman, you're also the last.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 11-30-2001).]

electure,
You are making my point for me. The AFCI required by the code is a branch circuit protection device and only provides limited protection for the types of faults in your post. If we are going to require AFCIs we should wait for the receptacle type that will provide much better protection for arcing faults that originate on the load side of the receptacle. This rule was pushed by the breaker manufactures to get their product into the code at the expense of the development of a superior product. At this point the code does not permit the use of a receptacle type AFCI even if it was on the market. The problem with lack of protection on the load side of the receptacle protected by an AFCI breaker was ever recognized by one breaker manufacturer who submitted a proposal the would have required both AFCI breakers and receptacles. So, I'm not complete against the requirement for AFCIs, I just think it should be revised to provide the most protection. I just don't believe that the majority of electrical fires in newly constructed dwelling units originate in the fixed wiring system. The vast majority originate on the load side of the receptacle where the required AFCI breakers only provide limited protection. Also how will these devices stand up under the test of time? I seem to recall reading that over 50% of GFCIs more than 7 years old are not functional.
Don(resqcapt19)

Don,

Your point is a good one. I too, would like to see them provide more protection past the fixed wiring system to better justify themselves. I do, however see a value in getting them into the new houses now. Agreed, new wiring installations installed properly are quite unlikely to have problems that might justify the existence or need for AFCIs. But once they are in place they should help to minimize the dangers that may arise as a result of modifications that are made to the wiring system by less than 'Qualified' persons. Sooner of later fixtures and wiring devices will be changed, it's almost a certainty. That is where I think they can earn their keep.

Bill

Bill,
By that time, if they have a track record like GFCIs, they probably won't be functional.
Don(resqcapt19)

So.....if 'qualified' were adressed, AFCI's would not be such an urgency.

A limited degree of protection certainly is a lot better than no protection at all.
I agree that the issue should be taken further, to be sure. In the interim, however, I think we should all welcome something that offers any protection at all.
The only objections anyone seems to have here are the cost, which is minimal when you look at the cost of a new home, and their pride.
Why wait??
Do what we can now, and encourage further development!

resqcapt19 Wrote:

"electure,
You are making my point for me. The AFCI required by the code is a branch circuit protection device and only provides limited protection for the types of faults in your post. If we are going to require AFCIs we should wait for the receptacle type that will provide much better protection for arcing faults that originate on the load side of the receptacle. This rule was pushed by the breaker manufactures to get their product into the code at the expense of the development of a superior product. At this point the code does not permit the use of a receptacle type AFCI even if it was on the market. The problem with lack of protection on the load side of the receptacle protected by an AFCI breaker was ever recognized by one breaker manufacturer who submitted a proposal that would have required both AFCI breakers and receptacles. So, I'm not complete against the requirement for AFCIs, I just think it should be revised to provide the most protection. I just don't believe that the majority of electrical fires in newly constructed dwelling units originate in the fixed wiring system. The vast majority originate on the load side of the receptacle where the required AFCI breakers only provide limited protection. Also how will these devices stand up under the test of time? I seem to recall reading that over 50% of GFCIs more than 7 years old are not functional.
Don(resqcapt19)"

Don
Were did you get the 50% failure rate in 7 years figure. I do not have a different one but that does not jibe with my experience. I have three church summer camps in my care as to safety issues. We have installed GFIs on every circuit were we have a possibility of campers using the circuit. The camps are located at or near the ridge lines of mountain ranges and two of the camps suffer lightning strikes every year. We installed the first GFIs in 1984 and completed the work in 1987. All but two are still in service. The two that failed were in a building that had a lightning strike within five feet. That is only two failures out of some sixty GFIs installed fourteen or more years ago.
--
Tom

[This message has been edited by tdhorne (edited 12-01-2001).]

Regardless of their origin, the fact is that the statistics would not exist if someone had not installed the units. If the GFI rules had not been Code , they would still be a seldom used option. No usage=No Database
John Doe still suffers the consequences.

Tom,
I can't find the 7 years reference, but here is a quote from a study by Levition.

"The GFCI Circuit Breaker Field Study, sponsored by The Leviton Institute, reviewed data from 13,380 building inspections and found that 15 percent, on average, of GFCIs were inoperative when tested.he study looked at both GFCI circuit breakers and GFCI receptacles, and found similar failure rates for each. The data suggested that lightning strikes are one likely culprit in many inoperative GFCIs. The study found a much higher incidence of failure in areas where lightning is prevalent. In those regions, as many as 58.2 percent of GFCIs were found to be inoperative."

Note that the high failure rate in is areas where lighting is common. I assume that this is due to spikes damaging the electronics.

Don(resqcapt19)