No AFCI's for Indiana. they recently decided to remove that requirement from the electrical code after having it for 3 years. The action was approved based on the home builders bringing the substantiation of the recall by Square D breakers. DUH!
Let's see, N.E.C. is the national minimums, so if they deleted the requirements for AFCI protection then they are in violation of National code. I do not think I would be happy about living in a state that fails to meet federal minimums.
So if I receive a shock from a circuit that is required by the NEC then I have the backing of the Government in any lawsuit I file, I feel a vacation to one of those states in the near future, be better than winning the lottery.
Bryan L. Key Safety Inspector/Trainer Terry's Electric Inc. An Xcelecom Company 600 N. Thacker Ave., Suite A Kissimmee, Florida 34741
The State of Indiana has the Indiana Electrical Code. It is adopted by law. it is the NEC as ammended. Major amaendments of the 2005 NEC in Indiana are to delete 210.12 AFCI's. To add to the end of 210.63 (HVAC recepticals) "located in attics and crawl spaces". Delete 406.8(B)(1) (bubble covers) and renumber 406.8(B)(2)as (1) My advice to contractors about AFCI's is that I cannot require them but, they are in the NEC and if something happens because they didn't install them then the lawyers and insurance guys will have something to do. Note: the 2002 Indiana Code on AFCI's limited them to receptacle outlets only. [We're still trying to figure out what time it is.] Alan--
[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 01-06-2006).]
A bit of a segway here but I saw a very interesting post on another forum today. The question was why are smoke detectors in a bedroom required to be on afci. We have seen tons of those questions before. What was unique about this one was the poster brought up the fact that in his smoke detector circuit none of the smoke detectors use the ground wire. And we know the ground wire is the real main component in the working of an afci breaker because it has a built in gfci. I guess the answer is because the branch circuit itself has the ground conductor and the branch circuit is therefore "protected" regardless of the device itself not being "protected" by the afci. Any thoughts?
Let's see, N.E.C. is the national minimums, so if they deleted the requirements for AFCI protection then they are in violation of National code. I do not think I would be happy about living in a state that fails to meet federal minimums
The NEC is a document produced by NFPA and has absolutely ZERO connection with any government agency. It is adopted as law at the discretion of the local AHJ. If it is not adopted in whole or part it has the same force of law as the Boy Scout motto.
The NEC is only as "national" as we choose to make it, when we adopt it into our local regulations. Just because the publisher calls it "National" doesn't make it so!
The NEC has prooven itself so well over the years that is has become universally respected- if not always adopted verbatum. Of course, there have always been differing schools of thought, as well as regional differences.
Despite warm and suzy sentiments about the NEC being a "consensus" standard, the only parties with a real voice are those who are able to attend national conventions. Some cynics have claimed that this gives an advantage to manufacturers, and other large organisations, that have the time, personnel, and money to spend the thousands of dollars necessary to attend one of these conferences.
As the NEC has expanded over the years, more provisions are called into question. The entire AFCI debate has been the most passionate one. Many, in every aspect of the trade, have qualms about the way the code has addressed the issue, the way it has been put into practice, and the equipment required.
So I'm not surprised that there has been widespread disagreement over the AFCI part of the code. For tose who remember the introduction of the GFCI, it was not accepted- indeed faced fierce opposition- until there were literally decades of documented use. During these decades, there were many, many improvements made, to address flaws that were uncovered. Contrast this to the AFCI experience, which has seen the code repeatedly mandate the future use of things not yet manufactured- let alone prooven.
Reno, I think the GFCI was a problem in search of a product. Lots of people get shocked, deadly or not. The AFCI was a product in search of a problem. The number of fires it might stop vs the cost is pretty lopsided. I think someone here actually ran those numbers. One of my long time neighbors was with Cuttler Hammer developing this thing and "arc signature was the stumbling block they never really got over. It only sees some of the arcs some of the time and may not really see the "problem" arc. C/H was the main driving force in getting these into the NEC and I think it was rushed. U/L ended up writing the standard based on the capability instead of starting with the standard as the design criteria.