ECN Forum
Quote

_______________________________________________________________
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.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention .... only weeks after the time for comments has closed frown
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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??

Originally Posted by Jim M

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.
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.
-Submitter: James T. Dollard, Jr., IBEW Local 98
Recommendation: Add a new list item to 406.3(D) as follows:
406.3(D)-

Call me cynical,not trying to be Juvenile.
But the economy is BAD. Non and Union Electricians are hurting.
My first take was a way to boost business.I respect that. We all try.
But in this manor would be absolutely ludicrous!!

Not that is the reason but....
I see no other from the hip.

As Above,I can only see a bad situation getting worse,RE- 'Handy man',and additional lack of permits leading to loss of revenue and GOOD Electricians going bad,at the choice of compliance and a living.
This seems to me to be a lot of hot-air.
If all you folks are so up in arms about these changes, why did you not bother to make sure you got your comments in to the Panel, BEFORE the closing date?
Mike I doubt there has ever been a code rule that got more proposals and comments than changing/deleting 210.12
I saw Reno was there. They all got blown off as being "unfounded" for one reason or another and that was it.
Originally Posted by gfretwell
They all got blown off as being "unfounded" for one reason or another and that was it.

I thought this was the year 2010, not 1885.
The Panel members need to be looked at, if they can't handle discussion points, after all isn't that why they have things like this?
Honestly. very few trades people know that they can comment.
By the time they realize it... comments are closed.
damn! Massachusetts has been on the 2008 code since 1/1/2008 and most of them don't even know it.
(owners and such yes)
Now the new cycle!!? When the heck do ya have time to work? you are always (seemingly) trying to catch up!
Let alone enter your thoughts in writing in X amount of time!!!! BS !!!

Other parts of the Country are still on the 2002.

What gives? I'm with Greg, slow it down,lets get caught up and on the same page.

Then extend the cycle to 5 +- years.
Heck Lee, I would be happy with a uniform adoption of the Code. One county here I think is on the 93, while others are somewhere in between.

I also don't like some of the reasons the panel give for rejection of a change. Seems like the intent is overlooked, perhaps because the person didn't quite use the words the panels would have used. Do the panels ever go back to the submitter and ask for clarification?
Jim, the reasons behind actions of the panels are as many as the stars in the skies. There are a few things, though, that need to be kept in mind:

First, it's always easier to prevent a decision from being made, than it is to get that decision reversed; with AFCI's the opponents are trying to undo a 'done deal.' My first involvement in 'the process' was exactly such an effort. While ultimately successful, you would not believe the stir it caused;

Second, as that Ford engineer said, everyone has opinions; you need DATA to make yours stand out. If there's a problem, you need to be able to demonstrate first that the problem exists, then that your proposal will address that problem.

Third, I like the multitude of jurisdictions, with their various editions and local ammendments. This is our final means of stopping bad code. The situation is already topsy-turvy, in that many times the AHJ feels he has to 'justify' why he's not following a 'model' code. This has it exactly backwards; it's for the 'model' code to sell itself to the AHJ. That is, the NFPA has to satisfy me - not the other way around.
While I can see your point about not adopting what some might consider a bad code, keeping track of what is and isn't allowed under different versions is a royal PIA. I remember asking a chief inspector if I could use something that had been changed in a later version vs the edition that jurisdiction had adopted. He said absolutely not. He had asked the legal department for that county and was told if he allowed that he would be breaking the law. I really can't see if it is safe enough on one side of a county line why it would be unsafe on another side. Of course that is all before you get the lawyers involved.

The flip side of the legal issue could be when you are held to the more recent standard that is adopted elsewhere even tho it is not adopted. Kind of like what you did was legal under past codes but gets twisted into it could have been safer under more recent codes and you should know better as a professional.
Jim:

That's why here in NJ we have the Uniform Construction Code (UCC; 5:23 et al).

It may be a pain in the butt, but the whole state is supposed to be on the same page.


Originally Posted by HotLine1
Jim:

It may be a pain in the butt, but the whole state is supposed to be on the same page.
Supposed to be the same here in NY, but one local township insists on doing its own thing.

Bill
Massachusetts:
We have 1(one) code,I and others like that. NEC with amendments,some good,some not, but.... I can travel 3 hrs either direction and know what I need to do. I like that.

Now... Licensed in several states..all with in 1 hour travel...That can be tough.

Bill,I once worked in Rochester,early 90's (unauthorized-unlicensed)Sent my Brother out for staples.. Insulated was a special order!!! Standard here, and code.

Little things like that should be accepted.
Lee,

I get dizzy thinking about it, but at one point I think we had to follow 3 different code years in different areas for different types of work (Resi or Commercial), but in reality the NY State Code was supposed to be followed by all (unless special permission was given by state).
Here in NJ you are suppose to go from High Point to Cape May and we are suppose to follow the '08 NEC. Yet when you have several different AHJ's you will have several different interpretations of the code. As I have stated in other posts, some AHJ's want any wire running through a bedroom AFCI protected. Which is not what the code states.
Was told by a inspector electricial contractors were the scape goats when these afcis came out.Why do you thank when they first came out had to use them in bedrooms only had to work the bugs out at the contractors expense. Dont do much house work but have read different problems they have had with them ceiling fans make them trip vacuums trip the ckt. And what do you know 2008 you have to put just about the hole house on arc fault
Regardless as to how anyone "feels" about AFCI’s, my own experience with these since their initial inception is that they are still not perfected, which leads me to wonder how the NEC could even consider expanding the scope of AFCI’s to SABC’s and feeders, etc.
Even with the current C/AFCI technology, this is sure to cause more problems than it solves.
Further expanding AFCI use could possibly result in a backlash from many jurisdictions finally wising up and at the very least, reducing the requirements for AFCI protection in areas that we all know through actual field experience, but some may refuse to admit... are prone to nuisance tripping, even when all circuit wiring is properly installed and tested prior to energizing.
I am sure I asked this question in a post somewhere. ( I can't remember which post) smile However I am not sure what the definition of Sec. 210.12 (B) "...closets, hallways, or similar rooms or areas." Does this mean you need AFCI protection for dining room lights but not for kitchen lights? What about basement lights?
Our chief inspector of the state of vermont required afci's for any service upgrade back in '99 (we were a code cycle ahead of the nation on them)

it was complete and total confusion.....

~S~

© ECN Electrical Forums