AFCI Controversy Continues... - ECN Electrical Forums

For those of you that get Mike Holt's emails, this is old hat...

However, I'd like the chance to rally behind him and flood the CMP's with ROC's to get rid of 210.12 as it stands.

What do you think?

Quote

Nebraska adopts the 2002 NEC, but without AFCI Protection!

Effective, July 23, 2002, the State Electrical Division will begin enforcement of the amended 2002 National Electrical Code as found in State Electrical Board Rule 18. All permits issued on or after the effective date will be inspected to the requirements of the amended 2002 NEC. All permits issued prior to the effective date will be inspected to the requirements of the 1999 NEC. See http://www.electrical.state.ne.us/notices.html

210-12. Delete the entire 2002 NEC Section 210.12, Arc-Fault

Mike Holt's Comment: I agree 100% with Nebraska. This requirement (AFCI protection) should not be in the NEC and I am considering proposing that this rule be deleted from the 2005 NEC.

I don't have the time right now to explain why I feel this way, but an AFCI protection device (as listed by UL in compliance with the NEC) is not listed to protect against fires from arcs from two wire NM cable, knob-and-tube wiring, nor is it designed to prevent fires from loose terminals!

Personally, I think the marketing of this product is misleading and the more I understand its limitations, the more I can't believe it's been adopted in the NEC. What really scares me is that the industry thinks that an AFCI device will protect against a fire from loose terminals. This is false security.

If you receive the IAEI News, read the George Washington Chapter Business meeting minutes on page 37.

Looks like someone in Nebraska is paying attention to what this device really does.

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-02-2002).]

Here's mine:

Quote

NFPA Proposal/Comment On-line Submission Confirmation
Submitter:
Virgil Kelly
Kelly Electric
Tyree Road
PO Box 182
Williamsburg, WV 24991
USA
Telephone: 304-645-4944
Fax: 304-645-0080
E-mail: vkkelly@stargate.net
Representing:

------------------------------------------------------

ROP/ROC Option: Download

------------------------------------------------------

Prop. or Comm.: Proposal
Document Number: 70
Date Submitted: 8/2/2002
Section/Paragraph: 210.12
Change Recommends: Deleted Text
Original Material: Yes

------------------------------------------------------

Recommendation: I recommend that 210.12 be deleted from the 2005 National Electrical Code.

Substantiation: Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters are not designed to detect and interrupt series faults, such as loose terminal screws or pressure connectors. The industry has been led astray on the actual ability of these devices to prevent fire.

Go here: http://forums.nfpa.org:8081/pcsubmit/pcsrch.html

and type (no quotes) "70" in the first box, and "nfpa70" in the second, select "F2003" in the third box then search. The NEC choice will be at the bottom of choices, click "select", then follow the instructions.

It's fairly easy to do! (And you're casting your vote!)

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-02-2002).]

finally, some of the heavies get it, and respond....it was only a matter of time.

I had posted the GWC discussion a while back, very revealing, some interesting banter between current & ex-employees of CH. .... corporate intergrity ...harump!
[Linked Image]

myself, i've already sent an ROP, i had basically asked that the definition be changed to portay the specific arc addressed....but more power to Kelly electric, i should hope that the 210.12 ROP's will be of sufficent length to move the CMP to consider THE TRUTH in that they were buffaloed by a manufacturer....

this really remains a good example of the protitituion of the safety community biased by commerce, carpetbagging NEC lobbists waving thier bogus stats.... it would seem that anything presented under the guise of safety is pontificated ad nauseum ,overshadowing all reason, a trump card palyed too often IMO.
The ultimate ROP here would be of the safety communities orgin, to defend thier credibility.

in closing, it's good to see electricians provide ROP's instead of the usual influx of manufacturer's, i urge all to cast a vote, lest they overrun us.

( you new ya'd get me cranked here Virg..)
[Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 08-03-2002).]

Actually, because of the money invested by the manufactures in this product, I think we will see an expansion of their use.Don

Still no sign of these devices being introduced into this part of the world as yet.

This whole AFCI deal begs the question ....

Who's NEC is this?

[Linked Image]

210.12 apparently belongs to Cutler-Hammer.

(Oops! Did I say that out loud?)

[Linked Image]

Yes Virgil you did. And for what it's worth I agree.

The truth is Don is right, and unless we can apply some serious pressure we will have to live with it. (yes I have cast my vote)

Now to step into another issue manufacturer backed, what do you guys and girls think is the driving force behind NM not being allowed in drop ceilings after it was permitted to go to 4 floors?

Roger

Evidently I got here late to the party and missed this event. Everyone is trying to ban article 210.12B, and according to the some of these websites the State of Nebraska has not accepted the AFCI article( I couldnt find a reason why they rejected it either). I didnt know A state could adopt and pick and choose the articles they wanted.
What exactly is the problem with AFCIs, are they "Unsafe at any speed ?" or not safe enough
I got a report from MHE about how some guy has a problem with them not working, according to him.
They did all of these tests for an 'Unknown Chemical Company', and tested AFCIs made by 'unknown Manufacturers'.
To believe this report is to believe that UL, the NFPA, the entire code panel, and the Siemens, Square-D and Cutler-Hammer companies are involved in some gigantic conspiracy all for the purpose of selling a 33 dollar circuit breaker. And this NO-name chemical company as far as we know could be an illegal Meth-Amphetimine lab is some seedy back alley. Why wouldnt the chemical company underwrite this experiment and then freely publish the results. Where were these concerned 'Testers' when the article was proposed in '99, we have been aware of this coming article for 3 years, that should have been sufficient time to prepare test and statements to the effect that these devices were garbage, but evidently none of NOTE came forward.
I have used exactly 6 of these AFCI breakers since January 1st and have no problems with them, But this is not a testamonial eihter way I dont see the problem with them.
According to one manfacturer of record ( I use Siemens) they were tested at Under/Writers and approved for the purpose stated. We are not to believe UL. ?
Someone want to tell me why there is a problem with these ? Because I dont see it.

-Mark-

The problem is that they don't detect series faults.

Series faults are things like loose wirenuts, loose terminal screws, and anything connecting conductors in series. I have no statistics to back me up, but I would guess that the majority of electrical house fires are started by series arc faults.

The AFCI's detect parallel faults (if more than 70A), and so do regular 15A & 20A CB's.

Overly-simplified Analogy: Let's invent something, and call it a "Crime Stopper" but this device will only detect and protect against jay-walking. Yes it does stop a crime, but it's stopping the minor and least worrisome crime, not the ones that are really doing the damage, like crack dealing. Now let's lobby to have these put into every home, and charge, oh say $50 a piece for them. then we can have a press release later saying "oh yeah, they only detect jay-walking, your not really protected from any other crime"

See my point?

Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters should do just that, or be called Parallel Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters, as per Steve's suggestion.

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-04-2002).]

Quote

I didnt know A state could adopt and pick and choose the articles they wanted.

If I've understood the legal position correctly (being a foreigner!), the NEC is not a legal requirement as and of itself. It becomes mandatory in any given state only because the state passes a law to say the electrical work must comply with the NEC.

Therefore, the state is free to amend the NEC in any way it wishes, either by adding extra requirements or by changing or deleting various articles. (And the same goes for counties or cities being able to add extra requirements, such as Chicago's everything-in-conduit rule, right?)

O.K., all jump on me now because I've got that wrong.... [Linked Image]

Quote

What exactly is the problem with AFCIs, are they "Unsafe at any speed ?" or not safe enough

Speaking impartially as I don't have any experience of these critters, I get the impression that most of the folk here who are unhappy about AFCIs are concerned that they are being marketed as a "cure all" solution to any and all possible arc faults, while in fact they will only detect and trip on specific types of arc-faults. Wrong again? [Linked Image]

Edit:
O.K., Virgil beat me to it while I was typing my reply!

[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 08-04-2002).]

You got it Paul, give that man a fine Cuban cigar! (They're legal now aren't they?)

[Linked Image]

More than anything, I'm miffed because I've spent much effort in being an advocate for these things, just to find out it's all a big scam to make $$$.

I plan on being as diligent an "enemy" as I was an ally.

The (inverse) Saul/Paul phenomenon?

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-04-2002).]

Sparky66:

Quote

Series faults are things like loose wirenuts, loose terminal screws, and anything connecting conductors in series. I have no statistics to back me up, but I would guess that the majority of electrical house fires are started by series arc faults.

I understand what a series fault is. What I dont understand is why everybody is buying this "REPORT" by and unnamed company unnamed researchers and treat it like it is the last word on AFCIs. They wouldnt even name the brand of breaker used, as far as credibility goes it falls way short of convincing me that these devices do not work.
There is no proof that they dont work either. The companies that make them had them all listed and tested by UL, is UL in on the conspiracy to?
It seems all well and good to be skeptical about a new product but to trash it without valid testing and then compare that to the testing done by the people who make them they miss the mark.
As I said except for the exorbitant price for these breakers I cant see any reason to recind 210.12B.
If compared to all the products the Electrical manufacturers sell this one item doesnt seem to be a record breaker in and by itself.
Paul:
I was always of the impression that if a state or locality accepted the NEC it could not pick and choose the parts it liked and discard the ones it did not. That part was left up the AHJ and the writing of the local codes.
This whole AFCI thing sounds more and more like another conspiracy theory run amok.
As I said I dont have a problem with them and have not seen any documentation to the contrary.
-Mark-

Let time tell.I'm sure the first time a fire starts in a bedroom, and it is traced to a damaged cord or something of that nature with the a/f not opening there may be some liability issues.The manufacture seems to be taking some serious risks with their claims.
Just read the packaging on these things.Doesn't seem to be any disclaimers, other than installation and testing.

The unit of government that adopts the NEC is free to make any changes that it wants to. Many areas have their own local rules that modify the NEC. Look at the inside back cover of the NEC under "adoption by reference". It says, "Any deletions, additions, and changes desired by the adopting agency must be noted separately".
As far as the AFCIs are concerned, I think that they have been promoted as being able to prevent far more fires than they actually will. If you look at the stats in the '98 ROP and ROC used to support the AFCI requirement, you will find that if all bedroom circuits in both new and existing dwelling units had AFCI protection, they would be expected to prevent about 800 fires per year in the US.
Don

Mark, more a 'truth in advertising' issue about said magic widgets efficy....
The search engine for this forum coughed up 66 responses to 'AFCI'.
A lot has been hashed out....

Mark (et all)...ask, & do not blindly accept ..... facts please..
(the archives will concere)

--what do AFCI's protect?
It protects the branch circuit,the listing agree, limited ability beyond, do not believe all this 'crimped' lampcord bull,
In a nutshell, the powers that be are stating our wiring methods S**K !
I beg to differ, institute real inspections by real inspectors and weed out the disidents please...short of this is two wrongs to make a right.
I've installed 100's of these little 'trade jems' since VT instituted them per state law in the 99 cycle.
Now VT is aparently having a change of heart, due to what is being seen in the field, or presented as public knowledge.
Subsequently, our rules are not out yet....

The crux is complicated here, but the listing disparity applies...

I argued the series-parrallel point and took up an hour of a recert, the instructor had the UL book out,the actual wording being 'carbonized' and 'noncarbonized' arcing, very vauge.....BTW, most in the class were under the impression of all round arc protection. This is NOT so....

--what is the expected lifespan of the AFCI?
you cannot megger the thing....

so...i would not bet that given the deterioration of NM and the probable need for the AFCI 30-40 years from now it will be able to function to tesing lab efficy....

I would not bet on the monthly tests done until then either..

--what statistics were the AFCI predicated on?

Fire dept's to not normally do detailed forensics, nor insurance companies, a cellarhole with no one apparently being home is many times coined 'electrical' in nature.

FF's in the know have voiced thier opinion across the internet about the stat's, the underlying message being the old addage used to present them to the NFPA ...

--how does an AFCI work?

simple Q , deserves a simple answer right?

(check archives...)

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 08-04-2002).]

Quote

scjohn Let time tell.I'm sure the first time a fire starts in a bedroom, and it is traced to a damaged cord or something of that nature with the a/f not opening there may be some liability issues.The manufacture seems to be taking some serious risks with their claims.
Just read the packaging on these things.Doesn't seem to be any disclaimers, other than installation and testing.

This is why I have a problem believing the 'Report' that was sent out by MHE. This was sent to him and he forwarded it his subscribers, not supporting it nor disavowing it either.
The report may well be true, I dont know and I have trouble believing a report with no substantial documentation, especcially when the report says, an Unnamed Chemical Company used AFCI breakers from manufacturer A and B .
If there is solid evidence that the device will not do as advertised it should be brought to the fore and investigated, and the whole article recinded(of the NEC)and these companies sued for fraud and this would include an awful lot of people but I would hope that it is looked into with a little more scholarship than has been put into the effort to discredit the 'poor'AFCI so far.
Didnt Bill bring in someone from Cutler-Hammer back in the beginning of the year to allay all the fears that had been coming out about this new device.
What makes me skeptical is for what purpose the cost of this thing, half this stuff is assmebled in Mexico at little or nothing cost to the companies involved. There are too many people involved here that support the claims made by the manufacutrers of these
devices for this to be a scam. People like UL who we as electricians have always trusted, one of the first things you learn as an apprentice is." is it UL approved"?

Still skeptical, doubting Thomas thats me...

-Mark-

skepticism is our trades' strong point,and should be heartily applied in this matter.

Real UL's response here when asked about series arc's, this was in an IAEI mag a while back.
I would include that the question was answered in a very evasive manner.

One can also surf Zlan , a manufacturer, to the same conclusion.

The contention of the manufacturers, when confronted with the 'series' question is that any arc of incendiary caliber would eventually go to ground anyways......

[Linked Image]

This is then further progandized in trade mag articles which allude to thier all-arc status, with no real specifications or parameters given

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 08-04-2002).]

The quoted article does indeed confirm that the majority of fires are caused by series arcs:

Quote

High-resistance connections within a branch circuit, such as a loose or corroded connection, a bad splice or an improper installation, were overwhelmingly the culprit in these fires.

Actually, I started changing my mind back when we were talking about AFCI's and I found out that they didn't protect from series faults.

I agree that the lab experiment you speak of wasn't official and we can choose to ignore it, but when Virginia, Massachusettes, and Nebraska say "no" to 210.12, that speaks volumes.

I had planned in the beginning to replace my fuse-box with a panel and have everything on AFCI (since I have an old house).

Mike Holt's email to my response of the article above said the very same thing.

AFCI's are the modern trade equivalent to snake oil.

I'll stand firm on that opinion until they come up with one that detects series faults.

As far as UL, I'm sure they tested to see if they would detect parallel faults, and I imagine that the manufacturers were quite honest with UL on the limited ability to detect series faults, and UL dropped the ball by not stating the difference on the Listing and Labelling.

JMHO

I'm not saying that they don't work, I assume they work very well on parallel faults. But the very name of these devices lends one to believe that they can do a whole lot more and protect both types of arcs, and the truth is, they detect the type of arc that is the least likely to cause a fire (between the two, all other things considered equal).

Man, I just get more steamed the more I think about this... They've duped us all!
(Except for the jacklegs that don't even know what an AFCI is and haven't installed any... they're turning out to be the smart ones!)

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 08-04-2002).]

Look here for an AFCI discussion that was held at the George Washington Chapter IAEI meeting. This was also published in the chaper news section of the IAEI magazine. Scroll down to the March 19 meeting report.
Here is the intro to the report;

Quote

We were anticipating a less-than-sanguine perspective on the protection provided by circuit breaker AFCIs, supported by a live demonstration. What we got, which kept us talking far longer than many another program, was more than we had expected. The presenter was consultant Bernard Schwartz, P.E., a Fire Protection Engineer formerly of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. He was ably assisted, and opposed, by Clive W. Kimblin, Cutler-Hammer's Manager for Applications and Standards. It was not a catfight, but it certainly was lively.

http://www.davidelishapiro.com/IAEI-GW.htm
Don

https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000352.html

This is the thread with Don's insight from the beginning, and the rep from CH.

I stayed quiet for most of the thread, but I'm not going to be quiet anymore!

[Linked Image]

Don:

Quote

What about series arcs, which AFCIs cannot stop? Both Schwartz and Kimblin agreed that there is no commercially-available technology that hopes to identify them and distinguishes them from legitimate loads. (Schwartz said that, to his knowledge, there is no such technology even in the works.) If there are dangers associated with arcs occurring at wiring terminations on devices or at splices, their characteristics may be indistinguishable from the arcs drawn by thermostats or switches. But Kimblin downplayed their danger, which Schwartz's demonstration might have caused the audience to see as major. He said,"It is essentially impossible to get a series arc by drawing two pieces of copper apart up to100, even 200 amps, past the half-arc [the zero-crossing point]. It will be very difficult for it to start a fire." In Europe, Kimblin noted, with standard utilization voltage of 220 or 240 volts, the risk that a series arc, whose current is limited by the load being fed, will not self-extinguish is greater than it is here. He named UL 1699 as a standard that requires includes protection against possible series arcs in NM-B (but not apparently, other cables such as ACHH, SEC or SER). Any series arc in a conductor that is broken inside its insulation must self-extinguish before a flame can leave the cable sheath. This is his basis for arguing that, in any grounded cable, the 30 mA ground fault protection will interrupt power, thanks to contact between the damaged conductor and the grounding conductor, before a fire can be started. Further, the ground fault interrupting characteristics provide some "glowing connection" protection at receptacles.

This is what I have been looking for someone from the industry to say that yes they dont prevent series arcs, and as they say the rest is history.

Steve: I did check out AFCI on the search engine and all I got back was GmBH, Gesellshaft mit Beschrankter Haftung, and something about limited liability.
But seriously though, you say blindly accept

Quote

Mark (et all)...ask, & do not blindly accept ..... facts please..
(the archives will concere)

But what do we do when we buy a panelboard we are accepting the UL label the companys word that there stuff is not junk, ie Siemens, Squar-D , and even Cutler-Hammer, so now what Sq-D breakers(QO for quick-open) are supposed to open in 1/60 of a second believe it or not.
Now back to the AFCIs I have seen more receptacles burnt on the line side,ie the hot than a complete failure across the entire receptacle, due to those back-wired receptacles. You are right if they dont prevent that then what good are they and for that matter what good is all the testing and as you say 'Not-so truthful' advertising, but here we are 2002 new code come out and we are mandated to install them in all new construction, at least we are here in Hicks-ville Ohio, What do I tell the customer? Well we have to install these beauties, but there is no guarantee they will work as they should, 'Really I can see the customers flocking to me to put them in there homes',

To Sparky66:
You are Right. So now that I see the light who do we believe, they are selling a pig in a poak.
Don dug that article out of a meeting of the IAEI, in Washington, The minutes of which were published on there website, but nothing made to public knowledge.\
I always said I was never too old to learn something new, and sometimes not always happy with the new knowledge.

-Mark

Quote

Series arcing is caused by a loose connection in series with the load circuit. Series arc current is limited to a moderate value by the resistance of the device that is connected to the circuit, such as an appliance or lighting system. The amount of energy in the sparks from series arcing is less than in the case of parallel arcing but only a few amps are enough to be a fire hazard. Series arcing is particularly insidious because the arc current remains well below the rating of the thermal breaker and the magnetic sensor will never respond to such low amplitude currents. Since the peak current is never greater than the steady-state load current, series arcing is much more difficult to detect than parallel arcing.

Hazardous Conditions
Loose wiring connections at outlets or switches.
Loose wires twisted together and held by a wirenut.
Frayed cords on appliances.

The detection of series arcing is complicated by natural occurences of arcing when switches are activated or appliances are plugged into the socket with the power turned on. These short-term arcing situations are generally not hazardous and should not cause nuisance tripping.

Non-Hazardous Conditions
Toggling a power switch.
Plugging in an appliance.
Replacing a light bulb.
Impending failure of a light bulb.
Switching of a motor relay.

When the normal load current being supplied by the circuit is below the breaker rating, circuit breakers in common use today do not react to an intermittent condition. For example, if a hair dryer normally draws 10 amps but the wall outlet has a loose screw terminal so it makes contact only half the time, the average current is 5 amps and the thermal circuit breaker thinks the current is still well below its rating of 15 or 20 amps. In this case the magnitude of the arc current is limited by the heating element in the hair dryer and the maximum value is never more than 10 amps.

New arc fault circuit interrupters (AFCI's) have the ability to detect the distinctive difference between normal current and intermittent arc current. In 1994 an insurance company survey of 660 fires of electrical origin indicated that more than one-third of them were due to arcing conditions. By opening the circuit when a hazardous condition is sensed, electrical safety can be significantly increased. AFCI's in compact and economical packages have been made possible by advances in integrated electronic components.

Home Waveforms Breaker Testing File Format Contact Zlan

------ Well here it is Series Arcing is not considered a very big hazard. And that agrees with the IAEI meeting-

-Mark

Don,
thanks for posting The minutes of the
"George Washington Chapter IAEI" per Dave Shapiro. I had lost that and spent time searching to post it here, I found it most revealing and recommend it as reading .

The 'heavies' involved debate just about every AFCI concern voiced on the BB's

Quote

GmBH, Gesellshaft mit Beschrankter Haftung

Mark, i meant this forums search engine, we've pretty much gone the distance here on this in relation to most forums.

as to breakers, even UL has been had in the past.......

I am glad that my home state of Nebraska chose not to be involved with the manufacturer's beta test of thier latest snake oil AFCIs. Yes i lobbied some board members-but it did not take much discussion. Most did not believe the sales lines from the reps. Lacking real accutate and reliable test data, and lacking any actual real world experience showing actual reduction in fires, makes the B/S sales pitches suspect. As I said in an older post if the product is that good they would not have tried to cram it down our throats.
My company still will NOT warrent them and if possible will not install them.
Also Nebraska did not adopt the greater than 3 floor change for romex.

To all :
After all our discussion and debate on this subject I wrote to ZLAN and received this reply:

Quote

Mark,
We have lab test equipment that can verify both GFCI & AFCI functions.
A year ago we sampled all manufactures of AFCI breakers. We were shock to
find that none provided any series arc protection (Arcing that occurs below
the handle rating). On the other hand we could not believe the
specifications that U/L was pushing for series arcing. You would have really
hated the breaker if they had fully implemented U/L's 1699.
Between U/L & NEMA, I am not sure we will ever have a functioning AFCI. The
technology was available 10 years ago.

I believe Congress will have to step in to resolve this issue.
Check with your Congressman.

Regards,

george@281.com
lee@zlan.com

There solution is to have Congress step in and solve the problem, what ever happened to good old American know-how, suck-it up and get the job done.
I cannot believe what this guy is saying, there is no-way they can do the job without someone elses help.
I apologise for my belief that there is still some honor out there, you know truth in advertising, obviously I am about 30 years behind the times. If a job cant be done we give it to congress to do, yeah they will assign a committee to and we wont hear about it for another 30 years.

Totally disgusted
-mark-

Mark,

Doesn't that just go hand-in-hand with the liability issue?

It's always somebody else's fault. It's always somebody else's reponsibility to see that something is done.

Just give me the big bucks, and pass the buck to somebody else. [Linked Image]

paul-- Yes, and in the US, leave it to the even fatter lawyers to duke it out.

quite the letter Mark.

It would seem our trade needs some watchdogs if Zlan would ask for Congressional intervention..

or rather, the watchdogs need watchdogs.....
[Linked Image]

I spoke with my Nebraska State Electrical Inspector the other day and got the news that Nebraska would not adopt the AFCI provisions straight from him.

He agreed that the state did the right thing. However, everyone is concerned that the state has opened themselves to liability.

GJ

I'm just bringing this thread to the top so the powers that be can pull it too.
Don

If there was a server accident, C:\Windows\Temporary Internet Files has a complete copy of the last access to the theads. Any of us will be able to provide the file. My copy goes through 6:31 EST.

Respectfully,

Al

Quote

I believe Congress will have to step in to resolve this issue.
Check with your Congressman.

Regards,

george@281.com
lee@zlan.com

perhaps his wish should be granted, as CMP-2 may well ingnore the abundance of ROP's (i.e. facts) as it did the first time around.

Contact your Congressman or Representative here

Another thought. Some European combination GFI & overcurrent breakers are designed to have an indication -- either by the trip position of the handle or by some sort of auxiliary flag -- as to whether the C/B was tripped by overload or by a ground fault.

Do any of the AFCIs incorporate a similar indicator to show whether the trip was initiated by the arc-fault circuitry?

I'm thinking of an earlier comment about whether even a parallel arc to ground is likely to trip out on the 30mA ground-fault protection before the arc-detector has a chance to operate. An indicator would show just how often the arc-fault section was initiating the trip.