CPSC, Schneider Electric North American Division Announce Recall of
AFCIs
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firms
below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI)

Units: About 700,000

Manufacturer: Schneider Electric North American Division, of Palatine,
Ill.

Hazard: An AFCI is an electrical circuit protection device (circuit
breaker) that detects electrical arcs from cracked, broken or damaged
electrical insulation and shuts off power to the circuit before the
arcing leads to a fire. An electronic component failure inside the
AFCIs can cause the devices to not detect an electrical arc. Although
the AFCIs will function as regular circuit breakers, they may not
detect an arc fault, posing a safety risk to consumers. Clarifying
Statement

Incidents/Injuries: Schneider Electric is investigating one reported
fire during a new home construction that may be related to this
problem. No injuries have been reported.

Description: The recalled Square D QO® and Homeline® Arc Fault
Interrupter circuit breakers are used with 15- and 20-amp branch
circuits. They are required to be installed in bedroom circuits in
accordance with the 2002 National Electrical Code. The recalled units
were manufactured after March 1, 2004, and have a blue test button.
The AFCI circuit breakers have one of the following date codes - CN,
DN, EN, FN, GN, HN, or JN - stamped in red on the breaker label
located just above the wiring terminal. The recalled units also have
one of the following catalog numbers printed on a label on the front
of the breaker: QO115AFI, QO115AFIC, QO120AFI, QO120AFIC, QOB115AFI,
QOB120AFI, HOM115AFI, HOM115AFIC, HOM120AFI, HOM120AFIC, QO115VHAFI,
QO120VHAFI, QOB115VHAFI, or QOB120VHAFI.

Sold at: Electrical distributors and retailers sold the AFCIs between
March 2004 and September 2004 for between $30 and $130.

Manufactured in: Mexico

Remedy: Installed AFCIs will be replaced free of charge through
electrical contractors. Consumers can return uninstalled AFCIs to the
retailers or distributor from whom the unit was purchased for a free
replacement unit.

Consumer Contact: Consumer should call Schneider Electric toll-free at
(877) 202-9046 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday
or log on to the company's Website at www.us.squared.com/recallafci

Most of these have been rounded up already. This news is about 4 years old.

On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:00:35 -0000, Jerry

wrote:
CPSC, Schneider Electric North American Division Announce Recall of
AFCIs
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firms
below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI)

Units: About 700,000

Manufacturer: Schneider Electric North American Division, of Palatine,
Ill.

This is 3 years old but I do wonder how many they have actually
recovered. If it is 40% I would be "shocked".

I was unfamilar with this recall until you brought it up in a previous
post. Absolutely nothing was said about this at the NW IAEI Section
meeting that I attended in Anchorage during the first week of
September.
With 700,000 units out there, it is a real problem as you explained in
your post. I am creating my 2008 NEC Change course and have been on
this AFCI thing for three days.
It is interesting to note that at the Sq D site they explain that they
are working with vacuum cleaner manufacturers to insure their products
do not trip afci's.
Can anyone imagine how many new products are going to have to go
through this same evaluation. I suppose that we can expect increased
costs for the evaluation of an electrical product to insure that it
will not trip an AFCI. Is this going to part of the listing
requirement for new products or does anyone have a handle on this at
all? It looks like a bucket of worms to me. I just talked to an
electrician in Hawaii that told me that some types of computer
monitors are tripping afci's.

"Gerald Newton" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:00:35 -0000, Jerry

wrote:
CPSC, Schneider Electric North American Division Announce Recall of
AFCIs
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firms
below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI)

Units: About 700,000

Manufacturer: Schneider Electric North American Division, of Palatine,
Ill.

This is 3 years old but I do wonder how many they have actually
recovered. If it is 40% I would be "shocked".

I was unfamilar with this recall until you brought it up in a previous
post. Absolutely nothing was said about this at the NW IAEI Section
meeting that I attended in Anchorage during the first week of
September.
With 700,000 units out there, it is a real problem as you explained in
your post. I am creating my 2008 NEC Change course and have been on
this AFCI thing for three days.
It is interesting to note that at the Sq D site they explain that they
are working with vacuum cleaner manufacturers to insure their products
do not trip afci's.
Can anyone imagine how many new products are going to have to go
through this same evaluation. I suppose that we can expect increased
costs for the evaluation of an electrical product to insure that it
will not trip an AFCI. Is this going to part of the listing
requirement for new products or does anyone have a handle on this at
all? It looks like a bucket of worms to me. I just talked to an
electrician in Hawaii that told me that some types of computer
monitors are tripping afci's.

I had a "home inspector" call me and get me involved in this when he
thought he had found them in a house. Turned out he had the wrong vintage,
and they were O.K. I spoke to my Sq-D rep and they said they would be
surprised if many were left "out there" and that Sq-D had really done a
thorough job on it. Anyway, the info is about 3-4 years old. That is why it
wasn't a topic at your meeting.

On Oct 10, 6:00 pm, "Long Ranger" wrote:
"Gerald Newton" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:00:35 -0000, Jerry

wrote:
CPSC, Schneider Electric North American Division Announce Recall of
AFCIs
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firms
below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Name of product: Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI)

Units: About 700,000

Manufacturer: Schneider Electric North American Division, of Palatine,
Ill.

This is 3 years old but I do wonder how many they have actually
recovered. If it is 40% I would be "shocked".

I was unfamilar with this recall until you brought it up in a previous
post. Absolutely nothing was said about this at the NW IAEI Section
meeting that I attended in Anchorage during the first week of
September.
With 700,000 units out there, it is a real problem as you explained in
your post. I am creating my 2008 NEC Change course and have been on
this AFCI thing for three days.
It is interesting to note that at the Sq D site they explain that they
are working with vacuum cleaner manufacturers to insure their products
do not trip afci's.
Can anyone imagine how many new products are going to have to go
through this same evaluation. I suppose that we can expect increased
costs for the evaluation of an electrical product to insure that it
will not trip an AFCI. Is this going to part of the listing
requirement for new products or does anyone have a handle on this at
all? It looks like a bucket of worms to me. I just talked to an
electrician in Hawaii that told me that some types of computer
monitors are tripping afci's.

I had a "home inspector" call me and get me involved in this when he
thought he had found them in a house. Turned out he had the wrong vintage,
and they were O.K. I spoke to my Sq-D rep and they said they would be
surprised if many were left "out there" and that Sq-D had really done a
thorough job on it. Anyway, the info is about 3-4 years old. That is why it
wasn't a topic at your meeting.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I live in Alaska where we have about 50,000 people living in 200
remote villages some accessible by water but mostly accessible by air.
So we don't get the information out for 2 or 3 years sometimes.
Anyway the IAEI NW Section meeting only comes here every 7 years and
this was our year. So I would consider the AFCI recall significant
for the meeting. Square D says they will pay for the rplacement.
Hmmm, does anyone know what it costs to fly out to the Yukon River to
replace a AFCI? Most of these villages do not have an electrician.

On Oct 10, 8:19 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:00:10 -0700, "Long Ranger"

wrote:
I spoke to my Sq-D rep and they said they would be
surprised if many were left "out there" and that Sq-D had really done a
thorough job on it.

I still would like to see real numbers on this. I can't imagine the
builders were really pro-active it going out looking for them (I know
the ones around here do not go out and stir up "closed" customers) and
I bet SqD doesn't really have a clue where these things went.

What is needed is a new label for cord and plug connected electrical
equipment used in dwelling units: "Evaluated for connection to an AFCI
protected circuit."
Perhaps this can be put in the NEC some place.

On Oct 11, 7:44 am, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:40:59 -0000, Gerald Newton

wrote:
What is needed is a new label for cord and plug connected electrical
equipment used in dwelling units: "Evaluated for connection to an AFCI
protected circuit."
Perhaps this can be put in the NEC some place.

Since the main reason something trips an AFCI is a ground fault I
think this is adequately handled with the leakage standards in the
listing requirement.
I am not sure how you could certify against a false "arc fault" trip
since this is a proprietary technology and the various companies don't
use the same algorithm. This is most apparent when you look at the
spotty performance of "testers".
It is this type of varying standard that gives the AFCI the reputation
of being more voodoo and snake oil than science. The intent is great,
the implimentation is suspect. In the current state of the technology
I believe you would get virtually the same protection from a GFCI.

I think the afci is a device that can help prevent fires. However, it
is an application of high tech to an industry that has a history of
not willing to pay the price for the strick quality controls that high
tech requires. For instance, the AFCI was designed to differentiate
between bad arcs and good arcs such as created by a common light
switch. But doesn't this assume that the light switch is built within
some design parameters. What if the contacts' material are changed
from one metal to another, or what if an electronic switch is
introduced. It seems to me that the creators of the AFCI circuitry
have got an ongoing tripping crisis on their hands. I did my original
research by going to the Zlan site. Evidently these are the people
that originally invented the AFCI microprocessor. The waveforms are
very interesting at: http://www.zlan.com/waveforms.htm

ref: http://www.zlan.com/

On Oct 11, 11:03 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:
On Oct 11, 7:44 am, wrote:





On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 09:40:59 -0000, Gerald Newton

wrote:
What is needed is a new label for cord and plug connected electrical
equipment used in dwelling units: "Evaluated for connection to an AFCI
protected circuit."
Perhaps this can be put in the NEC some place.

Since the main reason something trips an AFCI is a ground fault I
think this is adequately handled with the leakage standards in the
listing requirement.
I am not sure how you could certify against a false "arc fault" trip
since this is a proprietary technology and the various companies don't
use the same algorithm. This is most apparent when you look at the
spotty performance of "testers".
It is this type of varying standard that gives the AFCI the reputation
of being more voodoo and snake oil than science. The intent is great,
the implimentation is suspect. In the current state of the technology
I believe you would get virtually the same protection from a GFCI.

I think the afci is a device that can help prevent fires. However, it
is an application of high tech to an industry that has a history of
not willing to pay the price for the strick quality controls that high
tech requires. For instance, the AFCI was designed to differentiate
between bad arcs and good arcs such as created by a common light
switch. But doesn't this assume that the light switch is built within
some design parameters. What if the contacts' material are changed
from one metal to another, or what if an electronic switch is
introduced. It seems to me that the creators of the AFCI circuitry
have got an ongoing tripping crisis on their hands. I did my original
research by going to the Zlan site. Evidently these are the people
that originally invented the AFCI microprocessor. The waveforms are
very interesting at:http://www.zlan.com/waveforms.htm

ref: http://www.zlan.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The more I research the AFCI circuit breakers the more evident it
becomes that more R&R should have been done.

Quest 1: Did the inventors test every electrical apparatus that is
used on 15- and 20-ampere 120 volt circuits in dwelling units that are
on the market today?
Answer: NO

Quest 2: Did the inventors test every electrical apparatus that is
used on 15- and 20-ampere 120 volt circuits in dwelling units that are
in use but no longer on the market?
Answer: NO

Quest 2: Did the inventors test every electrical apparatus that is
used on 15- and 20-ampere 120 volt circuits in dwelling units that
will be available on the market?
Answer: NO

Apparently, these devices are being forced into homes by new rules in
the 2008 NEC while they have not been fully evaluated.
The future decisions now require that either the manufacturers develop
only those products that have waveforms in the set of waveforms
accepted by AFCI's or the AFCI's be reprogrammed to any new waveform
signatures that new products may have

I am seriously thinking about writing a letter to the State of Alaska
suggesting to not adopt the 2008 NEC without and exception to
210.12(B).

Gerald Newton wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:03 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:

The more I research the AFCI circuit breakers the more evident it
becomes that more R&R should have been done.

Apparently, these devices are being forced into homes by new rules in
the 2008 NEC while they have not been fully evaluated.
The future decisions now require that either the manufacturers develop
only those products that have waveforms in the set of waveforms
accepted by AFCI's or the AFCI's be reprogrammed to any new waveform
signatures that new products may have

I am seriously thinking about writing a letter to the State of Alaska
suggesting to not adopt the 2008 NEC without and exception to
210.12(B).


In addition to the expansion of locations where AFCIs are required in
the 2008 NEC, the 2005 NEC requires "Combination AFCIs" to be used after
1-1-08. AFCIs are now required detect arcs at a 75A level and will
detect parallel arcs. The new "Combination AFCIs" are required to
detect arcs at a 5A level and will detect series arcs. As far as I know
there are no "Combination AFCIs" on the market now only 2.5 months
before they are required to be used. So a far more sensitive AFCI will
be required in many more locations without field experience. If you
think it is bad now....

IMHO, the expansion of AFCIs to many more locations in the 2008 NEC
should have been based on the track record of the AFICs previously
installed for bedrooms. It wasn't.

--
bud--

On Oct 12, 8:27 am, bud-- wrote:
Gerald Newton wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:03 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:

The more I research the AFCI circuit breakers the more evident it
becomes that more R&R should have been done.

Apparently, these devices are being forced into homes by new rules in
the 2008 NEC while they have not been fully evaluated.
The future decisions now require that either the manufacturers develop
only those products that have waveforms in the set of waveforms
accepted by AFCI's or the AFCI's be reprogrammed to any new waveform
signatures that new products may have

I am seriously thinking about writing a letter to the State of Alaska
suggesting to not adopt the 2008 NEC without and exception to
210.12(B).

In addition to the expansion of locations where AFCIs are required in
the 2008 NEC, the 2005 NEC requires "Combination AFCIs" to be used after
1-1-08. AFCIs are now required detect arcs at a 75A level and will
detect parallel arcs. The new "Combination AFCIs" are required to
detect arcs at a 5A level and will detect series arcs. As far as I know
there are no "Combination AFCIs" on the market now only 2.5 months
before they are required to be used. So a far more sensitive AFCI will
be required in many more locations without field experience. If you
think it is bad now....

IMHO, the expansion of AFCIs to many more locations in the 2008 NEC
should have been based on the track record of the AFICs previously
installed for bedrooms. It wasn't.

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There seems to be some confusion with the term "combination-type
AFCI." At the 2007 IAEI NW section meeting a combination-type afci
was defined as one that provides series and parallel protection, the
type that you referred to in your post. However, some people think
they are afci's that provide AFCI protection and GFCI protection. But
the article in the IAEI News article on aci from the July-August 2003
issue puts a new twist on this. In this article written by George
Gregory and Alan Manche both of Square D (ref:
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...3d_gregory.htm
)state, "The name "combination" here means that it combines protection
of fixed wiring with protection of cords."
The 2008 NEC Section 210.12(B) does not define combination-type afcis,
but requires that listed combination-type be installed.
Perhaps a definition should be added to Article 100.

Your statement that combination-type AFCI's are not on the market yet
is interesting. You mean to tell me that Code Making Panel 2 let a
combination-type AFCI requirement be added to the NEC when there are
no combination-type AFCI's on the market yet? Houston, we have a
problem here!

The series of articles in the IAEI news provides convincing evidence
that AFCI's do provide substantial protection and have detected many
problems in existing old wiring. A program to test dwelling units'
old wiring with a type of AFCI tester is warranted. However, I doubt
that consumers are willing to pay for the test and had rather take
their chances.
ref:
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...gregmanche.htm
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...gregmanche.htm
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...3d_gregory.htm
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...endanfoley.htm

On Oct 12, 10:29 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:
On Oct 12, 8:27 am, bud-- wrote:





Gerald Newton wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:03 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:

The more I research the AFCI circuit breakers the more evident it
becomes that more R&R should have been done.

Apparently, these devices are being forced into homes by new rules in
the 2008 NEC while they have not been fully evaluated.
The future decisions now require that either the manufacturers develop
only those products that have waveforms in the set of waveforms
accepted by AFCI's or the AFCI's be reprogrammed to any new waveform
signatures that new products may have

I am seriously thinking about writing a letter to the State of Alaska
suggesting to not adopt the 2008 NEC without and exception to
210.12(B).

In addition to the expansion of locations where AFCIs are required in
the 2008 NEC, the 2005 NEC requires "Combination AFCIs" to be used after
1-1-08. AFCIs are now required detect arcs at a 75A level and will
detect parallel arcs. The new "Combination AFCIs" are required to
detect arcs at a 5A level and will detect series arcs. As far as I know
there are no "Combination AFCIs" on the market now only 2.5 months
before they are required to be used. So a far more sensitive AFCI will
be required in many more locations without field experience. If you
think it is bad now....

IMHO, the expansion of AFCIs to many more locations in the 2008 NEC
should have been based on the track record of the AFICs previously
installed for bedrooms. It wasn't.

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There seems to be some confusion with the term "combination-type
AFCI." At the 2007 IAEI NW section meeting a combination-type afci
was defined as one that provides series and parallel protection, the
type that you referred to in your post. However, some people think
they are afci's that provide AFCI protection and GFCI protection. But
the article in the IAEI News article on aci from the July-August 2003
issue puts a new twist on this. In this article written by George
Gregory and Alan Manche both of Square D (ref:http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...3d_gregory.htm
)state, "The name "combination" here means that it combines protection
of fixed wiring with protection of cords."
The 2008 NEC Section 210.12(B) does not define combination-type afcis,
but requires that listed combination-type be installed.
Perhaps a definition should be added to Article 100.

Your statement that combination-type AFCI's are not on the market yet
is interesting. You mean to tell me that Code Making Panel 2 let a
combination-type AFCI requirement be added to the NEC when there are
no combination-type AFCI's on the market yet? Houston, we have a
problem here!

The series of articles in the IAEI news provides convincing evidence
that AFCI's do provide substantial protection and have detected many
problems in existing old wiring. A program to test dwelling units'
old wiring with a type of AFCI tester is warranted. However, I doubt
that consumers are willing to pay for the test and had rather take
their chances.
ref:http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...ndanfoley.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There appears to be an overwhelming amount of support for AFCI's at
the National Association Fire Marshal's web site and videos too.
Also, the Siemen's site has numerous references supporting the
installation of AFCI's.
It is obvious that Code Making Panel 2 was overwhelmed by the support
and had little choice about adding requirements to install AFCI
protect circuits in all living areas in dwelling units.
The tripping problems appear worthwhile for the degree of safety that
is achieved.
ref:
http://www.firemarshals.org/mission/...electrical.asp
http://www2.sea.siemens.com/Products...l_Overview.htm

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:57:28 -0000, Gerald Newton
wrote:

There appears to be an overwhelming amount of support for AFCI's at
the National Association Fire Marshal's web site and videos too.

Firemen are not electrical professionals and their investigations of
accidents may be anle to pinpoint the origin of the fire but they
can't make a professional judgement about whether an AFCI would have
prevented it.

Also, the Siemen's site has numerous references supporting the
installation of AFCI's.

Siemens sells AFCIs
Of course they like the idea of selling a $50 part when they used to
sell a $5 part.

The mere fact that these things are being rushed into the code before
they actually exist should be a red flag to anyone who debugged
something else in their home, at their own expense. The title of this
thread should make that concern perfectly clear. Who knows exactly
WHAT this so called AFCI really does. The industry can't even come up
with a reliable way to test them other than a button that might be a
shunt trip for all we know.
I always hear the old saw that we resisted GFCIs too but, at least,
they could define a measurable performance standard (5ma imbalance in
current) when they sold them to us.
Even with that there was still a big learning curve in the industry
and the first several generations were crap. The Central Florida
electrical inspectors in IAEI determined that up to half of the
installed GFCIs were defective.
That is also in the magazine if you want to look it up.

I agree with your points. AFCI's are being rushed into the market without
proper study, imo. On the plus side, it likely means more work for the labs
I manage in the long run as we help people chase down problems with tripping
AFCI's ;-)

Charles Perry P.E.

Gerald Newton wrote:
On Oct 12, 10:29 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:
On Oct 12, 8:27 am, bud-- wrote:

Gerald Newton wrote:
On Oct 11, 11:03 am, Gerald Newton
wrote:
The more I research the AFCI circuit breakers the more evident it
becomes that more R&R should have been done.
Apparently, these devices are being forced into homes by new rules in
the 2008 NEC while they have not been fully evaluated.
The future decisions now require that either the manufacturers develop
only those products that have waveforms in the set of waveforms
accepted by AFCI's or the AFCI's be reprogrammed to any new waveform
signatures that new products may have
I am seriously thinking about writing a letter to the State of Alaska
suggesting to not adopt the 2008 NEC without and exception to
210.12(B).

In addition to the expansion of locations where AFCIs are required in
the 2008 NEC, the 2005 NEC requires "Combination AFCIs" to be used after
1-1-08. AFCIs are now required detect arcs at a 75A level and will
detect parallel arcs. The new "Combination AFCIs" are required to
detect arcs at a 5A level and will detect series arcs. As far as I know
there are no "Combination AFCIs" on the market now only 2.5 months
before they are required to be used. So a far more sensitive AFCI will
be required in many more locations without field experience. If you
think it is bad now....
IMHO, the expansion of AFCIs to many more locations in the 2008 NEC
should have been based on the track record of the AFICs previously
installed for bedrooms. It wasn't.

There seems to be some confusion with the term "combination-type
AFCI." At the 2007 IAEI NW section meeting a combination-type afci
was defined as one that provides series and parallel protection, the
type that you referred to in your post. However, some people think
they are afci's that provide AFCI protection and GFCI protection. But
the article in the IAEI News article on aci from the July-August 2003
issue puts a new twist on this. In this article written by George
Gregory and Alan Manche both of Square D (ref:http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...3d_gregory.htm
)state, "The name "combination" here means that it combines protection
of fixed wiring with protection of cords."

"Combination AFCIs" combine the requirements of
- "branch circuit AFCIs" - now required - that protect fixed wiring (and
plug-in cords) and
- "outlet circuit AFCIs" that protect cords plugged into outlets (also
protect supply wiring from series arcs).

The magazine article at:
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...gregmanche.htm
is very good. It is the only place I have seen that explains the current
detection levels.
"Branch circuit AFCIs" detect arcs at a max 75A level - good for
parallel arcs.
"Outlet circuit AFCIs" detect arcs at a max 5A level - they will detect
series arcs (and parallel arcs).
All 3 types have max 50mA (usually 30mA) ground fault detection. This is
not detection at the 5mA level required by GFCIs.

The 2008 NEC Section 210.12(B) does not define combination-type afcis,
but requires that listed combination-type be installed.
Perhaps a definition should be added to Article 100.

The code panel wants the definition in the UL standard.


Your statement that combination-type AFCI's are not on the market yet
is interesting. You mean to tell me that Code Making Panel 2 let a
combination-type AFCI requirement be added to the NEC when there are
no combination-type AFCI's on the market yet? Houston, we have a
problem here!

IMHO it is a major stupidity. IMHO a second major stupidity was vastly
expanding the locations where the nonexistent AFCIs had to be installed.
It may have made sense when the 2005 NEC was written to think
"Combination AFCIs" would be available 1-1-08. But there were 2
proposals from Eaton/Cutler Hammer to delete the requirement for
"Combination AFCIs" in the 2008 NEC because the devices did not exist.
Now, even later, the devices still apparently don't exist.


The series of articles in the IAEI news provides convincing evidence
that AFCI's do provide substantial protection and have detected many
problems in existing old wiring. A program to test dwelling units'
old wiring with a type of AFCI tester is warranted. However, I doubt
that consumers are willing to pay for the test and had rather take
their chances.
ref:http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...gregmanche.htm
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...gregmanche.htm
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...3d_gregory.htm
ttp://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/03_f/03_f_brendanfoley.htm


There appears to be an overwhelming amount of support for AFCI's at
the National Association Fire Marshal's web site and videos too.

IMHO a third stupidity was expanding the locations required for AFCIs
without basing it on data from the AFCIs already installed. Far as I
remember, all the 'data' was anecdotal or suppositions. (Anecdotal
evidence proves burning witches was effective.) AFCIs may be a great
idea, but can't someone generate some data based on experience?

The fire marshals specifically:
- Brush off the lack of series arc protection in the existing AFCIs.
Presumably series arcs are much less dangerous than parallel. (I haven't
seen data that indicates most fires are caused by parallel arcs.)
- Brush off nuisance tripping - annecdoatal comments that nuisance trips
were caused by actual problems (*some* no doubt were).
- Does not address expansion past bedroom circuits. A cost analysis was
based on 2 likely circuits (how many will be required with the new
rules) and the cost of the original AFCIs (will the much more sensitive
"Combination AFCIs" have a lot higher cost?)


Also, the Siemen's site has numerous references supporting the
installation of AFCI's.
It is obvious that Code Making Panel 2 was overwhelmed by the support
and had little choice about adding requirements to install AFCI
protect circuits in all living areas in dwelling units.
The tripping problems appear worthwhile for the degree of safety that
is achieved.
ref:
http://www.firemarshals.org/mission/...electrical.asp
http://www2.sea.siemens.com/Products...l_Overview.htm

Another issue that annoyed me was smoke detectors. There were several
proposals to exempt smoke detectors installed in bedrooms from being
required to be on AFCI circuits. Losing the power, particularly when a
fire may be starting, is a larger danger than fire caused by detector
arcing. Many jurisdictions apparently feel this way. The response of
the code panel was the proposals had no data that "indicate that AFCI
devices are not compatible with smoke alarms". This is totally
irrelevant to the argument. Does the code panel have data that indicates
smoke detectors are a significant source of fires from arcs?

Incidentally, a couple proposals indicate NFPA 72 (smoke alarms?) has
been changed to require a "secondary power source for smoke alarms that
are installed on AFCI protected circuits" (battery backup - or maybe a
smoke detector emergency generator?). [Is NFPA 72 adopted by anyone? Is
it adopted by reference in fire codes?]

Rumor is the locations required to have AFCIs was significantly limited
from the original language. (Basically not required where a GFCI is now
required?)

It will be interesting what jurisdictions do with all of this. Greg?

--
bud--

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:16:05 -0500, bud--
wrote:


The code panel wants the definition in the UL standard.


The problem with depending on Nationally Recognized Testing Labs to
provide code language is there are over a dozen NRTLs that compete
with each other for testing business. There is no gurantee that these
will use consistant terminology.

I finally looked up NRTLs a while ago - surprised how little info was
out there.

As far as OSHA is concerned, the standards come mostly from UL, a few
from old lab Factory Mutual, and some from IEEE. Standards may have all
been accepted by ANSI. Standards didn't come from the new NRTLs. Not
obvious what states require.

Is much equipment appearing from the new NRTLs?


Rumor is the locations required to have AFCIs was significantly limited
from the original language. (Basically not required where a GFCI is now
required?)

It will be interesting what jurisdictions do with all of this. Greg?

The current plan is for the state of Florida to skip the 2008 NEC and
pick it up at the 2011, probably some time around 2012 if past history
is any guide. They did cherry pick the softening of 680.26(C)
requirements and put that in the building code.

Wonder if there will be combination AFCIs by then.

--
bud--

On Oct 15, 8:25 am, wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:32:38 -0500, bud--
wrote:

I finally looked up NRTLs a while ago - surprised how little info was
out there.

As far as OSHA is concerned, the standards come mostly from UL, a few
from old lab Factory Mutual, and some from IEEE. Standards may have all
been accepted by ANSI. Standards didn't come from the new NRTLs. Not
obvious what states require.

Is much equipment appearing from the new NRTLs?

U/L is the defacto US NRTL and most people assume they make the rules
but as we start seeing more things coming in from other countries that
are not US trademarked I expect to see more from TUV.
ETL is planting ads in the trade rags reminding people that their
listing mark is the same as U/L
At a certain point I start to see these testing labs and standards
orgainiztitions taking on a life of their own, becoming more odious
than the governments they are attempting to replace.
I think AHJs should get in the habit of skipping cycles in the code,
just to cut down on the churn. Most AHJs and government regulators
have not really evaluated and adopted one cycle before the next one is
in "comments". That is how we get cases where they adopt a code and
get bushwacked by something nobody really understood. (like 682.33)
NFPA is already taking proposals for the 2011 and most people have not
seen the 2008 yet. That is ridiculous.

Applause on what you said. NRTL's are evaluated using a ANSI standard
ANSI Z34.1 - 1987 the last time I checked, but that was about 1996.
This standard was how the State of Alaska determines if an applicant
can be a NRTL.

I look at adopting the 2008 NEC as - well it is not perfect, but we
should try to live with it and help support the many people that make
it possible. They try very hard and work very hard to produce a fine
safety standard for us and I think we owe them our support. A
backlash could potentially lead to a financial crisis at the NFPA.

In alt.engineering.electrical Gerald Newton wrote:
| On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, wrote:
| On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:00:35 -0000, Jerry
|
| wrote:
| CPSC, Schneider Electric North American Division Announce Recall of
| AFCIs
| WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
| announces the following recall in voluntary cooperation with the firms
| below. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
| unless otherwise instructed.
|
| Name of product: Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI)
|
| Units: About 700,000
|
| Manufacturer: Schneider Electric North American Division, of Palatine,
| Ill.
|
| This is 3 years old but I do wonder how many they have actually
| recovered. If it is 40% I would be "shocked".
|
| I was unfamilar with this recall until you brought it up in a previous
| post. Absolutely nothing was said about this at the NW IAEI Section
| meeting that I attended in Anchorage during the first week of
| September.
| With 700,000 units out there, it is a real problem as you explained in
| your post. I am creating my 2008 NEC Change course and have been on
| this AFCI thing for three days.
| It is interesting to note that at the Sq D site they explain that they
| are working with vacuum cleaner manufacturers to insure their products
| do not trip afci's.
| Can anyone imagine how many new products are going to have to go
| through this same evaluation. I suppose that we can expect increased
| costs for the evaluation of an electrical product to insure that it
| will not trip an AFCI. Is this going to part of the listing
| requirement for new products or does anyone have a handle on this at
| all? It looks like a bucket of worms to me. I just talked to an
| electrician in Hawaii that told me that some types of computer
| monitors are tripping afci's.

Maybe they should have considered all these appliances when they designed
these AFCIs. The arc waveform of a motor (I'm guessing typically these
are universal motors with brushes that arc) is not the same as the arc
waveform of a loose connection. But just how well the tiny bit of software
they can put inside a breaker can make the distinction within a cycle of
power is another issue.

How about a device that is specifically designed to filter out the arc
waveform that can be incorporated in new appliances? An LC low-pass?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical Gerald Newton wrote:

| Hmmm, does anyone know what it costs to fly out to the Yukon River to
| replace a AFCI? Most of these villages do not have an electrician.

I would hope you would.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical Gerald Newton wrote:

| The more I research the AFCI circuit breakers the more evident it
| becomes that more R&R should have been done.
|
| Quest 1: Did the inventors test every electrical apparatus that is
| used on 15- and 20-ampere 120 volt circuits in dwelling units that are
| on the market today?
| Answer: NO
|
| Quest 2: Did the inventors test every electrical apparatus that is
| used on 15- and 20-ampere 120 volt circuits in dwelling units that are
| in use but no longer on the market?
| Answer: NO
|
| Quest 2: Did the inventors test every electrical apparatus that is
| used on 15- and 20-ampere 120 volt circuits in dwelling units that
| will be available on the market?
| Answer: NO
|
| Apparently, these devices are being forced into homes by new rules in
| the 2008 NEC while they have not been fully evaluated.
| The future decisions now require that either the manufacturers develop
| only those products that have waveforms in the set of waveforms
| accepted by AFCI's or the AFCI's be reprogrammed to any new waveform
| signatures that new products may have
|
| I am seriously thinking about writing a letter to the State of Alaska
| suggesting to not adopt the 2008 NEC without and exception to
| 210.12(B).

I would suggest, instead, to add a "variance" that allows substitution of
a non-AFCI breaker in cases where a definite problem exists. To qualify
for the substitution, a letter must be sent to a central authority for
record keeping (maybe the state inspection board) and the manufacturer of
the breaker to detail the situation, including a description of the device
found to be causing false trips. The rule should also require replacement
of certain classes of bad devices, such as a light switch that happens to
not part the gap fast enough and arcs more frequently than it should.

I remember as a kid I could "play" with the light switch and get the lights
to be at half brightness. I usually heard the "sizzle" inside the switch,
but then didn't think of it as an issue. Today, if I _CAN_ do that with a
switch, the switch gets replaced. A proper switch should fully snap over
to the other position when a movement threshhold is reached, and not part
the gap before then.

If certain models of switches are found to frequently trip AFCIs, then those
switches should be pulled from the market. I hope that testing for this is
part of the UL requirement. Maybe it should be for _every_ appliance to be
listed by UL, if they can establish a standard base for arc detection (as
opposed to merely using the existing AFCI products). At least for switches
they should watch the waveform for any bounce.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical Gerald Newton wrote:

| The 2008 NEC Section 210.12(B) does not define combination-type afcis,
| but requires that listed combination-type be installed.
| Perhaps a definition should be added to Article 100.

Absolutely. That was a major error by the NEC.

I have read various online documents in the past that go both ways on
the definition.


| Your statement that combination-type AFCI's are not on the market yet
| is interesting. You mean to tell me that Code Making Panel 2 let a
| combination-type AFCI requirement be added to the NEC when there are
| no combination-type AFCI's on the market yet? Houston, we have a
| problem here!

That may well be the case. Neither Square-D nor Cutler-Hammer (the
catalogs I have that include breakers) list these devices as "combination"
type devices. There are a couple cases where the word "combination" is
used specifically to refer to it "combining" the feature of GFCI in the
same unit. This may be (part of) the source of confusion.


| The series of articles in the IAEI news provides convincing evidence
| that AFCI's do provide substantial protection and have detected many
| problems in existing old wiring. A program to test dwelling units'
| old wiring with a type of AFCI tester is warranted. However, I doubt
| that consumers are willing to pay for the test and had rather take
| their chances.

How much does such a test cost? What if the residents just don't have
that much money? You see, safety _does_ discriminate against those in
economically disadvantaged positions.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical bud-- wrote:

| All 3 types have max 50mA (usually 30mA) ground fault detection. This is
| not detection at the 5mA level required by GFCIs.

I saw some in a Cutler-Hammer brochure or catalog that had 5ma level
ground fault protection.


| "Combination AFCIs" in the 2008 NEC because the devices did not exist.
| Now, even later, the devices still apparently don't exist.

Invest now in the company that makes red tags! :-)


| The fire marshals specifically:
| - Brush off the lack of series arc protection in the existing AFCIs.
| Presumably series arcs are much less dangerous than parallel. (I haven't
| seen data that indicates most fires are caused by parallel arcs.)
| - Brush off nuisance tripping - annecdoatal comments that nuisance trips
| were caused by actual problems (*some* no doubt were).

Nuisance trips may be more like to cause people to replace AFCI breakers
with non-AFCI breakers. With licensed electricians refusing to do such
work, people who should not do this may be doing it.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical Jerry wrote:

| I look at adopting the 2008 NEC as - well it is not perfect, but we
| should try to live with it and help support the many people that make
| it possible. They try very hard and work very hard to produce a fine
| safety standard for us and I think we owe them our support. A
| backlash could potentially lead to a financial crisis at the NFPA.

IMHO, an acceptable modification to the 2008 NEC in the area of AFCIs is
to allow case-by-case exemptions when a specific cause of false tripping
is found and is not practical to replace. An example of something that
is practical to replace is a light switch that does not part the gap fast
enough to avoid some arcing time. What is practical to replace might be
in dispute, and can vary based on the economic status of the homeowner.
When an exemption is granted, it should be documented and a copy sent to
whatever entities should have an interest (state inspection boards, NFPA,
the AFCI manufacturer, the appliance manufacturer, etc). Where practical,
an added dedicated circuit is another alternative.

Reduction of the use of incandescent bulbs for environmental reasons should
also reduce nuisance trips that may result from them burning out. I don't
know what might be needed for motorized appliances that have an issue.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

In alt.engineering.electrical wrote:
| On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:53:36 -0000, Gerald Newton
| wrote:
|
|s this going to part of the listing
|requirement for new products or does anyone have a handle on this at
|all? It looks like a bucket of worms to me. I just talked to an
|electrician in Hawaii that told me that some types of computer
|monitors are tripping afci's.
|
| I would expect this uis really a ground fault problem. I know my TV
| trips a GFCI when it is connected to my PC and it has a 2 wire plug. I
| looked and there is no voltage on the A/V ports but I bet they are
| coupled to the neutral somehow. I suspect they are creating a current
| carrying ground path with the PC that bonds the DC ground to the EGC.

Connect the A/V ports directly to a ground line (after testing to be sure
you aren't seeing a voltage level that would give you a big blue flash).

I kinda doubt your case has this, but one cause of some false GFCI trips
(and potentially false AFCI trips) is common mode RF propogating back on
the power cord.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|