2008 Nec

jrclen

Here is a very interesting development.

24 January 2008 Ohio
Ohio 2008 National Electrical Code adoption is in jeopardy of being rescinded. More...

http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/c...20080124oh.cfm

cmec

The code makers need to learn Cant run an building inspection department without construction, maybee if some civil servants become unemployed they will learn.

Ponsse

Good for Ohio. It's time someone starts taking the NFPA to task for letting the electrical manufacturers push their products through the NEC. Maybe someone will challenge the fire marshall's someday for letting them call every fire they can't find a cause for an electrical fire.

jrclen

Amen

Celtic

NJ's been doing it for years

AFCI protection was not accepted as written for code years '02 and '05.
http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/c...20060505nj.cfm

The jury is still out on the '08.

__________________

jrclen

Wisconsin also has overridden the AFCI requirement in 02 and 05. But when I sent my comments to the committee concerning 08, I was informed by the head of the Electrical Safety division that accepting the requirement in the 08 cycle looked like a given. He said the only thing that could change their minds was the public comment meetings. But he didn't think the committee would change their minds. Time will tell. I think 2008 will be adopted with or without amendments in a week or two.

mickeyco

We're on the 1990 NEC, been getting ready to go to 2005 "soon" since 2004, across the street from me they're on 2005 (different town). We do however have some important amendments to the '90 NEC:
(A) The use of stab type screwless pressure terminals of the conductor push-in type is strictly prohibited.
(B) The use of device terminals for splicing is prohibited.

By the time we get AFCI requirement they'll be cheap and all the bugs will be worked out.

And remember it's safety first in Illinois, the land of a thousand codes, not to mention Chicago's very own "special" code that requires a "reasonably" priced "special license".


.

__________________
Some people climb mountains. I take out the trash. But we both do it for the same reason.

Ponsse

hey Mickeyco,

I've never visited or worked in your great state of Illinois, but I heard years ago that Romex isn't allowed in Chicago because of your big fire (something about a cow) and everything has to be run in conduit (residential I mean). Is this true? Was it true? Has it been changed if it was true?

jrclen

Here is another development. This is getting rather interesting.

Code Alert: Nebraska, 14 February 2008

NEMA > Standards > Field Representative Program > Code Alerts > Code Alert: Nebraska, 14 February 2008 The Nebraska 2008 National Electrical Code adoption process is being challenged by the Home Builders Association. The 2008 NEC came out of the General Affairs committee with a unanimous vote to move forward. At the last minute the Home Builders Association of Lincoln changed there opinion from neutral to opposed in an attempt to have the AFCI requirement deleted from the NEC. The State of Nebraska is trying to work this out but there is not time for meetings as this came near the final stages.

idoelectric

I for one, am in favor of the new requirements of the 2008 NEC. IMO, the 2008 additions and changes appear to be more focused on safeguarding homeowners from electrical hazards. The NEC Code Book wasn't established to appease electricians and should never be. 2008 has taken a new step in raising the standards for electrical installment for the 21st century.

Just because many of us haven't experienced an electrical fire, doesn't mean they don't exist. More and more homeowners are attempting to do electrical installs themselves and are screwing it up. If I can only count how many times I've opened a box and seen the neutral (white) burnt with the dark brown insulation flaking off as a result of diy'ers just putting wires whatever wires together. AFCI's will keep this kind of thing from happening and electricians may be in more demand. As far as Ohio trying to rescinde the new requirements is a show of arrogance, selfishness and disrespects the efforts of the code making panel.

There seems to be many who opposes the new adittions and changes and I don't know what are afraid of and would like to hear from those who are against it.

Speedy Petey

See, now ido, I take the opposing view. It is NOT the place of the NEC to "safeguard homeowners from electrical hazards". It is to ensure a safe and stable electrical system INSTALLATION.
It is NOT the place of the NEC to keep kids from sticking things into receptacles. It is the PARENT'S place.
As for AFCIs. It is well know that the manufacturers lobbied the NEC to implement them, and SO quickly.

I saw an article in one of the trade mags and it mentioned a study about safety. The study was done BY the MANUFACTURER. What do you think the outcome of such a study will say?

IMO the NEC has crossed the line BIG TIME for 2008.

__________________

idoelectric

Speedy,

Art. 90.1 (A) The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Manufacturers already are making money with or without afci's. Every time there is a change, blame it on some kind of money making scheme. They want to make money they can easily do it without afci's.

As a lic. electrician, I have a responsibility to abide by the code's standards without any opposition and they will be enforced. The only thing that everyone seems to be against it is that they are costly and no one wants to put out the money for them. As far as kids go, we have a responsibility as well to do our part in an effort to provide safety devices. Where I stand on the issue of 2008 is for the benefit of persons and property and not about I won't be able to do it cheap.

jrclen

IDO
Can you make a connection here? In my opinion, the more we charge, the more DIY we see. My concern is both DIY and handyman wiring or the failure to make upgrades due to high cost.

My other concern is the lack of science showing AFCI devices will actually reduce electrical fires. I read the UL papers on these devices, and I was not at all impressed with their assessment as to the worth of these devices.

So to say this is all about cost is not completely true. It should be about safety. I think we can all agree, safety is important. But cost must be factored in to the safety question. We should look at the big picture.

Senario: A home owner gets his new flat screen TV. He goes to plug it in but there is no receptacle outlet in the farmhouse. (Bear with me, I live way out in the country here) His wife gets the old 18 guage extension cord, runs it under the living room carpet, and plugs in the TV. The homeowner looks at that and declares that to be unsafe. Call that electrician down the road. Cost for installing a new receptacle outlet under the new tv and tieing it into the pushmatic panel in the basement, $100. Oooops. 2008 has been adapted. New cost for installing that receptacle outlet, AFCI, sub panel to accept an AFCI, $400. Homeowner tells me never mind, can't afford that. He mutters something about theft. He will use the extension cord under the carpet, or he will hire that handyman guy from town who will install the receptacle for $50. He pays the handyman and they laugh about that greedy electrician. And you know what? He does not have AFCI protection either way.

So yeah, it is partially about cost. But not for the selfish reasons you seem to be concerned with. Putting these devises in new homes is one thing. Demanding them in all cases, might be counter productive. It seems no one bothered to weigh the benefit/cost ratio before railroading these devises into the code. If I could be convinced that AFCI devices would actually do what most people assume they will do, I might be more willing to accept them. I think the code making panel ignored the test results published by UL.

JMHO

idoelectric

From your scenario, the guy is willing to pay big bucks for a flat screen TV but didn't want to invest in upgrading his home. Yep, priorities intact.

InPhase277

I personally don't buy the reasons why they were even developed in the first place. If AFCI's were so important, they'd require the whole house to be protected by them, not just some circuits. The manufacturers would make an AFCI main.

I don't do any new residential construction, so I don't sweat in too much. The only new construction I do is commercial, but I have recently taken on a heap load of residential service. Fixing things and adding receptacles here and there. I don't put them on AFCI's, nor will I. There is nothing wrong with the inverse-time breaker that costs $3.50.

InPhase277

Celtic

It really doesn't matter what you "buy".
The Georgia Construction Industry Licensing Board has made the decision for you:Code Alert: Georgia, 04 January 2006

Of course you are free to thumb your nose at the Board's decision....but what will you do should litigation come your way?


I am not a huge fan of AFCI protection, but when NJ's Board renders a decision, I have NO CHOICE but to abide by it or suffer the consequences should something go horribly wrong.
Thankfully, NJ's decision on the '05 language was to make AFCI protection "optional". Code Alert: New Jersey, 07 November 2005

The '08 has yet to be adapted, so the jury is still out.

__________________

InPhase277

The Ga CILB is using the 05 NEC, where only bedrooms are subject to AFCI protection. Unlike the 08 where almost everything is required to have it. If I add a receptacle on an existing circuit, I don't think I'm obligated to retro that circuit to AFCI.

Besides, I don't do any residential work in Ga, only commercial. My service work is all in podunk Alabama. There isn't an inspector for 100 miles, let alone a standard code.

InPhase277

jrclen

Good solid argument there.

jrclen

I'm sure most of us feel that way. We will do what we gotta do in the end. Even if we enjoy grumbling from time to time. To do otherwise makes us hacks. Heck, I remember grumbling about them new fangled GFCI things that tripped constantly just for fun. All we need to solve my complaint is a listed AFCI receptacle outlet and a code exception to allow it. Without the pipe. I know, I'm dreaming again.

jbfan

The last room addition i did was a bedroom and a den. The ahj dicated that the new circuit in the bedroom needed AFCI, but the exsisting circuit did not.
Ga will adopt the 08 code in Jan. 09, but I have not seen any addmendments to the statewide code. I beleive that we, as contractors, still have a chance to voice out opinions about the 08 code before it is adopted.

__________________
We are the people (our parents warned us about) (Jimmy Buffett)