Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
This is the page
This is the page
Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
ROP = Report on Proposals and the ROC = Report on Comments
The ROC is the last word and before this issue can be understood that Comment for this proposal, if any, must be read to see the exact final code text. 
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm
Originally Posted By: Charles Palmieri
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
70-648
3-526 Log #1328 NEC-P03 Final Action: Accept
( 760.21 )
531.Comment on Affirmative:
AYER: Adding arc-fault circuit interrupters to 760.21 addresses the fact that
arc-fault type devices should not protect circuits that feed fire alarm panels.
Article 760.21 does not deal with the wiring for multi-station smoke detectors
as the submitter has suggested. Since panel 3 does not have jurisdiction over
the wiring of these types of detectors that are found in dwelling units, these
proposals should have been submitted to Code-Making Panel 2 since they have
jurisdiction in this matter. I am in agreement that non-power limited circuits
that feed such items as fire alarm panels should not be protected by arc-fault
interrupters, however, the substantiation provided by the submitter is incorrect.
CASPARRO: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 3-189.
GUIDA: The substantiation in both the proposal and the comment appears
to be addressing concerns with AFCI protection for branch circuits supplying
single and multiple station smoke detectors. These devices are self-contained
assemblies that incorporate the detector, the control equipment, and the alarmsounding
device in one unit operated from a power supply either in the unit or
obtained at the point of installation. Article 760 does not cover either single or
multiple station detectors but rather addresses fire alarm systems employing a
fire alarm panel.
Section 760.21 applies to the branch circuit supplying a fire alarm system and
not to individual single or multiple station smoke detectors. Branch circuits
supplying single or multiple station smoke detectors in a bedroom must comply
with the requirements in 210.12.
A fire alarm system is required to have a secondary power supply that will
operate for a certain period of time upon loss of primary power so the fire
alarm system will continue to operate. Since an arcing fault in the branch
circuit supplying the fire alarm panel may cause an AFCI device to trip and
result in the loss of primary power to the fire alarm panel, with subsequent loss
of secondary power. Loss of both primary and secondary power for the fire
alarm panel could result in a life safety issue with no fire alarm coverage for
the installation.
The same situation exists for power-limited fire alarm systems as covered by
760.41. Again, these power limited fire alarm circuits are supplied from a fire
alarm system, not single or multiple station smoke detectors, but the same principle
as stated above, applies.
Charlie
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hmmmm … the waters are starting to get a little muddy. There were other 760.21 proposals to eliminate AFCI’s for home alarm systems and smoke detectors that were accepted in principal, and referred back to the approved 3-236 … so it seemed like they were considering the interconnected smoke detectors as a system. I am curious about the Report on Comments (ROC) for 3-236, since it ended up in the 2005 NEC.
–
Robert O’Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Charles Palmieri
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’m a little confused as to how this topic stays alive.
Article 210 governs branch circuits see 210.3 and 210.12 (B)
Article 760 governs (from the NEC side) Fire Alarm Systems .
760.21 and 41 address the circuitry that supplies normal power to a monitored system.
Single and Multiple Station Smokes are not Fire Alarm Systems.
They do manufacture system smoke detectors.
What am I missing???
Charlie
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Charlie … I think the topic of AFCI protection for smoke alarms is an important/interesting topic, which is why I jumped into the discussion to kick it around some more. If you don’t agree, there’s no need read the thread any more … but I think the input and banter is good.
I am really talking about new homes, where current residential model codes (like IRC R317) require the installation of multiple station smoke alarms in each bedroom and at each level. They have to not only have hardwired power, but also need to be interconnected so when one activates they all activate. At least in my mind, that is an alarm "system" ... even if it's not remotely monitored.
I know NFPA had a lot of proposals to expand/eliminate the Article 210 provisions on the controversial AFCI's for the 2005 NEC, and I understand it was decided to mostly keep status quo until more data/info is available. But I think the 760.21 changes, and in particular the wording of the accepted 3-263 proposal, was significant. Seems like at least a change in direction for smokes on AFCI's. [P.S. was your previous post a quote related to NFPA accepting 3-263 ... may have missed that].
I think the newer interconnected smoke alarm installation/system requirement starting with the 2000 IRC is the single biggest lifesaver ever put in the residential building codes. I spend a good amount of time on every final inspection making sure the system works right before a CO is issued. In my personal opinion, it is a huge mistake to hook those lifesaving systems up to controversial AFCI devices.
Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... 
--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Charles Palmieri
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I just re-read my last post and I think I see your point.
I'm not upset or frustrated by this topic in the least.
Actually it has provided some incentive for me to develope a stable opinion upon which I am compelled to inforce and defend the language of the current edition of the NEC as adopted in my Jurisdiction.
The NFPA , The Nat'l Association of Fire Chiefs and other recognized figures in the fire prevention industry advocate the protection of single station and multi-station smokes installed on a 120 volt 15 or 20A branch circuit by the use of the current arc fault technology.
These smokes are further more not recognized by those groups as fire alarm systems NPLFA and PLFA so therefore do not fall under the umbrella of NEC Article 760.
That being said I have stated publicly for the last three years that in my opinion Arc Faults do not work. Well I Mean "they do not function in the manner one would expect given their name "
That has been discussed so I will not repeat myself.
I also take safety seriously but I do not believe that any protection is lost by installing these breakers on dwelling type smoke detector,Actually some protection may be gained.
Smokes are required to be supplied by a arc fault protected circuit. I do not advocate the work around scenario suggested with a 10A breaker and I believe in a single unified code to assist those that install across several jurisdictions a consistent enforcement and level competition.
If the NEC is broke a proposal is needed to fix it.
But I'm not upset, sorry if you thought I was.
Charlie
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I fear the real problem is the AFCI being thrust into the market while it is still in beta testing. Unfortunately the reply from the homeowner will be the same as it was to the 3 prong plug. They simply eliminate it.
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
There are unknowns about the new AFCI’s, including field effectiveness and possible phantom trips. As a result, the 2005 NEC Article 210 has exceptions for life support receptacles and Article 760 has exceptions for fire alarm systems (in bedrooms?).
I think loosing power from a phantom trip on a life support machine or an FAP is no less critical than loosing power on a dedicated circuit for interconnected multiple station smoke alarms (acting as a system) protecting an entire home ... where warning of a fire is a severely critical life saving element.
I would consider those interconnected smoke alarm systems on dedicated circuits (and only those) a "fire alarm system", even though it may not have been the original intent or considered, as I don't see a requirement associated with 760.21 for remote monitoring or a panel directly in the code. I think it will come down to the local AHJ's call on the interpretation, and I hope they make an informed decision.
Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... 
--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Charles Palmieri
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
If it is the intent of this discussion to clarify that single amd multiple station smokes constitute a fire alarm system then we need to submit a proposal to CMP 2 and the TC to coordinate 210.12(B) and the entire article 760
I don't know that they would agree or not I lost my crystal ball.
There is nothing in 760.21 or 41 and mentions bedrooms, although I agree the proposal by Mr. Ross and others cited those areas as examples for their submissions.
The requirement to remove dwelling type smokes from the arc faults did essentially pass through the ROP and ROC stages but as I understand it was voted down on the floor at the meeting. I believe Joe T was there maybe he could provide some insight. They don't let me out in public.
Building codes that I am familiar with require the dwelling smoke detectors to be on a circuit with other items in the dwelling to mitigate absence of power with out some one noticing it. I take that as an admission that these units are not supervised.
Sorry if I'm ramblings I'm waiting for a call to go out to dinner.
I'm in Mass and we have been arguing between jurisdiction , inspectors , contractors and fire fighters for the past three years. It's important that we have a unified code as I stated.
Look you pretty much know my position, I still have yet to see an argument to change my mind but I am willing to consider all trains of thought.
Charlie
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| Charles Palmieri wrote: |
| Building codes that I am familiar with require the dwelling smoke detectors to be on a circuit with other items in the dwelling to mitigate absence of power with out some one noticing it. |
I'm not aware of those requirements. Are they in the reference NFPA standards for wiring the smoke detectors? I usually don't get to that level of detail as a local AHJ (another hat I wear), and leave that up to the NYBFU inspectors who provide us certificates ... which is how signoffs typically work here in NY.
I would agree that if the smoke alarm system wiring is separated like that, then the risk of phantom trips is reduced ... and it would be too much of a stretch to consider that smoke alarm system a "fire alarm system".
| Charles Palmieri wrote: |
| The requirement to remove dwelling type smokes from the arc faults did essentially pass through the ROP and ROC stages but as I understand it was voted down on the floor at the meeting. I believe Joe T was there maybe he could provide some insight. They don't let me out in public. |
Okay ...  ... maybe Joe can give us a little more insight on this.
--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Yes, I was there and heard this floor action land later was able to download the entire transcript.
Here is the link at the NFPA site that includes the discussion related to the subject of this thread.
http://www.nfpa.org/displayContent.asp?categoryID=906
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code?
*NOTE: Participants in NFPA?s codes and standards making process should know that limited review of this decision
may be sought from the NFPA Board of Directors. For the rules describing the available review and the method for
petitioning the Board for review, please consult section 1-7 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects
and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council.
Notice of the intent to file such a petition must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Directors within 15 calendar
days of the Date of Decision noted in the subject line of this letter.
SC #04-7-1-x
D#04-34
Casey C. Grant, P.E.
Secretary, Standards Council
20 July 2004
To: Interested Parties
Subject:
Standards Council Decision (Final): D#04-34
Standards Council Agenda Item: SC#04-7-1-x
Date of Decision*: 16 July 2004
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code?
Dear Interested Parties:
At its meeting of 14-16 July 2004, the Standards Council considered appeals on the
above referenced matter.
Attached is the final decision of the Standards Council on this matter.
Sincerely,
Casey C. Grant, P.E.
Secretary, NFPA Standards Council
c: D. Berry, M. Brodoff, M. Earley, L. Nisbet, J. O?Connor
Members, National Electrical Code TCC (NEC-AAC)
Members, NEC Panel 2 (NEC-P02)
Members, TCC on Signaling Systems for the Prot. of Life and Prop. (SIG-AAC)
Members, NFPA Standards Council (AAD-AAA)
Individuals Providing Appeal Commentary
Standards Council Decision (Final): D#04-34
Standards Council Agenda Item: SC#04-7-1-x
Date of Decision*: 16 July 2004
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code?
At its meeting of 14-16 July 2004, the Standards Council considered an appeal requesting
the acceptance of Comment 2-107 on a new exception 3 of Article 210.12(b) in the
proposed 2005 edition of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code?. Accepting this
Comment would allow an exception to the requirement that AFCI devices be installed
bedroom dwelling units if they are used for permanently installed alarm (fire, smoke, and
burglar) systems.
This appeal set forth above requests that the Standards Council overturn the action set
forth above that was recommended by the full NFPA codes and standards development
process. This recommendation represents the consensus judgment of the responsible
panel and technical correlating committee, a judgment that was also supported by a vote
of the NFPA membership at the Technical Committee Report Session of the May 2004
Association membership meeting. The appellant has had the opportunity to advocate his
position at each stage of the full codes and standards process, and his arguments were
rejected at each process step when he has done so.
On an appeal, the Standards Council accords great respect and deference to the NFPA
codes and standards development process. In conducting its review, the Council will
overturn the result recommended through that process, only where a clear and substantial
basis for doing so is demonstrated. The Council has reviewed the entire record
concerning this matter and has considered all of the arguments raised in this appeal. In
the view of the Council, this appeal does not present any clear and substantial basis on
which to overturn the results recommended by the NFPA codes and standards
development process. Accordingly, the Council has voted to deny the appeal.
Council Member Pauley recused himself from deliberations and vote on this issue.
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm
Originally Posted By: Charles Palmieri
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks Joe I forgot that the appeal was submitted to the review committee and rejected.
Charlie
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe … what are your thoughts on this issue and comments about the meeting discussions?
–
Robert O’Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| roconnor wrote: |
| Joe ... what are your thoughts on this issue and comments about the meeting discussions? |
I waited to hear the final vote and it was rejected by the membership on the floor of the annual meeting. The appeal was discussed and note the one member who did not vote! A manufacturer with the company who has recalled over 700,000 AFCI's.
I would advise the HI that they may be helpful for buildings with older wiring systems.
The next cycle will be interesting when the proposals and comments are addressed at the meetings.
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm