ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues AFCI's Are Here to Stay!

If the AFCI rule was a federal law or regulation, a full cost benefit analysis would have been required. This would have fully studied the rule, its costs, benefits, and lives saved. This type of study is required for any federal safety or environmental law that will cost 100 million or more to implement. The study would have cost millions of dollars and taken two to three years. Because the NEC is not a federal law, this step has never been taken. The only cost benefit analysis that we have are the very slanted ones by the AFCI manufacturers. Using the data buried in the ROPs, ROCs and fire loss reports, I believe that full compliance with the AFCI rule will prevent 14 fires in the first year at a total installation cost of over 8.7 million dollars per fire prevented. Of course this number will go down as the years go by, but even if we assume that the AFCIs will prevent 100% (even the manufacturers only expect to prevent less than 50% of the fires) of the bedroom electrical fires, after 20 years, they will have prevented a little less than 5000 fires at a total installation cost of almost one half million dollars per fire prevented. At 20 years, how many of the devices installed in the first few years of the rule will still be functional? These devices are not fail safe. When the electronics fail, the power stays on. If they would make a reasonable cost self checking fail safe AFCI, I would fully support the rule even at the very high cost per fire prevented.

resqcapt19

What is the dollar figure when it becomes worth it.

What is the value of your life, your Mom or your Kids Life's what price to save them?

Why must it be fail safe?

As has already been pointed out many things are not fail safe.

Smoke Detectors

Circuit Breakers

Motor Overloads

It does not make sense not to use it because it is not "Fail Safe" if it fails it makes the circuit like any other circuit we install. This is the same result if we do not put them in at all, which is what you seem to be advocating

But those that don't fail, must be working ready to save a life.

Even if its just one life, that one life is greatly important to someone.

The "One life saved makes it worth it no matter what the cost" arguement sounds noble but it isn't realistic at all. If it was, we'd see 5 point harnesses in all passenger cars, mandatory front and side airbags and narrow wheelbased vehicles would be outlawed.
In my opinion, the NEC could have made a requirement for dual voltage series wired smoke detectors in every habitable room of a dwelling and been a lot more effective in reducing the number of fire deaths nation wide. As it stands now smokes are a local or state requirement and, at least in my area, not enforced uniformly.
The level of safety achieved with the installation of smoke detectors is well documented and their cost effectiveness is recognized by the insurance industry in the form of premium discounts to customers who install them. Are insurance companys offering similar discounts for the installation of AFCIs? That would be an incentive for homeowners to install them and a marketing tool for ECs to push them.
It would be interesting to see if the insurance industry recognizes a cost benefit large enough to offer incentives.

In my experience, insurance companies could care less who wires a dwelling, much less any safety features.
However, it would be interesting to see some take a more aggressive role via safety standards vs. rates.
People relate to that.

I am curious as to how CMP-2 will address the ROP's on 210.12

They are extensive.

I also did not know the difference here, as opposed to federal law....there would seem little opposition to marketability.

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 01-26-2003).]

There are several factors that insurance companys look at when formulating homeowner's rates. A good agent will tell a homeowner of investments they can make that will make their home safer and in turn will make their home a better insurance risk. That translates into lower premiums. Some factors that are or are becoming standard are security systems, dual voltage series wired smoke detectors, kitchen and garage fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide detectors, 2nd story fire egress equipment and deadbolts on the doors. The home's proximity to the fire station also figures into the rate formula.

iwire,
The fail safe is because these are electronic devices that will fail just like the GFCIs do. Yes, I know that both AFCIs and GFCIs require monthly testing. How many homeowners do this?? If the AFCI doesn't test ok, how many will put a new AFCI in?? The GFCI study that resulted in the new GFCIs that won't reset if the electronics have failed showed that in areas that have lightning up to 58% of the GFCIs are providing no protection.
As far as the cost benefit, Fred covered that well. We will never be able to afford or even want all of the safety devices that can be made. You could make collision proof cars with auto pilot and radar collision avoidance systems. This could save many many lives, but would cost millions per car. I don't know what cost is acceptable, that is why I'd like the government to do a cost benefit study like would be required if this was a federal rule.
Don

Wouldn't CMP2 , in essence, need to do just that to address your ROP Don?

sparky, thanks for the ROP link. It gives the previous code cycle information. Is there a new ROP link showing the proposals for the 2005 NEC?

Sparky,
I don't think that is the job of the CMP. The studies would have to be submitted as part of a proposal. The manufacturer's could contract an independent third party study and submit that, but most "independent third party studies" seem to reflect the views of the party who is paying for the study. The very first thing that I look for when reading any type of study is the funding source for the study.
Don

I have invented a new device.

I shall call this device a "Crimestopper"

I will successfully lobby to have a law passed requiring these in every new home.

Only later, will I disclose that the only crime they protect against is jaywalking.

That's the best analogy I can come up with.
(Mike Holt liked it...)

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

If they detected series arcs, I'd be their biggest advocate (and I was until I learned they did not!).

If one does not understand the significance of the difference in series and parallel arcs as compared to the fact that loose wirenuts, terminals, and connections are the cause of the gross majority of electrically related house fires, then perhaps one should not be an advocate until further educated.

This is not intended as a flame, just spelling out my opinion.

Just change the name to "PAFCI" (parallel arc-fault circuit interrupter) and that will make me a little happier about the situation.

If cost and convenience is not a consideration, then what say we ban automobiles? That would save thousands of lives per year!

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 01-27-2003).]