They are here to stay!!

AFCI Information, Links, Opinions, and Comments: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/afcifac8.pdf http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/afci.html

https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000125.html
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000487.html
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000922.html
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000352.html
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001120.html
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001167.html
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001181.html

There'll be alot of "AW SH@@S" over that decision!

We've used them for a couple of years now,have had no problems,except ones of our own making.Granted we don't do the volume that most of you guys do,but probably used 100 or so with no problems.Siemens or G.E. usally.

txsparky:

Your personal opinions should be included in public comments to NFPA on the ROP for the 2005 NEC ROC.

You should tell the NEC Committee CMP 2 of your concerns and why you disagree!


If you send in a public comment, the substantiation should include the reasons why you don't support AFCI's and their use in dwelling occupancies.



[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 01-25-2003).]

Joe,
I don't have a problem with the use of the afci.My comment was directed towards past discussions here and all of those who oppose them.I see them increasing a contractors profit through material mark-up.IMO,if you install them in every house in the country,and they save 1 life,then they've paid for themselves.I followed the discussions here closely as well as Mike Holt's opinions and early on formed my opinion on them.

After reading all the links Joe provided above, in my mind all the problems that have been brought up where addressed.

So for me it comes down to this, if we start putting these AFCIs in today will we make any one LESS safe?

I did not see anything in the posts that would suggest they are not safe.

If we start putting these AFCIs in today will we make any one MORE safe?

IMHO without a doubt, no matter if 50% do not work in 7 years, or nobody pushes the test button, or 90% of the problems are the wrong type of arc.

With all that against AFCIs, lives will still be saved.

And until they go in large numbers improvements will not come.

The price, quality, function will all improve with time, yes the learning curve is a pain but it will not be that bad, this is the stuff that keeps the job interesting don't you think.

If someone opts to use AFCIs in lieu of rewiring an old K&T or ragwire house, and a resulting possible series arc causes a blaze that kills the occupant(s), then yes, I would have to say that they are a bad thing and have the potential to hurt someone by not doing what the name suggests that they do.

When they start putting "Surgeon General's Warnings" on them spelling out to Joe Public that they won't detect the very scenario that is most likely to cause a fire (loose terminals, splices, connections), then I'll be for 'em.

In the mean time, I'll keep installing them.

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 01-25-2003).]

The CPSC has the job of protecting us.

I believe that in several years when there is data available they will publish some data as to the number of lives saved.


Remember that ACFIs only protect against one type of electrical fire cause and only it appears in bedrooms.

While there is a claim of lots of electrical fires and related deaths, there is no claim of expected fires prevented or lives saved.

I expect that ACFIs might raise the cost of wiring a house by $50-100 and with several 100 thousand homes built each year that makes life saving real expensive unless a lot of lives are saved.

sparky66wv,

So if I understand your view, Unless they are perfect and can recognize all arcs we should not put them in.

I just can not understand that point of view.

Even if they only work 10% of the time isn't that better then not installing them at all?

As far as your scenario that someone will choose not to rewire because they have AFCIs we can not control peoples bad decisions.

But we can provide them with the newest safety devices even if not perfected.

What was your feeling about GFCIs when they where put into the code, I seem to remember that they where far from perfect when they first came out?

Did you think that people would start taking baths with their hair dryers because they where told GFCIs would protect them? This to me is the same logic as they won't rewire because they have AFCIs

And sparky66wv please do not take this personally the fact that you have over 2000 posts says a lot about how much you care about your trade, I wish I could get help that cared that much


George,

Quote

"I expect that ACFIs might raise the cost of wiring a house by $50-100 and with several 100 thousand homes built each year that makes life saving real expensive unless a lot of lives are saved"

No mater how many homes are built it is still only $50-$100 (your numbers) per house, that is how most of us price jobs not by the total of all houses.

Can you tell me what the value of one life is?

I would say if we install AFCIs in "several 100 thousand homes built each year" we will save some lives.

Bob

refer to "The Truth aboutAFCI's" pg 64 Jan/Feb 02' IAEI per Mr. George Gregory and Mr. Alan Manche
(both Sq. D employees)
note the 75A threshold comes out of the closet, something not apparent per UL1699 back in 1999 when my state first started installing these devices.

They are here to stay, that i'm convinced of.

Pick up a trade mag, any trade mag, and you'll realize all promotional articles are written by company reps.

All the stat's , cost/benifit analysis, all the pro's shine.

There exists no unbiased 'consumer reports' for our trade that openly scrutinizes any manufacturer right? That's because all these rags you get in the mail( most for free) are promoted by them.

Sure they're here to stay, and whatever else they wish will also......they've hammered this consistently for the last 4+ years , probably to a hefty $$$, but only due to thier projected PE ratio's, not your or little susie's safety.

The ad's don't need to make sense either, the pogniant picture of a firefighter hauling a child out of a burning building
(with the CH or SQ D logo in the background)
should be nuff said to shut down any nay sayer(s)

These sorts wrap themselves in a cloak of 'safety' while peddaling thier wares, while an arsenal of marketing and engineering discredits any dissident.

They know most the tradeborg will eventually be conditioned to the 'just one life' or similar sound bytes, and not delve into serious debate here.

How ironic it is to own older NEC's that the manufacturer's would advertise in, as opposed to present day, where the manufacturer's CMP seats write the codes, and the NEC advertises it'spublications.



[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 01-25-2003).]

OK you have convinced me it's all just a conspiracy to empty our pockets.

But wait if it is required, all of us will be including them in the bidding. I could become part of the conspiracy and make some money when I mark them up. What a country

yes Bob,
one could live a fairly isolated existance here and still realize capatalism and conspiracy are not exactly exclusive in corporate America.

yet we are rather desensitized by events of late, so what is one questionable widget right?

a 30% markup, and a round for the house!

Sparky,
I really am trying to see the negative aspects of going ahead with the New Widget.

How do you feel about OCPDs they add a price to the house and they might not work every time.

How about smoke detectors, is this another marketing scam, adds price to the house but it may not help you escape a fire.

What is it about this new widget that is so wrong, will it hurt anyone, other then adding lets say $200.00 to the price of the house, with the prices of houses now that does not seem like it would price anyone out of a house.

I don't think any of us believes that they would send us those trade magazines for free if it was not biased, but you can have a bias and still be right.
Bob

you may recall that I had a very horrendus experience with AFCIs a while back. I do NOT care if the are required or not I WILL NOT WARRENT them. All my proposals so state.
That will be my policy untill the companies that make them pay me for the service calls that they cause. All of them will replace the AFCIs at the parts house without problem if you were the one who purchased it. But they will not pay for your labor or other costs.
I have had several service calls from very unhappy customers of other contractors about problems with them. Sometimes I was able to find a reason the breaker would trip and other times not. Untill a proven reliable AFCI tester is availble, a lot of time is wasted trying to find a fault in a circuit that works without any evidence of a problem untill an AFCI is installed.
Most customers
are not going to pay for no results.
Replacing the AFCI with a real C/B is what they want.
Convincing them that a much more expensive item that cost them money and aggravation is better for them than a cheaper item that works is almost impossible. It is also a sure way for them to call some one else. After all they called me when another contractors warrenty was still in effect.

well Bob.
I don't see much backup here.
I've argued smoke detection for years, with little to no acknoledgement from HI's, dizzy real estate hens, or insurance companies.

i'm not going to argue the efficy of any safety device in this thread, i'm tired of it,
because since 99' i've been 'point man' for AFCI's here. Imagine what it's like to have to advocate these while most of your competition is blowing it off due to lack of enforcement (whom cannot come to terms with the issue itself.)

So, in such an inequitable trade it amounts nothing more than a load of hot air for the rural majority.

yes, we went head over heals for AFCI's in Vermont 4 yrs ago, with much realted ado such as nesparky alludes.

It's no fun......

my point here is simply the capatalism inherent in the safety biz here.

and safety is a BIG BIZ brother, fear sells better than any statitical study ever will.

safety sits on the scales of commerce opposite risk, and fear tips the scales in it's favor with little rebuttal.

i cannot contine without political reference to the latter, which would be inappropriate here, i'll assume you understand...

yrs
~Steve



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

Steve,

Keep on doing what you're doing, you obviously care a lot and that is refreshing to see.

I agree that safety stuff is Big Biz and as soon as something has "OSHA approved" on it the cost gets crazy.

We work in different environments, here where I work I feel the playing field is level (more or less)

I work for a large company so when I have to go back to replace bad devices it is not money from my pocket so I do not feel the pain some of you do. We also can bring a lot of pressure on the supply house to somehow make it right as far as our lost time, better price on whatever we are having them bid on.

Bob

nesparky,
I have had no complaints from customers, and neither have the electricians I've talked with, about the AFCIs that we have installed so far.

Is it possible that the problems you are seeing are circuit deficiencies, and the AFCIs are doing what they are designed to do?

Ed

yes Bob,
it's frustrating to be the 'good doobie' here, thanks for understanding ....


~Steve

I have had some problems with AFCIs during construction in that many power tools such as drills and power planers cause them to trip. I have also had problems on circuits that have had low voltage lighting.

I do however like concept of what they are intended to do. I think the technology needs more time to work out the quirks.

The concept is a good one, however the support is not there, niether in terms of enforcement, tech support, or the supply house.

Just yesterday i had to once again relive the tired old 'why does my wet-vac trip the AFCI' bit.

The circuit is pristine spanking new.....

Likewise, lightning strikes and voltage surges are trashing panels full of these.

Would you like to be the one to tell your customer s/he needs $400 worth of breakers that they grugingly agreed to in the first place?


You see, many have only been exposed to this for a year......your turn will come

trust me

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

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).]

sparky66wv,

I know I do not take it as a flame, if we all had the same opinion this would be a pretty boring place. I come here to learn and hear others opinions.

You can never know it all in our trade.
Bob

(rant mode on high)

I did a 'little' research, and I would like to know what the manufacturers have to say about what Virgil says about these afci breakers not detecting series arcs. None of the manufacturer literature says anything about the types of arcs, just that they detect (some of) them.

Looking at the ROP's also leads me to believe that they only protect whats in the walls and not the dog chewed, walked on, crimped, wornout zip-cord that is in a lot of homes. Are they saying that we as electricians cannot install a branch circuit with enough integrity not to fail, but anything that the homeowner puts in is OK?

Why the reluctance to approve afci receptacles? I firmly believe in safety at (almost) any cost, but this seems like an issue pushed to the forefront for the wrong reason.

What about some of these older breakers (no names) that you can weld with, aluminum wire improperly installed, two wire systems, very old wire that should have been replaced years ago, but some handyman taped it up "good as new".

If the afci breakers only protect new installations with Code approved methods and materials, then I think of it as a bandaid on a severed limb approach to safety.

I have nothing against the technology of afci's nor their use, if they protect against fire producing electrical arcs. But, I don't think they are yet up to the task that they are marketed to perform.

Sorry.

2003 ROP's are here pseudonym, sorry about that.

Don,
understood.
whatever rationale they purse should be interesting.
Your ROP is very concise, and hopefully will be met likewise.

cubby964,
frustrating isn't it ?
Myself i peddaled many under false pretenses, and was quite upset at being had by 210.12
Many still are unaware.....
My view of the entire NEC process also changed that very day.

and i'm far from alone.

The AFCIs do in a way protect from high resistance "glowing connections" or seires arcs. They provide protection from these types of events only if the fault becomes a "parallel arcing fault" or if it becomes a ground fault. If it becomes a ground fault the GFP part of the AFCI will open the circuit.
Don

yes they do Don,
however they fall short of the 'Crimestopper' expectations the marketing implies.

Yes, Don, as with this thread , I have willingly installed them where I felt the GFP and parallel protection would offer some peace of mind.


[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 01-29-2003).]

I had offered AFCI'S as a quick fix for K&T circuits for a while......

Ok, I admit I haven't read this entire thread but I'm just sick of industry creating the problem and then selling the solution.

I'd like to announce that I'm developing a patent on an arc fault interruptor switch with a built in GFCI protector. It's mine I tel you...all mine. And I'm going to make it a requirment that all switches everywhere will be of this type.....my type...

I'll be rich and the world will be a safer place.

I'm also thinking of making a little device that plugs into a GFCI and once per month a little finger pops out of it and pushes the test button..... It then automatically pushes the reset button. If neither operations function properly it will automatically burn your house down. The last part may need changing....

RSlater,
RSmike

More random ramblings - if ACFIs are such a good solution, why only require them in bedrooms? If they are aimed at catching pinched or nicked wires that cause parallel arcs, why require them on smokes or light fixtures?

/mike

n1sit,

AFCI's were introduced to protect the branch circuit, the efficy declining beyond the device.

I believe the listing(s) follow suit.

many hold thier wiring methods as being confronted when they learn this.

which is why it isn't exactly front page news in trade mags.



[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 01-28-2003).]

n1ist:
look at the ROP's, there are proposals to install these in other branch circuits in residences as well. (they have been rejected, so far)

The AFCI issue aside...IMHO, the "if it saves one life" arguement is usually a dead giveaway that what follows is either a bad idea or not supported by fact.

Isn't it worth spending 50 million dollars if it can save one life?

NO, it isn't! By spending 50 mil to TRY to save one life you are killing hundreds or thousands of people who could have been saved if the money had been better spent, perhaps on heart disease tests, or mamograms, or colon cancer screenings, or food and shelter, or free electricity in the hot months, or hiring more cops or 911 dispatchers.

Shouldn't we put 16 inches of rubber and foam around every telephone pole? If it would save just one life... Wouldn't YOU feel bad if your sister died because she slammed into an unsafe pole?

Shouldn't we eliminate gun ownership...

Lets raise the driving age to 18 or 21 or 30. If it would save only one life it would be worth it.

Shouldn't every electrical panel have a child-proof anti-tampering mechanism on it? Shouldn't you be required to install one? (shoot me now!)

Shouldn't our common household plugs be scrapped for one that is inherently shock-proof? If it would save just one life...

Who here has a defibulator on their work trucks? Why not? Too cheap to save a life?

In the AFCI case; wouldn't an older house be safer if instead of installing AFCIs you spent an equal amount of billable time inspecting each existing splice box for poor connections, checking old outlets, plugs, wiring and sockets for damaged insulation or improper use?

Shouldn't CPR training be mandatory for people in the elctrical trades?

'still not arguing against ACFIs, just tossing more fuel on this fire! (er, I mean, food for thought...yeah, that's the ticket)

Let the flames err..games begin

<texsparky getting lawnchairs,cooler and hot dogs ready>

How would you answer that if it were one of your family members?Would it be a hard decision?

This is who started it...Let's get em!! http://www.mikeholt.com/news/archiv...uirements_f or_AFCI_began_07-31-2002.htm

[This message has been edited by txsparky (edited 01-29-2003).]

my bold to indicate key wordage...


Or perhaps......Real Electrical Inspections by Real Electrical Inspectors!

(what a novel idea!)

50 mil of that would 'buy' a lot of safety IMO.....but hey, no corporation would profitright??

Sparky,
Based on the stated fact that 85% of the electrical fires that were investigated occurred in homes at least 20 years old, the fact that AFCIs are only expected to prevent 50% of the electrical fires on the circuits that they protect, and the number of new homes constructed each year, we can expect that in the first year of full compliance with the AFCI rule to prevent 15 fires or 0.036% of the 42,000 estimated fires. The 100 million dollar plus investment to install these AFCIs would be expected to save 0.12 lives, prevent 0.48 injuries and save $210,000 of property in the first year!!!
Don

As I see it snake oil sales men neesed a new product to peddle. So they took a good idea, did maybe 1/3/to1/2 the work needed to truly make a good product. Then went to work forcing us to buy thier unperfected produt. The want the profits and commisions. I have nothig against a fair profit or a sales man getting a fair comission. But when they shove something down our throuts with a bunch of HYPE and abuse a good system of code making to do it- they have a lot to hide. What it is and how well thse latest pieces of snake oil will work remains to be seen.
BTW every time I have thrown away an AFCI that was continually tripping, I spent -and was paid for- a least 2 hours of troubleshooting time. If a circuit will pass a megger test and has nothing miswired and still trips an AFGI but not a GFI breaker, then it the breaker. Good by to it.

electech,

If we are going to shoot you, we'd better do it before they do eliminate gun ownership!