I tried to email this question to Electrical Website refferenced in some of these TP forums.
Sorry – but I just can’t seem to let go of this subject. I think its just money I am forced by law to fork over to Electrical Equipment Manufacturers.
I am wondering how to get an opinion from a few professionals on something I am involved in. It’s sort of an electrical question but more about codes and how they become law and at what point have they gone too far.
I recently replaced 3 AFCI breakers in a house that I completely re-wired myself as an amature electrical/remodeler kind of guy.
When I was required by law to purchase and install these “New” AFCI breakers I was convinced then and remain convinced that they are nothing more than a code mandated way for Manufacturers to make a few hundred dollars per house built since they were adopted into NEC a few years ago.
I replaced one because it failed to work properly after less than 6 month of use.(Could not be re-set) Turns out it may or may not have been under re-call. I didn’t bother to find out – I just took the other two back to H. Depot and said “these have been re-called by Mfgr. and I want new ones” After trying to blow me off they finally relented and gave the new ones to me.
I admit I don’t know much about electrical work but my common sense tells me that the odds of one of these things actually working to detect some kind of problem that might actually prevent a fire or whatever are so low that it can’t possibly justify the fact that they cost 10 times more than a std. “time tested” breaker that will probably function properly for 20 to 50 years.
I am amazed that so many people would just accept this as oh-well it’s just a few more dollars per house. Or – well just wait for occupancy certificate and then re-place them with regular breakers. Unless I was miss-informed by the Electrical inspector for my area one of these AFCI breakers powers the smoke detectors in this house. What if that one had tripped off when a fire was caused by some non-electrical circumstance? (I realize that the detectors have battery back up) But then we are back to what are the odds. I bet the odds of an AFCI failing to provide power to the smoke alarms at a time when battery goes dead are just as high as the damn thing actually functioning properly and detecting an arc that cuases some catastrophie.
Sorry – but I just don’t buy it! Well actually I do buy it because the law says I must!
Please – I would really like to know if most professionals would think I am way off base on this or not?
Sincerely, Norm Haynes in Seattle WA
Replies
I couldn't tell you, but this link might also be of help.
http://www.electrical-contractor.net/
Well I looked at the city next to where I live and they still have this requirement.
" 4. National Electrical Code NFPA 70, 2002 Edition, except that Section 210-12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection shall be deleted in its entirety and is not adopted."
And it looks like a couple of other cities are not requiring it, but the "big city" (Kansas City) does require them.
I tend to agree with you. Almost all bedroom electrical fires are in older homes with old insulation, overloaded, damaged, etc which won't have AFCI's in them anyway.
And the wording of the newest codes require not just receptacles, but "all outlets" which includes lighting and smokes.
> " 4. National Electrical Code NFPA 70, 2002 Edition, except that Section 210-12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection shall be deleted in its entirety and is not adopted."
Is that the only exception? Here we have books full of them.
-- J.S.
"Is that the only exception? Here we have books full of them."I don't remember. There is not a lot of the.I looked at another local sub-burb and I could not tell for sure because they refered to the IRC section #, "bedroom outlets" was deleted so I am assuming that it was about AFCI's. But I also saw that kitchen counter tops GFCI's where only included with 6ft of the sink and there was a section about islands that was removed.
I think its just money I am forced by law to fork over to Electrical Equipment Manufacturers.
AMEN!
I worked with an EE in the 70's who was on the NEC commitee at the time (Tom Sussman was his name if anybody wants to double check facts) and his opinion was that the GFCI rules at the time were just that.
Have been involved with AF breakers for aircraft, which are totally 2 orders of magnitude higher technology than the household stuff and for totally different purposes (polyimide limitations with time, etc) and with the space station GFCI. AF on aircraft polyimide is a valid concern, on PVC house wire it is totally BS IMHO.
Norm,
I feel your pain. My first response to AFCIs was, "what the heck do we need these things for, we've done just fine without 'em for a long time".
Accepting change isn't easy. I've worked with old-timers who said it was really hard to accept circuit breakers in place of fuses, and wire nuts in place of wrapped and soldered splices. They said they complained bitterly about those changes (and others, like cable that included an equipment ground wire) at the time those changes were being made, too.
I've seen situations where an arc fault occurred and it was a miracle that there wasn't a catastrophic fire, and where an arc-fault breaker would have probably stopped the fault. I've read the theory behind and the testing results of AFCIs, and do believe that they will prevent some electrical fires.
As far as the Code-making process, manufacturers do have influence, but they don't control it. It's an open, democratic process, and there are many unbiased professionals involved on each code-making panel--including the one that set the arc-fault requirement. The debate, deliberations, and evidence or logic that is the basis of each code making decision is available through the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which oversees the code making process and publishes the Code.
Anyone who knows the subject will agree that an AFCI breaker will not protect against every type of arcing fault, and so will not provide absolute protection against that kind of hazard. Similarly, there's general agreement that the devices are expensive and that there have been problems with quality of some AFCIs.
As far as the need for AFCIs--I think the requirement is just a symptom of a larger societal trend to try to get daily life to be a "zero-risk" situation. I don't know how far we ought to go in that direction, but I sure think seatbelts and airbags in cars are a good idea, and I know that GFCIs have saved a lot of lives.
It's an interesting question--how far we go, and how much money we spend as a society, to reduce the hazards of daily life--in our transportation systems (i.e., air travel security), buildings, cars, medicines, and food. Ever think of how much it costs to test a new drug to show that it meets safety standards? Cost versus benefit of safety standards is a huge issue.
Typically, both the effectiveness and the acceptance of safety devices improve over time. Early on, there was a lot of resistence to both seat belts and airbags by both manufacturers and consumers. Now car manufacturers tout side airbags as benefits, reasons to buy their car, and most people use seat belts. These technologies had to evolve and improve even once they were in use by consumers. AFCI breaker technology will, I expect, evolve--producing devices that are more reliable and effective, and less expensive.
Are AFCI breakers cost-effective right now? It depends on whether the house fire they stop, or the life they save, is yours or not. Then again, you might choose to save the money and take your chances; there are people who drive without wearing seat belts. But unless you're living in the house alone, it'd be better to comply with Code and re-install the AFCI breakers.
regards,
Cliff
Sincere thanks for reply - You obviously understand the big issue.
I actually did replace the "bad" AFCI breakers with the new "good" ones that were on shelf at H. Depot so the house does still have the AFCI breakers.I guess for me I can shoulve a wire into the hot side of a GFCI receptacle, put the other end of wire into wet dirt or water in bathtub, turn on the power and be amazed at how quickly the little button pops out and stops current flow. (Beleive it or not I do this each and every time I install one - partly 'cause I find it amazing that it works and partly because I do care to know it works for safety of my own family)
I know for a fact that you can touch the wires with say a screw gun on an AFCI circuit and jiggle it around a bit to create all kinds of exciting welding style sparking and arcing and the juice just keeps on flowing.
I have read technical papers from the Mfgr. as to why my testing method is ludicrous and means nothing. I admit that I do not understand how or when these things should or would work. I have a hard time beleiving that the odds of whatever scenario happening that would protect me are worth the cost. And why should I beleive the Mfr. who's unit failed and or was re-called by Consumer Products Safety Commision. (Of coarse I was NOT made aware of this recall and as far as I can tell neither was my local H. Depot)Your side air bag analogy is great. We'd all drive vehicles as safe as Volvo's IF money was no consideration!How did I make it this far w/o a childs car seat? I guess my mom & dad chose to drive carefully and not get into wrecks!
You make a good point.The NEC is a the documented end product of a process. It is open to input. Virtually anyone can contact the board members and express their views. Contrary to common belief, and right-wing posturing over conspiracy theories, the NFPA is not a government conspiracy or elite, power mongering group faceless beurocrats bent on private gain. The NFPA is fairly open about what it does and why it does things. As I understand things the requirement for AFCIs is, at least in part, an experiment. The boards recognized a desire for increased safety. They also recognized the fire statistics that showed that bedrooms were a center for certain types of fires. Essentially fires caused by what many electricians call 'cooking'. Loose connections that generate heat while remaining below the threshold of the circuit breakers and without any ground-fault. Essentially a break, worn cord or loose connection becomes a tiny but powerful heater.Recognizing the problem an eye was set to solving or managing this issue. Manufacturers put forth AFCI technology as a possible solution. The engineers claimed the proposed solution would have some positive effect as designed. On paper and in labs it worked well. Not perfectly but well enough. The research and testing pointed toward a significant savings in lives and property over and above the additional cost and trouble.As with all things we, they , don't know how this will pan out in time. Essentially the requirement for AFCIs is an experiment. Results have been a mixed bag from what I read. Quite a few complaints but not a few cases where fires seem to have been averted. A big clue that the AFCIs are working is that they have been installed in thousands of homes where they are quietly operating. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has been tried. You might be too young but I remember when GFCIs were first required. They were expensive, many brands and designs were unreliable, some didn't work very well, some typically failed within a few months and often the units tripped for no apparent reason. And yet they saved lives. A lot of people who would have been electrocuted by a defective toaster when they touched the sink got a tiny jolt just before the GFI cut the power.Over the years the GFCIs have gotten better. More reliable, more long lasting. Having fewer false trips. They also got cheaper. They are essentially the same sticker price they were. Maybe a bit less. So, taking inflation into account, they are cheaper.I expect the same process to happen with AFCIs. The weak designs will be eliminated. Design specifications improved and firmed up in the face of information coming in from the field. It may take a few years but given time you will see a vastly improved product at a reduced cost. Just a matter of time and feedback.
Good points yourself, 4lorn.
Something related on which I'd appreciate your opinion.
So what do you think of this--changing the revision interval of the NEC from 3 years to 5?
I suspect that there'd be major resistance to this from the NFPA, equipment manufacturers, and Code trainers and related parties, who make a living from the frequent revisions.
But I'd guess that most other people could see the benefits. More time and energy going into installation of Code-compliant wiring, and less into making and learning about changes that are now represent only very small incremental improvements in safety.
What would it take to start a movement?
Cliff
Re:"So what do you think of this--changing the revision interval of the NEC from 3 years to 5?"So far, as far as I can tell, the three year cycle seems to work pretty well. Especially as carried out. Some care seems to be taken to not overwhelm the consumers of the NEC. Even the 2002 reorganization was limited. I didn't care much for the format change. I liked the smaller books. Fit in the truck and toolbox much better. But here again my eyes aren't getting any stronger. So the change is likely something I will grow to appreciate.Generally 99.9% of the code, a WAG, remains essentially the same.Another point is that the counties tend to remain several code cycles behind. The inspectors tend to be more progressive. Often enforcing articles they consider major advances for years before the county adopts the code as a whole minus selected articles. So the NFPA has no way of force feeding the NEC to the local authorities. I think the NFPA understands this and limits the number, and extent, of any changes to a more evolutionary pace. The board has played around with AFCIs for some time. The technology has been around for some time. The requirement for them being on bedroom circuits was seen as an experiment. One that has been judged to have been passed satisfactorily if not with flying colors. So the movement toward greater use of AFCIs will move forward. Of course the AHJ, both in the field with inspectors, at the local and state levels, are free to adopt any particular articles they don't like. For whatever reason. Of course all of these authorities are under pressure from insurance companies. This is a hidden aspect of the NEC. Once most areas adopt a standard there is pressure for other areas to comply. I hear some counties were fifteen years behind on the requirement for GFIs. Of course if you built a house in these areas it wasn't the AHJ pushing GFIs. If you didn't install GFIs you paid higher rates or didn't get insurance at all. As usual the wallet is the tenderest part of the anatomy. If the majority of the areas find AFCIs to be less than cripplingly burdensome as a requirement, and so far I have heard few substantial and major complaints, AFCI use will be expanded. Of course at some point the return on investment will hit the break-even point. But this will not be a static calculation. AFCIs are likely to improve and become less expensive. Electricians are slowly learning how to test and troubleshoot these circuits. HOs are slowly being educated as to what to expect. Builders are becoming, ever so slowly, more comfortable. Construction people tend to be quite conservative. Of course there are always going to be some who object to change. Some doubt the need for change. Some doubt the new technologies. Some object on principle of people having the right to do as they please. Some who object the loudest object to any authority, controls or regulations. I have read at least one who thinks AFCIs are part of a vast dark conspiracy.
"Of course the AHJ, both in the field with inspectors, at the local and state levels, are free to adopt any particular articles they don't like. For whatever reason."ABSOLUTELY NOT.The legislative authority (state legistors/gov, county or city elected boards) are free to approve any kind of code that they want.But no unelected body has any right to select or modify the codes. Only enforce whatever was selected. Otherwise it means that they governing body would be giving up there powers.BTW, I just found out my little city of about 375 homes, which had been under the 96 NEC and 93 UBC has adopted the LATEST codes (and then list the different ones). Now if that is the way that the actual ordiance reads then I think that it is illegal in that they have given up there power to an unelected 3rd party."Of course all of these authorities are under pressure from insurance companies. This is a hidden aspect of the NEC. Once most areas adopt a standard there is pressure for other areas to comply. I hear some counties were fifteen years behind on the requirement for GFIs. Of course if you built a house in these areas it wasn't the AHJ pushing GFIs. If you didn't install GFIs you paid higher rates or didn't get insurance at all. As usual the wallet is the tenderest part of the anatomy."When this came up I check a couple of near by cities. The nearest one of about 50,000 has the 2003 IRC (which incorporates the appropriate sections of th NEC, plumbing, and heating for 1-2 family homes) has 3 exceptions/adjustments, stair geometry, no AFCI's, and no need for a swithc at both ends on short stairs. But I checked the next larger city that from what I hve heard seems to be very "porogressive" (not in a liberal/conservative way, but in terms of new parks, programs, rebuilding 'old town') and they had a number of excepts beside the AFCI. One was that GFCi's where only required within 6 ft of the sink in the kitchen.
I meant that the boards were free to adopt articles as they see fit.But also I have seen inspectors, with approval of their supervisors and apparently the tacit approval of their governing board in effect adopt articles from a more recent code even though that version of the code, as a document, had not been adopted.For years the local board had allowed approval for the latest NEC to lapse. The current NEC was '93' and the inspectors were enforcing the GFI requirements from this version even though the board had only approved the '87' code. Can't say too many people objected as the demands were pretty logical. All the electrical contractors figured the new requirements made sense even if the local authority was slow. No sense alienating the inspector over minor points. There may have been backing documentation from the AHJ that controlled the inspectors. Perhaps a provisional adoption pending review. From talking to my bosses and other contractors I don't think the contractors knew, or cared, exactly what the legalities were. Had the inspectors been demanding something more exotic and expensive to comply with there might have been more of a fight.Later, when board adopted the latest version of the code, essentially nothing changed. The electricians had been wiring it that way for years.Most contractors I know build to the latest version of the code no matter what the local authorities have adopted. A pretty safe bet as the code tends to get stricter. Some areas have inspectors that are interpreting, not sure how the boards see it, that the NEC allows smoke detectors to be excluded from the AFCI requirement. There is an article that allows exclusion of alarm systems. As I read it it could be seen either way. This is one of the few cases where the code seems to be vague.I looked at some of the applicable literature and the 2005 code but haven't dug too deeply into it. We know what the inspectors in most areas are looking for on this subject so I just comply with their dictates. Mostly, at least in the more populated areas, they have this requirement, or non-requirement, marked in red ink on the plans after they have been submitted. Very helpful as you can often go a quarter mile across a county line and have them see it differently. Of course this demonstrates the differences in counties. A few counties don't allow the use of #14 wire. A difference that is good to know before you wire half the house in it. I suspect this is less a carefully considered board decision than a cranky inspector or two. In rural areas the inspectors have more autonomy. Which goes back to my point that in some areas the inspectors, who very well may single handedly constitute the 'building department' for that town can call it as they see it. Mostly they are pretty reasonable if you take the time to talk to them.
In my august professional opinion, I agree with you -- AFCIs are bunk. 4Lorn brought up the point that early versions often have problems. Namely, they don't work. Hence they provide a false sense of security. Do you wear a helmet when you drive your car? You are better off making sure that all of your connections are tight.
[I posted an earlier message on this subject.] http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=56904.4
How AFCIs Work
Connected to the hot and neutral wires is a little occiliscope. There is a tiny color TV camera focused on its screen. The output from this is fed into a video to data encoder which analyses the optical image and converts it into computer friendly data. The waveforms are continually compared to a set of images in the computer's memory. If these match the pattern of a known arc fault, then the computer sends a 9 volt signal to a solenoid which immediately trips the breaker. What could be simpler?
Just to add insult to injury: what you do is buy the AFCIs from Home Depot with cash and get a seperate receipt. Present the receipt to the homeowner [when he pays you] and give him a free copy of my video, "How to Replace a Circuit Breaker".
~Peter
Pope George Ringo I
Edited 4/17/2005 11:45 pm ET by PM22
Your welcome to fight this all you want. Won't mean a thing. AFCIs are here to stay. Your going to be seeing a lot more of them. That's OK. A lot of old timers didn't like GFIs. Didn't see them as necessary, effective, testable. Many wrote them off as a boondoggle for manufacturers. Look for more of the whole house, last board vote almost required them in the whole house, to be included in a few code cycles and the requirement gradually expanded to include a greater protection for cords. Essentially this has already been agreed to in principle. Some of it is scheduled for the 2008 code. Most will be implemented by 2017 from what I read.A lot of your complaints are based on early designs and testing. Your shooting at a moving target. The design requirements and designs are in flux. From what I see and read they are getting better. And substantially cheaper as production levels are ramped up.AFCIs can be tested against the UL1436 standard which specifies a number of pulses. The testers are readily available. Not very expensive really for an electrician. My latest Mitchell Instrument Co. catalog shows three models ranging in cost from $129 to $247. I'm figuring to buy one in a year or so. Until then I will use the ones my boss provides with the truck.Your claim that: ... " they provide a false sense of security." is not a factor. Simply because what they are designed to prevent is not a situation that anyone would, or possibly could, put themselves in.I have seen people building docks in salt water with line voltage tools, electric chainsaw, circular saw and drill, because they 'knew' the GFI would protect them. Made me wince seeing someone knee deep in saltwater operating a circular saw inches above the water. A failure of the GFI could be deadly. They said it tripped several times. Thankfully, as far as I know, none were injured so, I guess, they got away with it. How, exactly, would one willingly put ones self in danger of a failure of a AFCI? This reminds me about the old adage of the reserve chute with paratroops. Seldom do you need it. If it fails to open anyone is welcome to lodge a complaint. So far none have complained. If an AFCI fails to work your no worse off than if you had a regular breaker. As is included within the AFCI. Telling people to replace the AFCIs they have saves them a few dollars, about $25 per breaker so perhaps $50 to $75 per house, while having them root around in a live panel. I have seen helpers I wouldn't trust not to hurt themselves doing this fairly simple job in a live panel. Some folks are just goofy. Not sure how many HO are not capable. I figure most could do it without an issue but even a failure rate of a tenth of a percentage, I could have sworn I turned off the main, could mean a whole lot of early fireworks displays. Nuisance trips are more an issue. So far I haven't run across many 'bad' AFCIs. One or two that were replaced, under warranty, and this solved the issue. About an equal number that had an old vacuum cleaner to blame. Even my much abused angle drill didn't trip it. Once the vacuum was replaced, in these cases they were ancient units on their last legs, they had no more problems. The other point is that "You are better off making sure that all of your connections are tight." doesn't make much sense if you believe your own contention that AFCIs won't work on series faults. A bad connection, as long as it wasn't so bad as to come completely out of the wirenut, would be a series fault.Just as a check I have tried an AFCI with series and parallel faults. The AFCI detected and tripped in both cases. Of course this was a simple unscientific and uncalibrated test circuit rigged up on a 2by4 with 60w bulb in a keyless as a load. The parallel fault was a section of the Romex with both the hot and neutral stripped. These were shorted by using an old knife lightly touched to both to simulate a fault. Lots of sparks but within a second or two the AFCI tripped.The series test was simulated by my using a worn pair of dykes to cut one of the conductors. This then was slightly manipulated to get arcing. It took longer for the series fault to trip the AFCI but it did trip. We repeated the tests several times each. At least we did until the boss told us to get back to work. This was a Cutler Hammer brand AFCI so in addition to being unscientific it is not representative of other manufacturers offerings. But it seems that the spikes thrown by the series fault may also trigger the AFCI. Given the 60w load it would seem it wasn't an overload.For further perspective, albeit worms eye view, you can read my other, later, response on this same thread.