AFCI's in the news in Indiana

[bbaumer]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090508/LOCAL18/905080351/1001/NEWS

Some of the comments are better than the article itself

 

[Buck Parrish]

It's 09 and Indiana is still not with the program. AFCI'S have been required by the NEC since 05 in all bedrooms.
What makes IN officials think they are smarter then the NEC officials?
Probably the same guys that don't require a state electrical license.

I done an estimate on a service upgrade. Well I called back a few days later. The wife answers. She said the "poco" told them they would save money if they done it them selfs. Not to worry she said they would get the neighbors to help.

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

It's 09 and Indiana is still not with the program. AFCI'S have been required by the NEC since 05 in all bedrooms.
What makes IN officials think they are smarter then the NEC officials?
Probably the same guys that don't require a state electrical license.

I done an estimate on a service upgrade. Well I called back a few days later. The wife answers. She said the "poco" told them they would save money if they done it them selfs. Not to worry she said they would get the neighbors to help.

I believe that they have been in the Code since 2002, That's the oldest NEC I have

 

[fireryan]

wow thats crazy. What is a few more hundered bucks when your building a house anyways? I wouldnt mine paying a little more for the extra protection of my new home. I like in the comments the guy fighting tp outlets, once again everyone is arguing about pennies on a 200,000 dollar home

 

[wire_nut]

It's 09 and Indiana is still not with the program. AFCI'S have been required by the NEC since 05 in all bedrooms.
What makes IN officials think they are smarter then the NEC officials?
Probably the same guys that don't require a state electrical license.

I done an estimate on a service upgrade. Well I called back a few days later. The wife answers. She said the "poco" told them they would save money if they done it them selfs. Not to worry she said they would get the neighbors to help.

Sorry, to hear you lost that job, Buck. I think I have had to come behind a few home owners who got the same neighbors to help them!

 

[chris500]

It is only a few dollars right?

A few dollars here; a few dollars there, it's all in the name of safety so it's ok right?

Your cost may be $300.00 or $500.00 or pick any number, but that is nothing compared to what a homeowner will pay for it. The general contractor is going to mark up your cost, so add his percentage on; add a markup for the realtor, and the finance company. By the time the loan is paid off that simple little $500.00 has grown to around $4000.00 or thereabouts.

Tamper proof outlets - they keep children safe so we should pay for them right? add it on to the bill.

Did you know that they are trying to get included that the next edition of the building code include mandatory sprinkler systems for new residential homes? It's all in the name of safety, so just add it onto the bill right?

This isn't a matter of the benefits of any particular item. I believe all of these things have their benefits. The question that should be asked is do the costs outweigh those benefits?

I have looked through the data that was used to get the arc faults accepted by the NFPA, and comical is the only word I can think of to describe some of it. Quite a bit of the data should have been questioned, if not flatly rejected, because arc faults would not have helped in 70% (WAG) of the cases.

Most of the problems/injuries with electrical wiring occur in older homes with substandard wiring that will have no benefit whatsoever from arc fault breakers, childproof outlets, or sprinkler systems. Maybe a cost benefit analysis needs to be done to see if it would be more cost effective to just take all of this money being spent on marginally useful items and pay contractors to re-wire all of the substandard housing that exists with appropriately safe wiring methods. I'm sure we could get some government agency that would love to oversee it.

Personally I am for these items, at least in my house. I can afford them. However, I think they need to be real careful in how they are leaning when they enact new codes so that they aren't hurting the very people that they are trying to help. There are many things that we can do to make the world safer, but you cannot ignore the economics of it.

 

[Buck Parrish]

Most of the problems/injuries with electrical wiring occur in older homes with substandard wiring that will have no benefit whatsoever from arc fault breakers, childproof outlets,

New homes will be come older homes.

 

[iwire]

New homes will be come older homes.

Yes they will but consider this. If the failure rate of of GFCIs is any indication of what the failure rate of AFCIs will be then by the time the new houses become old houses the AFCIs will be non functional.

Nothing is clear about AFCIs beyond the fact that manufacturers have lied about the effectiveness of them.

 

[nakulak]

the cost of fire suppression in homes is not much compared to the price of a home, and they are proven to save lives. builders just don't get it. and anybody who doesn't think its a good idea to have a sprinklered home should volunteer for a week at the local fire dept and drag someone's burnt up mom or sister out of a torched home.

 

[ultramegabob]

i dont understand the logic behind only certain circuits requiring arc-fault protection, if they feel it is necessary for safety, why dont they require it on everything?

 

[iwire]

the cost of fire suppression in homes is not much compared to the price of a home, and they are proven to save lives. builders just don't get it. and anybody who doesn't think its a good idea to have a sprinklered home should volunteer for a week at the local fire dept and drag someone's burnt up mom or sister out of a torched home.

It is amazing to me we have come this far and still few areas require sprinklers in dwelling units.

It is a proven property and life saving technology.

 

[B4T]

It is amazing to me we have come this far and still few areas require sprinklers in dwelling units.

It is a proven property and life saving technology.

Fastest way for sprinklers to become common is for insurance companies to give a reduced rate to HO who have them. I'm talking at least 15% off bill is a good place to start for houses under construction and 25% off existing homes. It will be a great selling point for builders.

 

[gndrod]

Some do, some don't

Some do, some don't

i dont understand the logic behind only certain circuits requiring arc-fault protection, if they feel it is necessary for safety, why dont they require it on everything?

The AFCI Combination protection in new construction may be overkill in the sight of most onlookers. An in-wall failure of new construction wiring is less likely to be the concern for fire hazard in most cases.

In fact there are reasons why general purpose outlets should be protected from the HO inadvertent plug-in appliance use dangers. Plugging in an old worn electrical tool, portable heater or old antique floor lamp does not guarantee that the connecting cord is in perfect condition. This is where AFCI protection makes sense in prevention of fire sources.

As far as fixed in place appliances running off of a worn cord set, I agree these circuits are a most unlikely chance of being worn or exposed and not worth the extra complete house protection. rbj

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

i dont understand the logic behind only certain circuits requiring arc-fault protection, if they feel it is necessary for safety, why dont they require it on everything?

They do require AFCI on just about everything except Kitchens, Bsements, Exterior stuff to name a few see 210.12 that will sum it up for you

 

[fireryan]

They do require AFCI on just about everything except Kitchens, Bsements, Exterior stuff to name a few see 210.12 that will sum it up for you

basically stuff that will be gfi protected

 

[ultramegabob]

They do require AFCI on just about everything except Kitchens, Bsements, Exterior stuff to name a few see 210.12 that will sum it up for you

Oh yeah, that clears it up for me, it is required on "everything" except this, that, and the other..... thats exactly what I am talking about. :roll:

 

[electricguy61]

I know I'm a heretic, but even as an ex-firefighter, I think AFCI's were designed and marketed to increase equipment sales.

AFCI's are expensive, labor intensive, buggy and a general PITB.

I'm not a ludite (I love wago's), but hate AFCI's.

All the comments I read about contractors installing them in existing homes make me wonder if they're just using them as a marketing tool as well.

I'll be happy to whole-heartedly embrace AFCI's when they're trouble free. I've yet to find a true problem with a circuit that has tripped one.

 

[iaov]

Yes they will but consider this. If the failure rate of of GFCIs is any indication of what the failure rate of AFCIs will be then by the time the new houses become old houses the AFCIs will be non functional.

Nothing is clear about AFCIs beyond the fact that manufacturers have lied about the effectiveness of them.

Here here.Well put Bob!

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Fastest way for sprinklers to become common is for insurance companies to give a reduced rate to HO who have them. I'm talking at least 15% off bill is a good place to start for houses under construction and 25% off existing homes. It will be a great selling point for builders.

In residential construction, the water damage can be nearly as expensive as the fire damage. If a sprinkler goes off on the second floor, you loose that room, plus all rooms below it. I am not downplaying the extent of fire damage, I know that can be huge, or even total; however, even minor water damage gets pretty expensive too.

 

[iwire]

In residential construction, the water damage can be nearly as expensive as the fire damage.

Statistics prove that to be untrue.

Beyond that, lets say there is a fire and there are no sprinklers to stop it. What is the FD going to use to put the fire out when they get on scene. Are they going to do less damage trying to put out a fire that has now had a chance to progress?

Facts & figures

• When sprinklers are present, the chances of dying in a fire are reduced by one-half to three-fourths and the average property loss per fire is cut by one-half to two-thirds, compared to fires where sprinklers are not present.
• Sprinklers typically reduce the chances of dying in a home fire by one half to two thirds in any kind of property where they are used. Together with smoke alarms, sprinklers cut the risk of dying in a home fire 82 percent, relative to having neither.
  
• NFPA has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a completely sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional or residential building where the system was working properly.
  
• Sprinklers are highly reliable. When present in the fire area, they operate in all but 7% of fires large enough to activate the system. Human error was a factor in almost all of the failures. The system was shut-off in almost two-thirds of the failures.
  
• Only one or two sprinkler heads were activated in 81% of the fires with wet pipe sprinkler systems operating and in 56% of the fires with dry pipe systems operating.

Home fire sprinklers