Brazen, Shameless and Unapologetic AFCI Expansion

[kwired]

The listing standards are created by a Standards Technical Panel and like the NEC code making panels, the rules require that the panel members represent multiple view points, and like the NEC, no more than one third of the members can be from any one group such as manufacturers.

The changes are made in the same manner. Someone submits a change proposal and it is acted on by the STP.
Both UL Standards Making Organization and the NEC operate under the same ANSI rules for consensus standards. As with the NEC, anyone can submit a proposed change to a product standard, however it is not as easy as the process for the NEC.

Of course proposals for changes in the standards come from manufacturers, and even a request for a new product standard may come from a manufacture. Especially in the case of a new product that does not fall under any existing standard. In that case, the UL staff people will write most of the safety rules in the standard and it will be give to a STP, just like a new code article would be assigned to an CMP in the NEC process.

And when AFCI's were new who knew anything about them besides those that were involved in designing them? If others were involved who besides those that designed brought them up to speed in what is going on with them?? Still results in manufacturers being major player behind the listing of the item in question I would think. Now as time goes on maybe those other parties can be more of a factor in changes of the standard on their own vs the manufacturer grooming them to what they want them to be.

 

[hornetd]

don_resqcapt19 I'm asking if you if you have observed how much actual effort is put into preparing fire cause and origin reports in your part of the world.

My concern is on the accuracy of the Cause and Origin (C&OR) reports that are prepared by line fire officers with widely varying degrees of training and interest in the preparation of these reports. The fire investigators have a strong interest in not being called out if they are not needed. In over four decades of service I have witnessed the trained fire investigators giving the first due engine officer a hard time for calling them out on several occasions. "Dam it! It's just an EFFing Room and Contents and you couldn't figure it out!" Because of the mechanics of a fire attack the first arriving company will be the last to leave the scene. If the Fire was a "worker"; which is slang for a fire that makes all of the responders work hard to extinguish it; that first due engine officer is wet, cold or sweltering, bone tired, and very much wanting to be in a hot shower followed by a clean bed. But before he/she can get any rest they have to complete an incident report and a C&OR. Given that officers present physical condition we can be sure that they paid meticulous attention to any evidence that will make the cause and origin report more accurate prior to leaving the scene, in that NOT sort of way. It's also quite possible that the Truckies had already thrown the entire contents of the compartment of origin out the window; and all of the C&OR evidence with it: to allay their fear of the dreaded "Rekindle." If you leave the slightest little ember still glowing inside that structure all of your work will be for not and you will be back already worn and tired for a replay of the previous fire in this structure. These are the conditions under which the Cause and Origin Report will be written.

It is on these C&ORs that the work of the CPSC and the CDC is being based. I personally have no confidence that the figures that they are working with have a close correlation with the number of fires in the US which are actually a "Fire of electrical origin" or just the choice made by a very tired fire officer who chose the "Form of Heat of Ignition" and the "Material First Ignited" from the choices that are least likely to be quarreled with which varies from Fire Service to Fire Service is intended to keep their District Chief and their superiors off there back. Fires of Electrical Origin is a very attractive cause for a fire. It's a great way of saying "Nobody here is at fault." Of course the fire didn't start in the wet clothing which was laid over an electric heater to dry. The fault was arcing in the cord. We don't have a snow balls prayer in hell of getting the entire population of the US to not make deadly mistakes. It cannot be done. But if it was arcing in a flexible cord we have a magic device which will banish these fires forever... In short I do not believe that the underlying data on which the relative danger of each fire cause is based is valid well before any Federal Agency studied it to divine which fire cause was the most likely one to be the most urgent. So even if these Combination AFCIs did everything that their manufacturers say they will it might not be worth the costs when calculated against a more accurate view of the actual causes of deadly fires.

Please understand that I am not claiming to have some wonderful source of more accurate data. I don't. And I don't believe anybody else does either.

--
Tom Horne

 

[kwired]

don_resqcapt19 I'm asking if you if you have observed how much actual effort is put into preparing fire cause and origin reports in your part of the world.

My concern is on the accuracy of the Cause and Origin (C&OR) reports that are prepared by line fire officers with widely varying degrees of training and interest in the preparation of these reports. The fire investigators have a strong interest in not being called out if they are not needed. In over four decades of service I have witnessed the trained fire investigators giving the first due engine officer a hard time for calling them out on several occasions. "Dam it! It's just an EFFing Room and Contents and you couldn't figure it out!" Because of the mechanics of a fire attack the first arriving company will be the last to leave the scene. If the Fire was a "worker"; which is slang for a fire that makes all of the responders work hard to extinguish it; that first due engine officer is wet, cold or sweltering, bone tired, and very much wanting to be in a hot shower followed by a clean bed. But before he/she can get any rest they have to complete an incident report and a C&OR. Given that officers present physical condition we can be sure that they paid meticulous attention to any evidence that will make the cause and origin report more accurate prior to leaving the scene, in that NOT sort of way. It's also quite possible that the Truckies had already thrown the entire contents of the compartment of origin out the window; and all of the C&OR evidence with it: to allay their fear of the dreaded "Rekindle." If you leave the slightest little ember still glowing inside that structure all of your work will be for not and you will be back already worn and tired for a replay of the previous fire in this structure. These are the conditions under which the Cause and Origin Report will be written.

It is on these C&ORs that the work of the CPSC and the CDC is being based. I personally have no confidence that the figures that they are working with have a close correlation with the number of fires in the US which are actually a "Fire of electrical origin" or just the choice made by a very tired fire officer who chose the "Form of Heat of Ignition" and the "Material First Ignited" from the choices that are least likely to be quarreled with which varies from Fire Service to Fire Service is intended to keep their District Chief and their superiors off there back. Fires of Electrical Origin is a very attractive cause for a fire. It's a great way of saying "Nobody here is at fault." Of course the fire didn't start in the wet clothing which was laid over an electric heater to dry. The fault was arcing in the cord. We don't have a snow balls prayer in hell of getting the entire population of the US to not make deadly mistakes. It cannot be done. But if it was arcing in a flexible cord we have a magic device which will banish these fires forever... In short I do not believe that the underlying data on which the relative danger of each fire cause is based is valid well before any Federal Agency studied it to divine which fire cause was the most likely one to be the most urgent. So even if these Combination AFCIs did everything that their manufacturers say they will it might not be worth the costs when calculated against a more accurate view of the actual causes of deadly fires.

Please understand that I am not claiming to have some wonderful source of more accurate data. I don't. And I don't believe anybody else does either.

--
Tom Horne

I haven't been around too many fire incidents that were deemed to be "caused by electrical" but the ones I have they were pretty certain about the origination point of the fire, found there was an electrical appliance or other component at/very near that location but never determined the exact malfunction that started the fire, just assumed that electrical appliance or other component started it somehow.

One was a fire in a house of reasonably close friend of mine. Damage wasn't too severe before they got the fire extinguished so lots of things still in place. Though near the origin burned longer and was less evidence left behind. My friend called me almost right away next morning to tell me what happened and that they needed me to asses things, one wanted some my opinions on what happened as electrical was suspect but fire investigator hadn't been there yet, two they wanted to disconnect whatever was not safe but still be able to turn the rest of the house back on. I was not allowed to enter before fire investigator did his thing though so I couldn't come until later that day.

Fire investigator determined origin point of fire was in proximity of area where a receptacle outlet was located. He had no other details as to the cause just that it started at that receptacle outlet and was deemed electrical fire. Now I didn't disagree with that but didn't believe it really gave us a true cause either. According to my friend nothing was normally plugged into that receptacle. It did however have incoming and outgoing cable to it. Therefore in my conclusion there likely was current flowing through to a load elsewhere on the circuit and possibly failed connection on the receptacle resulted in overheating and ignition of something unknown to me, typically a properly installed outlet box would likely contain this but I had no idea if there even was a box, if there was it was nonmetallic and completely burned up as I could find no remains of one. Cable sheath and conductor insulation was completely burned in that vicinity and all that was left of receptacle was the metal contact components, but conductors were not wrapped around screw terminals, indicating they were "back stab" connected, which was typical for other receptacles we did discover later when we later replaced all of them during restoration of this incident.

From what I have read and seen I have some doubt that if AFCI's would have been in use that they would have tripped before temperatures got to the point of ignition, but I really don't know exactly what was there at the receptacle location for ignitable material or how it may or may not have been separated by a proper outlet box either, which could also have been a factor in allowing the fire to spread. Fire investigator was not by any means an electrical expert, and I have no idea what he or the firemen may have manipulated or destroyed while they were there, so I could only make some assumptions on certain things.

 

[romex jockey]

Please understand that I am not claiming to have some wonderful source of more accurate data. I don't. And I don't believe anybody else does either.

Don has done a great job of collecting fire stats in the past, i believe it's a 'sticky' here , i'm just not smart enough to find it.

That said, it's how the data is collected that seem to be the problem.

To my understanding , an annual survey is sent out to all departments to fill out. Chief &/or assignee details XXX structure, partition, chimney , arson , ....etc etc....

the problem is, little to no funding exists for detailed forensics , especially in small rural departments

Anecdotally, i can recall standing by a smoking cellar hole ,with the chief claiming "well, no one was home, so it musta been 'lectrical"

that was the extent of 'forensics' in my tenure , which has probably repeated from sea to shining sea ever since

~RJ~

 

[retirede]

Don has done a great job of collecting fire stats in the past, i believe it's a 'sticky' here , i'm just not smart enough to find it.

That said, it's how the data is collected that seem to be the problem.

To my understanding , an annual survey is sent out to all departments to fill out. Chief &/or assignee details XXX structure, partition, chimney , arson , ....etc etc....

the problem is, little to no funding exists for detailed forensics , especially in small rural departments

Anecdotally, i can recall standing by a smoking cellar hole ,with the chief claiming "well, no one was home, so it musta been 'lectrical"

that was the extent of 'forensics' in my tenure , which has probably repeated from sea to shining sea ever since

~RJ~

If there is no other discernible cause, electrical is often the default.

 

[romex jockey]

If there is no other discernible cause, electrical is often the default.

yup...and as the dept's only token spark, i caught it all the time! ~S~

 

[kwired]

Don has done a great job of collecting fire stats in the past, i believe it's a 'sticky' here , i'm just not smart enough to find it.

That said, it's how the data is collected that seem to be the problem.

To my understanding , an annual survey is sent out to all departments to fill out. Chief &/or assignee details XXX structure, partition, chimney , arson , ....etc etc....

the problem is, little to no funding exists for detailed forensics , especially in small rural departments

Anecdotally, i can recall standing by a smoking cellar hole ,with the chief claiming "well, no one was home, so it musta been 'lectrical"

that was the extent of 'forensics' in my tenure , which has probably repeated from sea to shining sea ever since

~RJ~

Yep. I do remember one around here that got more details because the use of an accelerant seemed pretty obvious, so they did investigate thouroughly and did successfully prosecute the owner and an accomplice for arson.

 

[Fred B]

Most electrically blamed fires I've seen reported around here have been linked to xmas tree lights, faulty extension cord or electric space heaters.

 

[kwired]

Most electrically blamed fires I've seen reported around here have been linked to xmas tree lights, faulty extension cord or electric space heaters.

or the space heater and extension cord combination.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

don_resqcapt19 I'm asking if you if you have observed how much actual effort is put into preparing fire cause and origin reports in your part of the world.....
Tom Horne

Short of suspected arson, serious injury, or death, most fire cause and origin investigations are not done by someone whose primary job is fire cause and origin. The fire officers have good training on getting to the origin, and often even to the general cause, but almost no one, other than a forensic electrical engineer, has any training on the determination of the exact cause function...was it joule heating, which an AFCI does not detect, or was it an arcing fault which an AFCI may detect.

I raised this issue many times starting back in the 1996 code cycle when AFCIs were first proposed.

The things that I have posted on the issue were more related to the number of fires and the cost vs benefit of installing AFCIs.
I think the last time I looked at that issue was for the 2014 code....even after 20 years, if AFCIs could prevent 100% of the fires that are said to be of electrical origin, and were installed on all branch circuits in all newly built dwelling units, my math said the cost total cost of fires prevented would be over one million dollars per fire. That was based on an assumption of one million new dwelling units being built each year and assumed an installation cost related to the AFCIs of $600 per dwelling unit.

The driving part of those number, based on reported fire information is that 85% of dwelling unit fires that are said to be of electrical origin, occur in dwelling units over 20 years old. Once you take that out, in those one million new homes you could expect to prevent 55 fires in the first year, again assuming all circuits are AFCI protected (not just those required by the code) and assuming that the AFCI is 100% effective in preventing fires of electrical origin.

All of this was based on the same data sources that were used to say we need to add AFCI protection to dwelling units.

 

[retirede]

If there is no other discernible cause, electrical is often the default.

We had a fire in an unoccupied house over the past weekend.

The assistant fire chief was quoted as saying “The fire is being investigated because no power has been active in the building since summer.”

The implication being that if the house had electricity, no investigation would be required - it would have been blamed on electrical.