GFCI Receptacle for garbage disposal

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I agree with the notion that any liability on behalf of the state being behind in adopting the most recent code should not and does not impact the electrical inspectors. We can only enforce the code that has been adopted and we can only be held liable if one can prove that we were cognizant that an installation was improper and approved it regardless. All of our certificates sent subsequent to an approved inspection include a disclaimer that indicates that "inspections are visual only and we are not responsible for installations that are concealed...." It would not surprise me however; if a good attorney could take advantage of the fact that the NEC stipulates that the code requirements are "the minimum." Just for example, in NY, we are on the 2014 NEC where bathrooms are not required to be AFCI protected. I understand that I am "what if'fing" here and that no code exists that begins with "What if" but let's assume for the sake of argument that a rodent chews through the dedicated bathroom circuit which causes a fire with property or life loss. Subsequently, a lawsuit occurs and the electrical contractor who would be included because lawyers will sue everyone, is on the witness stand. The lawyer asks the question, "Was there a device that could have prevented the fire and the loss?" Of course the answer is yes, an AFCI circuit breaker would more than likely recognize this fault and de-energize the circuit. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a jury would not comprehend that the electrician performed the installation in accordance with the code being enforced by the state at the time of the installation? Would the contractor be found not liable for the same reason? In today's litigious society, I would appreciate the opinions of inspectors and electricians alike as it pertains to this scenario. I was concerned about this when I was a contractor and I continue to be concerned as an electrical inspector for the past 16 years. The next code may not be enforced until approved by the state but is performing to the minimum standard an acceptable defense for failing to utilize a device that does exist and is called for in the more recent code? Just a thought.

Everyone uses the term YOLO these days - you only live once. I contend the opposite. You only die once. You live every day.
What about suing the exterminator for not eliminating the rodent??

AFCI may or may not have prevented that either. Really depends on conditions and what actually happened. I have seen rodent damaged cables that continue to work just fine if left undisturbed. An arcing fault would have to occur for an AFCI to respond, other things could possibly happen that don't involve an arcing fault. Defense hopefully finds good witnesses to counter some of the things that industry claims that may or may not be myth.
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
The lawyer asks the question, "Was there a device that could have prevented the fire and the loss?" Of course the answer is yes, an AFCI circuit breaker would more than likely recognize this fault and de-energize the circuit.
A lawyer in bankruptcy court asks the question, "Was there a way you could have avoided going bankrupt and paid all your creditors?" Of course the answer is yes, I could have bought lottery tickets.

Actually that's more of a sure thing than an AFCI saving a life.

-Hal
 

ActionDave

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from wing
Occupation
wire pulling grunt
... let's assume for the sake of argument that a rodent chews through the dedicated bathroom circuit which causes a fire with property or life loss. Subsequently, a lawsuit occurs and the electrical contractor who would be included because lawyers will sue everyone, is on the witness stand. The lawyer asks the question, "Was there a device that could have prevented the fire and the loss?" Of course the answer is yes, an AFCI circuit breaker would more than likely recognize this fault and de-energize the circuit. .....
What makes you sure about that? What evidence is there that AFCI circuit breakers do anything to prevent fires in houses?
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
What about suing the exterminator for not eliminating the rodent??

I have seen rodent damaged cables that continue to work just fine if left undisturbed.
Likewise.

Even pyrophoric carbonization is undetectable by AFCI's, and that's what actually causes fires.
 
What about suing the exterminator for not eliminating the rodent??

AFCI may or may not have prevented that either. Really depends on conditions and what actually happened. I have seen rodent damaged cables that continue to work just fine if left undisturbed. An arcing fault would have to occur for an AFCI to respond, other things could possibly happen that don't involve an arcing fault. Defense hopefully finds good witnesses to counter some of the things that industry claims that may or may not be myth.
Respectfully, my response would be that I encounter a substantial amount of rodent activity. I did not believe this occurred because for over 20 years as an electrical contractor before becoming an inspector in 2003, however; since I have observed this circumstance on so many occasions, I am aware that this is merely a "teeth sharpening" exercise on behalf of the rodents. My scenario related was a fire due to arcing caused by rodent damage and in the specific case, an AFCI would recognize the arc created which sparked the fire. Otherwise, I have also observed numerous rodent chewing incidents where they apparently stopped before an arc occurred as well as many situations where an arc did occur, thereby effectively "frying" the rodent with a customary style circuit breaker that never de-energized the circuit.

In the end, the point is, in today's litigious society where everyone wants to sue anyone involved, especially those with insurance, is performing an installation to the minimum of an outdated code merely enough to protect an electrical contractor?
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
Respectfully, my response would be that I encounter a substantial amount of rodent activity. I did not believe this occurred because for over 20 years as an electrical contractor before becoming an inspector in 2003, however; since I have observed this circumstance on so many occasions, I am aware that this is merely a "teeth sharpening" exercise on behalf of the rodents. My scenario related was a fire due to arcing caused by rodent damage and in the specific case, an AFCI would recognize the arc created which sparked the fire. Otherwise, I have also observed numerous rodent chewing incidents where they apparently stopped before an arc occurred as well as many situations where an arc did occur, thereby effectively "frying" the rodent with a customary style circuit breaker that never de-energized the circuit.

In the end, the point is, in today's litigious society where everyone wants to sue anyone involved, especially those with insurance, is performing an installation to the minimum of an outdated code merely enough to protect an electrical contractor?
The only way to stop litigation involving the alleged safety of AFCI's on the contractor level is to once and for all bring a class action suit against the manufacturers, UL, the CPSC and the NEC and prove the snake oil that they are. A daunting task to be sure that may unfortunately take government intervention as it did with the SawStop situation.

As for rodent damage, yeah, I've seen it too but using the flawed argument that AFCI's can protect against it is ridiculous. There are better wiring methods than NM. If there is going to be an increased awareness about safety, maybe it's time to ban NM and use MC.

-Hal
 

victor.cherkashi

Senior Member
Location
NYC, NY
The only way to stop litigation involving the alleged safety of AFCI's on the contractor level is to once and for all bring a class action suit against the manufacturers, UL, the CPSC and the NEC and prove the snake oil that they are. A daunting task to be sure that may unfortunately take government intervention as it did with the SawStop situation.

As for rodent damage, yeah, I've seen it too but using the flawed argument that AFCI's can protect against it is ridiculous. There are better wiring methods than NM. If there is going to be an increased awareness about safety, maybe it's time to ban NM and use MC.

-Hal
I believe when AC/MC is used, AFCI should be omitted.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 
The only way to stop litigation involving the alleged safety of AFCI's on the contractor level is to once and for all bring a class action suit against the manufacturers, UL, the CPSC and the NEC and prove the snake oil that they are. A daunting task to be sure that may unfortunately take government intervention as it did with the SawStop situation.

As for rodent damage, yeah, I've seen it too but using the flawed argument that AFCI's can protect against it is ridiculous. There are better wiring methods than NM. If there is going to be an increased awareness about safety, maybe it's time to ban NM and use MC.

-Hal
Hal,

I understand that everyone has differing opinions about the effectiveness of an AFCI circuit breaker compared to the cost imposed upon the property owner, however; the data collected since AFCI became mandatory in bedrooms in the 2002 code continue to reflect that these devices save lives. When the requirement to utilize GFCI protection initially appeared in the code, I remember as a young electrician hearing the more seasoned guys expressing their dislike as well due to the fact that they were misunderstood and tripped out for the precise reason that they were designed for, much of which was current leakage on old appliances.

When we consider that ordinary circuit breakers are more than half a century old, many of which have been sitting in a damp basement for that time, we have to accept that the AFCI circuit breaker is a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century version of those antiquated breakers. I may be misinterpreting how a customary breaker functions but I believe that the severe corrosion I have observed with the numerous devices I have opened up subsequent to a “failure to trip” circumstance convinces me to accept the protective aspects of the AFCI. Of course, I realize that I am seeing this from the inspector’s perspective so I comprehend the difference of opinion of others as it pertains to these expensive devices. I maintain that an AFCI panel which would only require a microprocessor and circuit breakers similar to shunt trips with one wire that could both monitor the circuit and trip the breaker when an arc is sensed would be a less expensive way of complying with the code.

Having said all that. The most recent data I have come across supports the notion that AFCI protection saves lives and substantially limits property damage. I keep these figure on post-it notes at my desk so that I can reiterate them to those who still try to argue that “it’s a ridiculous requirement.” I get that a lot because I work in a medium sized city with a lot of poorly maintained properties for which the expense of AFCI circuit breakers causes a financial hardship.

This is from the Internet so it must be true, right? Per the NFPA, from 2010 through 2014:

  • 45,210 fires in the US were electrical in nature.
  • 420 people died as a result of these fires.
  • 1370 people were seriously injured.
  • $1.4 Billion in property damages.

I also have data from before that as well but IMO, if 420 lives could have been saved by AFCI protection, then it would be hard to argue with. Of course, the Marine Corps taught me that “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” so there is no indication as to whether these statistics include homes that were AFCI protected or not. I ‘ll leave it up to the reader to decide.

I hear the acronym YOLO used daily lately. I contend that "you only live once is not true." You live every day. You only die once. YODO
 
A lawyer in bankruptcy court asks the question, "Was there a way you could have avoided going bankrupt and paid all your creditors?" Of course the answer is yes, I could have bought lottery tickets.

Actually that's more of a sure thing than an AFCI saving a life.

-Hal
The odds of winning the lottery are approximately 300 million to one. I would have to respectfully disagree with the statement. LOL
 

ActionDave

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from wing
Occupation
wire pulling grunt
... the data collected since AFCI became mandatory in bedrooms in the 2002 code continue to reflect that these devices save lives.
I don't believe this. Show the evidence that AFCI breakers do anything to prevent fires.

What has been proven that AFCIs can not stop a glowing arc and that there is no way an arc can be sustained at 120V. AFCIs are useless other than the ground fault component

When the requirement to utilize GFCI protection initially appeared in the code, I remember as a young el and circuit breakers similar to shunt trips with one wire that could both monitor the circuit and trip the breaker when an arc is sensed would be a less expensive way of complying with the code.
GFCIs are different, and anyone who understands the difference between the two technologies would not compare them.
 

jap

Senior Member
There are better wiring methods than NM. If there is going to be an increased awareness about safety, maybe it's time to ban NM and use MC.

-Hal

It does seem odd that the wiring method used in structures where people spend most of their time seem to be the most delicate.


JAP>
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Hal,

I understand that everyone has differing opinions about the effectiveness of an AFCI circuit breaker compared to the cost imposed upon the property owner, however; the data collected since AFCI became mandatory in bedrooms in the 2002 code continue to reflect that these devices save lives. When the requirement to utilize GFCI protection initially appeared in the code, I remember as a young electrician hearing the more seasoned guys expressing their dislike as well due to the fact that they were misunderstood and tripped out for the precise reason that they were designed for, much of which was current leakage on old appliances.

When we consider that ordinary circuit breakers are more than half a century old, many of which have been sitting in a damp basement for that time, we have to accept that the AFCI circuit breaker is a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century version of those antiquated breakers. I may be misinterpreting how a customary breaker functions but I believe that the severe corrosion I have observed with the numerous devices I have opened up subsequent to a “failure to trip” circumstance convinces me to accept the protective aspects of the AFCI. Of course, I realize that I am seeing this from the inspector’s perspective so I comprehend the difference of opinion of others as it pertains to these expensive devices. I maintain that an AFCI panel which would only require a microprocessor and circuit breakers similar to shunt trips with one wire that could both monitor the circuit and trip the breaker when an arc is sensed would be a less expensive way of complying with the code.

Having said all that. The most recent data I have come across supports the notion that AFCI protection saves lives and substantially limits property damage. I keep these figure on post-it notes at my desk so that I can reiterate them to those who still try to argue that “it’s a ridiculous requirement.” I get that a lot because I work in a medium sized city with a lot of poorly maintained properties for which the expense of AFCI circuit breakers causes a financial hardship.

This is from the Internet so it must be true, right? Per the NFPA, from 2010 through 2014:

  • 45,210 fires in the US were electrical in nature.
  • 420 people died as a result of these fires.
  • 1370 people were seriously injured.
  • $1.4 Billion in property damages.

I also have data from before that as well but IMO, if 420 lives could have been saved by AFCI protection, then it would be hard to argue with. Of course, the Marine Corps taught me that “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” so there is no indication as to whether these statistics include homes that were AFCI protected or not. I ‘ll leave it up to the reader to decide.

I hear the acronym YOLO used daily lately. I contend that "you only live once is not true." You live every day. You only die once. YODO
Where are the statistics that show those fires would have been prevented? Some I can agree with, I'd guess not all were started as a result of something an AFCI would have prevented. Portable heater too close to the curtains - might be noted as as an electrical fire, though it is simply misuse of a product more so than an electrical mishap.

I don't believe this. Show the evidence that AFCI breakers do anything to prevent fires.

What has been proven that AFCIs can not stop a glowing arc and that there is no way an arc can be sustained at 120V. AFCIs are useless other than the ground fault component


GFCIs are different, and anyone who understands the difference between the two technologies would not compare them.
I agree. I also think those installed in 2002 are just now starting to get to the point where they may or may not be relied on more often to do what they were supposedly designed to do. Things are now getting old enough the little things start compiling, a weak connection here or there, time and loads weakening it even more, receptacle contact points getting weaker, etc. But the question is do ADCI's still even work when they are called upon, presuming they work in the first place?
 

hbiss

EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
Location
Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
Occupation
EC
Hal,

I understand that everyone has differing opinions about the effectiveness of an AFCI circuit breaker compared to the cost imposed upon the property owner, however; the data collected since AFCI became mandatory in bedrooms in the 2002 code continue to reflect that these devices save lives. When the requirement to utilize GFCI protection initially appeared in the code, I remember as a young electrician hearing the more seasoned guys expressing their dislike as well due to the fact that they were misunderstood and tripped out for the precise reason that they were designed for, much of which was current leakage on old appliances.

When we consider that ordinary circuit breakers are more than half a century old, many of which have been sitting in a damp basement for that time, we have to accept that the AFCI circuit breaker is a 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century version of those antiquated breakers. I may be misinterpreting how a customary breaker functions but I believe that the severe corrosion I have observed with the numerous devices I have opened up subsequent to a “failure to trip” circumstance convinces me to accept the protective aspects of the AFCI. Of course, I realize that I am seeing this from the inspector’s perspective so I comprehend the difference of opinion of others as it pertains to these expensive devices. I maintain that an AFCI panel which would only require a microprocessor and circuit breakers similar to shunt trips with one wire that could both monitor the circuit and trip the breaker when an arc is sensed would be a less expensive way of complying with the code.

Having said all that. The most recent data I have come across supports the notion that AFCI protection saves lives and substantially limits property damage. I keep these figure on post-it notes at my desk so that I can reiterate them to those who still try to argue that “it’s a ridiculous requirement.” I get that a lot because I work in a medium sized city with a lot of poorly maintained properties for which the expense of AFCI circuit breakers causes a financial hardship.

This is from the Internet so it must be true, right? Per the NFPA, from 2010 through 2014:

  • 45,210 fires in the US were electrical in nature.
  • 420 people died as a result of these fires.
  • 1370 people were seriously injured.
  • $1.4 Billion in property damages.

I also have data from before that as well but IMO, if 420 lives could have been saved by AFCI protection, then it would be hard to argue with. Of course, the Marine Corps taught me that “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” so there is no indication as to whether these statistics include homes that were AFCI protected or not. I ‘ll leave it up to the reader to decide.

I hear the acronym YOLO used daily lately. I contend that "you only live once is not true." You live every day. You only die once. YODO
You are new here so I'll cut you some slack. If you do some research of this site you will find input from engineers (one who was involved with the original design process), hundreds of ECs who have experience with AFCIs and members of the NEC code making panels themselves. Read how the NEC was compromised by manufacturer influence to require the installation of AFCIs thus creating a huge win for manufacturer profitability.

Believe me, if our findings were that AFCI technology was viable we would embrace it with open arms. We aren't just against AFCIs because it costs more or we don't like it. The fact is that in the almost 20 years AFCIs have been available they have NEVER been proven to have saved one life. That NFPA data you quote has been shown to be fudged from manufacturers and other proponents of AFCIs.

AFCIs were a pipe dream back when it was hoped that technology could be developed to build a functional arc sensing device. But unfortunately, 20 years later we now know that the amount of "horsepower" to accomplish that can't be contained within the space relegated to a standard breaker.

If manufacturers were to throw in the towel now and give up on AFCI technology it would open them up to huge lawsuits which would probably put some of them out of business.

-Hal
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
Location
Vermont
The only way to stop litigation involving the alleged safety of AFCI's on the contractor level is to once and for all bring a class action suit against the manufacturers, UL, the CPSC and the NEC and prove the snake oil that they are. A daunting task to be sure that may unfortunately take government intervention as it did with the SawStop situation.

-Hal
I know of 3 countries that tried and backed down....

Hal,

Having said all that. The most recent data I have come across supports the notion that AFCI protection saves lives and substantially limits property damage. I keep these figure on post-it notes at my desk so that I can reiterate them to those who still try to argue that “it’s a ridiculous requirement.” I get that a lot because I work in a medium sized city with a lot of poorly maintained properties for which the expense of AFCI circuit breakers causes a financial hardship.

This is from the Internet so it must be true, right? Per the NFPA, from 2010 through 2014:

  • 45,210 fires in the US were electrical in nature.
  • 420 people died as a result of these fires.
  • 1370 people were seriously injured.
  • $1.4 Billion in property damages.

I also have data from before that as well but IMO, if 420 lives could have been saved by AFCI protection, then it would be hard to argue with. Of course, the Marine Corps taught me that “figures don’t lie, but liars can figure” so there is no indication as to whether these statistics include homes that were AFCI protected or not. I ‘ll leave it up to the reader to decide.
Do you realize how and where these stats are collected?

Where are the statistics that show those fires would have been prevented? Some I can agree with, I'd guess not all were started as a result of something an AFCI would have prevented. Portable heater too close to the curtains - might be noted as as an electrical fire, though it is simply misuse of a product more so than an electrical mishap.
We do have a resident fire forensic poster, he has posted his findings.

~RJ~
 

romex jockey

Senior Member
Location
Vermont
If manufacturers were to throw in the towel now and give up on AFCI technology it would open them up to huge lawsuits which would probably put some of them out of business.
I'd only stae that it almost happened....which is why we have the term 'supplemental' in 210.12

~RJ~
 
Top