Inspector requiring afci for fixed electric baseboard heating

[76nemo]

Proving grounds for their effectiveness, what else?

GFIs went through the same process. Very limited requirements when first introduced, and you could wire a whole house with just one GFI. Now, to wire a standard dwelling, you'd better bring a half dozen to the trim.

I wonder if the '11 is going to further expand AFCI requirements. Only time will tell.



Not according to the '08 wording. Unless there's a local amendment, it's likely to create an NEC violation.

So the bottom line is that we go 100% with AFCI protection, which is NOT a bad idea, but it sure adds to our estimates, no problem whether or not the end user understands why in "NEW" construction, but the key word is "NEW". I think I'll end this here as we are going sideways. Can you agree with me or not Ken? Don't you think AFCI devices would be a huge benefit to what we do with "old work"?

 

[quogueelectric]

So the bottom line is that we go 100% with AFCI protection, which is NOT a bad idea, but it sure adds to our estimates, no problem whether or not the end user understands why in "NEW" construction, but the key word is "NEW". I think I'll end this here as we are going sideways. Can you agree with me or not Ken? Don't you think AFCI devices would be a huge benefit to what we do with "old work"?

I think this technology is best suited to make alluminum wiring safer. As a circuit is destroying itself this device would pick up the signature arc and shut down safely. A godsend for the poor person stuck with alluminum wiring in thier house.

 

[76nemo]

I think this technology is best suited to make alluminum wiring safer. As a circuit is destroying itself this device would pick up the signature arc and shut down safely. A godsend for the poor person stuck with alluminum wiring in thier house.

With ALL DUE respect quo, I am NOT talking of circuits containing AL wiring. If we were, I am all for it 100%. I am talking of CU wiring only, but GREAT point!!!!!!!!

 

[quogueelectric]

With ALL DUE respect quo, I am NOT talking of circuits containing AL wiring. If we were, I am all for it 100%. I am talking of CU wiring only, but GREAT point!!!!!!!!

You dont have to pussyfoot around me I am not easily offended. Ihave the utmost respect for your opinion also we are all in this to learn. And we try to learn from each others experinces. I sometimes take jobs cheap just to learn them rather than bidding high and not learning I will get my foot in the door and make more on the next dozen i do. I just did a security / time clock / payroll /lock using biometric fingerprint technology. There were a few bugs but we sailed through them as I have done dozens of card access systems and already know most of the pitfalls. Some people on this site try to make me out to be a condescending jerk but if you knew me you would know that I am not that at all. All is good in my life and I have nothing to prove to anyone. I am trying to help others learn as I am trying to learn every day new things myself . Thanks for the support it is appreciated.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Okay, so are you saying you don't understand the line and load concept of these devices and how they could blossom?????

Yes I understand. My ppoint was that slapping an AFCI recep in doesn't protect the enitire circuit. And it will probably be cheaper to use a breaker for a long time even if the recps do come on the market

 

[76nemo]

Yes I understand. My ppoint was that slapping an AFCI recep in doesn't protect the enitire circuit. And it will probably be cheaper to use a breaker for a long time even if the recps do come on the market

This debate is solely based on "old work", and new codes. You're missing my point to this. I am talking about adding to existing circuits, circuits that may possibly have shared neutrals even. I think AFCI dead-fronts would really help us out and have a HUGE market.

Work with me here

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think this technology is best suited to make alluminum wiring safer. As a circuit is destroying itself this device would pick up the signature arc and shut down safely. A godsend for the poor person stuck with alluminum wiring in thier house.

The problems with aluminum is not an arcing ground fault it is a high resistance type connection or a glowing connection. AFCIs, even the new combination type do not directly detect this type of fault. They only detect this type of fault after the heat from the poor connection has damaged enough insulation to cause a parallel arcing fault or a ground fault. If you are lucky this happens before you have a fire.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes I understand. My ppoint was that slapping an AFCI recep in doesn't protect the enitire circuit. And it will probably be cheaper to use a breaker for a long time even if the recps do come on the market

I have never been convinced that really need to protect the whole circuit. It is my opinion that the majority of the fires that are called electrical originate beyond the fixed wiring of the structure. An AFCI receptacle would provide protection for these problems.

 

[quogueelectric]

The problems with aluminum is not an arcing ground fault it is a high resistance type connection or a glowing connection. AFCIs, even the new combination type do not directly detect this type of fault. They only detect this type of fault after the heat from the poor connection has damaged enough insulation to cause a parallel arcing fault or a ground fault. If you are lucky this happens before you have a fire.

Yes however I have been on dozens of service calls where the al wiring has completely burned through with no indication that there was a problem until the circuit desintigrates. I am saying it is far from safe but at least it is better than nothing. Very seldomly have I seen copper fail unless it has been installed incorrectly as in a screw not tightened or improper ocpd.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I have never been convinced that really need to protect the whole circuit. It is my opinion that the majority of the fires that are called electrical originate beyond the fixed wiring of the structure. An AFCI receptacle would provide protection for these problems.

You are probably right about the majority of fires. However we've all seen "dangerous" looking nest of wires (like in the attic). I know at least in my own home I want the protection at the breaker.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

This debate is solely based on "old work", and new codes. You're missing my point to this. I am talking about adding to existing circuits, circuits that may possibly have shared neutrals even. I think AFCI dead-fronts would really help us out and have a HUGE market.

Work with me here

Your right I concede that there is a market for it IF you are allowed to slap one in and extend the circuit. Yes if they do come out I'm sure I'll be told to install a few.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

You are probably right about the majority of fires. However we've all seen "dangerous" looking nest of wires (like in the attic). I know at least in my own home I want the protection at the breaker.

Yes, there are poor installations, but I don't think the code effort should be to try to mitigate these poor installations by requiring a new protective device. I have not been convinced of either the need for or the effectiveness of AFCIs. When I ran the numbers for the 2008 rule based on the fire statistics used to get the AFCI requirements into the code, I found that they could prevent about 435 fires the first year at a cost of over 1.5 million dollars per fire prevented, and this is assuming that the AFCI device could prevent 100% (not very likely) of the fires that are claimed to be of electrical origin in the newly constructed homes. The cost was based on the building of ~1.65 million new dwelling units and using the added cost to provide the AFCI protection as $400 per unit. The biggest thing that drives the number of fires prevented so low is the fact that of the dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin, 85% of them occur in dwelling units over 20 years old.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Yes, there are poor installations, but I don't think the code effort should be to try to mitigate these poor installations by requiring a new protective device. I have not been convinced of either the need for or the effectiveness of AFCIs. When I ran the numbers for the 2008 rule based on the fire statistics used to get the AFCI requirements into the code, I found that they could prevent about 435 fires the first year at a cost of over 1.5 million dollars per fire prevented, and this is assuming that the AFCI device could prevent 100% (not very likely) of the fires that are claimed to be of electrical origin in the newly constructed homes. The cost was based on the building of ~1.65 million new dwelling units and using the added cost to provide the AFCI protection as $400 per unit. The biggest thing that drives the number of fires prevented so low is the fact that of the dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin, 85% of them occur in dwelling units over 20 years old.

All good points... You know years from now the new buildings will be old buildings. How many fires will we prevented 10-20 years from now from AFCIs we install today?

Also when you bring it to a personal (which isn't always logical I know) there's no question I would have spent the extra dough to have the AFCI if I had bought new, IF it was a choice.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

All good points... You know years from now the new buildings will be old buildings. How many fires will we prevented 10-20 years from now from AFCIs we install today?

I really have my doubts that the fancy AFCI circuit in the breaker will still be functional in 15 or 20 years and as far as I know these are not fail safe devices. When the electronics fail you end up with a standard thermo-magnetic breaker, and unless you use the test button you don't even know the electronics have failed. Yes, I know that the instructions say you have to test them once a month, but I don't really see that happening in most dwelling units.

 

[al hildenbrand]

How many fires will we prevented 10-20 years from now from AFCIs we install today?

Very few.

The AFCIs we install today will rot on the nano-scale electronics level, and will be replaced by then.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Yes, there are poor installations, but I don't think the code effort should be to try to mitigate these poor installations by requiring a new protective device. I have not been convinced of either the need for or the effectiveness of AFCIs. When I ran the numbers for the 2008 rule based on the fire statistics used to get the AFCI requirements into the code, I found that they could prevent about 435 fires the first year at a cost of over 1.5 million dollars per fire prevented, and this is assuming that the AFCI device could prevent 100% (not very likely) of the fires that are claimed to be of electrical origin in the newly constructed homes. The cost was based on the building of ~1.65 million new dwelling units and using the added cost to provide the AFCI protection as $400 per unit. The biggest thing that drives the number of fires prevented so low is the fact that of the dwelling unit fires said to be of electrical origin, 85% of them occur in dwelling units over 20 years old.

These numbers?

The US Consumer Produce Safety Commission states ?Problems in home wiring, like arcing and sparking, are associated with more than 40,000 home fires each year. These fires claim over 350 lives and injure 1,400 victims annually. Their position on Arc fault circuit breakers can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/afci.html. The CPSC has data sheets on Arc fault circuit breakers at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/afcifac8.pdf.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I am well aware of the information that is out there and was used to get the AFCI requirements into the code. I have been studying them since the first proposal for the 1996 code. I have also been studying what the AFCIs actually do. They stated that the device they proposed for the 1996 code would do what they now say the combination type AFCI will do. This whole process has been based on misleading information and the big play that if you oppose the AFCI you are opposed to safety. The misinformation that was put out by the manufacturer's of these devices has made me distrust most all information that is published by someone who has a profit motive in getting me to accept the information. If the code was a federal law a full cost benefit analysis would have been required and this rule would have never seen the light of day. Yes, there are those who say you can't put a value on human life, but manufacturer's do that everyday. Products can always be made safer, but at some point the cost factor overrules the safety factor.

As far as my numbers, you have to dig a lot deeper than that. The numbers I used started with 67,800 (over 50% more than you cite) fires of electrical origin in dwelling units in a year. The total number of dwelling units a bit more than 119 million units. This gave a fire rate of ~1.761 dwelling unit fires per 1000 units. I adjusted this to 0.264 per thousand based on the stats that show 85% of these electrical fires are in units over 20 years old. I took this rate and applied to the the ~1,650,000 new homes to be built in a year. (this was before the housing crash and the number would be much smaller) When I did this I found that there would be about 435 fires of electrical origin in the new dwelling units in the first year. Even the AFCI people don't say that these devices will prevent 100% of the electrical caused fires, but even if they did, and the cost of compliance was $400 per unit the cost per fire prevented would be over $1,500,000.

Note: The numbers are based only on the first year of compliance. When I run the numbers out for 20 years, I come up with about 128,000 fires prevented over the 20 years if the devices prevent 100% of the electrical fires in the new dwelling units constructed over these 20 years. If we assume the installed cost to comply with 210.12 stays at per dwelling unit stays at $400 for the full 20 years, we still have a cost of over $170,000 per fire prevented. As I said even the AFCI people do not claim 100% effectiveness and the number of fires prevented goes down and the cost of preventing each fire goes up as the effectiveness goes down. Some in the AFCI industry have stated that the effectiveness is 40% to 60%.

 

[76nemo]

This has gone COMPLETELY sideways. ~Hunter S. Thompson:roll:

 

[charlie]

This has gone COMPLETELY sideways. ~Hunter S. Thompson:roll:

Actually, it has not. The OP was asking about baseboard electric heaters and AFCIs. The conversation has turned a bit and is now discussing just AFCIs. Is this any different than a conversation at lunch with your coworkers?

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I am well aware of the information that is out there and was used to get the AFCI requirements into the code. I have been studying them since the first proposal for the 1996 code. I have also been studying what the AFCIs actually do. They stated that the device they proposed for the 1996 code would do what they now say the combination type AFCI will do. This whole process has been based on misleading information and the big play that if you oppose the AFCI you are opposed to safety. The misinformation that was put out by the manufacturer's of these devices has made me distrust most all information that is published by someone who has a profit motive in getting me to accept the information. If the code was a federal law a full cost benefit analysis would have been required and this rule would have never seen the light of day. Yes, there are those who say you can't put a value on human life, but manufacturer's do that everyday. Products can always be made safer, but at some point the cost factor overrules the safety factor.

As far as my numbers, you have to dig a lot deeper than that. The numbers I used started with 67,800 (over 50% more than you cite) fires of electrical origin in dwelling units in a year. The total number of dwelling units a bit more than 119 million units. This gave a fire rate of ~1.761 dwelling unit fires per 1000 units. I adjusted this to 0.264 per thousand based on the stats that show 85% of these electrical fires are in units over 20 years old. I took this rate and applied to the the ~1,650,000 new homes to be built in a year. (this was before the housing crash and the number would be much smaller) When I did this I found that there would be about 435 fires of electrical origin in the new dwelling units in the first year. Even the AFCI people don't say that these devices will prevent 100% of the electrical caused fires, but even if they did, and the cost of compliance was $400 per unit the cost per fire prevented would be over $1,500,000.

Note: The numbers are based only on the first year of compliance. When I run the numbers out for 20 years, I come up with about 128,000 fires prevented over the 20 years if the devices prevent 100% of the electrical fires in the new dwelling units constructed over these 20 years. If we assume the installed cost to comply with 210.12 stays at per dwelling unit stays at $400 for the full 20 years, we still have a cost of over $170,000 per fire prevented. As I said even the AFCI people do not claim 100% effectiveness and the number of fires prevented goes down and the cost of preventing each fire goes up as the effectiveness goes down. Some in the AFCI industry have stated that the effectiveness is 40% to 60%.

It's all good information don. I do see your point. I really do. I guess SOMEONE has to decide where to draw the line...you as far as the value of life verse the cost of safety. Practicality is important. I am however glad to see a more progressive attitude toward safety compared to the horror stories of year passed.

Anyway when your talking about a 300,000 new build I would welcome the extra 5-800 bucks to have that extra level of safety...