NFPA requirements have gone overboard (too high of a requirement), cost vs risk!

[CrazyWabbit]

I get it, loss of life is tragic. the risk needs to be properly quantified. so there was one occurrence of a child climbing over a fence and steps onto a AC condenser and dies, tragic; if 2 or more die per period (NFPA needs to define period) then the NFPA should consider action. but first consider if the circuit was properly wired would the death have occurred. in the case of the boy, if the AC condenser had a functioning ground the fault would have cleared and the death would not have occurred.

the loss of life/property damage under a certain occurrence should be acceptable based on the cost the rule would incur.

for example, commercial aircraft are NOT required to contain a rotor burst if the occurrence is under 10e-9 per flight. blades are required to be contained because they occur more frequently. as a result i avoid sitting in the burst zone when flying, i will leave that to the uneducated.

so should GFCI breakers be required for AC condensers and well pumps, NO. please retract this requirement.

 

[tom baker]

While we appreciate your comments, this not the place to make a change. You will need to be involved with the code change process. Public inputs for the 2026 NEC Will accepted about September 2023.
The change you are referencing has caused tripping of GFCIs used for AC units, many states have not adopted this change.
My recommendation to my state is wait longer to adopt the next edition of the NEC

 

[CrazyWabbit]

this should probably be moved to the NEC proposal for next cycle section...

also fire data doesn't show that afci devices have reduced fires, yet we are required to install almost everywhere inside. increasing the cost of new construction.

 

[electrofelon]

this should probably be moved to the NEC proposal for next cycle section...

also fire data doesn't show that afci devices have reduced fires, yet we are required to install almost everywhere inside. increasing the cost of new construction.

FWIW I agree with you the NFPA has gone way overboard. They also meddle in things that are none of their Business, like product standards. We need an alternative electrical standard. IMO the NEC is much too far gone.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

this should probably be moved to the NEC proposal for next cycle section...

also fire data doesn't show that afci devices have reduced fires, yet we are required to install almost everywhere inside. increasing the cost of new construction.

Given the number of existing dwellings and the fact that the data used to support the AFCI requirements showed that 85% of the dwelling unit electrical fires were in units at least 20 years old, it will be decades before there is any statistically valid data showing if the AFCIs have reduced the number of dwelling unit electrical fires.

 

[CrazyWabbit]

there have been to numerous other changes to code to be able to extract useful data in the future.

it would be better to ban push connector receptacles then mandate afci's and gfci's everywhere. i've melted 3 receptacles which almost caused a fire (on afci circuits), but no fires were avoided due to afci breakers.

 

[Fishbrain]

Given the number of existing dwellings and the fact that the data used to support the AFCI requirements showed that 85% of the dwelling unit electrical fires were in units at least 20 years old, it will be decades before there is any statistically valid data showing if the AFCIs have reduced the number of dwelling unit electrical fires.

The above statement is akin to implying that AFCI “mandate” regarding its purported requisite,--as a feature for consumers to promote life saving, and preventing property damage--has never been truly understood and even made outside of credible safety consideration..

And saying that waiting for an “statistical data” (from your statement. . . re: 20 years) in order to validate its effectiveness is a quintessential:

“Solution waiting for a problem.”

Over the course of its inclusion to the NEC-- numerous complaints and dissatisfaction have been launched against it.
The process to wait that long is NOT scientific

If I subscribed to that kind of thinking—it would be a joke to say that I spent a good portion of my working life as a technical worker (I’m an engineer).

Science does not work in this train of thought. If an idea is handed to the hands of consumer—it had to be vetted rigorously--and not handed to consumers --thus being used (the consumer)as “guinea pigs” to find out whether an item is useful or not.

Fish

 

[petersonra]

is there all that much actual evidence that suggests that even GFCIs save lives?

 

[LarryFine]

is there all that much actual evidence that suggests that even GFCIs save lives?

I'm sure enough of them have tripped properly to conclude that they have.

 

[petersonra]

I'm sure enough of them have tripped properly to conclude that they have.

Did tripping actually save any lives thoigh

 

[mtnelect]

Did tripping actually save any lives thoigh

And the other question ... have they been installed properly. In California 90% of residential work is done without a permit ! ...

 

[Fishbrain]

I'm sure enough of them have tripped properly to conclude that they have.

That is a valid statement. . . although a few random occurrence doesn’t justify the efficacity of the much-flouted usefulness of AFCI.

The ardent seriousness of the question being asked:

“How many documented fatality or near fatality” were averted as a result of tripped AFCI” has never been addressed.

All we see is a parade of speculations and opinions.
Science is not based on shallow opinions.

One can argue that one single event (tripped AFCI) is more than enough to consider the value of saving a life. . . .and we don’t need several lives saved to prove the point.

This sounds like deprecating my position.

I’ll be glad to be lampooned as you see fit.

Meanwhile:

I’ll go fishing.

Fish

 

[petersonra]

The CPSC has done an analysis of the value of installing AFCIs and pegged it at less than $400 per home.

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ecafci.pdf

 

[LarryFine]

The ardent seriousness of the question being asked:

“How many documented fatality or near fatality” were averted as a result of tripped AFCI” has never been addressed.

How does one "prove" that a seat-belt prevented a death in any given accident?

They may have died even with it on, or they may have lived even without it on.


"How do you solve the problem like Maria?"

 

[gadfly56]

How does one "prove" that a seat-belt prevented a death in any given accident?

They may have died even with it on, or they may have lived even without it on.


"How do you solve the problem like Maria?"

Larry, they have done statistical analyses of the types and frequency of injuries before and after the mandate. There is no question that they save lives. Anecdotal instances where someone claims to have been saved by being "thrown clear" do not provide sufficient countervailing evidence.

 

[LarryFine]

Larry, they have done statistical analyses of the types and frequency of injuries before and after the mandate. There is no question that they save lives. Anecdotal instances where someone claims to have been saved by being "thrown clear" do not provide sufficient countervailing evidence.

No question. I haven't and can't drive without one, ever since I started driving 50 years ago.

I just meant that it's difficult to point out one specific event and say for sure what would have happened if . . .

 

[gadfly56]

No question. I haven't and can't drive without one, ever since I started driving 50 years ago.

I just meant that it's difficult to point out one specific event and say for sure what would have happened if . . .

OK, I see your point on that. But you'd have to be a darn fool to roll those dice.

 

[hillbilly1]

How does one "prove" that a seat-belt prevented a death in any given accident?

They may have died even with it on, or they may have lived even without it on.


"How do you solve the problem like Maria?"

My brother in law refuses to wear one, he was hit by a tractor trailer rig many years ago, he was thrown clear of the vehicle, which was promptly flattened like a pancake!

 

[electrofelon]

One can argue that one single event (tripped AFCI) is more than enough to consider the value of saving a life. . . .and we don’t need several lives saved to prove the point.

Although it may be uncomfortable to put a $ value on a human life, it is necessary to weigh cost versus benefit and is done all the time.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

.....

One can argue that one single event (tripped AFCI) is more than enough to consider the value of saving a life. . . .and we don’t need several lives saved to prove the point.

....

Cost benefit calculations are made every day by every manufacturer ...there is a point where the cost to save a few lives just does not make any economic sense. Look to the Fort Pinto case.