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

[kwired]

Years ago when I had a subscription to EC&M magazine, there was an article about how the cause of fires is determined. The basic conclusion was if the cause can’t be determined, and there was electric service to the building, the cause was attributed to electrical. This was in the 80s, maybe it’s different now?

I think it still depends on the qualifications of whoever is investigating. Fire investigators are maybe good at determining location of where the fire started, but not always good at determining why it started. If there is electrical items at the location they determine it started it is often automatically deemed an electrical fire, though it very well may be that combustible material was too close to something that produces heat in normal operation and therefore not necessarily an electrical component malfunction that started the fire but actually was user fault.

I do hear of appliances starting a fire as well, but never enough detail in the story to determine if the appliance actually failed or was misused in some way. Some of that might just be the media reporting it don't get all the facts straight or even fully understand any information they are given and a valid report does go to whoever tracks these sort of statistics.

 

[gadfly56]

Years ago when I had a subscription to EC&M magazine, there was an article about how the cause of fires is determined. The basic conclusion was if the cause can’t be determined, and there was electric service to the building, the cause was attributed to electrical. This was in the 80s, maybe it’s different now?

I remember reading that same or a similar report. If it's not obviously something else, the chief pencil-whips the report and makes it "electrical".

 

[SteveO NE]

here was electric service to the building, the cause was attributed to electrical.

If it's not obviously something else, the chief pencil-whips the report and makes it "electrical".

So I have a situation that really ups the anti. We had a work-in progress PV system with module level rapid shutdown and the inverters hadn't yet been connected on the AC side, and the DC disconnects were all off, where a fire started in the cavity between the roof and the top floor ceiling over night. There is a near zero chance that PV had anything to do with the starting of that fire, yet it is being blamed for it. So even non-energized electrical thing can now be responsible. Maybe it is because we didn't put an AFCI in on the AC side that hadn't yet been wired.

 

[jmellc]

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.

I have no doubt that many of those fires occurred from backstabbing, yet the code has never tackled that.

 

[winnie]

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.

That would be an interesting project.

Start from scratch, write the Mike Holt Forum electrical code, and see which states adopt it.

I'd start with a chapter which defines the goals of the code numerically: rather than 'practical safeguarding' it would use a cost/benefit analysis (with recognition that such analysis is necessarily fuzzy and error prone).

Where possible alternative options which provide the same benefits would be allowed and become design decisions.

For example if cost/benefit shows the necessity of shock hazard reduction for hard wired outdoor outlets, this code would require that (shock hazard reduction) and then list the ways to achieve the requirement. (GFCI or assured bonding or ....)

Instead of AFCIs it would be AFCI or sprinklers or ...

I think the project would be far too huge to be practical, but it is fun to dream

Jon

 

[kwired]

That would be an interesting project.

Start from scratch, write the Mike Holt Forum electrical code, and see which states adopt it.

I'd start with a chapter which defines the goals of the code numerically: rather than 'practical safeguarding' it would use a cost/benefit analysis (with recognition that such analysis is necessarily fuzzy and error prone).

Where possible alternative options which provide the same benefits would be allowed and become design decisions.

For example if cost/benefit shows the necessity of shock hazard reduction for hard wired outdoor outlets, this code would require that (shock hazard reduction) and then list the ways to achieve the requirement. (GFCI or assured bonding or ....)

Instead of AFCIs it would be AFCI or sprinklers or ...

I think the project would be far too huge to be practical, but it is fun to dream

Jon

Some of the problem has been the manufacturers put a lot of effort into selling their products to the CMP's to get them into code.

GFCI's started out being just some the most common places where electrocutions were occurring now they are required in a lot of places that maybe aren't all that necessary.

15 and 20 amp receptacles made sense, the EGC is prone to be missing on cord plugs on especially the 5-15 cheap cord ends. Now they have gone beyond that and include up to 100 amp in some cases. How many times you seen a missing EGC pin on other than a cheap 5-15 cord cap?

We now have some instances of hard wired items needing GFCI just in case the EGC is compromised. Why just these certain situations? Why not all or nothing? You can almost bet the goal is to eventually push for more situations and ultimately reach the "all" whether really needed or not.

 

[electrofelon]

Some of the problem has been the manufacturers put a lot of effort into selling their products to the CMP's to get them into code.

GFCI's started out being just some the most common places where electrocutions were occurring now they are required in a lot of places that maybe aren't all that necessary.

15 and 20 amp receptacles made sense, the EGC is prone to be missing on cord plugs on especially the 5-15 cheap cord ends. Now they have gone beyond that and include up to 100 amp in some cases. How many times you seen a missing EGC pin on other than a cheap 5-15 cord cap?

We now have some instances of hard wired items needing GFCI just in case the EGC is compromised. Why just these certain situations? Why not all or nothing? You can almost bet the goal is to eventually push for more situations and ultimately reach the "all" whether really needed or not.

I think a lot of it is widespread incompetence on the code making panels. For example @don_resqcapt19 put in a proposal to relax some GEC requirements that had no basis in electrical theory (to allow the primary EGC for an SDS to serve as the GEC). 15 out of the 16 members thought a low impedance earth connection was important for system grounding and that the EGC could not serve that purpose. Yes these are the people on the code making panels.

 

[jmellc]

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.

I’ve seen that dozens of times, device burns up but AFCI breaker doesn’t trip. But I’ve seen AFCI’s trip when no issue is found in the circuit.
Several years ago, a video was referenced here about a house fire in Indianapolis. Fire Marshall there was blaming lack of AFCI breakers, as Indiana was the 1 state not requiring them. I tried to call the guy & he had gone to another fire department. I called there & had to leave a message. I asked if he had looked into whether devices were backstabbed. He never returned my call. I commented on YouTube about it & told what I’d seen in the real world. I haven’t found that video in a long time now. I think they take them down if they get low numbers of views.

 

[kwired]

I think a lot of it is widespread incompetence on the code making panels. For example @don_resqcapt19 put in a proposal to relax some GEC requirements that had no basis in electrical theory (to allow the primary EGC for an SDS to serve as the GEC). 15 out of the 16 members thought a low impedance earth connection was important for system grounding and that the EGC could not serve that purpose. Yes these are the people on the code making panels.

I really don't see a problem with that if said EGC is sized per 250.66 and not 250.122. That will still be low impedance and usually larger than what 250.122 requires.

 

[hbiss]

So I have a situation that really ups the anti. We had a work-in progress PV system with module level rapid shutdown and the inverters hadn't yet been connected on the AC side, and the DC disconnects were all off, where a fire started in the cavity between the roof and the top floor ceiling over night. There is a near zero chance that PV had anything to do with the starting of that fire, yet it is being blamed for it. So even non-energized electrical thing can now be responsible. Maybe it is because we didn't put an AFCI in on the AC side that hadn't yet been wired.

I've heard about fires being blamed on electrical in houses that had the power disconnected.

-Hal

 

[Jraef]

Did tripping actually save any lives thoigh

There is no realistic way to know. We would (ostensibly) only have empirical data on the number of times they tripped, but the only way to know if they had saved a life would be to EXACTLY duplicate the scenario and have someone volunteer to take the risk of being electrocuted. Short of offering clemency to death row inmates if they volunteer (and survive) there is no way to know for sure if the GFCI had actually saved a life.

 

[mayanees]

Same thing for arc flash. NFPA has determined that you can't work on something energized unless it's more dangerous to turn it off.

NFPA 70E 110.4
(A) Additional Hazards or Increased Risk.
Energized work shall be permitted where the employer can demonstrate that de-energizing introduces additional hazards or increased risk.

And in NFPA 70 NEC there are requirements that every fuse (240.67) and breaker (240.87) 1200 amps and larger shall be equipped with Arc Energy Reduction, and there must be documentation at the time of installation that it trips on the available arcing fault current.

I don't mind because I do Power Studies, but I think it unfairly adds a burden of cost that's not justifiable. Arc flash fatalities are nowhere near shock-related fatalities. Arc flash accounts for maybe 3-5%. I think it would be money better spent to design electrical equipment that focuses on shock protection as the priority.

I think the focus is on arc flash because the nature of the injuries can be horrific. But arc flashes usually occur when a mistake is made or an interaction has gone wrong. I think it unfairly burdens a power system owner to power down when doing energized work where the work could be done safely while energized. For example, I think a PDU in a Data Center can safely have cable terminated on a de-energized 225-amp breaker while wearing the proper PPE, but it's not allowed while energized. And yes, a data center has an A and a B side, but what Data Center operator is going to de-energize his backup while you make the termination?

...rant over

 

[mtnelect]

When I was working on traffic signals while restoring a "Knock Down" on a center medium. An OSHA inspector happened by and discovered that we were working it hot. After that incident we were given a rubber mat to be used at all times when working on a live circuit. So, there are ways to deal with this question safely.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I've heard about fires being blamed on electrical in houses that had the power disconnected.

-Hal

Was there a generator involved?