# AFCI Upgrade Required for Receptacle Remove and Replace?



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2020)

Under "repairs" of the Existing Building Code (FBC edition) says this:

*607.1.1Receptacles.*
_Replacement of electrical receptacles shall comply with the applicable requirements of Section 406.4(D) of NFPA 70_.

Section 406.4(D) of the NEC says this:

_(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply
with 406.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable. Arc-fault
circuit-interrupter type and ground-fault circuit-interrupter
type receptacles shall be installed in a readily accessible location.
_
I am just going to show you (D)(4) since I am only talking about AFCI even though there is a GFCI component requirement too.

_(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle
outlet is located in any areas specified in 210.12(A) or (B),
a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the
following:
(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuitinterrupter
receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit
type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arcfault
circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker

Exception No. 1: Arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection shall not be
required where all of the following apply:
(1) The replacement complies with 406.4(D)(2)(b).
(2) It is impracticable to provide an equipment grounding conductor
as provided by 250.130(C).
_


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2020)

So the question is.  Are you aware of this requirement?


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2020)

I am aware of this exception in CT...

(D)(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is located in an areas
specified in 210.12(A) or (B), a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle.
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter
receptacle.
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type circuit
breaker.
Exception: The replacement of receptacles in one- or two-family dwellings shall not be required
to meet 406.4(D)(4), unless the receptacle being replaced provides arc-fault circuit-interrupter
protection.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 20, 2020)

steveray said:


> I am aware of this exception in CT...
> 
> (D)(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is located in an areas
> specified in 210.12(A) or (B), a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
> ...



That is a bad exception because unlike a GFCI receptacle that protects whoever plugs something into it, AFCI protects the branch circuit so whoever wrote that into the code does not know what they are talking about.


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2020)

No....It's so they don't have to rewire their house when they replace a receptacle in their 1950's house...


----------



## jar546 (Jul 20, 2020)

steveray said:


> No....It's so they don't have to rewire their house when they replace a receptacle in their 1950's house...



Who says they have to rewire their house?  Why can't they install an AFCI breaker for the circuit they touched?


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2020)

Because it won't run on it....Why can't they leave the circuit alone and just replace the device safely?


----------



## ICE (Jul 20, 2020)

I don't know but I've been told that AFCI will work without there being an equipment ground.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 20, 2020)

steveray said:


> Because it won't run on it....Why can't they leave the circuit alone and just replace the device safely?



I've installed plenty that will work so I don't understand what you mean.  The life expectancy of a circuit breaker is 30-40 years which means a home built in 1980 should have a new panel installed by now.  It's hard to believe it's been 40 years already.  Why can't we just enforce the codes as written rather than come up with excuses as to why we shouldn't?


----------



## steveray (Jul 20, 2020)

Do you replace all of the breakers with AFCI/GFCI on a panel swap? Do you make sure there is full 110.26 working clearance and dedicated equipment space? Because sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze...I would fail 90% of the service changes and the costs would triple if a service change drove "As new" requirements...Some things get to be "existing" as long as the hazard is not increased...I can replace/install a nongrounded receptacle per 406.4D2. but I have to AFCI my simple receptacle swap...Why? Because the manufacturer makes more money on the AFCI.....

It is as written...By the State of CT....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jul 20, 2020)

Not requiring AFCI's, makes it a lot easier.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 20, 2020)

steveray said:


> Do you replace all of the breakers with AFCI/GFCI on a panel swap? Do you make sure there is full 110.26 working clearance and dedicated equipment space? Because sometimes the juice isn't worth the squeeze...I would fail 90% of the service changes and the costs would triple if a service change drove "As new" requirements...Some things get to be "existing" as long as the hazard is not increased...I can replace/install a nongrounded receptacle per 406.4D2. but I have to AFCI my simple receptacle swap...Why? Because the manufacturer makes more money on the AFCI.....
> 
> It is as written...By the State of CT....


No, I get you have an exception.  I am talking about those that intentionally ignore code requirements due to their personal opinions and not the code as written.


----------



## steveray (Jul 21, 2020)

IF...the BO has judgement, I can see it, through the below section....We really don't so I am glad we tweak some stuff...And of course am sad we tweak some stuff...

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. Additions,
alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the
requirements for a new structure without requiring the
existing structure to comply with the requirements of this
code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations,
repairs and relocations shall not cause an existing structure
to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of
the building.

Replacing anything "like for like" does not make a building unsafe...It maintains the current minimum level of safety...

R102.7 Existing structures. The legal occupancy of any
structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be
permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically
covered in this code, the International Property Mainte-
nance Code or the International Fire Code, or as is deemed
necessary by the building official for the general safety and
welfare of the occupants and the public.


----------



## rogerpa (Aug 4, 2020)

Paschin's law.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 6, 2020)

"Paschin?"


----------



## rogerpa (Aug 6, 2020)

*Paschen's law* is an equation that gives the breakdown voltage, that is, the voltage necessary to start a discharge or electric arc, between two electrodes in a gas as a function of pressure and gap length.[2][3] It is named after Friedrich Paschen who discovered it empirically in 1889.[4]

In air, at a pressure of one atmosphere, the distance for minimal breakdown voltage is about 7.5 μm. The voltage required to arc this distance is *327 V*, which is insufficient to ignite the arcs for gaps that are either wider or narrower.

AFCI's were developed as a bandaid for the thousands of homes wired with aluminum Romex.

Point being, if you don't have a copper wire with 327V the AFCI won't work.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...afci.pdf/RK=2/RS=j9hPKkp10XciK5ujUq2XN6sgg_Q-


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 6, 2020)

Has anybody heard of ICE's law?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 7, 2020)

steveray said:


> Replacing anything "like for like" does not make a building unsafe...It maintains the current minimum level of safety...
> .


Which could be unsafe


----------



## jar546 (Aug 7, 2020)

mark handler said:


> Which could be unsafe


Exactly


----------



## jar546 (Aug 7, 2020)

rogerpa said:


> *Paschen's law* is an equation that gives the breakdown voltage, that is, the voltage necessary to start a discharge or electric arc, between two electrodes in a gas as a function of pressure and gap length.[2][3] It is named after Friedrich Paschen who discovered it empirically in 1889.[4]
> 
> In air, at a pressure of one atmosphere, the distance for minimal breakdown voltage is about 7.5 μm. The voltage required to arc this distance is *327 V*, which is insufficient to ignite the arcs for gaps that are either wider or narrower.
> 
> ...



I'm not buying into his theories because they sound one sided and its as though he has an ax to grind.  I'll believe first hand experience from troubleshooting "nuisance" tripping of AFCIs that were ALL blamed on the "stupid AFCI's" but in 100% of the cases I actually found an electrical problem causing the tripping, fixed the problems and the AFCI tripping went away.  I just hope that no-one is implementing their personal opinions on AFCI with how they enforce the codes.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 7, 2020)

steveray said:


> Replacing anything "like for like" does not make a building unsafe...It maintains the current minimum level of safety...


I hate the term "like-for-Like", If something is *replaced* on a *like-for-like* basis, it is *replaced* with something that is the same, not better. If you are replacing a broken outlet on a *like-for-like basis,* you are putting in another broken outlet!!! 
That is "like-for-Like".
Same thing for windows


----------



## steveray (Aug 7, 2020)

As much as I respect you two, I am calling BS on both of you.

Everywhere I have written "like for like" please substitute "Level 1 alteration"

503.1 Scope. Level 1 alterations include the removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

And if you want to get technical, L1 alteration does not even have a reference for electrical, you don't get there until L2 alteration. 

As far as unsafe, every time we change codes do you go post the existing houses as unsafe? No? Because they are not...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 7, 2020)

steveray said:


> As far as unsafe, every time we change codes do you go post the existing houses as unsafe? No? Because they are not...



Good point!

I don't like the term "Grandfathered!"


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 7, 2020)

steveray said:


> As much as I respect you two, I am calling BS on both of you.
> 
> Everywhere I have written "like for like" please substitute "Level 1 alteration"
> 
> ...




As usual, always read the fine print and between the lines too.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 7, 2020)

As far as i remember, which is progressively getting worse, *LIKE *is used once in the code, yet that all I hear :

Existing building code section 302.5 New and Replacement Materials
Except as otherwise required or permitted by this code, materials permitted by the applicable code for new construction shall be used. *Like materials *shall be permitted for repairs and alterations, provided that unsafe conditions are not created. Hazardous materials shall not be used where the code for new construction would not permit their use in buildings of similar occupancy, purpose and location.​
No it is not Like for like.....


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 7, 2020)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I don't like the term "Grandfathered!"



I like "existing none conforming"


----------



## jar546 (Aug 8, 2020)

my250r11 said:


> I like "existing none conforming"


You have zoning on the brain...


----------



## mark handler (Aug 9, 2020)

my250r11 said:


> I like "existing none conforming"


Non? conforming?


----------



## ICE (Aug 9, 2020)

my250r11 said:


> I like "existing none conforming"


The commish helped him with this one.


----------



## steveray (Aug 10, 2020)

mark handler said:


> *Like materials *shall be permitted for repairs and alterations, provided that unsafe conditions are not created.



Exactly....(and I know your codes are different) Like materials are allowed for alterations. replacement receptacle is a level 1 alteration. It is not unsafe to not have an AFCI where none existed at the time of original installation per previous code. Unless you are posting all of the houses built in the previous code unsafe?


----------



## ICE (Aug 10, 2020)

In jurisdictions that watered down the code AFCI might never be required.  In California if a receptacle is replaced and it is in a location that requires AFCI in the code there's no talking your way out of it.  An opinion as to the relative safety before and after has no bearing on the decision.


----------



## steveray (Aug 11, 2020)

ICE said:


> An opinion as to the relative safety before and after has no bearing on the decision.



And there is the "problem" with that piece of the NEC.....We do it for new circuits/ devices and branch circuit modifications/ extensions >6' that way if they have to slightly move a service (and extend the conductors) or add a transfer switch they don't have to AFCI the whole house...


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2020)

steveray said:


> And there is the "problem" with that piece of the NEC.....We do it for new circuits/ devices and branch circuit modifications/ extensions >6' that way if they have to slightly move a service (and extend the conductors) or add a transfer switch they don't have to AFCI the whole house...


That is in the code section.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2020)

Use of "like" is improper, the term is/ should be "similar".


----------

