# Is arc-fault AFCI protection required?



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2018)

If a homeowner wants to add duplex receptacles to an existing circuit that under today's code would require AFCI protection, would you required the new receptacles that are being added to be AFCI protected since they are new and an extension of the existing circuit?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 13, 2018)

Jar, you really like to poke the bear don't you. 

I get to set back and watch this one, we omitted the AFCI's from code and don't require them in residential.


----------



## steveray (Dec 13, 2018)

Absofrigginloutely...

(Amd) E3902.17 Arc-fault circuit interrupter protection for branch circuit extensions or
modifications. Where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended in any of the areas
specified in Section E3902.12, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the following:
1. A combination-type AFCI located at the origin of the branch circuit.
2. An outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the first receptacle outlet of the existing
branch circuit.
Exceptions:
1. AFCI protection shall not be required for replacement receptacles.
2. AFCI protection shall not be required where an extension of the existing conductors is not
more than 6 feet (1.8 m) in length and does not include any additional outlets or devices.


----------



## ICE (Dec 13, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> we omitted the AFCI's from code


No shlt !


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 13, 2018)

They started out in just the bedrooms then the next code cycle they migrated into practically the whole house. If they want to install them I'll test them. 

Also we omitted the TR receptacles, what can I say, were rebels! 

You guy's know you don't have to adopt all that crap don't you?

We'll look at it on the next go around!


----------



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Jar, you really like to poke the bear don't you.
> 
> I get to set back and watch this one, we omitted the AFCI's from code and don't require them in residential.



Oh boy.  I wonder what the underlying justification for not enforcing a code based on safety is.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2018)

jar546 said:


> Oh boy.  I wonder what the underlying justification for not enforcing a code based on safety is.



Like any military operation the codes used to consider "acceptable losses" as a justification.

Example 100,000 fires across the US in a given year, less than 2% could have been prevented if AFCI's had been installed deemed an acceptable loss.
If more than 20% could have been prevented if AFCI's had been installed then that could be determined as an unacceptable loss and a code change to require AFCI's should be adopted

Just think residential fire sprinklers and how many jurisdictions have amended them out.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 13, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Like any military operation the codes used to consider "acceptable losses" as a justification.
> 
> Example 100,000 fires across the US in a given year, less than 2% could have been prevented if AFCI's had been installed deemed an acceptable loss.
> If more than 20% could have been prevented if AFCI's had been installed then that could be determined as an unacceptable loss and a code change to require AFCI's should be adopted
> ...



Tell that to the people affected by the 2,000 fires, especially those that lost someone.  It is nothing more than local/state politicians trying to cozy up to their contractor friends.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2018)

Not every safety device should be a code requirement is all I am saying and Government is the instrument that determines what is best for their jurisdictions and what is not for whatever reason they choose. Sometimes it is financial, sometimes it is political and sometimes it is an emotional decision that is contrary to all statistical data presented. 

You can't save every puppy in the pound through code requirements. There will always be losses large and small that will affect people and communities


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 14, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Just think residential fire sprinklers and how many jurisdictions have amended them out.



Our State has amended that one out! Contractor is to ask if you want sprinklers or not and if you do, has to install them.




jar546 said:


> Oh boy. I wonder what the underlying justification for *not enforcing a code* based on safety is.



I try to enforce the code that's been adopted. What code choices do you have other than the ICC? Kinda got rid of the other model codes didn't we, when they merged. Doesn't CA, NY and FL have there own amended codes, wonder why? 

How many of you just voted on the ICC code banning MULCH within 3-ft of your combustible structure? That's a fire safety code proposed that I would have to enforce if adopted by the ICC code? How many of you have wood mulch next to your house? Should I have to enforce that or the fire department? How do you enforce that? 

How many have apartment complexes with GAS bar-b-q grilles on the balcony's within 10-feet of combustible materials? Hows that enforcement going?

As far as AFCI's when I was doing research there were pros and cons about the devises at the time. I believe that there are new generation AFCI's that may persuade me to remove the amended code. 

I'm listening?


----------



## rogerpa (Dec 14, 2018)

AFCI's are a band-aid for homes that were wired with aluminum romex (mainly in the early 1970's), both in the US and Canada. Per Paschen's Law, aluminum wire will sustain an arc at 90 volts. Per Paschen's law, copper wire will sustain an arc at 327 volts. Ergo, in homes wired with copper romex in North America, AFCI's are an expensive fraud on the home buying public.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ion_afci.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1IY89ggfrFXvQQvX18uPJ7


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 14, 2018)

PA has adopted the code for AFCI's but you don't need a permit for electrical work in an existing house unless the jurisdiction has amended the state code.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 14, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Our State has amended that one out! Contractor is to ask if you want sprinklers or not and if you do, has to install them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am understanding that we can only enforce the adopted codes.  My question was not well worded.  I am curious as to the reasoning and justification that the powers that be used to eliminate portions of the code.  My suspicion is contractors have complained to the legislators.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 14, 2018)

My rule of thumb, for myself and my jurisdiction, is to never amend the code to be less restrictive. I will always be on record of not supporting those type of amendments. Until it is on record that I am doing so at my Councils instruction. (Like SFD sprinklers)

Personally, I think tamper-resistant recepts, and AFCI's are product driven code changes, but  hey....I'm just a dumb ol' carpenter....


----------



## jar546 (Dec 14, 2018)

Uh, tamper resistant was not at all but people like to think it was. Too much to type so I will just share this little bit of info.  FYI the code change was brought on by the CPSC and not a manufacturer.

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Code-or-topic-fact-sheets/InjuriesElectricalOutletsFactSheet.pdf


----------



## ICE (Dec 14, 2018)

1500 children four years old and younger made a trip to a hospital in 2015 as the result of sticking metal objects into receptacles. That’s all I need to know about tamper resistant receptacles.


----------



## conarb (Dec 14, 2018)

jar546 said:


> I am understanding that we can only enforce the adopted codes.  My question was not well worded.  I am curious as to the reasoning and justification that the powers that be used to eliminate portions of the code.  My suspicion is contractors have complained to the legislators.


Isn't that what should happen with bad law or code, affected people take it to their legislators?  

Keep your eyes on a case named_ Kisor v. Wilkie, _the U.S, Supreme Court has agreed to hear it, 



			
				Epoch Times said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court’s decision on Dec. 10 to hear a veteran’s appeal of a bureaucratic denial of benefits could signal that the court is considering tearing away at the legal underpinning of the modern administrative state.
> 
> Independent executive agencies are sometimes referred to as the “fourth branch” of the federal government in the United States. Critics say officials in the administrative state are unaccountable to voters and allow unelected bureaucrats to usurp the functions of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Congress, they say, is supposed to make the laws of the land, but lawmakers have steadily ceded that body’s constitutional powers to the administrative state, to the overall detriment of society.
> 
> Specifically, the decision to hear the case might foreshadow a narrowing of the application of the so-called Chevron doctrine that the Supreme Court enunciated in 1984.¹



All codes rely on "The Chevron Doctrine", you know how I've said over and over that I don't mind the ADA as written, but I object to the regulations written by the corrupt Justice Department? The breadth of the Court's decision here just might solve all of our problems.

If the AHB has some legal brains they should be submitting an _amicus curiae _brief to the Supreme Court in support of  Mr Kisor.  Take some time and read about this case including the information about the Chevron Doctrine and subsequent case law. 


¹ https://www.theepochtimes.com/supre...p-undermine-administrative-state_2738606.html


----------

