USB/120V combination receptacles

[Sierrasparky]

Wait a minute?

I thought replacing a receptacle is grandfathered? If the old unit was not AFCI, why would the replacement need to be? Now of course there are NEC issues replacing 2 wire receptacles but who requires any new replacement receptacles to be AFCI?

In my AHJ, even putting in a room addition attached to existing circuits is exempt from AFCI. Only a new branch circuit requires current code compliance.

Well your inspector is wrong or does not know what exactly you are doing. The code is the same for all of CA and AFCI is required for all new wiring in required places. The only exception is a extension of 6 feet with no new outlets. You are lucky if you have such a uninformed inspector. Who knows what else he is missing or thinks is not necessary!

So in 2014 NEC, if one pulls a permit to replace a worn out receptacle, it must be replaced with an AFCI? At what $30?

This is an area I could see getting congressional involvement. Forcing a consumer to bear a cost increase on that scale.

The truth is who ever pulls a permit for device replacement?

I would not expect anyone to pull such a permit. You are not a licensed contractor so there is nobody that will cause you to do so.However if you are a contractor you would be violating the code permit or not, and thus contractor law. Don't know where folks get the idea that no permit means no need to follow the code.

In NJ you would not need to pull a permit to do a like-for-like replacement of a receptacle.

Don't know know any that would

 

[Andy Delle]

Well I just finished a personal addition at home. LA County jurisdiction, not City of LA. No AFCI requirements on circuit extensions, even if in a bedroom. No TR requirements on extensions either. Only if you pull a new circuit from the panel does AFCI and TR kick in.

All was just approved on final last week.

Really, the rough inspection was a joke. She looked at just one J-box because it was metal and made sure the box was bonded. That's it. Now she did know I am an EE but not a licensed electrician.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Well I just finished a personal addition at home. LA County jurisdiction, not City of LA. No AFCI requirements on circuit extensions, even if in a bedroom. No TR requirements on extensions either. Only if you pull a new circuit from the panel does AFCI and TR kick in.

All was just approved on final last week.

Really, the rough inspection was a joke. She looked at just one J-box because it was metal and made sure the box was bonded. That's it. Now she did know I am an EE but not a licensed electrician.

So you got a useless inspector. You are lucky. Count your blessings. If you were a EC you would be responsible for code compliant work regardless if passed inspection by error like in your case. It is certainly not something to be proud of.

 

[Andy Delle]

So you got a useless inspector. You are lucky. Count your blessings. If you were a EC you would be responsible for code compliant work regardless if passed inspection by error like in your case. It is certainly not something to be proud of.

Agreed, if I was doing this as an EC for hire. But please, lack of an AFCI in a 1990 built home and lack of TR receptacles when the rest of the house has none is hardly cause for alarm nor is it shoddy workmanship!

And perhaps it's OK under my current code. It's well known here that any AHJ can adopt parts of the NEC and reject others as they see fit. Perhaps LA County decided to use some common sense over the draconian NEC.

When I did a main panel replacement for solar in 2014, I did go with common handle breakers for all the MWBC to spite the lack of requirements. This made sense to me so I upgraded above my local codes.

P.S. the inspector was not entirely useless. She went over the shear wall nailing in detail, type of nail, proper seating, spacing, - both sides of the wall in some areas. I guess it depends on your locality. Here earthquakes are the main concern.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Agreed, if I was doing this as an EC for hire. But please, lack of an AFCI in a 1990 built home and lack of TR receptacles when the rest of the house has none is hardly cause for alarm nor is it shoddy workmanship!

It is shoddy workmanship if a licensed contractor did not install such as it is the code , regardless if we agree with it or not. It is not up the the licensed Electrician to decide what codes are valid and not. I'm not perfect , however I am not going around saying that not doing so is ok because I said so.

And perhaps it's OK under my current code. It's well known here that any AHJ can adopt parts of the NEC and reject others as they see fit. Perhaps LA County decided to use some common sense over the draconian NEC.

As per my other posts it is the CA Electrical code 2017 ( 2014 NEC) that the entire state has adopted says so. A local county , City or Agency can NOT enforce a less restrictive code PERIOD!
That is CA CODE and Law. So NO , they cannot reject codes or adopt others not currently adopted by the State. This has been the way since about 2000. It is a disservice to enforce codes nilly willy. How can any one bid and install per code competently under that notion.


When I did a main panel replacement for solar in 2014, I did go with common handle breakers for all the MWBC to spite the lack of requirements. This made sense to me so I upgraded above my local codes.

This was a requirement that came in for permits puled or new work Jan 1 2014 to the best of my recollection 2013 CA electrical code. 240.15 . So I don't know how you can say that it was not a requirement. !!!!!

P.S. the inspector was not entirely useless. She went over the shear wall nailing in detail, type of nail, proper seating, spacing, - both sides of the wall in some areas. I guess it depends on your locality. Here earthquakes are the main concern.

All in one inspectors are sometimes useless , They have their own items they look at. I suppose the sheer wall nailing was under the nail spacing that would require the Structural engineer to observe and sign off?
As far as the lack of competent electrical inspection , Tell me the last time a there was fire that resulted from lack of nailing of a sheer wall. Then ask me how many wires I have seen smoked because the wires were not installed correctly and nails from sheerwall pierced them. I have seen AFCI detect this. Not a fan of AFCI , Just saying.

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back :thumbsup:

 

[Sierrasparky]

FYI - CA code adoption

FYI - CA code adoption

Fundamental Requirements
A brief summary of the responsibilities and authorities of local government
established in state law regarding building standards follows.

1. Local Government Enforcement: Except for building occupancies subject to
state agency enforcement, local government must enforce Title 24 as published
by the CBSC. Examples of buildings subject to state enforcement include
hospitals, prisons, state government buildings, University of California buildings,
California State University buildings, and Community College buildings. Most all
other building types and occupancies are subject to local enforcement.
Enforcement responsibilities are clarified in Sections 1.2 through 1.14 of Chapter
1, Division 1, of the California Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24).
[References: HSC 13145, 13146, 13196, 17960, 17961, 17962, 18959,
and 19958, GC 4453(b), Civil Code 55.53, and PRC 25402.1(g), available
in Appendix 1]

2. Code by Default:

The majority of local governments adopt the published Title 24
by reference in local ordinances. This is commonly called an adoption
ordinance. If local government does not adopted Title 24 by local ordinance,
Title 24 is the applicable code by default. Title 24 applies throughout the state
and to all building occupancies, whether or not the local government has an
adoption ordinance. This is made clear in Health and Safety Code Sections
17958 and 18938, and in Section 1.1.3 of Chapter 1, Division 1, in the California
Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24).





Local Code Amendment Authority and Requirements

Local government may amend the building standards contained in Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations as provided in state law. The state laws regarding
local amendments are specific to the types of buildings and building features, and
establish requirements and restrictions for the amendments. In order to determine
the requirements applicable to a planned local amendment, the local agency or Fire
Protection District must determine which state law applies. Listed separately below,
are the requirements under each of the state laws that authorize local amendments.
1. Local Amendments under the California Building Standards Law:
Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18941.5, with reference to HSC
Section 17958.7, allows for more restrictive local amendments that are
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical
conditions. ...............

 

[Andy Delle]

Well not doing residential electrical work as a trade, when I replaced that panel I went over all the new code requirements with the plan check electrical inspector when I pulled the permit, who I believe is also a PE.

As of April 2014:

AFCI is not required for a panel upgrade.

Common trip breakers were not required for MWBC on a panel replacement from 1990.

Prior inspection before re-energizing new panel was not required. You had 10 days lead for inspection.

And this was pulling a permit as an owner to boot!

So you can quote the NEC all you want but when the AHJ says it's OK, that's good enough for me! And good enough for the insurance company as well. A signed off permit guarantees coverage. And I am confident there is nothing unsafe with my DIY electrical work. I design critical data center electrical systems. I think I can safely handle a basic room addition.

 

[Andy Delle]

Fundamental Requirements
A brief summary of the responsibilities and authorities of local government
established in state law regarding building standards follows.

1. Local Government Enforcement: Except for building occupancies subject to
state agency enforcement, local government must enforce Title 24 as published
by the CBSC. Examples of buildings subject to state enforcement include
hospitals, prisons, state government buildings, University of California buildings,
California State University buildings, and Community College buildings. Most all
other building types and occupancies are subject to local enforcement.
Enforcement responsibilities are clarified in Sections 1.2 through 1.14 of Chapter
1, Division 1, of the California Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24).
[References: HSC 13145, 13146, 13196, 17960, 17961, 17962, 18959,
and 19958, GC 4453(b), Civil Code 55.53, and PRC 25402.1(g), available
in Appendix 1]

2. Code by Default:

The majority of local governments adopt the published Title 24
by reference in local ordinances. This is commonly called an adoption
ordinance. If local government does not adopted Title 24 by local ordinance,
Title 24 is the applicable code by default. Title 24 applies throughout the state
and to all building occupancies, whether or not the local government has an
adoption ordinance. This is made clear in Health and Safety Code Sections
17958 and 18938, and in Section 1.1.3 of Chapter 1, Division 1, in the California
Building Code (Part 2 of Title 24).





Local Code Amendment Authority and Requirements

Local government may amend the building standards contained in Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations as provided in state law. The state laws regarding
local amendments are specific to the types of buildings and building features, and
establish requirements and restrictions for the amendments. In order to determine
the requirements applicable to a planned local amendment, the local agency or Fire
Protection District must determine which state law applies. Listed separately below,
are the requirements under each of the state laws that authorize local amendments.
1. Local Amendments under the California Building Standards Law:
Authority: Health and Safety Code Sections 18941.5, with reference to HSC
Section 17958.7, allows for more restrictive local amendments that are
reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical
conditions. ...............

Umm, that's title 24 - energy conservation. Has nothing to do with electrical, mechanical, or structural safety.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Boy are you stubborn!

NEWSFLASH - Title 24 is the entire CA building code. NOT just the energy code. The Energy code is only Title 24 part 6.

California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24)


http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Codes.aspx

Just because many say Oh I gotts to comply with Title 24 does not mean and end all for energy code.


Hey Cowboy can you please step in here....

 

[Andy Delle]

That's not how I understand Title 24, but you may be right. All my title 24 dealings are with energy conservation.

And you must own stock in AFCI manufactures.

The plan checker specifically told me circuit extensions even in a bedroom ARE NOT required to be AFCI. Only new circuits originating from the panel. Same for TR receptacles. Ditto that for the panel replacement questions.

Again this is unincorporated Los Angeles county, just outside of city limits. This is hardly some hick town.

 

[Sierrasparky]

That's not how I understand Title 24, but you may be right. All my title 24 dealings are with energy conservation.

And you must own stock in AFCI manufactures.

The plan checker specifically told me circuit extensions even in a bedroom ARE NOT required to be AFCI. Only new circuits originating from the panel. Same for TR receptacles. Ditto that for the panel replacement questions.

Again this is unincorporated Los Angeles county, just outside of city limits. This is hardly some hick town.

30 years since I first met you and you are stubborn as ever.

You think you are going to tell me that CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATION TITLE 24 is only the energy code.
DID YOU OPEN THE LINK I PROVIDED?
You will see that Title 24 part 1 is the Adminstrative
Title 24 part 2 is the building code
Title 24 part 2.5 is the Residential building code
Title 24 part 3 is the Electrical code
Title 24 part 4 is the mechanical code
Title 24 part 5 is the Plumbing code
and Title 24 part 6 is the energy code
.......
.... ........

Extension LESS than 6 feet with no additional outlets or devices do not require AFCI. Hence a panel change where moved less than 6 feet of wire.


(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications —
Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A),
where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or
extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the
following:
(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of
the branch circuit
(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the
first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit
Exception: AFCI protection shall not be required where
the extension of the existing conductors is not more than
1.8 m (6 ft) and does not include any additional outlets or
devices.
...........................................................................


(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.

(5) Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Listed tamper resistant
receptacles shall be provided where replacements
are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be
tamper-resistant elsewhere in this Code.
TR are required regardless in a residence if you replace or add. That is the law not my opinion or the careless inspector you had.


Well YOU ARE WRONG as to your knowledge of the CA code. It also appears that you also don't follow the code as per your own statements.


:thumbsup:

 

[Andy Delle]

I'm stubborn? I think we share that trait!

Once again, I do not practice residential electrical work so I am not in touch with the recent relevant codes. I do read about them here and on other forums so I have some idea. So to that end when I embark on a personal permitted project, I ask the plan checker about new code requirements. In this case AFCI and TR which were relevant to the project. And on the previous panel replacement I asked about the requirement for common handle breakers on MWBC.

1) The plan checker who is a PE says not required for all!

2) Rough inspection, passe with no corrections.

3) Final inspection, different inspector as well, again passed with no corrections.

Now if you say the California codes on the books require all these things at the time I did them, I won't argue. But clearly the largest county in the state doesn't enforce them and further advises to the lack of requirements. And I'm not going to spend hundreds alone in materials to meet codes that are not necessary. And no customer of yours should either. Give them the option of AFCI if you believe in their safety. But to say it's required when the AHJ does not enforce it is bordering on ethics IMO considering the cost.

These are the facts. If this is a big problem for you call Governor Jerry Brown and tell him his largest county is flipping off the state and NEC!

And don't get me started on Governor Brown! That will get me thrown off of here for sure!

 

[Sierrasparky]

I'm stubborn? I think we share that trait!

Once again, I do not practice residential electrical work so I am not in touch with the recent relevant codes. I do read about them here and on other forums so I have some idea. So to that end when I embark on a personal permitted project, I ask the plan checker about new code requirements. In this case AFCI and TR which were relevant to the project. And on the previous panel replacement I asked about the requirement for common handle breakers on MWBC.

1) The plan checker who is a PE says not required for all!

2) Rough inspection, passe with no corrections.

3) Final inspection, different inspector as well, again passed with no corrections.

Now if you say the California codes on the books require all these things at the time I did them, I won't argue. But clearly the largest county in the state doesn't enforce them and further advises to the lack of requirements. And I'm not going to spend hundreds alone in materials to meet codes that are not necessary. And no customer of yours should either. Give them the option of AFCI if you believe in their safety. But to say it's required when the AHJ does not enforce it is bordering on ethics IMO considering the cost.

Its the code and I am not going to risk my license. I do not have the authority to make such. It is not worth it. My customers gladly pay for the code required components. It is just not worth it.

These are the facts. If this is a big problem for you call Governor Jerry Brown and tell him his largest county is flipping off the state and NEC!

How about someone call the LA county Building official and tell them AD's house. .We can get your address it is public.
I'd not tell the world that you did what you did. Those inspectors could get in hot water.

And don't get me started on Governor Brown! That will get me thrown off of here for sure!

Did you get that substandard stuff you did in writing? I doubt it. No Building official would tell you in writing you don't need to follow code. Just because a plan checker missed something also does not give you permission to violate code.

Inspectors are immune to prosecution of missing some code item at inspection, we contractors have to live with it , nor does it excuse us for improper inspections that miss a violation that causes a issue.

As far as your insurance company. They usually don't go after homeowners. However if a contractor did what you claim that could be another story.

 

[Andy Delle]

Did you get that substandard stuff you did in writing? I doubt it. No Building official would tell you in writing you don't need to follow code. Just because a plan checker missed something also does not give you permission to violate code.

How about someone call the LA county Building official and tell them AD's house. .We can get your address it is public.
I'd not tell the world that you did what you did. Those inspectors could get in hot water.

Inspectors are immune to prosecution of missing some code item at inspection, we contractors have to live with it , nor does it excuse us for improper inspections that miss a violation that causes a issue.

As far as your insurance company. They usually don't go after homeowners. However if a contractor did what you claim that could be another story.

Now you are just being argumentative!

I followed the code in good faith. My plans were approved. Inspections are signed off.

Now you say you know who I am. Well if you do then you know my income level. Address, go ahead, Zillow it. See what the homes in that neighborhood list for. Also if you say you have prior work experience with me you also know one of my former employers - Fred! I am no stranger to litigation on his behalf and can easily afford it as well.

Do you really think the County of LA is gong to come back and make me tear out and rework north of $100K worth of home improvements because they mis-quoted the code. Not just mis-quoted, but fully signed off on it and stamped the plan set! Yeah, they really need a legal problem like that on the books!

Furthermore as an accredited EE, I have expert witness qualifications. That carries some weight in a courtroom as well. This isn't some Saturday Joe dipping into DIY electrical work. My commercial electrical work is also a matter of record in the City of LA via stamped plans.

All this because I didn't install AFCI's and TR receptacles in an 800 sqft addition per AHJ specifications saying such is not required?

Get some reality!

 

[Sierrasparky]

Now you are just being argumentative!

I followed the code in good faith. My plans were approved. Inspections are signed off.

What does that have to do with anything. It sounds like you used your clout to not do some code compliant items. I have seen that too in my career. it still does not mean that it is code compliant. Only means you bullied someone.

Now you say you know who I am. Well if you do then you know my income level. Address, go ahead, Zillow it. See what the homes in that neighborhood list for. Also if you say you have prior work experience with me you also know one of my former employers - Fred! I am no stranger to litigation on his behalf and can easily afford it as well.

Well either you are a Ghost rider or ? Your name is in the Title Andy Delle. If you do a search on the internet it comes up with your claims. I have no Idea what your income level has to do with anything. . I have no Idea as to what Litigation you have had or what. You imply you won, however it does not mean that you were in code compliance, it just means you won. I really do not care.

Do you really think the County of LA is gong to come back and make me tear out and rework north of $100K worth of home improvements because they mis-quoted the code. Not just mis-quoted, but fully signed off on it and stamped the plan set! Yeah, they really need a legal problem like that on the books.
I don't think they will come to your home and do anything. I do think those inspectors could get into trouble.
You are a fool if you think that a final sign off means what you think. It does not.

Furthermore as an accredited EE, I have expert witness qualifications.
Guess what I am a expert in the industry and I will trump your Qualifications as a expert in the electrical construction field. As evidenced here you are quite ignorant of the code as well as common electrical installation.

That carries some weight in a courtroom as well.
Ooooo I am so scared.
This isn't some Saturday Joe dipping into DIY electrical work. My commercial electrical work is also a matter of record in the City of LA via stamped plans.

Well the evidence you have showed here shows some serious lack of understanding of the code.

All this because I didn't install AFCI's and TR receptacles in an 800 sqft addition per AHJ specifications?

No because of your Arrogance and willful thwarting of the law and claims.
Then to tell or imply that if I require that my customers pay for these items I am apparently ripping them off.
That you EE think that if you design it regardless of code compliance it is good. Newsflash you are wrong

---

Get some reality!

I live it every day not the fantasy you apparently live in. Just because you get away with it does not make it legal.
What a fantasy.

 

[kwired]

Agreed, if I was doing this as an EC for hire. But please, lack of an AFCI in a 1990 built home and lack of TR receptacles when the rest of the house has none is hardly cause for alarm nor is it shoddy workmanship!

Where do you draw the line on "the rest of the house has none approach to things?

Sure AFCI is a big topic of debate, TR most have accepted even if somewhat reluctantly, but what if you house had been built in 1950 and had no EGC in most of the wiring? What about adding GFCI where current code requires them - even if just a receptacle change out but current code requires GFCI in that particular location? What if you have fuses instead of breakers and there are 30 amp fuses protecting 14 AWG conductors - do you just extend those circuits and ignore the overcurrent protection?

 

[Andy Delle]

I live it every day not the fantasy you apparently live in. Just because you get away with it does not make it legal.
What a fantasy.

Again I resent the implication that I "got away with something". I asked and followed the orders I was given. Bully them? I have no commercial work within the un-incorporated county.

You are making a fool of yourself here. This is not about an unsafe electrical installation. This is over the requirement to use AFCI and TR technology on new construction where the AHJ does not require such.

Yes, you do know more about residential electrical than I do. But residential electrical hardly qualifies as electrical engineering. Try a tertiary redundancy 2.5mw data center electrical system.

And I did not say you ripped anyone off. I said if you recommend AFCI's for replacement, that's fine. But if you or anyone says it's required when it's not per the AHJ does qualify as fraud!

 

[Andy Delle]

Where do you draw the line on "the rest of the house has none approach to things?

Sure AFCI is a big topic of debate, TR most have accepted even if somewhat reluctantly, but what if you house had been built in 1950 and had no EGC in most of the wiring? What about adding GFCI where current code requires them - even if just a receptacle change out but current code requires GFCI in that particular location? What if you have fuses instead of breakers and there are 30 amp fuses protecting 14 AWG conductors - do you just extend those circuits and ignore the overcurrent protection?

You are exaggerating this way out of proportion. 30a fuses on 14ga wire has always been a violation AFAIK. That would not pass for any modifications to the electrical system.

This is about an 800 sqft addition to a 1990 code house in compliance to that code cycle. The AHJ staff plan check PE says AFCI and TR are not required for circuit additions, only for new circuits from the panel. I followed that and passed all inspection with no corrections.

What is the issue here?

Do you advocate retro-fitting the tens of millions of homes with AFCI and TR?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Again I resent the implication that I "got away with something". I asked and followed the orders I was given. Bully them? I have no commercial work within the un-incorporated county.

You are making a fool of yourself here. This is not about an unsafe electrical installation. This is over the requirement to use AFCI and TR technology on new construction where the AHJ does not require such.

Yes, you do know more about residential electrical than I do. But residential electrical hardly qualifies as electrical engineering. Try a tertiary redundancy 2.5mw data center electrical system.

And I did not say you ripped anyone off. I said if you recommend AFCI's for replacement, that's fine. But if you or anyone says it's required when it's not per the AHJ does qualify as fraud!

Are you firkin kidding. It is fraud for me to install to code even if the stupid inspector is not looking for them. Being licensed I am required by law to install as per code. Otherwise I face disciplinary action or losing my license and cash. That I wont let happen, nor will I let someone use such as leverage on me or the company. Again there is no AHJ in any county or city of this state that will provide to you in writing that you don't need to follow the code. They may look the other way however they will not do so in writing otherwise they will be in big trouble.

You need to review the old saying. When pointing your finger at someone you have three pointing at yourself.

It is not over the requirement if it is code in this state. I will say it again. If you got away with it then so be it. It was not code compliant, and you know so now!

I will bet you money that in this entire state it is code and thus such are requirement. Even if a inspector is not looking for it does not make it legit to not install as per code requirements.

You are one of those EE that apparently do not do things per code, such as shunt trip at the time. I remember you had the code required shunt trip disabled in one of the data centers years ago. In my opinion and recollection. That was not the only thing I personally remember in my opinion and recollection.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You are exaggerating this way out of proportion. 30a fuses on 14ga wire has always been a violation AFAIK. That would not pass for any modifications to the electrical system.

This is about an 800 sqft addition to a 1990 code house in compliance to that code cycle. The AHJ staff plan check PE says AFCI and TR are not required for circuit additions, only for new circuits from the panel. I followed that and passed all inspection with no corrections.

What is the issue here?

Do you advocate retro-fitting the tens of millions of homes with AFCI and TR?

What you claim you did was not CA code compliant.
The intention of the code is to retrofit just like CA requires any permit over 1000.00 smoke and CO devices must be installed.
Some locals like los Angeles city require GFCI upon sale.
What is your problem here. Its code. You got away with it.
Not to code as you describe.
Move on or install a Afci at the beginning of the extension. FYI those outlet AFCI are not much of a issue as the do not have GFCI circuitry.

And add TR for all existing outlets replaced or new. oh and GFCI for all those areas requiring have replaced.
:blink:
Then you would be compliant. IMHO