# Whole house receptacle and switch replacement



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Replace with an afci receptacle and charge for it


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

I usually start with the ground wire, then neutral, then hot. Cram it in the box, put the cover on, collect a check.

Why would changing a worn out switch trigger the need for AFCI protection?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Replace them all and forget the AFCI's. :thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

WPNortheast said:


> How is everyone handling these type of jobs now that the AFCI requirement is in place?


A Panel DF is the quickest way to pass inspection


~CS~


----------



## WPNortheast (Jun 4, 2017)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Replace with an afci receptacle and charge for it


For each one in the whole house? Wow


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Replace with an afci receptacle and charge for it


If you are just going to do this drive-by posting I am going to have to insist that you stop altogether.


----------



## WPNortheast (Jun 4, 2017)

matt1124 said:


> I usually start with the ground wire, then neutral, then hot. Cram it in the box, put the cover on, collect a check.
> 
> Why would changing a worn out switch trigger the need for AFCI protection?


That's interesting I go L N G. The guy I learned from worked hot constantly. I believe it's code now as ridiculous as it may be. I believe the word device was added to 2014 nec


----------



## WPNortheast (Jun 4, 2017)

We have same thoughts on afci. Must be a red blooded yankee thing.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

WPNortheast said:


> How is everyone handling these type of jobs now that the AFCI requirement is in place?


I have been ignoring the AFCI requirements wholesale.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

I only even think about using AFCI when I add to a circuit. Receptacle change outs. Oh hell no. Even if I did I would go with a DP breaker the AFCI recept's are just wrong in general.


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

WPNortheast said:


> That's interesting I go L N G. The guy I learned from worked hot constantly. I believe it's code now as ridiculous as it may be. I believe the word device was added to 2014 nec


From my stage days. The boss hammered that ground first on the cam-locks, then neutral, then hots order into me.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

matt1124 said:


> From my stage days. The boss hammered that ground first on the cam-locks, then neutral, then hots order into me.


I do the same, and not just on devices. I always connect ground first, then N, then L1 (then L2 then L3). And disconnect in the reverse order.

If you are working live, IMO that is the only way that makes sense. You don't want to go connecting hot lines while your neutral is still open.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

B-Nabs said:


> I do the same, and not just on devices. I always connect ground first, then N, then L1 (then L2 then L3). And disconnect in the reverse order.
> 
> If you are working live, IMO that is the only way that makes sense. You don't want to go connecting hot lines while your neutral is still open.


In most situations I would agree. But when splicing in a service I do it in the opposite order for 2 reasons:

A) Having the bare neutral connected and in the way makes it more dangerous when touching the hots. It is safer to keep the bare neutral conductors tied back and completely out of the way while splicing the hots, then splice the bare neutrals only after the hots are completely done and insulated. I used to do it the way you said above, but found that bare neutral was too close and too easy to accidentally touch.

B) You can clearly see that that hots are open in the meter base below you, not touching anything, so no chance of anything coming back on the neutral.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

B-Nabs said:


> I do the same, and not just on devices. I always connect ground first, then N, then L1 (then L2 then L3). And disconnect in the reverse order.
> 
> If you are working live, IMO that is the only way that makes sense. You don't want to go connecting hot lines while your neutral is still open.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


If you're connecting devices live, wiring the ground last makes more sense so that you're not holding the grounded strap while connecting the other wires.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

RePhase277 said:


> If you're connecting devices live, wiring the ground last makes more sense so that you're not holding the grounded strap while connecting the other wires.


Very true.

Nowadays, when I have to wire up an outlet live I use one of the pre-fabbed outlets I stock in the truck. I install short pigtails on the hot, neutral, and ground and put Lever Nuts on the ends, then I tape the device up to cover the hot screws. It makes it really easy, fast, and safe to install the device.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

WPNortheast said:


> How is everyone handling these type of jobs now that the AFCI requirement is in place?


Enlighten me on the code reference that says maintaining products 
(replacing worn out devices is "maintenance") requires afci installs.

I guess my answer to your original question is , afci's are not required
to be installed in this scenario.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

lighterup said:


> Enlighten me on the code reference that says maintaining products
> (replacing worn out devices is "maintenance") requires afci installs.
> 
> I guess my answer to your original question is , afci's are not required
> to be installed in this scenario.


I think it's a requirement in the newer code, maybe the 2017. But I am not sure since I am kinda ignoring the newer code cycles since it has so many horrible changes. I still haven't looked at the 2014 changes.


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I think it's a requirement in the newer code, maybe the 2017. But I am not sure since I am kinda ignoring the newer code cycles since it has so many horrible changes. I still haven't looked at the 2014 changes.


To my knowledge (I' haven't even looked at 17 yet) The only time
afci replacements on existing is required is when you add to the circuit 
(I wanna say 5' or more).

I was told by code instructor this is going away in 2017(???)IDK for sure.

I am pretty sure we covered this last code classes...Ohio Residential 
Code states no certificate of plan approval (permit) is needed for
"maintenance" in our trade as long as we are replacing something
that does not need additional wiring added.....


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

The city here thought I was crazy when I asked about the 6' rule. Rewired a house recently, the meth heads had left about 25' of the original wire. We hooked up to what we could, ran all new for the rest. Used the original metal boxes. 

Passed inspection, no arc faults, on 2014 here.


----------



## GeneC (Aug 28, 2017)

WPNortheast said:


> That's interesting I go L N G. The guy I learned from worked hot constantly. I believe it's code now as ridiculous as it may be. I believe the word device was added to 2014 nec


Interesting cause that's my sequence for removal and opposite for installation. I work hot all the time. Less chance of a zap or zing.


----------



## Drsparky14 (Oct 22, 2016)

HackWork said:


> I think it's a requirement in the newer code, maybe the 2017. But I am not sure since I am kinda ignoring the newer code cycles since it has so many horrible changes. I still haven't looked at the 2014 changes.




It was a requirement in the 2014 code cycle

NEC 406.4(D)(4)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WPNortheast (Jun 4, 2017)

GeneC said:


> WPNortheast said:
> 
> 
> > That's interesting I go L N G. The guy I learned from worked hot constantly. I believe it's code now as ridiculous as it may be. I believe the word device was added to 2014 nec
> ...


Your trusting the insulation on the screw driver!


----------



## matt1124 (Aug 23, 2011)

Drsparky14 said:


> It was a requirement in the 2014 code cycle
> 
> NEC 406.4(D)(4)
> 
> ...


That 406.4 D 4 states they must be accessible when used as replacement, not that all replacements have to be GF/AF CI


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

Drsparky14 said:


> It was a requirement in the 2014 code cycle
> 
> NEC 406.4(D)(4)
> 
> ...


406.4(D) Where a receptacle outlet is *supplied* by a
branch circuit *That requires*AFCI protection...
IMO
This does not apply to older branch circuits pre afci code.
I the home is built & wired before afci requirements , you
do not have to now make it afci because your maintaining it.


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

RePhase277 said:


> If you're connecting devices live, wiring the ground last makes more sense so that you're not holding the grounded strap while connecting the other wires.


Fair point. I more often find myself in the position of roughing in some new stuff that I'm going to be tying onto existing circuitry that I don't want to kill for one reason or another. So in that scenario, I'll do all my work and get it finished dead, then make the one live splice. And in that scenario, I hook it up as I described. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## jbrookers (Dec 7, 2008)

It all depends on the AHJ. That's the rule, but I've yet to see it enforced. Typically, we are changing devices because they are tripping the arc faults


----------



## GeneC (Aug 28, 2017)

WPNortheast said:


> Your trusting the insulation on the screw driver!


Not at all, Removal is L N G, Install G N L. I am just careful. I also use 20 amp devices that have clamp terminations just like stabbing, also all commercial apps. and I never kneel down use electrician squat. which differs from the Aynor squat in SC.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Terminating the ground first when working hot is just silly. Nuetral first, line 2nd, ground last. For services i think I do nuetral last, but i dont do it often enough to really have a system.


----------



## WPNortheast (Jun 4, 2017)

http://www.ecmweb.com/qampa/code-qa-51


----------



## CanIBorrowYour (Oct 2, 2017)

Missed the talk of changing devices and such a bit - but I also go Neutral, Hot, Ground and when disconnecting I go in that reverse order.

Essentially this is because I don't want the ground on the devices hooked up while I'm connecting the hot because I hold the device on the ground strap. 

Secondly, I've always been taught that you give voltage a return path for as long as you can and always. This is for two reasons: You can burn up other things in the circuit if they don't have a neutral and two, I don't want to become the return path.


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

In post #30 that's the way I view it too. Not that I really relish doing it, but I do install some form of AFCI protection when replacing receptacles.


----------



## GeneC (Aug 28, 2017)

Wow, many variations for working on hot change outs. Doing a whole house I use breaker finder and kill the circuit then do it any way I want just a lot faster. Almost like the Gravy/Sauce debate.


----------



## WPNortheast (Jun 4, 2017)

Same, only wire hot when it's 1 or 2 and I dont feel like going down to the basement again. Breaker finder is awesome


----------



## scotch (Oct 17, 2013)

I am/was always a "sissy" and wore "rubber gloves" if working hot on switches/receptacles. Whatever is your comfort level.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

nrp3 said:


> In post #30 that's the way I view it too. Not that I really relish doing it, but I do install some form of AFCI protection when replacing receptacles.


Thank God I don't have to do much of that kind of work anymore. I'd have to stock dual function receptacles out the wazoo for all the stuff I used to do. It's hard enough fitting a slim line Leviton GFI in old steel boxes. I can't imagine how much fun it is shoe-horning a dual function receptacle in there.


----------



## Jesseduvuvei (Dec 26, 2013)

man some of you guys really dislike AFCI's... In my opinion, if it prevents even one house from burning down, it is well worth it.. Can never be too cautious


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> man some of you guys really dislike AFCI's... In my opinion, if it prevents even one house from burning down, it is well worth it.. Can never be too cautious


That is pure silliness.

You are going to spend millions of dollars putting AFCIs into millions of houses just on the odd chance that they save one from burning down?

That's not the way things work. We knowingly allow people to die in what is considered "acceptable amounts" due to the actions that killed them being convenient and safety procedures being too expensive.

In 2018 in the US alone over 35,000 people will die in a car accident, 1,600 of them will be children. We can prevent a huge portion of these deaths by requiring roll cages, safety harnesses, and helmets. But no one would want those extra costs because they would rather put that $2,000 towards a sunroof and heated seats. People wouldn't want to wear a helmet because it would mess up their hair.

So we find it acceptable to allow 35,000 people to die. 

How many people die in house fires that AFCI's could have prevented? By the testing I have seen, 0.


----------



## Jesseduvuvei (Dec 26, 2013)

http://www.ashireporter.org/HomeInspection/Articles/Expanding-Home-Safety-With-AFCIs/1529?print=true


HackWork said:


> Jesseduvuvei said:
> 
> 
> > man some of you guys really dislike AFCI's... In my opinion, if it prevents even one house from burning down, it is well worth it.. Can never be too cautious
> ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> http://www.ashireporter.org/HomeInspection/Articles/Expanding-Home-Safety-With-AFCIs/1529?print=true


That is nothing more than propaganda paid for by the manufacturers. Independent testing has never show AFCI's to do what they are purported to do.


----------



## Jesseduvuvei (Dec 26, 2013)

When i was in school, a teacher did a demonstration of the tripping capabilities of the AFCIs. He touched hot and neutral wire together, tripped the breaker before there was really even a spark


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> When i was in school, a teacher did a demonstration of the tripping capabilities of the AFCIs. He touched hot and neutral wire together, tripped the breaker before there was really even a spark


:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> When i was in school, a teacher did a demonstration of the tripping capabilities of the AFCIs. He touched hot and neutral wire together, tripped the breaker before there was really even a spark


That would be a "short" and the same effect would happen on
a standard circuit breaker. 

Arcing is something different. 2014 NEC made changes in 210.12
with regards to maximum distances for home runs (feeders)
because they found (allegedly found) that in *longer runs* 
from the first receptacle to the afci circuit breaker , the arcing would 
go on & on & on and NOT trip the afci circuit breaker. 

Supposedly (and IMO the jury is still out) longer runs of 50' for 
14 awg and 75' for 12 awg installed from the AFCI circuit breaker
to the first outlet metal are allegedly going to improve the afci.
IDK if this will or not.

Look up the past posts here on ET with regard to AFCI's , glowing 
connections and the like. There is a plethora of discussions here.

The reason so many guys here on ET don't believe in AFCI technology
is the overwhelming common experiences with them negatively
impacting new installations. They seem to trip for many more reasons
than what they are intended for, thus we find them to be a nuisance.

It seems to be more "fleecing of America" .


----------



## readydave8 (Sep 20, 2009)

lighterup said:


> That would be a "short" and the same effect would happen on
> a standard circuit breaker.


Saw a demonstration with paper shear and lampcord, he had it rigged to switch between std and AFCI breaker. Arc that would not trip std breaker would trip AFCI

Then again I saw a demonstration at the equator where he would pour water on one side of equator and swirl one way, move to other side and it would swirl the other way.

Why I doubted water swirl demonstration:

1. How was equator marked so exact in a parking lot in Kenya?
2. Watching his face instead of water, he was really trying hard at something

So I've always thought AFCI breaker demonstration did not prove anything, no more than I was convinced at David Copperfield show when he disappeared and reappeared in audience (I saw how he did it, was tipped off beforehand what to watch for)


----------



## Jesseduvuvei (Dec 26, 2013)

Yeah my teacher demonstrated with a standard breaker also and it did take longer to trip. I know there?s a lot of people who doubt the AFCI?s, but people far smarter than I have designed and tested these things. I?m sure some of the statistics behind them are money driven, but I do believe the statistics are mostly accurate


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> man some of you guys really dislike AFCI's... In my opinion, if it prevents even one house from burning down, it is well worth it.. Can never be too cautious





HackWork said:


> That is pure silliness.
> 
> You are going to spend millions of dollars putting AFCIs into millions of houses just on the odd chance that they save one from burning down?
> 
> That's not the way things work.


Absolutely right, that isn't how things work. It doesn't make financial or functional sense and it sure as hell isn't a smart way to save one life. 

This is just the kind of propaganda that manufacturers use to make money selling under-performing safety devices. 

Spending $50million a year on a device that MIGHT save ONE life is a monstrous waste. If you have $50million to blow, donate it to a children's hospital and you'll save way more than one life. 

In the mean time if you spend $50million enough times on stupid safety junk that doesn't really work, you can just kiss the economy goodbye. Nobody would be able to afford anything and we'd all just sit home wishing we could have some of that supposedly safe crap we can't afford.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> Yeah my teacher demonstrated with a standard breaker also and it did take longer to trip.


Kid, what you saw wasn't exactly a well run test. How did you measure the time of the arc to the time of the trip? Did you create the arc the same exact way both times? Are you just going by your eyeball to determine when the arc starts? Did you repeat it both ways and see if the results were really different? If you do show they trip faster on a dead short, is that necessarily an inidcation they'll trip on arcs as intended?



> ... a lot of people who doubt the AFCI?s, but people far smarter than I have designed and tested these things.


And far smarter people than you are telling you they don't work as intended. How do you decide which smarter people to believe? How about the ones without a financial motive to lie to you? Do you believe it isn't necessary to see if products live up to expectations? 

Backstab devices have all been UL listed and approved. Most people know it's an inferior connection and seen a bunch of problems caused by backstabbed devices. If the powers that be were really that concerned with your safety, they'd be re-evaluating that, but instead they focused their efforts on a product that they wanted to sell and make money with. Didn't really matter if they made it work, they were going to bring it to market and sell it. They were banking on blind faith. 



> I?m sure some of the statistics behind them are money driven, but I do believe the statistics are mostly accurate


Really? What statistics? Did you review them? Or are you just deciding to place blind faith in the authority of the manufacturer's claims?


----------



## socket2ya (Oct 27, 2016)

splatz said:


> Spending $50million a year on a device that MIGHT save ONE life is a monstrous waste. If you have $50million to blow, donate it to a children's hospital and you'll save way more than one life.


That's a good line- I might borrow it for my next arc-fault rant


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Jesseduvuvei said:


> When i was in school, a teacher did a demonstration of the tripping capabilities of the AFCIs. He touched hot and neutral wire together, tripped the breaker before there was really even a spark


any ocpd would trip Jess.....

here's an nfpa EE '_demonstrating_'>>>






~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

WPNortheast said:


> http://www.ecmweb.com/qampa/code-qa-51


Old news WP

The '17 406.4 D 4 has 2 exceptions

Ex #2 _trashes_ the 6' rule in 210.12 B (_there's some eratta involved_)

Unfortunately, it's afci's for every device upgrade and/or modification , at least for those on the '17 , which is eventual for all of us.

I just use a lot of DF's , if no fit, mount a DF device next to the panel

quick & cheap.....
:whistling2:
The accessibility to said panel ,say in a multi unit, is up to the AHJ, who has a choice of them being in a cellar, or as a device behind beds and couches

~CS~


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Replace with an afci receptacle and charge for it


If required, we’ll do it.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Chris1971 said:


> If required, we’ll do it.


Must be great to be so perfect.


----------

