lavacano
Chadwick Ferguson, Safe and Sound Electric
- Location
- Washington State
- Occupation
- 02 master
Recently AHJ wrote report saying the 4 ft conduit containing circuits does not meet exception since the Hot+Grounded conductor's length would be 8ft in total. Unfortunately interpreting idioms is long and I will paste the email that won the exception back from the AHJ (after Lead Electrical Inspector -> Her Sup -> Technical review committee) however I wish to summarize:
TL/DR: 210.12(B) should deal with length of cable from termination to termination or length of conduit or distance of enclosures as saying "extension of existing conductors is not more than 1.8m (6 ft)" is open to some wild interpretation that would be completely outside of the electrical panel's meaning.
TL/DR: 210.12(B) should deal with length of cable from termination to termination or length of conduit or distance of enclosures as saying "extension of existing conductors is not more than 1.8m (6 ft)" is open to some wild interpretation that would be completely outside of the electrical panel's meaning.
From: Chad Ferguson
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 10:27 AM
To: Field Inspector
Subject: RE: 210.12 B exception
While I do not have [Lead Inspector]’s email this plan was brought up to her on 7/12 she will have record of me trying to get ahold of her through the chief’s office and an email was sent to her saying to call me back.
I expressed the following: Existing 14” wide Sylvania-Zinsco panel located on non-conforming location on stairwell, asking if a new panel can be installed on the stairwell if a landing is put in. Expressed we did not want to move the panel under the stairs as it would be more than 6ft of move and did not want to do AFCI. She confirmed stairwell would not be acceptable for panel and that my proposed idea of putting the panel 4 ft away on the outside of the house would not require AFCI and would be in a conforming location and that conveyances are never issued for panels on stairwells.
Now I know that a phone call is not plan review there is a huge disparity here as all other jurisdictions in this state have the panel located no more than 6 ft away not requiring AFCI. By the same logic take the following must be true for all of your correction action to be true:
A circuit is comprised of only 2 wires, the EGC is not considered a “Conductor” else:
3 wire circuit: Hot+grounded+egc = 2 ft extension before AFCI REQUIRED
4 wire circuit: Hot+hot+grounded+egc = 1.5 ft extension before AFCI REQUIRED
Transversely what you’re claiming:
3 wire circuit: Hot+grounded = 3 ft extension before AFCI REQUIRED
4 wire circuit: hot+hot+grounded = 2 ft extension before AFCI REQUIRED
GIVEN the code says 210.12(B) 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.
GIVEN the aforementioned section paraphrases: 210.12(B): 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
The question is: is the phrase “extension of the existing conductors” referring to a branch circuit’s length given the individual conductors (Which I present before is fallacious GIVEN the examples of EGC and multiwire circuits above) or is it referring to the conductors indirectly as a group contained in a set (cable) where that group’s length must not exceed 6 feet. I see this as the more logical and correct interpretation of code as the code does say 6 feet after all and not 1.5, 2 or 3 feet.
PURPOSE
I think Jade Learning provides insight into the panel’s purpose when it states the following:
Since the image might not come through on some cell phones I will type:
This exception was added to cover cases where the dwelling unit panelboard is replaced or upgraded, and the original branch-circuit wiring has to be extended to reach the new location. The Code panels felt 6 ft. was a long enough distance to cover this type of circuit modification.
This is referring to branch-circuit wiring and its idiom is that of the conductors are a set contained inside of that branch-circuit and that set’s length must not be more than 6ft.
CONCLUSION:
I agree the code should focus more on enclosure mounting distance which is its intent in the first place. Given the circumstances I beg you to reconsider the corrections wrote on Permit #XXXXXXXE, even if the content of the email does not sway your interpretation in the future given the communication I’ve had with [Lead Inspector].
I look forward to your response, Have a good day.
References:
Electrical Currents 2014 Issue 07
NFPA 70 NEC 2014
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/registr...stionNumbers=Yes&output=PDF&expDate=6/30/2014
Thank you,
Chadwick Ferguson
