He's Full of ....

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are doing a project (single family home) where the existing main electrical panel is going to become a sub panel do to an addition to the house. Panel won't be moving but it will be converted into a sub panel. Electrical inspector says that he considers all the existing branch circuits to be modified. He is requiring us to provide AFCI protection for any circuits that are required to be AFCI protected. He is citing 210.12(B) of the 2014 NEC.

Chris,

There's a fundamental problem with your inspector's citing 210.12(B):
2014 NEC 210.12(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:
And that fundamental problem for the inspector lies in the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit:

2014 NEC
Article 100 Definitions

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

Before, and after, the change of the panel from housing the main bonding jumper to having electrically isolated neutrals and equipment grounding conductors, the BRANCH CIRCUIT conductors are still hots, neutrals and equipment grounding conductors, and they have not been touched (as you describe.) The Branch Circuit Hots are Hots, Neutrals are Neutrals and EGCs are EGCs.
 
Chris,

There's a fundamental problem with your inspector's citing 210.12(B):

And that fundamental problem for the inspector lies in the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit:



Before, and after, the change of the panel from housing the main bonding jumper to having electrically isolated neutrals and equipment grounding conductors, the BRANCH CIRCUIT conductors are still hots, neutrals and equipment grounding conductors, and they have not been touched (as you describe.) The Branch Circuit Hots are Hots, Neutrals are Neutrals and EGCs are EGCs.

The Hots, Neutrals and EGC's are all part of the branch wiring.
I don't see how you can separate the Neutrals and EGC's in the "Now Subpanel" and also say that the branch circuit have not been "Touched" or Modified.
To me, the only way not to "Touch or Modify " the existing branch circuits would be to leave this panel as the service panel, install a breaker in it and install a feeder to a subpanel in the addition.


JAP>
 
The Hots, Neutrals and EGC's are all part of the branch wiring.
I don't see how you can separate the Neutrals and EGC's in the "Now Subpanel" and also say that the branch circuit have not been "Touched" or Modified.
To me, the only way not to "Touch or Modify " the existing branch circuits would be to leave this panel as the service panel, install a breaker in it and install a feeder to a subpanel in the addition.


JAP>

"Touched" is not in the NEC. So you can't fall back on that, IMO.

Look again at the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit. "circuit conductors between".

Are you trying to argue that the neutral terminal bar in the circuit breaker panel is a circuit conductor that is part of the branch circuit? That would also make the panel enclosure part of the branch circuit. . . and what about the neutral supplying the circuit breaker panel -- it's not in the overcurrent protective device, so is the neutral, all the way to the supply transformer part of the branch circuit?
 
The Hots, Neutrals and EGC's are all part of the branch wiring.
I don't see how you can separate the Neutrals and EGC's in the "Now Subpanel" and also say that the branch circuit have not been "Touched" or Modified.
To me, the only way not to "Touch or Modify " the existing branch circuits would be to leave this panel as the service panel, install a breaker in it and install a feeder to a subpanel in the addition.


JAP>

You have got to be kidding. Your interpretation would mean that changing a breaker or moving its position would constitute a upgrade to AFCI breaker.

That is not the intention of the code or rule. The code cycle allows for a six foot modification and no new outlets to qualify for exemption.
 
"Touched" is not in the NEC. So you can't fall back on that, IMO.

Look again at the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit. "circuit conductors between".

Are you trying to argue that the neutral terminal bar in the circuit breaker panel is a circuit conductor that is part of the branch circuit? That would also make the panel enclosure part of the branch circuit. . . and what about the neutral supplying the circuit breaker panel -- it's not in the overcurrent protective device, so is the neutral, all the way to the supply transformer part of the branch circuit?

I'd have to argue Yes.
Without a neutral terminal bar there would be no circuit at all.

JAP>
 
but he's not changing the neutral bar, he's moving the conductors.

JAP>
 
but he's not changing the neutral bar, he's moving the conductors.

You have to explain to me with Code language or citation how 210.12(B)Exception allows modification of the branch circuit conductors up to SIX FEET in length and not require AFCI protection, yet, "moving the conductors" is an irrevocable, non-exception-able "modification" that REQUIRES AFCI.
 
You have got to be kidding. Your interpretation would mean that changing a breaker or moving its position would constitute a upgrade to AFCI breaker.

That is not the intention of the code or rule. The code cycle allows for a six foot modification and no new outlets to qualify for exemption.

I guess it all depends on what you consider "Modified" which is a very bold statement.
You cant say that you can move a breaker or change its position and also say you haven't modified anything.

I never said that would constitute an upgrade to an AFCI Breaker.

JAP>
 
You have to explain to me with Code language or citation how 210.12(B)Exception allows modification of the branch circuit conductors up to SIX FEET in length and not require AFCI protection, yet, "moving the conductors" is an irrevocable, non-exception-able "modification" that REQUIRES AFCI.

Your adding the "That requires AFCI" yourself.
I only indicated how the word "Modified" might be interpreted.

JAP>
 
I never said that would constitute an upgrade to an AFCI Breaker.

JAP>

Oh. Then what are you saying?

The OP is about an inspector's call that AFCI IS required to be added to an existing circuit breaker panel that was converted from the location of the Main Bonding Jumper to a subpanel.
 
You cant say that you can move a breaker or change its position and also say you haven't modified anything.

I never said that would constitute an upgrade to an AFCI Breaker.

JAP>

You see, this thread is that the local inspector DOES say the AFCI breaker is required, and we're saying to Chris1971 that the inspector is wrong.

This is not about "modification", but rather about AFCI "requirement".
 
. . . so is the neutral, all the way to the supply transformer part of the branch circuit?

I'd have to argue Yes.
Without a neutral terminal bar there would be no circuit at all.

JAP>
I agree that a "circuit" requires a continuous electrical path from the supply to the utilization equipment and back to the supply. . . but, in this discussion I think one has to be constrained by the Article 100 Definition of the part of the "circuit" that is the "Branch Circuit".
 
I agree that a "circuit" requires a continuous electrical path from the supply to the utilization equipment and back to the supply. . . but, in this discussion I think one has to be constrained by the Article 100 Definition of the part of the "circuit" that is the "Branch Circuit".

I agree.
But the Grounded and EGC's are as much a part of a branch circuit as the "Hots" as your calling them.
If the Main panel is turned into a subpanel then the Grounded and EGC's are required to be separated.
When you separate the Grounded and the EGC's in the panel you have in fact modified the branch circuit no matter how much you'd like to think that you haven't.

Now, do I feel this modification brings on the need to now put all of these circuits on AFCI's ?
I cant answer yes or no unless I fully understand what the inspectors interpretation of "Modified" means.
Which seems he may have a valid point by how this rule is written.

I'm just saying that those of you who feel that the inspector is full of .... for saying that this is a modification, I'd say that he may not be as full of ... as you all think he is.

JAP>
 
I agree.
When you separate the Grounded and the EGC's in the panel you have in fact modified the branch circuit
Let's say that's true for the moment. Isn't that clearly a modification of less than 6 ft, so the 2014 210.12(B) exception applies?

BTW, I'd be inclined to say that the EGC is not part of the branch circuit, as it is not a "circuit conductor"--it conducts only during a fault. In which case if the neutrals and EGCs are separated by moving the EGCs and leaving the neutrals where they are, no branch circuit modification has occurred.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Let's say that's true for the moment. Isn't that clearly a modification of less than 6 ft, so the 2014 210.12(B) exception applies?

BTW, I'd be inclined to say that the EGC is not part of the branch circuit, as it is not a "circuit conductor"--it conducts only during a fault. In which case if the neutrals and EGCs are separated by moving the EGCs and leaving the neutrals where they are, no branch circuit modification has occurred.

Cheers, Wayne

And a "Hot" only carries current when the breaker is turned on, but even with the breaker turned off its still considered part of a branch circuit just like an EGC.
An EGC where of the wire type if used serves a purpose and is in fact a "Conductor".

JAP>
 
But the Grounded and EGC's are as much a part of a branch circuit as the "Hots" as your calling them.

Look, if you really want to get into the words. . .

Chris1971 says the inspector is using 210.12(B) as his/er reason for requiring AFCI breakers for the existing branch circuits. Look at my quote of 210.12(B) in Post # 21, . . . "branch circuit" . . . so we look at the definition of "Branch Circuit" and see that it is the circuit conductors BETWEEN the overcurrent device and the outlet.

As the "hot", the energized conductor, is the ONLY circuit conductor connected to the overcurrent device and the outlet, your argument about "touching" falls apart. The energized conductor is never "touched" when separating neutrals from EGCs.

Therefore, the energized conductor (the only circuit conductor meeting the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit) is never modified in the OP's scenario.
 
And a "Hot" only carries current when the breaker is turned on, but even with the breaker turned off its still considered part of a branch circuit just like an EGC.
"Circuit conductors" is not a defined term. To me that means the conductors that form part of the circuit serving the utilization equipment. So for a 120V circuit on a 120V/240V supply, that would mean the "hot" and the neutral, but not the EGC.

This interpretation is supported by the usage of the term elsewhere in the NEC. In article 110, see 110.10 and 110.54(B)--they refer separately to "circuit conductors" and "equipment grounding conductors". See also 210.19(A)(1)--if the EGC is a circuit conductor, then 210.19(A)(1) would require it to have an ampacity not less than the load served, which is contrary to practice and the Article 250 requirements.

At this point I got tired of searching the NEC.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Look, if you really want to get into the words. . .

Chris1971 says the inspector is using 210.12(B) as his/er reason for requiring AFCI breakers for the existing branch circuits. Look at my quote of 210.12(B) in Post # 21, . . . "branch circuit" . . . so we look at the definition of "Branch Circuit" and see that it is the circuit conductors BETWEEN the overcurrent device and the outlet.

As the "hot", the energized conductor, is the ONLY circuit conductor connected to the overcurrent device and the outlet, your argument about "touching" falls apart. The energized conductor is never "touched" when separating neutrals from EGCs.

Therefore, the energized conductor (the only circuit conductor meeting the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit) is never modified in the OP's scenario.

Well if you really want to get into words....... in your definition above of "Branch Circuit" you see that circuit conductors is plural meaning more than one conductor so your example falls apart also.

JAP>
 
Well if you really want to get into words....... in your definition above of "Branch Circuit" you see that circuit conductors is plural meaning more than one conductor so your example falls apart also.

OK. Follow the words. Because the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit says "conductors" then the energized SINGLE conductor connected between a single pole 125 Volt circuit breaker in the OP's job, and the Outlet, ISN'T even a Branch Circuit, because, by your point, more than one conductor must be between the Outlet and the Overcurrent Device.

Therefore, the inspector's citation of 210.12(B) still does not apply because it only applies to Branch Circuits.
 
Last edited:
OK. Follow the words. Because the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit says "conductors" then the energized SINGLE conductor connected between a single pole 125 Volt circuit breaker in the OP's job, and the Outlet, ISN'T even a Branch Circuit, because, by your point, more than one conductor must be between the Outlet and the Overcurrent Device.

Therefore, the inspector's citation of 210.12(B) still does not apply because it only applies to Branch Circuits.

Where is "Energized" ever mentioned?

JAP>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top