He's Full of ....

[al hildenbrand]

Where is "Energized" ever mentioned?

JAP>

Tough audience. Drop the word.

"OK. Follow the words. Because the Article 100 Definition of Branch Circuit says "conductors" then the 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."

 

[jap]

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.

That's exactly right.
You can bring as many conductors as you want from an overcurrent device to an outlet and not ever create a circuit until you install a return path.
Since the article defines branch circuit it must be talking the conductors going to and from the outlet meaning the "hot" coming from the breaker all the way back to where the neutral is connected to the neutral bar.

I feel saying that a neutral is not a part of branch circuit because it's not the conductor that's landed on the overcurrent device is incorrect.
But that's just me.

JAP>

 

[Smart $]

The requirement uses the term "branch-circuit wiring" for the qualifying subject. Rerouting and/or re-terminating circuit conductors or EGC's within the panelboard enclosure is not modifying, replacing, or extending branch-circuit wiring.

 

[jap]

The requirement uses the term "branch-circuit wiring" for the qualifying subject. Rerouting and/or re-terminating circuit conductors or EGC's within the panelboard enclosure is not modifying, replacing, or extending branch-circuit wiring.

That would be an excellent statement to put in that section of the code.


JAP>

 

[al hildenbrand]

That's exactly right.
You can bring as many conductors as you want from an overcurrent device to an outlet and not ever create a circuit until you install a return path.

The Definition of Branch Circuit says "circuit conductors" not "conductors of the circuit". Having no definition of "circuit conductors", a two-word term, we simply can't tell that it is "all the conductors" or some of the conductors of a "circuit".

Since the article defines branch circuit it must be talking the conductors going to and from the outlet meaning the "hot" coming from the breaker all the way back to where the neutral is connected to the neutral bar.

You say "branch circuit" with respect to 210.12(B). . . but look at the actual text. In 210.12(B) it is hyphenated: "Where branch-circuit wiring is modified. . . " That means "branch-circuit" is a two-word term, a term that is included and defined in Article 100. The fact that "circuit" is part of the two-word term does not change the Article 100 Definition.

I feel saying that a neutral is not a part of branch circuit because it's not the conductor that's landed on the overcurrent device is incorrect.
But that's just me.

I'm being real rigorous with the exact words of the Code. I'm not sharing what I actually believe to be enforceable. This is following your attention to the meaning of "modification" and how it requires AFCI and how a branch circuit neutral goes all the way to the transformer.

 

[jap]

The Definition of Branch Circuit says "circuit conductors" not "conductors of the circuit". Having no definition of "circuit conductors", a two-word term, we simply can't tell that it is "all the conductors" or some of the conductors of a "circuit".


You say "branch circuit" with respect to 210.12(B). . . but look at the actual text. In 210.12(B) it is hyphenated: "Where branch-circuit wiring is modified. . . " That means "branch-circuit" is a two-word term, a term that is included and defined in Article 100. The fact that "circuit" is part of the two-word term does not change the Article 100 Definition.



I'm being real rigorous with the exact words of the Code. I'm not sharing what I actually believe to be enforceable. This is following your attention to the meaning of "modification" and how it requires AFCI and how a branch circuit neutral goes all the way to the transformer.

I never said "modification" required AFCI.

JAP>

 

[Sierrasparky]

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>

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 never said "modification" required AFCI.

JAP>

OK so what are you saying then? This reply speaks like a politician.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

That would be an excellent statement to put in that section of the code.


JAP>

Jap the reason this section was change was to allow the change of panels for whatever reason. If you put in a new panel in the same location and make it a sub panel then that does not change anything. If you don't extend the circuit 6' or not add an outlet to the circuit then no afci is required. You can pitch it any way you want but that does not change the exception. IMO, no afci is required and I would bet that every CMP member on that panel will agree

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.

 

[jap]

OK so what are you saying then? This reply speaks like a politician.

Well it is that time of the year now isn't it.

All I'm saying is anytime you change something you've modified it and I can see where an inspector performing an inspection might consider a modification such as this enough to warrant his call.

I also feel that if the electricians states his case as to why they feel this is not enough modification to warrant a change that the decision needs to be brought to the higher ups as it seems the OP is already doing.

I like one of the other posters am curious as to how this all works out.


JAP>

 

[jap]

Jap the reason this section was change was to allow the change of panels for whatever reason. If you put in a new panel in the same location and make it a sub panel then that does not change anything. If you don't extend the circuit 6' or not add an outlet to the circuit then no afci is required. You can pitch it any way you want but that does not change the exception. IMO, no afci is required and I would bet that every CMP member on that panel will agree

I don't disagree at all.
In fact the 6' rule makes good sense.
I'm just thinking that an inspector could interpret the word "Modify" in a separate sense and may enforce a rule simply on the fact that he feels the circuits are being "Modified" because the grounds and neutrals are being separated.

Not because circuits are being extended or added.
If extended or added are in the rule what is the need to muddy the water by putting the word "Modified" in the rule ?
That word alone seems to open up a lot of interpretation in itself.


JAP>

 

[jap]

mod·i·fy.


[ˈmädəˌfī]

VERB

1.make partial or minor changes to (something),


JAP>

 

[al hildenbrand]

I never said "modification" required AFCI.

All I'm saying is anytime you change something you've modified it and I can see where an inspector performing an inspection might consider a modification such as this enough to warrant his call.

See how you say that? You are supporting the requiring of AFCI because of "touching" the Branch Circuit EGC & Neutral when converting a circuit breaker panel to a subpanel. You are saying that "modification" requires AFCI.

I like one of the other posters am curious as to how this all works out.

I work in the same areas as Chris, and I'll be amazed if the inspector's citation is NOT reversed.

 

[al hildenbrand]

mod·i·fy.


[ˈmädəˌfī]

VERB

1.make partial or minor changes to (something),


JAP>

And the "something" is a "Branch Circuit". . . not a "circuit". How do I "know" it is "Branch Circuit"? Because the inspector told us so by citing 210.12(B) which is only about "Branch Circuits".

 

[jap]

See how you say that? You are supporting the requiring of AFCI because of "touching" the Branch Circuit EGC & Neutral when converting a circuit breaker panel to a subpanel. You are saying that "modification" requires AFCI.


I work in the same areas as Chris, and I'll be amazed if the inspector's citation is NOT reversed.

You sure read a lot of things into something I never said.
Don't put words in my mouth.


JAP>

 

[jap]

Look back through my post and tell me where I said I supported AFCI because someone touched it.
Look back and tell me where I said modification requires AFCI.

let me know.

JAP>

 

[al hildenbrand]

You sure read a lot of things into something I never said.
Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm sorry, I'm not putting words in your mouth, and I'm certainly not trying to. You wrote, "All I'm saying is anytime you change something you've modified it and I can see where an inspector performing an inspection might consider a modification such as this enough to warrant his call."

What was the inspector's call?

That the "modification required AFCI".

 

[al hildenbrand]

And you've defended the inspector. . .

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]

And you've defended the inspector. . .

I defend the fact that he may feel something was modified.


JAP>

 

[wwhitney]

The requirement uses the term "branch-circuit wiring" for the qualifying subject. Rerouting and/or re-terminating circuit conductors or EGC's within the panelboard enclosure is not modifying, replacing, or extending branch-circuit wiring.

Sorry, I disagree. If you move the "hot" or "neutral" within the panelboard, you have modified the branch circuit wiring. E.g., moving the "hot" from one breaker to another.

Fortunately, unless your panelboard is over 6' in diameter, you probably haven't extended the circuit by over 6', so 210.12(B) Exception will apply.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Sierrasparky]

I don't disagree at all.
In fact the 6' rule makes good sense.
I'm just thinking that an inspector could interpret the word "Modify" in a separate sense and may enforce a rule simply on the fact that he feels the circuits are being "Modified" because the grounds and neutrals are being separated.

Not because circuits are being extended or added.
If extended or added are in the rule what is the need to muddy the water by putting the word "Modified" in the rule ?
That word alone seems to open up a lot of interpretation in itself.


JAP>

How absurd. You are saying now that because no wire is added then one cannot use that exception to this code.
Boy OH BOY............ ... .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . .!

You sure read a lot of things into something I never said.
Don't put words in my mouth.


JAP>

Maybe not put words in your mouth but lets be honest that is what you wanted everyone to think.

Look back through my post and tell me where I said I supported AFCI because someone touched it.
Look back and tell me where I said modification requires AFCI.

let me know.

JAP>

I defend the fact that he may feel something was modified.


JAP>

Why? It DOES NOT APPLY!!!!!!!!!