He's Full of ....

[user 100]

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'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".

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


JAP>

.......And whatever the inspector feels, he is incorrect. By his reasoning, every time a direct swap out of a panel is done or a ground bar was added to separate egcs and neutrals in existing work, or even if we unpair neutrals doubled up on the N bar and move a single wire to its own screw terminal on the same bar, afci would be required- the language in 210.12(B) is clear and aimed solely at replacements/ situations like the op, and the ckts in the ops case are NOT being modified nor are the old branch ckts being extended beyond 6'.

We can engage in word play and it can be argued that "modified" means all sorts of things, but the inspector is trying to get the code to say something it clearly does not say.:happyno:
And sometimes to figure out if something is required, we go by what it doesn't say, rather than what it does.

 

[chris1971]

So the only work done on the panel would be to separate grounded & equipment grounding conductors -- Are you replacing devices in the existing residence?

Correct. Only separating the grounded and Equipment grounding conductors to make it a sub panel. We are not changing any receptacles in the existing area of the home. Only adding a few new branch circuits for the addition being built into the house.

 

[peter d]

I really liked wiring new houses back in 1999/00. We ran everything into the panel and didn't have a care in the world about AFCI's. Those were the days.

 

[jap]

.......And whatever the inspector feels, he is incorrect. By his reasoning, every time a direct swap out of a panel is done or a ground bar was added to separate egcs and neutrals in existing work, or even if we unpair neutrals doubled up on the N bar and move a single wire to its own screw terminal on the same bar, afci would be required- the language in 210.12(B) is clear and aimed solely at replacements/ situations like the op, and the ckts in the ops case are NOT being modified nor are the old branch ckts being extended beyond 6'.

We can engage in word play and it can be argued that "modified" means all sorts of things, but the inspector is trying to get the code to say something it clearly does not say.:happyno:
And sometimes to figure out if something is required, we go by what it doesn't say, rather than what it does.

And you have every right to that opinion, but, as you just said , everything you mentioned above is a modification.
Thanks for making that clear.
That one word should be removed just for that reason.
Otherwise modify can also mean that an inspector who doesn't know any better has the right to go by what it actually does say.

JAP>

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . an inspector who doesn't know any better has the right to go by what it actually does say.

JAP>

Are you quoting from an edition of the NEC other than the 2014?

Chris1971's inspector is working from the 2014.

 

[user 100]

And you have every right to that opinion, but, as you just said , everything you mentioned above is a modification.
Thanks for making that clear.
That one word should be removed just for that reason.
Otherwise modify can also mean that an inspector who doesn't know any better has the right to go by what it actually does say.

JAP>

But how are the op's ckts being modified? That is the crux of the issue. I don't see how unbonding the neutral(s) from the egc(s) in the panel electrically changes the ckts themselves in the op's situation- that's what the inspector needs to explain. I do concede that there is no definition of modification in the NEC- but since 210.12(B) says "modified" w/out explaining what that means, then there is no reason why the op needs to follow it, if he otherwise meets the ​stated exceptions to 210.12(B).

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But how are the op's ckts being modified? That is the crux of the issue. I don't see how unbonding the neutral(s) from the egc(s) in the panel electrically changes the ckts themselves in the op's situation- that's what the inspector needs to explain. I do concede that there is no definition of modification in the NEC- but since 210.12(B) says "modified" w/out explaining what that means, then there is no reason why the op needs to follow it, if he otherwise meets the ​stated exceptions to 210.12(B).

IMO, the circuit is being modified but the exception exempts us from using afci

 

[mbrooke]

I really liked wiring new houses back in 1999/00. We ran everything into the panel and didn't have a care in the world about AFCI's. Those were the days.

Best days of my life. Now Id rather be doing PLCs or protective relaying. Heck Id be less stressed wiring Silicon Valley. AFCIs just killed it for me :rant:

 

[jap]

Are you quoting from an edition of the NEC other than the 2014?

Chris1971's inspector is working from the 2014.

I'm not quoting from anything but we are still in 2011 here.


JAP>

 

[jap]

IMO, the circuit is being modified but the exception exempts us from using afci

Very well put.

JAP>

 

[mwm1752]

IMO, the circuit is being modified but the exception exempts us from using afci

I agree with Dennis on this one - no new breakers or panel board -- though it is odd you shall bring to code afci & gfci requirements for receptacle replacements the exemption of extension of 6' has the allowance to move a panel location less than 6', replace with new panel box, but not require to upgrade breakers --

 

[al hildenbrand]

an inspector who doesn't know any better has the right to go by what it actually does say.

Are you quoting from an edition of the NEC other than the 2014?

Chris1971's inspector is working from the 2014.

I'm not quoting from anything but we are still in 2011 here.

Since the inspector in the OP is quoting from the 2014, all of my responses have been from the 2014. The inspector, in citing 2014 NEC 210.12(B) is including the contents of that NEC rule, which has a single Exception for modifications up to six foot of additional conductor.

The Exception is part of what it actually does say.

The OP inspector is NOT going by "what it actually does say".

 

[jap]

but since 210.12(B) says "modified" w/out explaining what that means, then there is no reason why the op needs to follow it

That's my whole point in one sentence.
If there's no reason to follow it, why is that one word even in there? That'd be like all of us assuming what the ... stood for in the title of this post.
Right or wrong, I'd bet that one word was the reason the inspector brought anything up at all.

Inspectors are human and make mistakes also.

He probably saw the neutrals being separated from the EGC's, He saw the existing feed being pulled out of the existing panel, he saw a new feeder from a different panel coming into this one, he may have seen wires being pulled loose, pulled out and pulled to the side and he felt he needed to say something about it, which was his right to do so.

And in turn,

The electrician had the right to say, even with all of this modification going on , I did not extend any circuits, I did not add any outlets, and I did not modify the branch circuit, therefore I'm not required to do what your saying I have to do.

The OP stated they were bringing this issue to the higher ups since he may have been confused on what actually the issue was.

Until that answer comes back from the OP, it would be very hard to say whether this is a disservice or simply a misunderstanding on the inspectors part.


JAP>

 

[jap]

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. I say no as we did not modify the individual branch circuits only the feeder going to the sub panel. I called the electrical inspectors supervisor and they are discussing what to do.:roll::roll:

What did the supervisor say?

JAP>

 

[al hildenbrand]

That's my whole point in one sentence.
If there's no reason to follow it, why is that one word even in there?

But the one word, "modified," IS there in 2014 NEC 210.12(B). AND a "modified" branch circuit is NOT excepted from the 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception. That means AFCI is NOT required.

 

[jap]

But the one word, "modified," IS there in 2014 NEC 210.12(B). AND a "modified" branch circuit is NOT excepted from the 2014 NEC 210.12(B) Exception. That means AFCI is NOT required.

I never said that one word WASNT in 2014 Al.

JAP>

 

[jap]

I said why is it in there.

Get my words right.


JAP>

 

[jap]

Or to be exactly correct, I said,

"If there's no reason to follow it, why is that one word even in there?"

So you don't gig me that one also.


JAP>

 

[al hildenbrand]

I never said that one word WASNT in 2014 Al.

JAP>

I said why is it in there.

Get my words right.


JAP>

:? I have always, in this thread, understood you to say that "modified" is in the 2014 NEC 210.12(B).

I have tried to show you that the presence of "modified" doesn't matter. . . it simply doesn't matter. While you seem to have said that "modified" does matter, and the OP inspector was in his/er right to use "modified" to require AFCI.

 

[jap]

:? I have always, in this thread, understood you to say that "modified" is in the 2014 NEC 210.12(B).

I have tried to show you that the presence of "modified" doesn't matter. . . it simply doesn't matter. While you seem to have said that "modified" does matter, and the OP inspector was in his/er right to use "modified" to require AFCI.

No Al, I did not say the inspector was right to use "modified" to require AFCI, and I'm tired of your quoting me as saying things that I didn't say.

I said " a modification such as this enough to warrant his call." meaning he had the right to bring up the question.

The OP stated the inspector and his supervisor were trying to figure out what exactly what they were going to do.
To me this means that the inspector is not forcing a code rule that he's not sure about, he's getting a second opinion from his boss.

When we hear what that verdict is, then, I'll make a decision on whether this inspector is full of .... or not.

JAP>

JAP>