He's Full of ....

Status
Not open for further replies.
jap said:
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.
chris1971 said:
I called the electrical inspectors supervisor and they are discussing what to do.:roll::roll:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
OK. I'm beginning to understand why I've experienced your responses as being so circumspect.

Chris1971 called the supervisor. The inspector wasn't unsure about his/er call. The inspector said AFCI was required because of the branch circuit was "modified". Chris had to go over his/er head or else add AFCI.

Contractor to supervisor contact happens around here because individual inspectors can be unyielding (not all, by any means, just some).
 
al hildenbrand said:
OK. I'm beginning to understand why I've experienced your responses as being so circumspect.

Chris1971 called the supervisor. The inspector wasn't unsure about his/er call. The inspector said AFCI was required because of the branch circuit was "modified". Chris had to go over his/er head or else add AFCI.

Contractor to supervisor contact happens around here because individual inspectors can be unyielding (not all, by any means, just some).
Click to expand...


I would have called his supervisor too.
And, If they came back with the wrong answer and you and I worked together, Lord help them if they got on a conference call with you and I. :)


JAP>
 
Now that that's cleared up, anyone want to respond to the observation I made in post #37 than an EGC is not part of the branch circuit?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Now that that's cleared up, anyone want to respond to the observation I made in post #37 than an EGC is not part of the branch circuit?
Click to expand...
An EGC run with a branch circuit is not part of the branch circuit... but it is part of the branch circuit wiring. :D
 
jap said:
When we hear what that verdict is, then, I'll make a decision on whether this inspector is full of .... or not.

JAP>

JAP>
Click to expand...

Good decision on their part.
Seems they're not so full of ....


JAP>
 
Opinion from Masachusetts

Opinion from Masachusetts

chris1971 said:
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:
Click to expand...

As an inspector in Massachusetts, I will CAN NOT require AFCI for this installation because 210.8 or 210.12 is for new installations, not to make you re-wire an entire house to today's code
 
I would not think AFCI requirement would kick in but you could be modifying the branch circuits to the range and dryer if they where installed using a 240 volt three wire circuit.

I would think those circuits originating in a service panel that you are changing out to a sub-panel would be in effect modifying those existing circuits
 
Glad this has been resolved and the correct call of 'No AFCI needed' was made. Separating the neutrals and grounds is not modifying the branch circuit (wiring), because by article 100 definition, the branch circuit is only the ungrounded conductor(s).

Note that in the 2008 NEC, there is a big difference in definitions between "Branch Circuit" and "Branch Circuit, Multiwire". The latter DOES include the neutral/ground.

and "modifying" is very vague. If I take a wire off of breaker #14, clean it, or restrip the last 3/8" of jacket, and reterminate it, have I modified that conductor? What if I move it to breaker #16? or simple retorque the connection? I say no to all. Even pigtailing a jumper on a hot, so long as it isnt over 6', is not modifying per the exception.

Where/when is the 6' rule exception, 2011 or 2014 NEC?

Since neutrals of different circuits are usually tied together in boxes of older installs, if I HAD to replace the breakers with AFCI, I would also HAVE to go into all those boxes and separate the neutrals - who is going to pay for that? That is another reason for to me to not have to replace breakers with AFCI for the aforementioned non-modifications.
 
JFletcher said:
Separating the neutrals and grounds is not modifying the branch circuit (wiring), because by article 100 definition, the branch circuit is only the ungrounded conductor(s).
Click to expand...

I cannot agree there.

The branch circuit included all circuit conductors, the neutral is a circuit conductor.
 
iwire said:
I cannot agree there.

The branch circuit included all circuit conductors, the neutral is a circuit conductor.
Click to expand...

2008 NEC:

"Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlets."

That is the ungrounded wire(s) only. The neutral and ground are not between the OCPD and the outlet; they are between the neutral/ground bar and the outlet, unless the neutral is on a GFCI breaker.

eta: I agree the neutral is a circuit conductor however its electrical position in the circuit does not fit the article 100 definition of a branch circuit.
 
JFletcher said:
2008 NEC:

"Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlets."

That is the ungrounded wire(s) only. The neutral and ground are not between the OCPD and the outlet; they are between the neutral/ground bar and the outlet, unless the neutral is on a GFCI breaker.

eta: I agree the neutral is a circuit conductor however its electrical position in the circuit does not fit the article 100 definition of a branch circuit.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting point but the neutral is a branch circuit conductor.
 
david said:
I would not think AFCI requirement would kick in but you could be modifying the branch circuits to the range and dryer if they where installed using a 240 volt three wire circuit.

I would think those circuits originating in a service panel that you are changing out to a sub-panel would be in effect modifying those existing circuits
Click to expand...

3 wire circuits to dryer/range are also "Branch Circuits", and not "Branch Circuits, Multiwire" since they lack a neutral. But 240V doesnt require AFCI anyway.

Like PeterD or Al mentioned, a panel change, adding a panel for a generator, or change a main to a subpanel doesnt change the branch circuits.

Like I mentioned above, "modified" is incredibly vague almost to the point of unenforceability. What if the circuit has a 1' solid red #12 THHN pigtailed to it to reach the breaker. If I replace that with stranded #12 wire, or a black wire, or use a new wire nut, or remove it altogether to make the panel neater, have I modified that circuit? What about sticking a label on the wire itself, or even wiping off the dust? If I remove a receptacle and blank it off, that isnt modifying the branch circuit, and neither is a receptacle change since the branch circuit is the wiring between OCPD and outlet.

"Modified" needs a concrete definition or be removed from that code section. I'm sure people could argue pros and cons of the aforementioned "modifications" for pages.
 
From LeGrand, bottom of page 6 (bold added by me):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...d.aspx&usg=AFQjCNHeV1HUbojCQWbrLpW1Ok8wpZCkJA

"A new exception has been added to 210.12(B) that states that any
branch circuit extension of the conductors that is less than 6 feet
does not require AFCI protection. The exception addresses limited
changes to the branch circuit wiring that do not require providing
AFCI protection.
This exception does not apply if additional outlets or devices are
installed on the branch circuit."

imo, "limited changes" = "modifications", so small modifications are permitted.
 
JFletcher said:
From LeGrand, bottom of page 6 (bold added by me):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...d.aspx&usg=AFQjCNHeV1HUbojCQWbrLpW1Ok8wpZCkJA

"A new exception has been added to 210.12(B) that states that any
branch circuit extension of the conductors that is less than 6 feet
does not require AFCI protection. The exception addresses limited
changes to the branch circuit wiring that do not require providing
AFCI protection.
This exception does not apply if additional outlets or devices are
installed on the branch circuit."

imo, "limited changes" = "modifications", so small modifications are permitted.
Click to expand...
FWIW - replacing an old receptacle with a new one of same design/rating isn't adding any outlets or devices either.
 
kwired said:
FWIW - replacing an old receptacle with a new one of same design/rating isn't adding any outlets or devices either.
Click to expand...

Still shall be protected anyway -- what's your point?
406.4 General Installation Requirements
(D) Replacements. Replacement of receptacles shall comply with 40 6.4(D)(1) through (D)(6), as applicable. Arc-fault circuitinterrupter type and ground-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacles shall be installed in a readily accessible location.
(3) Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters. Ground-fault circuit-interrupter protected receptacles shall be provided where replacements are made at receptacle outlets that are required to be so protected elsewhere in this Code.
(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that requires arc-fault circuit-interrupter protection as specified elsewhere in this Code, a replacement receptacle at this outlet shall be one of the following:
(1) A listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter receptacle
(2) A receptacle protected by a listed outlet branch-circuit type arc-fault circuit-interrupter type receptacle
(3) A receptacle protected by a listed combination type arcfault circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top