Inspector will not pass arc fault device

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sc286

Member
Location
stockertown, pa, usa
Hello, new here. Nice to meet everyone here. An inspector on a job I am currently doing will not accept and arc fault device and cannot give reasoning. He will only pass an afci breaker. I can make room in the panel to install it (was trying to save customer money) but I am just curious as to why he is refusing to accept a device. Has any one else come across this? Thanks.
 
Unless you run metallic wiring methods between the panel and device the AFCI has to be at the panel. The intent is to protect the circuit wiring, not just the stuff plugged into the outlet.
 
That was my first thought also. is it the device he won't accept or the method of installation ?
Did you follow Exception1 in 210.12 ?
 
He did say MC was acceptable to the first box then made a phone call and changed his mind ,so even if I did that he still will not accept the device. I figured that it was an issue with protecting the line side wiring but just thought it was weird. I am installing an afci breaker to conform but it just boggled my mind. Thanks everyone!
 
sc286 said:
Hello, new here. Nice to meet everyone here. An inspector on a job I am currently doing will not accept and arc fault device and cannot give reasoning. He will only pass an afci breaker. I can make room in the panel to install it (was trying to save customer money) but I am just curious as to why he is refusing to accept a device. Has any one else come across this? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi and welcome. Is this an additional outlet on a existing circuit or is this a new circuit.
If new circuit then the entire circuit must be protected unless the first feet must be in a one of the mettalic methods listed.
If this is a additional outlet to existing then the first outlet that protects the new wiring can have the AFCI device providing your local is on the 2011 NEC or similar.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Hi and welcome. Is this an additional outlet on a existing circuit or is this a new circuit.
If new circuit then the entire circuit must be protected unless the first feet must be in a one of the mettalic methods listed.
If this is a additional outlet to existing then the first outlet that protects the new wiring can have the AFCI device providing your local is on the 2011 NEC or similar.
Click to expand...
OP'er lists PA as location... 2008 NEC.
 
(only he knows, but his profile lists '11 )

sc286, I'd ask him again to discuss it with you. In "teaching you" he might learn something :)
Happens to me often
 
sc286 said:
Ok that's seems to be the issue. PA is in fact on 08, I put 11 in my profile because that's what I have been using. Thanks for the insight.
Click to expand...

If your state regularly adopts a code on a certain shedule i'd ask this inspector to see if he will budge as what you did will be legal soon. :cry:
 
{If he can be considered to be the AHJ for this then he can reject any materials he feels are not suitable for the installation based on NEC 90.4 }

I was told by a then present NEMA rep. & former inspector that NEC 90.4 was a weak article to turn any thing down with. :happyyes:
 
sc286 said:
Hello, new here. Nice to meet everyone here. An inspector on a job I am currently doing will not accept and arc fault device and cannot give reasoning. He will only pass an afci breaker. I can make room in the panel to install it (was trying to save customer money) but I am just curious as to why he is refusing to accept a device. Has any one else come across this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
We can give you some possibilties of when or how this could be done, but it does stink when an inspector rejects something and can not or will not tell you why:(
 
JDB3 said:
{If he can be considered to be the AHJ for this then he can reject any materials he feels are not suitable for the installation based on NEC 90.4 }

I was told by a then present NEMA rep. & former inspector that NEC 90.4 was a weak article to turn any thing down with. :happyyes:
Click to expand...
While it is weak (and I agree with the NEMA Rep) it should also come with an explanation to support it. The weak part being that if an inspector can't explain why they are rejecting something...should they really be inspecting it?
 
JDB3 said:
{If he can be considered to be the AHJ for this then he can reject any materials he feels are not suitable for the installation based on NEC 90.4 }

I was told by a then present NEMA rep. & former inspector that NEC 90.4 was a weak article to turn any thing down with. :happyyes:
Click to expand...


As an electrician I am to follow code. If I decided to just follow the ones I thought made some real sense then I would never put any so called arc protection devices into any jobs simply because I KNOW they don't work like they are mislabeled to perform. The code is clear in 90.4 and I stand by my statement and that should not be questioned unless you are willing to state that the entire nec is rubbish and should be ignored.
 
macmikeman said:
As an electrician I am to follow code. If I decided to just follow the ones I thought made some real sense then I would never put any so called arc protection devices into any jobs simply because I KNOW they don't work like they are mislabeled to perform. The code is clear in 90.4 and I stand by my statement and that should not be questioned unless you are willing to state that the entire nec is rubbish and should be ignored.
Click to expand...
The issue in the OP's case is something that is not only implicitly permitted by code but explicitly mentioned in the code but still rejected by an inspector citing 90.4 as giving him the right to reject anything he wants to.
 
GoldDigger said:
The issue in the OP's case is something that is not only implicitly permitted by code but explicitly mentioned in the code but still rejected by an inspector citing 90.4 as giving him the right to reject anything he wants to.
Click to expand...

where does the OP say that he was rejected because of 90.4 , The OP is on the 2008 code and what he wants does not come to code until 2011.
 
GoldDigger said:
The issue in the OP's case is something that is not only implicitly permitted by code but explicitly mentioned in the code but still rejected by an inspector citing 90.4 as giving him the right to reject anything he wants to.
Click to expand...

Precisely why I believe 90.4 exists. It allows for ahj's to reject any materials they feel are unsuitable to the use intended. If the op's inspector feels that even though that device is allowed for in the code but does not perform to its expected use (and here is where I inject an outrageous '' you think an arc fault device could possibly not work as intended? really?) then I feel it is exactly the right thing to do- reject it because it is an unproven device and technology, whereas we all know that arc fault breakers have performed their duty flawlessly since being introduced into the market in 1990.............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top