Wow. I can't think for some reason. ArcFault needed?

[wrobotronic]

Hi all.
as a new inspector I know I will miss some things and call others that may not need called. For some reason today it seems as though I cannot think straight. Here is my question:

a basement was damaged by water. The basement had to be gutted and refinished. Today I failed the final inspection because the new circuits were not brought to meet the arc fault requirements of the NEC.

Am I correct in this? I am being told by the EC that the circuits were existing and he only rewired it to the existing CBs in a new service. I am citing 210.12B as the circuits were "modified".
The EC also stated that this requirement should have been called when I inspected the new service. I stated however that the basement was not yet finished and I had to wait for the final inspection of the basement, so as to see the use of the room. IE, are the rooms finished or open studs. Is is being used as a dwelling space or storage only.

He said he is going to challenge my inspection with the lead EI. This is my first interaction with such an angry EC after I failed him. I want to do things correctly and any help would be appreciated as always. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH...

 

[user 100]

Hi all.
as a new inspector I know I will miss some things and call others that may not need called. For some reason today it seems as though I cannot think straight. Here is my question:

a basement was damaged by water. The basement had to be gutted and refinished. Today I failed the final inspection because the new circuits were not brought to meet the arc fault requirements of the NEC.

Am I correct in this? I am being told by the EC that the circuits were existing and he only rewired it to the existing CBs in a new service. I am citing 210.12B as the circuits were "modified".
The EC also stated that this requirement should have been called when I inspected the new service. I stated however that the basement was not yet finished and I had to wait for the final inspection of the basement, so as to see the use of the room. IE, are the rooms finished or open studs. Is is being used as a dwelling space or storage only.

He said he is going to challenge my inspection with the lead EI. This is my first interaction with such an angry EC after I failed him. I want to do things correctly and any help would be appreciated as always. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH...

Assuming your under the 2014-

Were the circuits extended by more than 6 feet? Any additional devices vs. what was already there?

Read the ​exception to 210.12(B).

 

[wrobotronic]

Assuming your under the 2014-

Were the circuits extended by more than 6 feet? Any additional devices vs. what was already there?

Read the ​exception to 210.12(B).

Yes we we are under 2014.

There are new and additional devices on every circuit and the circuits weren't extended, per se, because they were all replaced with new NM...

 

[user 100]

Yes we we are under 2014.

There are new and additional devices on every circuit and the circuits weren't extended, per se, because they were all replaced with new NM...

Then 210.12(B) applies-the keywords here being "additional devices" and the exception doesn't count.

 

[dkidd]

"where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended"

OP says the wiring was replaced.

 

[Sierrasparky]

This has been a very contentious situation over the years.
Some AHJ don't see your situation as New or modified and call it a repair. However the code added AFCI for replacements, so by the letter of the law I would say AFCI is needed either by receptacle or breaker.

If there was a new service then the 6 foot rule would apply to the wiring needed to extend conductors to the new panel. Then you have 406 4d if I recall correctly pertaining to replacements that come into play.

and remember Contractors will say anything to get you to pass.
As a new inspector the one thing to do is be consistent and have the code reference to back you.

 

[charlie b]

. . . the circuits weren't extended, per se, because they were all replaced with new NM...

AFCI protection is required. The single word, "replaced," within 210.12(B), in enough to confirm your call.

Since the exception only deals with extensions to existing circuits, it has no bearing on this installation.

 

[wrobotronic]

Thank you both for the confirmation... second guessing my calls is definitely something I didnt anticipate...it's a skill I need to learn. Thanks again...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[user 100]

AFCI protection is required. The single word, "replaced," within 210.12(B), in enough to confirm your call.

Since the exception only deals with extensions to existing circuits, it has no bearing on this installation.

I agree- the exception is going to be the ec's angle and with new rope, devices, and extras those circuits aren't at all existing- they are new circuits merely connected to non afci breakers.

The op has more than enough legs to stand on.

 

[dkidd]

"The EC also stated that this requirement should have been called when I inspected the new service."

He should be reminded that he is required to know and meet NEC.

 

[wrobotronic]

"The EC also stated that this requirement should have been called when I inspected the new service."

He should be reminded that he is required to know and meet NEC.

To to this I responded, that he could have used AFCI receptacles to meet the requirements and based on that possibility my service inspection was merely that, for the service.

Again thank you all for helping me with what appear to be simple easy questions, but I ask because I know I will receive answers and not ridicule, and also because I want to be a good inspector should we ever cross paths....:lol:

cheers

 

[cowboyjwc]

"where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or extended"

OP says the wiring was replaced.

Thank you, I was wondering when someone would read what was actually written.

 

[Sierrasparky]

To to this I responded, that he could have used AFCI receptacles to meet the requirements and based on that possibility my service inspection was merely that, for the service.

Again thank you all for helping me with what appear to be simple easy questions, but I ask because I know I will receive answers and not ridicule, and also because I want to be a good inspector should we ever cross paths....:lol:

cheers

OBC AFCI or receptacle AFCI can only be used if there is a metallic wire method used ,contrary to peoples thought there still is no Breaker and OBC AFCI listed or made that will allow NM to be used for AFCI protection starting at the panel.

As far as missing this at rough in unless breakers are required to be installed at rough then how is a inspector supposed to know you do not plan on using AFCI at final especially given a new panel is installed.

You are in the right and don't be upset you missed it. You missed nothing , you caught that the EC was pulling a fast one on you.

 

[kwired]

Hopefully your senior inspector sees it the way everyone else has, may even want to talk to him about this before the EC contacts him and he will be even better prepared to give him the correct reply with little hesitation about it.

 

[romex jockey]

Read it & weep.....

Read it & weep.....

210.12(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications
Dwelling Units. In any of the areas specified in 2IO.I2(A),
where branch-circuit wiring is modified, replaced, or ex-
tended, the branch circuit shall be protected by one of the
following:
(1) A listed combination-type AFCI located at the origin of
the branch circuit
(2) A listed outlet branch-circuit type AFCI located at the
first receptacle outlet of the existing branch circuit

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.

<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>

406.4(4) Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Where a
receptacle outlet is supplied by a branch circuit that re-
quires 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
arc-fault circuit-interrupter type circuit breaker
This requirement becomes effective January 1, 2014.


~RJ~

 

[jap]

"The EC also stated that this requirement should have been called when I inspected the new service."

He should be reminded that he is required to know and meet NEC.

Seems in this case the inspector doesnt actually know what all needs to be done to meet code either or he wouldnt have asked.
A little more communication between the Inspector and the Contractor working together would go a long way.
As you can tell by all of the posts on this forum, nobody knows everything, and if they do, they sure have a hard time remembering it all.


JAP>

 

[user 100]

Seems in this case the inspector doesnt actually know what all needs to be done to meet code either or he wouldnt have asked.
A little more communication between the Inspector and the Contractor working together would go a long way.
As you can tell by all of the posts on this forum, nobody knows everything, and if they do, they sure have a hard time remembering it all.


JAP>

:thumbsup:

The ops first post was a little confusing- he mentioned that there were new circuits, but then he suggests those same circuits were existing (per the ec), and hooked up to existing cbs in a new service- new service to lot of us means a new or at least moved panel. It only became apparent once he gave further details what exactly was going on.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Seems in this case the inspector doesnt actually know what all needs to be done to meet code either or he wouldnt have asked.
A little more communication between the Inspector and the Contractor working together would go a long way.
As you can tell by all of the posts on this forum, nobody knows everything, and if they do, they sure have a hard time remembering it all.


JAP>

I don't think it is the inspectors job to tell the contractor all the codes before inspection. It the obligation of the contractor to know the rules prior to stepping on the job. He sure can ask questions where clarification is needed. A great inspector will always find time to discuss these issues. I think the OP has the beginnings of being a great inspector.

:thumbsup:

The ops first post was a little confusing- he mentioned that there were new circuits, but then he suggests those same circuits were existing (per the ec), and hooked up to existing cbs in a new service- new service to lot of us means a new or at least moved panel. It only became apparent once he gave further details what exactly was going on.

Maybe so. My understanding was that there was a flood. Electrical had to be re-done. The contractor was trying to pass the install off as a repair that required no code updates. Pretty common for a EC to wiggle out of spending more money. To me I think that type of attitude looses respect. But that is me.

 

[user 100]

I don't think it is the inspectors job to tell the contractor all the codes before inspection. It the obligation of the contractor to know the rules prior to stepping on the job. He sure can ask questions where clarification is needed. A great inspector will always find time to discuss these issues. I think the OP has the beginnings of being a great inspector.



Maybe so. My understanding was that there was a flood. Electrical had to be re-done. The contractor was trying to pass the install off as a repair that required no code updates. Pretty common for a EC to wiggle out of spending more money. To me I think that type of attitude looses respect. But that is me.

I agree there is nothing wrong with seeking clarification and it is not the inspectors job to babysit the ec and vice versa, but a little better communication betwixt inspectors and the rest of us would often do more good bad than bad. And I agree too that it appears the guy was trying to pull a fast one and get away on the cheap.

 

[jap]

I don't think it is the inspectors job to tell the contractor all the codes before inspection. It the obligation of the contractor to know the rules prior to stepping on the job. He sure can ask questions where clarification is needed. A great inspector will always find time to discuss these issues. I think the OP has the beginnings of being a great inspector.



Maybe so. My understanding was that there was a flood. Electrical had to be re-done. The contractor was trying to pass the install off as a repair that required no code updates. Pretty common for a EC to wiggle out of spending more money. To me I think that type of attitude looses respect. But that is me.

I'd have to disagree.
The only facts we know is there was a flood and electrical had to be re-done.
The rest is just opinions.

I dont see why any electrical contractor would blatently not install the electrical up to code unless he just simply didnt know any better, especially since he did have to pull a permit and knew he would be inspected.

(All the more reason to do it right).

It's a pretty broad statement to claim that it's common for Electrical Contractors to wiggle out of spending more money.

My opinion would be that he probably bid the job, and either did not feel or overlooked the need for the Arc Fault breakers in the new panel.
Then when he got failed, his oversight really got to him, since he knew he'd either have to cough up the extra cash himself or risk a customer by passin on the added expense.

Otherwise if he were hired T&M he would have simply informed the owner that they had to spend the extra money on the Arc Fault Breakers and bringing the wiring up to the current code and have them pitch the fit that he did.

JAP>