# ARC Fault protection



## ICE (Apr 13, 2019)

The contractor is convinced that because there is less than 6 ft. between these cabinets in a straight line, ARC fault protection is not required.  The 6 ft. exception came into the code years after there was a code that required AFCI if a circuit was extended.  It was really a bonus for the electrical contractors as it relaxed the code requirement for AFCI which applied to any extension of a circuit.

But not in my jurisdiction.  By my jurisdiction I mean just me....not the AHJ that I work for.  You see, prior to the 6 ft. rule it was any extension.  That meant that a service upgrade had to be exactly where it was originally.  It couldn't even be a foot away from the original location without AFCI.

If you think about the outcome it is clear that the benefit does not always justify the means.  Edison relocates service points when spotting a new meter for an upgrade....often.  So the AFCI protects the new extended circuit because of the extension and not due to any modification of the rest of the circuit.  Essentially as a guarantee of the new work with the added future protection of the circuit. The expense was shocking to many.

I had a rule.  Conarb would call it Tiger Code.  Everybody else, bullshIt.
Here goes: If the extension is entirely within metallic raceway and on the outside of the structure.....no attic or underfloor....no AFCI is required.  The length did not matter.

Then came the six foot rule.  It does not require a method, just less than six feet.  Okay so now there is another way to thwart the AFCI code.  It's not Tiger Code.  So I adopted the NEC way and tossed out the Tiger Code.  Things went smoother with the Tiger Code.

The job in the picture would have failed no matter what.  He genuinely believes that he is correct.  He said that he verified the straight line six foot theory with my department and it is accepted universally.

He knows that he did a wrong thing with the number of conductors in a conduit.  I know he knows because he said that I wrote that correction on a job they did several years ago.  He now needs help with deration.  The other violations were all common as well but they do it like this everyday, everywhere.

Hundreds of times a year, thousands if the rest of the contractors are included, the work is done wrong and passes inspection.  Houses aren't burning down, people aren't getting electrocuted, and the violations are there.  Makes me wonder if it all really matters.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 13, 2019)

OK, where are the added circuits or extended circuits that trigger AFCI protection.  I am not sure what you are talking about.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 13, 2019)

What I really want to know is whether or not using a removable cover to penetrate for conduit as with those LB's is legal.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 13, 2019)

(D) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling
Units and Dormitory Units. In any of the areas specified in
210.12(A) or (B), where branch-circuit wiring is modified,
replaced, or extended, 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._

The circuits were both modified and extended so if he wants to play off the the exception for extension of 6', let him know the exception does not apply to the modification.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 13, 2019)

Overall it is a bad installation the way he decided to use the existing meter can, service disconnect box as a junction box.  That box should have been replaced and extended so that he did not have to violate 110.3(B) and penetrate a removable cover.  FAIL


----------



## jar546 (Apr 13, 2019)

AND you can hit up his conduit to cover installation with another violation courtesy of Chris K.  NEC 300.15(A)


----------



## ICE (Apr 14, 2019)

jar546 said:


> AND you can hit up his conduit to cover installation with another violation courtesy of Chris K.  NEC 300.15(A)


Yes...yes I can but why would I?  


.


----------



## ICE (Apr 14, 2019)

jar546 said:


> (D) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications — Dwelling
> Units and Dormitory Units. In any of the areas specified in
> 210.12(A) or (B), where branch-circuit wiring is modified,
> replaced, or extended, the branch circuit shall be protected by
> ...


You missed the point.


----------



## jar546 (Apr 14, 2019)

ICE said:


> Yes...yes I can but why would I?
> 
> 
> .


So he fixes his violations


----------



## ICE (Apr 14, 2019)

jar546 said:


> So he fixes his violations


But the thing is, I don’t want him to fix that violation.  This is a common practice that has gone on for years. 
There is a problem with the LBs missing a seal and the meter blank shall be metal but otherwise, we allow this.  The covers are secured with two screws and the enclosure becomes a junction box. 

I am not convinced that the meter blank is a reliable seal that will keep water out but this way of doing it has been around for at least 30 years and probably a lot longer than that.  Splices were allowed inside that cabinet when it was a service location and it is listed as a 3R enclosure.  It comes down to no harm, no foul.  Or as O.B. Thompson would call it, a picayunish correction.


----------

