panel change arc fault requirements

[bereaelectric]

I just had an final inspection on a panel change on an older home [ 1950's] The county inspector stated I was required to install arc-fault breakers in the replacement panel. IS THIS REQUIRED BY ANY NEC CODE?? If not can anybody cite the exclusion, and if required can anybody cite the requirement? --2017 code and earlier.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe the inspector is incorrect unless you added more than 6' of wire to the circuits etc as explain below. Look at the exception. Btw, I wrote a proposal to lengthen the distance and define the distance as between the boxes not the length of wire inside the panel. Looks like they are going for the second half of my proposal.

(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.

 

[charlie b]

I think the inspector is right. This is a panel change out, not an extension of branch circuits. So 210.12(A) applies.

 

[bereaelectric]

clarification.

clarification.

None of the branch circuit wiring was modified or added to. all existing circuits had enough existing wire to enter the replacement panel without addition or modification. Only the panel, circuit breakers, meter base and mast assembly were replaced.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think the inspector is right. This is a panel change out, not an extension of branch circuits. So 210.12(A) applies.

Not so. I wrote the exception and substantiate it with a panel replacement as an example

 

[Dennis Alwon]

None of the branch circuit wiring was modified or added to. all existing circuits had enough existing wire to enter the replacement panel without addition or modification. Only the panel, circuit breakers, meter base and mast assembly were replaced.

The inspector is incorrect. The exception mentioned above was written specifically for this situation.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think the inspector is right. This is a panel change out, not an extension of branch circuits. So 210.12(A) applies.

Where does it state that afci's must be used on a panel change? A local inspection area started requiring afci on panel change when afci's first came out and the state ruled that was not what the code stated.

Some stated that you were modifying the circuit when you changed from a fuse panel to a cb panel or if you lengthened the wire inside the panel. That is what prompted me to make a proposal.

 

[charlie b]

Where does it state that afci's must be used on a panel change?

210.12(A) says the circuits must have AFCI protection. The non enforceable 80.11(B) says that an existing, occupied building can remain in use, from which we infer that it need not be brought up to current regulations. This so-called "grandfather clause" does not say that you can make any changes you wish, and still say that it was an "existing, occupied building that can therefore remain in use." I don't think the NEC explicitly says this anywhere, but it is generally understood that anything you touch must meet current code, and the things you don't touch can "remain in use" as-is.

Here is my take on this situation: The code says you must have AFCI. So why aren't we all required to install AFCI devices in all of our houses right now? The answer to that is the grandfather clause. I believe that by replacing the panel you have lost the "protection" of, and access to, the grandfather clause, and thereby brought 210.12(A) into play.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

210.12(A) says the circuits must have AFCI protection. The non enforceable 80.11(B) says that an existing, occupied building can remain in use, from which we infer that it need not be brought up to current regulations. This so-called "grandfather clause" does not say that you can make any changes you wish, and still say that it was an "existing, occupied building that can therefore remain in use." I don't think the NEC explicitly says this anywhere, but it is generally understood that anything you touch must meet current code, and the things you don't touch can "remain in use" as-is.

Here is my take on this situation: The code says you must have AFCI. So why aren't we all required to install AFCI devices in all of our houses right now? The answer to that is the grandfather clause. I believe that by replacing the panel you have lost the "protection" of, and access to, the grandfather clause, and thereby brought 210.12(A) into play.

I can tell you that is not how it is being interpreted in most areas and the exception mentioned above is proof. IMO.

If you change the panel you are not modifying the circuit so therefore it is not required. On new circuits, yes we need it but if it is existing and we don't touch the circuit then we are not required to install afci (grandfathered as you said). Changing the panel is not meant to add extra cost to circuits that are not being affected and thus the modified area was added. I see what you are saying but that is not the intent as I stated earlier. If it was the intent then the cmp would not have accepted my exemption on the afci circuits. Remember my substantiation was about panel changes.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I just had an final inspection on a panel change on an older home [ 1950's] The county inspector stated I was required to install arc-fault breakers in the replacement panel. IS THIS REQUIRED BY ANY NEC CODE?? If not can anybody cite the exclusion, and if required can anybody cite the requirement? --2017 code and earlier.

2017 NEC 210.12(D) Exception is the clear Code rule that states NO AFCI is required to be added to the existing Premises Wiring branch circuits when the branch circuits are reconnected to the replacement panel overcurrent protective devices without adding extensions, or any new outlets or devices.

As Charlie notes, 80.11(B) is not "enforceable." That is, it is not adopted into legal, enforceable statute by local jurisdictions. Now, your area in Ohio might have additional, or modifying statutes about this (other than what is written in the 2017 NEC book), but if ONLY the NEC is enforced, then the inspector is wrong.

 

[Sierrasparky]

What code cycle.

 

[al hildenbrand]

………………..

What code cycle.

--2017 code and earlier.

 

[blkmagik21]

They even go as far as to put a requirement in that a circuit extension over 6’ requires afci protection. They give that Lee way because they know how often you must extend wires doing panel changes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think the intent was to never require afci for panel changes but the 2011 is not clear on that issue. The 2014 and 2017 NEC exceptions make it clear, IMO.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Originally Posted by Sierrasparky
What code cycle.

Originally Posted by bereaelectric
--2017 code and earlier.







……………..

I realize that but the OP can't be subject to all code cycles 2017 and prior.

If I recall it was required in the 2011 code. That is why the latter exception was created.

 

[bereaelectric]

Further clarification and study

Further clarification and study

Article 100 defines BRANCH CIRCUIT --the circuit conductors between the final over current device protecting the circuit and the outlet.
#1. The replacement panel and/or the replacement breakers are not part of the definition BRANCH CIRCUIT. Therefore article 210 is not applicable.
#2 Even if the argument could be made that Article 210 does apply, AFCI protection is not required using the exception at the end of 210.12[D]
[The existing conductors were not extended and no additional outlets or devices installed ].
#3 [Worst case scenario] If by chance the argument were successfully made that Article 210.12[A] applies alone without exception, than every existing Dwelling Unit in America is now in violation of the NEC, and must be retrofitted with Branch Circuit AFCI protection, regardless of how long ago it was built. [ The very definition of Ex POST FACTO LAW ]

 

[Sierrasparky]

I think the intent was to never require afci for panel changes but the 2011 is not clear on that issue. The 2014 and 2017 NEC exceptions make it clear, IMO.

I am not so sure about that, otherwise why would they require AFCI for device replacements.

I think just because you got the exception codified does not mean the original intent. You got the ear of the CMP at the time.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I am not so sure about that, otherwise why would they require AFCI for device replacements.

I think just because you got the exception codified does not mean the original intent. You got the ear of the CMP at the time.

That is different. You don't inherit problems on a circuit that you didn't install when you replace a receptacle.

 

[Sierrasparky]

That is different. You don't inherit problems on a circuit that you didn't install when you replace a receptacle.

Huh.
If you follow a the code today you have to install a AFCI device somewhere. Have you tried installing a OBC AFCI in a metal GEM box with 12-2 in and out. It don't fit. So then you have to look at a place ahead of the device. Opps it is a Zinsco with a shared neutral or maybe a newer panel with a multi-wire circuit. You install a 2 pole and it immediately trips. You now have inherited a problem. :rant:

You then have a disgruntled customer.

So Dennis you got the exception and that was good for us all. I still highly doubt that the original intention was not to create the upgrading of all circuits to AFCI as time goes on regardless.

The problem was all the hoopla over them AFCI's.

 

[al hildenbrand]

You now have inherited a problem. :rant:

You then have a disgruntled customer.

Your scenario is the perfect example for why I find it better to replace the GEM box with a larger cubic inch box, or use a surface extension box, at the outset, rather than risk the falling dominos.