210.12(B) Exception

fmtjfw

Senior Member
Section/Paragraph: 210.12(B) Exception.

Added Text

210.12(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications -- Dwelling Units.
In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), 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.


Substantiation

90.1(A) states: "The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity." AFCIs are required in the Code in circumstances designed especially to protect lives.

Electrical fires are much more prevalent in older structures than newly built ones. The purpose of 210.12(B) and 406.4(D)(4) is to introduce the additional safety provided by AFCI protection in older structures. The exception impedes the requirement of that additional safety.

Some persons have suggested that if you are replacing a receptacle under 406.4(D)(4) you can evade the requirement for AFCI protection for the replacement receptacle by merely extending the wiring to the receptacle by splicing additional conductor(s) and use this exception.

Inserted Deleted
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
Section/Paragraph: 210.12(B) Exception.

Added Text

210.12(B) Branch Circuit Extensions or Modifications -- Dwelling Units.
In any of the areas specified in 210.12(A), 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.


Substantiation

90.1(A) states: "The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity." AFCIs are required in the Code in circumstances designed especially to protect lives.

Electrical fires are much more prevalent in older structures than newly built ones. The purpose of 210.12(B) and 406.4(D)(4) is to introduce the additional safety provided by AFCI protection in older structures. The exception impedes the requirement of that additional safety.

Some persons have suggested that if you are replacing a receptacle under 406.4(D)(4) you can evade the requirement for AFCI protection for the replacement receptacle by merely extending the wiring to the receptacle by splicing additional conductor(s) and use this exception.

Inserted Deleted
Ummm....even if I disagree I will make a recommendation. Where you say "existing conductors" I would say "existing branch circuit"....
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Where you say "existing conductors" I would say "existing branch circuit"....
Interesting. Fmtjfw is quoting the 2014 NEC as published and is recommending, not a change, but a deletion of the red colored text in his post ( that is, the "as published" Exception to 2014 NEC 210.12(B) ). All in his name (or idea) of "practical safeguarding".
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Since that was one of my proposal I disagree with it. On service changes this can not only change the cost significantly there are other inspectors who would count the conductors that are spliced in the panel. I have seen that done before this change... Of course that is a ridiculous thing to do.

Often times we must add a JB in the attic or the crawl space directly below the panel. That is why the 6' was added. My proposal didn't include the 6' so that was a good change
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
This inspired me to write a proposal to add that the 6' distance shall not include conductors inside a box. Done
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
This inspired me to write a proposal to add that the 6' distance shall not include conductors inside a box. Done
Interesting. So, your proposal only measures circuit conductors in a cable or raceway?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Yep I don't see a fire starting in a panelboard
So, by your proposal, I could replace the old panelboard with a gutter, and run ANY distance I want, and then end with a one inch long nipple of sufficient cross section (the raceway) and then be able to invoke the exception to 210.12(B)?
 
Last edited:
Top