210.12

[Buck Parrish]

Where is it that tells AFCI is required if you are extending a circuit?

I am removing an old sub panel. I will pull the branch circuits under the house splice them and bring them about 15ft. to the existing main panel.

Would these circuits now require afci's ?

 

[480sparky]

The NEC is silent on the issue. It's the AHJs call.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

In our area in NC, if that is where you are, you better use an AFCI. The reasoning is that the circuit is existing then no need to change the breaker. If you extend the circuit then you have changed it and the outlet that is added must meet the code today.

 

[hurk27]

Where is it that tells AFCI is required if you are extending a circuit?

I am removing an old sub panel. I will pull the branch circuits under the house splice them and bring them about 15ft. to the existing main panel.

Would these circuits now require afci's ?

your location is a little confusing, if your in Indiana then 210.12 has been removed from Indiana codes. so no AFCI is even required.

 

[Buck Parrish]

Thanks, This job's in NC.

 

[iwire]

IMO new work must always comply with the current code unless there is an exception.

There are no exceptions like that for AFCIs so an extension on an existing circuit would have to be AFCI protected.

 

[dicklaxt]

I'll play the Devil's Advocate here,I read the OP as not extending the circuit but making it a longer distance to the source,,,,,,,,,,,if this is so,what applies in this scenario.?,maybe Art.382

dick

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I'll play the Devil's Advocate here,I read the OP as not extending the circuit but making it a longer distance to the source,,,,,,,,,,,if this is so,what applies in this scenario.?,maybe Art.382

dick

I don't think art. 382 is involved -- read 382.2 Definitions

IMO< if the feed were extended and you didn't add any outlets to the rooms classified as req. AFCI then I would say you have not extended the circuit but have lengthened the distance of the circuit.

 

[dicklaxt]

me too

dick

 

[iwire]

I think it is oh so much easier.

If I install any new wiring, at any point in a new circuit, that new wiring must meet todays codes.

That would mean it must be AFCI protected.

It blows my mind that people think they can avoid the new rules just because they choose to use an existing circuit in some way.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If I were to change a panel and a circuit to the bedroom need to be either spliced in the panel to reach or extended outside the panel, then I would say I have not added any new outlets that would violate 210.12. I don't see this as avoiding the new rules at all.

 

[Buck Parrish]

I'll play the Devil's Advocate here,I read the OP as not extending the circuit but making it a longer distance to the source,,,,,,,,,,,if this is so,what applies in this scenario.?,maybe Art.382

dick

That's exactly what I'm doing. No outltets added

 

[Buck Parrish]

I think it is oh so much easier.

If I install any new wiring, at any point in a new circuit, that new wiring must meet todays codes.

That would mean it must be AFCI protected.

It blows my mind that people think they can avoid the new rules just because they choose to use an existing circuit in some way.

This is a bid job...
The main panel I will have to move the circuits to is a Sq. D. They are the most exspensive AFCI . I have seen them as much as $60. 9 circuits would have to have afci.

 

[MikeS]

This is a bid job...
The main panel I will have to move the circuits to is a Sq. D. They are the most exspensive AFCI . I have seen them as much as $60. 9 circuits would have to have afci.

Not to mention the potential troubleshooting relative to nuisance tripping if there are any mix & match neutrals in outlet boxes inside the house. Or if there are any MWBC's you'll need 2 pole AFCI's....
Talk to the AHJ, I've found different areas handle a panel move differently.

BTW What's wrong with the existing location?

 

[Buck Parrish]

Thier remodeling the kitchen.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I think it is oh so much easier.

If I install any new wiring, at any point in a new circuit, that new wiring must meet todays codes.

That would mean it must be AFCI protected.

It blows my mind that people think they can avoid the new rules just because they choose to use an existing circuit in some way.

I wanted to use this:

"102.6 Existing structures.

The provisions of Section 115 shall control the alteration, repair, addition and change of occupancy of any existing structure.

The occupancy of any structure currently existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, provided the alleged occupancy can be shown to have existed and there are no orders of the building official pending, no evidence of fraud or no serious safety or sanitation hazard.

Buildings constructed in accordance with plans which have been approved prior to the effective date of this code are existing buildings."

But this applies:

"115.4 Additions and alterations.

Additions or alterations to residential buildings shall conform to the requirements of the code for new construction and shall be approved by the residential building official. Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure which will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any provisions of this code. Except as otherwise provided for in Section R313.1.1, portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure."

"115.5 Alterations to systems, components and materials.

Alterations to an existing system (egress, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, etc.) and materials or building components not otherwise provided for in this section shall conform to that required for new construction to the extent of the alteration. The existing systems, materials or components shall not be required to comply with all of the requirements of this code for new construction except to the extent that they are affected by the alteration. Additions or alterations to existing systems materials or components shall not cause them to become unsafe, hazardous, overloaded or become less effective than when originally installed, constructed and/or approved."

The new wire must be AFCI protected (where required under 210.12) not the rest of the circuit. Do you like that statement?

So I agree with Bob.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Now if you use this, in Ohio:

"101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to establish uniform requirements for the erection, construction, repair, alteration, and maintenance of residential buildings, including construction of industrialized units. Such requirements shall relate to the conservation of energy, safety and sanitation of buildings for their intended use and occupancy with consideration for the following:


1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:
1.1. The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the health, safety and welfare of the public;
1.2. The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;
1.3. The technical feasibility of the residential building code; and
1.4. The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the public?s ability to purchase affordable housing.
2. Extent of use. Permit to the fullest extent feasible the use of materials and technical methods, devices and improvements which tend to reduce the cost of construction without affecting minimum requirements for the health, safety and security of the occupants of buildings without preferential treatment of types or classes of materials or products or methods of construction."

And this:

"
101.4 Reasonable application.

The rules of the board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose. When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved. Materials, equipment and devices approved by the building official pursuant to Section 116 shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval."

And:

" 116.1 Alternative materials, appliances, equipment and methods of construction.

The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any appliance, equipment or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, appliance, equipment or method of construction shall be approved in accordance with either Section 116.1.1 or 116.1.2."

Using the above and since extending the supply, not adding outlets, I would probably not require AFCI protection IF these cicuits did not enter the areas required to be AFCI protected.

As stated above ask the AHJ.

 

[macmikeman]

I'm of the no added outlets then no need afci crowd. The nec is specific. It specifically requires arc fault protection of branch circuits when new outlets are installed in the required areas of dwellings and certain other types of occupancy. Add an outlet to each of those "extended" circuits and you will need arc fault protection.

 

[iwire]

I'm of the no added outlets then no need afci crowd.

Even if you do not add outlets, if you install new branch circuit wiring supplying outlets 210.12 required AFCI protection of that new wiring. (IMO)

 

[iwire]

If I were to change a panel and a circuit to the bedroom need to be either spliced in the panel to reach or extended outside the panel, then I would say I have not added any new outlets that would violate 210.12. I don't see this as avoiding the new rules at all.

IMO, if you added wire to the circuit that wire is required to be AFCI protected.

Is it silly when we might be talking about just 2' of new wire? Yes kind of, but 210.12 does not have any distances mentioned in it so the words require that AFCI protection be provided.

That does not mean I think it is needed, only that IMO it is required.