AFCI, Service Change and HR Extension

[al hildenbrand]

On a service upgrade would I need to install AFCI breakers for a home run circuit extensions, say 6' long, for the purpose of connecting to the existing home runs?

If this service upgrade is in a jurisdiction inspected by the State of Minnesota, it is my experience that the test is whether an Outlet is added, or not.

Increasing the length of the homerun conductors to attach to the new OCPD, while part of 210.12(B)'s "All circuits supplying. . .", is not an "outlet installed". That is, an outlet is not added.

The existing outlets already installed in beds, and the other "living areas" listed in 2008 210.12(B), are allowed to remain as wired under the Code in effect at the time of their installation.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I am not sure where it says the outlets installed?

I see it says the branch circuits supplying the outlets installed...



Panel changes in NYS do not create a situation that requires AFCI protection of the branch circuits.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I am not sure where it says the outlets installed?

I see it says the branch circuits supplying the outlets installed...

:-?
:-?
Is this in response to my post?

I understand that the end point that you make and I'm trying to make are the same, i.e., no new AFCI required on panel changeout, . . .

 

[M. D.]

I think Pierre is saying that any amount of wiring added to branch circuit wiring serving outlets that require afci will need to be protected . If you splice 18" of wire in the enclosure ,. you have added branch circuit wiring and there are outlets installed ,.so the AFCI is required . If no branch circuit wiring has been added no AFCI

 

[al hildenbrand]

If you splice 18" of wire in the enclosure ,. you have added branch circuit wiring and there are outlets installed ,.

But that doesn't seem to be supported by his statement:

Panel changes in NYS do not create a situation that requires AFCI protection of the branch circuits.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Given the Article 100 Definition:

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

18" of new conductor spliced onto an existing branch circuit within the new service panel doesn't constitute a Branch Circuit.

If the NEC language was "All, and any part thereof, branch circuits . . ." there would be an arguement. But your reference to Mass. Rule 3 seems more to the question that Al is raising in his OP.

 

[LarryFine]

Code reference please?

250.140, Exception condition 3, and I guess I should add that my statement applies if the neutral is the base conductor in an SE cable.

The wording of 3 implies that an insulated neutral may continue to be used, even if its originating panel is no longer the service panel.

 

[LarryFine]

No he is not installing new outlets, he is installing new branch circuit wiring supplying those outlets and that branch circuit is covered by 210.12.

If one similarly extends an existing 3-wire major-appliance circuit, must the entire circuit be changed to a 4-wire circuit, including receptacle, plug and cord, and bonding jumper?


What if one has an appliance that has no removeable bonding jumper? I've encountered this more than once when, say, someone moves a perfectly good older dryer to a new home.

 

[LarryFine]

I am not sure where it says the outlets installed?

I see it says the branch circuits supplying the outlets installed....

Well, it has to say "outlets installed" in order to say "branch circuits supplying outlets installed." In this case, these are branch circuits supplying existing outlets, not outlets being installed. No outlets are being installed.

If the NEC applied to every existing installation, there would be no exceptions for existing installations, non-grounding receptacles, etc. Every installation would have to be brought to present requirements avery time.

 

[LarryFine]

I think Pierre is saying that any amount of wiring added to branch circuit wiring serving outlets that require afci will need to be protected . If you splice 18" of wire in the enclosure ,. you have added branch circuit wiring and there are outlets installed ,.so the AFCI is required . If no branch circuit wiring has been added no AFCI

Then, why not EGC's? Why are 2-wire receptacles permitted to remain? Why may now-non-compliant installations continue to be used, as long as they're intact?

We have generally agreed that existing work that was compliant with codes in force at the time of installation is not required to be brought up to present codes.

Why is this situation different?

 

[JWCELECTRIC]

Not gray at all to me. There's a differenve between adding an outlet and extending the HR with no new outlets.

So Larry,

You still think there is no Gray area on this article? I agree that the code needs to be more specific on 210.12(B), we still have to argue for the next couple of years, maybe by 2011 they may get it right.

- JWC

 

[LarryFine]

So Larry,

You still think there is no Gray area on this article? I agree that the code needs to be more specific on 210.12(B), we still have to argue for the next couple of years, maybe by 2011 they may get it right.

No more gray than many other sections of the NEC.

210.12(B) specifically says "... branch circuits supplying outlets installed in ..." which, to me, refers to outlets we're installing.

Otherwise, every house in the USA (under NEC) would have to have AFCI's installed.

 

[M. D.]

Given the Article 100 Definition: 18" of new conductor spliced onto an existing branch circuit within the new service panel doesn't constitute a Branch Circuit.

No, perhaps not , though it is branch circuit wiring

If the NEC language was "All, and any part thereof, branch circuits . . ." there would be an arguement.

so they are not ,..conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

 

[al hildenbrand]

Originally Posted by al hildenbrand
Given the Article 100 Definition: 18" of new conductor spliced onto an existing branch circuit within the new service panel doesn't constitute a Branch Circuit.

No, perhaps not , though it is branch circuit wiring

Interesting turn of phrase, M.D. It goes exactly to my point that I did a poor job of illustrating with "and every part thereof".

210.12(B) is not written:

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuit wiring supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit . . .

Rather, the Article 100 two-word term "branch circuit" is used in the plural.

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit . . .

And Exception No. 1 tells us how less than the "branch circuit" can be AFCI protected when certain methods are used.

So, the phrase "branch circuits supplying outlets installed", though awkward, is about the outlets installed on the branch circuit. Putting six feet of new cable on the original homerun at the OCPD, with no new outlet, doesn't invoke 210.12(B) as no new outlet is installed on the branch circuit.

 

[al hildenbrand]

You are adding a new portion of the branch circuit (extending) from new panel to the existing branch circuit correct! Need a AFCI per 210.12(B) where it says (All) that would mean all of the new part of the branch circuit. How does the NEC discribe All?

The exact language of 210.12(B) doesn't read

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuit wiring supplying outlets installed in

Nor does it say

All of the wiring in the 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in

Rather, the "All" is saying that if there are more than one "branch circuit" serving the outlets in the areas specified, then "all" "branch circuits" must have AFCI protection. This isn't gray at all.

 

[M. D.]

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit . . .

now with the definition of branch circuit

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s), supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit . . .

So I install wiring,. today,... between these to points and it does not have to be AFCI ,.. I'm not seeing it :-?

 

[al hildenbrand]

now with the definition of branch circuit

All 120-volt, single phase, 15- and 20-ampere circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s), supplying outlets installed in dwelling unit . . .

So I install wiring,. today,... between these t(w)o points and it does not have to be AFCI ,.. I'm not seeing it :-?

For the question in the OP, the "point" that is an Outlet is missing.

 

[M. D.]

so the argument is that the existing outlets cannot be effected by this code because that would be retroactive code? and that ,..the requirement applies if only both are installed at the time of this code?

 

[al hildenbrand]

so the argument is that the existing outlets cannot be effected by this code because that would be retroactive code? and that ,..the requirement applies if only both are installed at the time of this code?

:smile:

Well, to carry my point to the extreme, . . .

Hypothetical situation: A receptacle outlet could be installed in a bed under the NEC pre-210.12(B) and have never been connected to a "branch circuit" (installer and inspector oversight). Later, say today, under the 2008 NEC, one connects a branch circuit, a branch circuit connected to an OCPD, to that same receptacle outlet. The old receptacle outlet is added to the "branch circuit", now, and, since the complete "branch circuit" to the old receptacle outlet is new, i.e., it had never been installed with the original receptacle outlet, 210.12(B) is invoked. Before there wasn't a complete branch circuit, after, the branch circuit is completed, for the first time, to the old receptacle outlet.

A different hypothetical: A bedroom branch circuit has a homerun to its OCPD. This bedroom is wired to a pre-210.12(B) NEC. The homerun passes through a kitchen on the way. Today, under the 2008 NEC, a kitchen remodel occurs, and the alterations require the electrician to replace 20' of original bedroom branch circuit homerun, and reroute the homerun along a new path 28' long. No new outlets are added on the bedroom branch circuit. 210.12(B) is NOT invoked, in this case, because the "branch circuit" existed before, under a previous Code, and continues to exist. The wiring method(s) installed in the reroute, the new path 28' long, would be installed to the requirements of today's NEC, but 210.12(B) isn't invoked because a new branch circuit is not added.

 

[M. D.]

:smile:

Well, to carry my point to the extreme, . . .

Hypothetical situation: A receptacle outlet could be installed in a bed under the NEC pre-210.12(B) and have never been connected to a "branch circuit" (installer and inspector oversight).

:-? This would not have been a receptacle outlet as defined, I do agree that to make it one today would require AFCI protection.

The op added 6' ,.. what if the 6' started at the ocpd and ended at the existing receptacle outlet??