Switched branch circuits for general recepts & lighting

[iwire]

If you search in the proposals forum, you'll see a proposal that helped bring it into the code and that originally, I had intended for it to be all-inclusive, and that the CMP changed it to only have effect if you were switching a receptacle to skip hanging a light.

Edit: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=75931

Charlies rule ......... even if you wrote it you don't know what it means.

 

[George Stolz]

As a general rule perhaps, but I've got a pretty good grasp on this one.

 

[hurk27]

No, that is not what it requires.
The OP is not adding a switch under the allowances of exception 1 of 210.70(A)(1) so 210.52(2) does not apply.

You can add a 'master switch' to kill all power to all outlets.

I agree that the way it is written that you are correct, but I do not think it was the intent?

Heres an excerpt from the handbook:

An outlet containing a duplex receptacle and wired so that only
one of the receptacles is controlled by a wall switch can be used to
meet the receptacle outlet spacing requirement. However, if
both halves are controlled by a wall switch(es), an additional
unswitched receptacle has to be installed to meet the receptacle
outlet spacing requirement. An outlet where both
halves of the duplex receptacle are controlled by a wall
switch may result in the occupant using an extension cord,
run from an outlet or device that is not controlled by a
switch, to supply appliances or equipment that require continuous
power, such as an electric clock.
According to listing requirements [see

The whole intent is to prevent the use of extension cords, this was also the response we have got from other code panel members when asked if you can switch all the receptacles in a room.

Under this interpretation then once a wall switch controlled lighting outlet is installed in a room, then you can switch any or all receptacles as you are no longer required to meet 210.52 wall space requirements as the switch receptacle should be ok for the required wall space receptacle?

 

[iwire]

I agree that the way it is written that you are correct, but I do not think it was the intent?

Ask George the intent, he put in the proposal.

IMO the intent is to make sure that when you use receptacles in place of lighting outlets you still must have a live receptacle when the light switch is off. But you could have a second switch that killed the whole room

Or do you think the code is trying to prevent HOs from being able to shut things off? If that is what you think I would say you are crazy.

 

[George Stolz]

As Bob noted in the thread I linked to (the thread that begot my proposal), a requirement to restrict switching a receptacle (period) is pretty much too onerous to entertain. Preventing a switched receptacle that is standing in lieu of a luminaire from being fully switched is as far as the panel wanted to take it.

My proposal would have required no switching ahead of the 210.52 receptacles period, and they dialed it back to require unswitched power if the exception to 210.70(A)(1) were used, as Hartwell proposed.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So if all the outlets are switched with no other form of switching in the bedroom then it would still appear to be a violation.

 

[hurk27]

As Bob noted in the thread I linked to (the thread that begot my proposal), a requirement to restrict switching a receptacle (period) is pretty much too onerous to entertain. Preventing a switched receptacle that is standing in lieu of a luminaire from being fully switched is as far as the panel wanted to take it.

My proposal would have required no switching ahead of the 210.52 receptacles period, and they dialed it back to require unswitched power if the exception to 210.70(A)(1) were used, as Hartwell proposed.

I see what your saying and after going back and reading the requirements in older versions of the NEC, I see much confusion in this, as far back as 1999 NEC up to the 2005 NEC as this exception in 210.52(2) was located under 210.52(B)(1) Small Appliances as exception 1, which was very strange as 210.70(a)(1) exception excluded bathrooms and kitchens:

Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.

After the move to put it just under 210.52(2) in 2008 there was no change to the exception in 210.70(A)(1) that still reads as in the quote above, which leads me to believe we are not allowed to use this exception for bathrooms or kitchens???

It's all confusing:blink:

Unfortunately the 2008 changes are the only ones so I'm not sure if searching any earlier proposals would turn up any more info?

 

[George Stolz]

Agreed, if there's no luminaire in the room.

 

[iwire]

So if all the outlets are switched with no other form of switching in the bedroom then it would still appear to be a violation.

Unless there is a hard wired light fixture or unless you have a lighting switch and a second switch to kill it all.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Unless there is a hard wired light fixture or unless you have a lighting switch and a second switch to kill it all.

Agreed...

 

[George Stolz]

I see what your saying and after going back and reading the requirements in older versions of the NEC, I see much confusion in this, as far back as 1999 NEC up to the 2005 NEC as this exception in 210.52(2) was located under 210.52(B)(1) Small Appliances as exception 1, which was very strange as 210.70(a)(1) exception excluded bathrooms and kitchens:

210.52(B)(1)ex1 is for the dining, breakfast rooms mentioned. It acts to allow a switched receptacle from a lighting circuit as opposed to SABCs.

After the move to put it just under 210.52(2) in 2008 there was no change to the exception in 210.70(A)(1) that still reads as in the quote above, which leads me to believe we are not allowed to use this exception for bathrooms or kitchens???

It's all confusing:blink:

Unfortunately the 2008 changes are the only ones so I'm not sure if searching any earlier proposals would turn up any more info?

What's confusing you?

210.52(2) does not replace anything. It's an additional requirement.

 

[mwm1752]

I'm seeing all the feed back with much appreciation. Bottom line -- with fixed lighting in place within the bedroom and the branch circuit that also supplys the required spacing of recepacles in that room is being controled by a convenient wall swithing system in that room, do the receptacled in the room meet the required spacing of recepacles. I would know I can make it code compliant by putting a 4 plex at every opening, 2 circuits per location, giving the owner options to have the required spacing and fully switch receptacles. I cannot control whether the owner options to keep the overcurrent device off for my general receptacles. If I try to stay with a single yoke then i would have issue with simontaneously disconnecting the two circuits. Remember this is due to the owners belief in EMF's.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I'm seeing all the feed back with much appreciation. Bottom line -- with fixed lighting in place within the bedroom and the branch circuit that also supplys the required spacing of recepacles in that room is being controled by a convenient wall swithing system in that room, do the receptacled in the room meet the required spacing of recepacles. I would know I can make it code compliant by putting a 4 plex at every opening, 2 circuits per location, giving the owner options to have the required spacing and fully switch receptacles. I cannot control whether the owner options to keep the overcurrent device off for my general receptacles. If I try to stay with a single yoke then i would have issue with simontaneously disconnecting the two circuits. Remember this is due to the owners belief in EMF's.

If there is a wall switch that controls the lighting and another switch that controls the receptacles then I believe you are compliant.

 

[Strathead]

I'm seeing all the feed back with much appreciation. Bottom line -- with fixed lighting in place within the bedroom and the branch circuit that also supplys the required spacing of recepacles in that room is being controled by a convenient wall swithing system in that room, do the receptacled in the room meet the required spacing of recepacles. I would know I can make it code compliant by putting a 4 plex at every opening, 2 circuits per location, giving the owner options to have the required spacing and fully switch receptacles. I cannot control whether the owner options to keep the overcurrent device off for my general receptacles. If I try to stay with a single yoke then i would have issue with simontaneously disconnecting the two circuits. Remember this is due to the owners belief in EMF's.

Or you could just put an overhead light on a switch in the room

 

[ngd4130]

Crazy...

Crazy...

210.52(B)(1)ex1 is for the dining, breakfast rooms mentioned. It acts to allow a switched receptacle from a lighting circuit as opposed to SABCs.

What's confusing you?

210.52(2) does not replace anything. It's an additional requirement.

How crazy is this thread... in hospitals they use lead in the walls to deflect EMF. Is there a restriction to having lead walls in residential????

If someone would want to turn off those circuits, IMO they should turn it off at the panel box. Re-locate the panel box & have switched breakers present.

 

[GoldDigger]

How crazy is this thread... in hospitals they use lead in the walls to deflect EMF. Is there a restriction to having lead walls in residential????

Lead is great at blocking the E component of EM waves, but is of little use in shielding what is, at 60Hz, essentially a static magnetic field. As long as no current is flowing in the circuit, fine. But when current is flowing the biggest payback comes from keeping circuit wires in close proximity and if possible twisted.

 

[mwm1752]

Dennis,
Your comments;
"If you switch the entire receptacle then it would not comply unless a non switched outlet were installed also."
and
"If there is a wall switch that controls the lighting and another switch that controls the receptacles then I believe you are compliant."

Are you saying -- If there is a wall switch that controls the lighting and another switch that controls every duplex receptacles in the room then non switch receptacles are not needed to satify the NEC receptacle spacing requirement?
or
Do you advocate that non switched receptacles are still required ?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis,
Your comments;
"If you switch the entire receptacle then it would not comply unless a non switched outlet were installed also."
and
"If there is a wall switch that controls the lighting and another switch that controls the receptacles then I believe you are compliant."

Are you saying -- If there is a wall switch that controls the lighting and another switch that controls every duplex receptacles in the room then non switch receptacles are not needed to satify the NEC receptacle spacing requirement?
or
Do you advocate that non switched receptacles are still required ?

I am saying the former-- that if there is a wall switch that controls lighting and another switch that controls all the duplex in the room then non switch receptacles are not needed.

 

[mwm1752]

Thankyou

 

[iwire]

How crazy is this thread... in hospitals they use lead in the walls to deflect EMF.

No, that is shielding from Xrays and the like and it is only used around xray equipment.