Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 210.23(A)(2)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
    Posts
    9,795

    210.23(A)(2)

    I was thinking of making a proposal to this as I couldn't see why it should be a code violation to run a 20 amp circuit to feed a disposal and a dishwasher in which we have never had a problem with this as long as no other receptacles were on this circuit and the total of both do not exceed the 80% rating of the branch circuit. and I was reading it and something jumped out at me that I haven't seen before in the text:

    (2) Utilization Equipment Fastened in Place. The total rating of utilization equipment fastened in place, other than Luminaires (lighting fixtures), shall not exceed 50 percent of the branch-circuit ampere rating where lighting units, cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment not fastened in place, or both, are also supplied.
    This part states that only when "lighting units or cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment not fastened in place are also supplied" should this article apply.
    To me what this is saying is that if this circuit only supply's fastened in place utilization equipment Then 210.23(A)(2) does not apply But then what does? because you shouldn't be able to use 210(A)(1) As that is for only one utilization equipment which would allow each to be 80% which would overload the circuit.

    To me there should be a 210.23(A)(3) that says:

    210.23(A)(3)
    The total rating of utilization equipment fastened in place, other than Luminaires (lighting fixtures), shall not exceed 80 percent of the branch-circuit ampere rating where no other outlets or loads are supplied
    Wayne A. From: N.W.Indiana
    Be Fair, Be Safe
    Just don't be fairly safe

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    1,321

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    I can see where your coming from. Take a look at the beginning of 210.23 and then at 210.11. Notice it refers to 220.4.

    210.23 Permissible Loads.
    In no case shall the load exceed the branch-circuit ampere rating. An individual branch circuit shall be permitted to supply any load for which it is rated. A branch circuit supplying two or more outlets or receptacles shall supply only the loads specified according to its size as specified in 210.23(A) through (D) and as summarized in 210.24 and Table 210.24.

    210.11 Branch Circuits Required.
    Branch circuits for lighting and for appliances, including motor-operated appliances, shall be provided to supply the loads computed in accordance with 220.3


    220.4 Maximum Loads.
    Dave Nix

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
    Posts
    9,795

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    Dave while I understand that other parts of the code does say "An individual branch circuit shall be permitted to supply any load for which it is rated" The problem is when we have more than one receptacle on this circuit. The the code directs us to use 210.23 (A) through( D)

    Which in this case we have to use (A) because of the circuit size. and (A) also requires us to use ether (1) or (2) depending upon which one fits the bill which is the reason of this thread in the first place because nether one fits. And the exception to 210.23(A) is to not include the required receptacles in 210.11(C)(1), (2), and (3) into this requirement. And since receptacles supplying cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment fastened in place do not fall under the SA circuits then we are to use 210.23(A) (1) or (2) which doesn't fit the circuit as it is written.
    And the problem has nothing to do with service calculation requirements of 220.4

    Here is the problem: We have been red tagged several times by AHJ's citing 210.23(A)(2) But I cant see where this code can fit this circuit as there is no fixtures or other receptacles for supplying cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment not fastened in place. thus blocking this code for use with this circuit. And I feel there should be an addition to cover this circuit and ones like it. And as far as the 80% goes maybe have it rated at 100% where no utilization equipment will be used for more than 3 hour's. I have never seen or heard using a disposal for more than a few minutes at a time. and the timer on a dishwasher would prevent it from being used that long.
    I would like to here some input from all if this is making any sense to them?

    And thank's in advance:
    Wayne A. From: N.W.Indiana
    Be Fair, Be Safe
    Just don't be fairly safe

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    6,102

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    Wayne, I think the Code already permits you to do what you already want to do. However, if you make a proposal to do just that, the panel will be forced to answer with "the Code already permits what the submitter is trying to accomplish" or "no, the panel doesn't agree with the submitter" and give reasons why not. In either case, you will have an official interpretation or a changed section of the Code that will make it more clear. The Code making process is used this way all the time.
    Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy
    Responses based on the 2011 NEC, unless stated otherwise.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    1,321

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    Wayne,

    I think I'm following now.

    We have been red tagged several times by AHJ's citing 210.23(A)(2)
    I do not see how this is a red tag.
    If I understand your method correctly, a 20A circuit supplies 2 cord connected appliances. One being the dishwasher and the other being the garbage disposal?
    Both are fastened in place, yes?
    Dave Nix

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,010

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    Originally posted by charlie:
    Wayne, I think the Code already permits you to do what you already want to do. However, if you make a proposal to do just that, the panel will be forced to answer with "the Code already permits what the submitter is trying to accomplish" or "no, the panel doesn't agree with the submitter" and give reasons why not. In either case, you will have an official interpretation or a changed section of the Code that will make it more clear. The Code making process is used this way all the time.
    I have used this approach with limited success; the most common CMP response being some form of "ask the AHJ," which is what I was usually trying to avoid in the first place since I was getting conflicting interpretations.

    I was lead engineer on a project that covered over 200 installations ("mini-marts" for a major gasoline distributor) in 17 States and something like 70 distinct jurisdictions. I often got 6-10 different interpretations on multiple issues, especially hazardous locations. :confused:
    Nevertheless, it's worth the shot and I've found it still helps me clarify my own approach to interpretations.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    "I know that you believe you understand what you think the NEC says, but I am not sure you realize that what you read is not what it means." (Corollary to Charlie's Rule)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
    Posts
    9,795

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    Dave, Yes that is correct.

    And to add to this 422.10(B) even refers us back to 210.23 when a circuit supply's more than one load. This again sends us to a dead end to which nothing applies to this circuit.


    422.10(B) Circuits Supplying Two or More Loads. For branch circuits supplying appliance and other loads, the rating shall be determined in accordance with 210.23.
    So I hope you can see my dilemma.

    And this is not the first time we discussed this here and this same problem was express in those threads also.
    Here: Red tags
    And here: Two motor on the same circuit

    I could go on and on at the amount of post where electricians have been told by their AHJ they have to have a separate circuit's for dishwashers and disposals.
    Wayne A. From: N.W.Indiana
    Be Fair, Be Safe
    Just don't be fairly safe

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    1,321

    Re: 210.23(A)(2)

    Wayne,

    The subject of 210.23 is "Permissible Loads" as oppossed to "Maximum Loads" and concerns it's self with "specified according to its (the circuit) size" and includes the table as a reference also which states "This table provides only a summary of minimum requirements."

    I think the confussion comes in because we are mis-applying this section to mean "Required" or "Maximum" circuit size or loads.
    Dave Nix

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •