20 amp circuits

[FionaZuppa]

There have been a number of proposal to require only an single receptacle outlet on an individual branch circuit. They were all rejected by the Code Making Panel.

if that was the actual ask then its obvious why that was rejected, because a indi-bc is not limited to receptacle terminations.

fix the art-100 def and this issue can likely go away. or, add clarity in every section that talks about the requirement for a indi-bc.

i think fixin art-100 def is easier.

and i believe from nec code, you technically dont need indi-bc under some circumstances, eg; the device is rated no more than 50% of the bc's rated ocpd, something like that. so if you have a fridge that is rated 10A you dont need indi-bc if the bc is 20A, etc. <-- but pls check me on this, i used fridge as example, but perhaps this is limited to perm mounted utility device?
but, is nec trying to enforce all future probabilities (they technically cannot), lets say that 10A fridge (or util device) is replaced with a 15A item, thats ok for the BC but not ok under nec verbiage. i guess this would be a AHJ call.

 

[mwm1752]

What is silly is ignoring the code defined words the CMP chose to use and enforcing what you think it should say.

The handbook is not the code and simply the opinions of the writers

The handbook is not the code and simply the opinions of the writers---- use that as a quote -- BTW I never stated the handbook examples were code but the handbook contains the exact same words of the NFPA 70 -- & who better to form an opinion from but the writers of the code -- aren't the opinion writers ofthe code referrer to CMP also -- you are cracking me up here -- don't ignore the code words defined by the CMP but the opinions of the writers of the code should be ignored

 

[don_resqcapt19]

if that was the actual ask then its obvious why that was rejected, because a indi-bc is not limited to receptacle terminations.

...

It was asked to limit an individual branch circuit to a single receptacle if the circuit fed a receptacle. (blue = proposed new text) The proposal was made for the 2011 cold cycle.

2-9 Log #2568 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
(100.Branch Circuit, Individual)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Charles Palmieri, Palmieri Assoc.

Recommendation: Add the following text (as indicated) to the definition;

Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment, or a single receptacle.

Substantiation:
Duplex receptacles are commonly installed for cord and plugconnected appliances, which in many cases (by manufactures standard) require an individual branch circuit. Once the duplex receptacle is installed, the circuit becomes a multi-outlet branch circuit. I am not certain that this was the intent of the manufacturer when it required an individual branch circuit, nor was it the intent of the panel when it adopted the definition of individual branch circuit as it is now written. This issue is further exasperated when one refers to
exhibit 100.7 of the 2008 Handbook. The illustration implies that only a single contact device may be installed on a individual branch circuit. If the language is modified as I have proposed, a lot of arguments may be put to rest in the field.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The panel does not agree that a single receptacle is required. A receptacle other than a single receptacle could be used, and other means such as configuration or arrangement of the equipment could limit the application to a single utilization equipment.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

 

[iwire]

The handbook is not the code and simply the opinions of the writers---- use that as a quote -- BTW I never stated the handbook examples were code but the handbook contains the exact same words of the NFPA 70 -- & who better to form an opinion from but the writers of the code -- aren't the opinion writers ofthe code referrer to CMP also -- you are cracking me up here -- don't ignore the code words defined by the CMP but the opinions of the writers of the code should be ignored

Correct, the opinions of the handbook authors are just opinions. They most likely where not CMP members or even if they where they where likely not involved in each code change.

Look in the front pages of your handbook and you will find this.

The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not a part of the NFPA Document and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA (which can be obtained only through requests processed by the responsible technical committees in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA). The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore, solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees.

As far as the CMPs, Don has now posted exactly what the CMPs believe.

A single receptacle is not required for an individual branch circuit.

 

[iwire]

fix the art-100 def and this issue can likely go away.

There is no safety issue to be put away.

Here is a for instance.

Lets say I have a maintenance shop, I buy a 40 amp pressure washer. Per its listing it requires an individual branch circuit. Yet I want to use it all around my shop without long cords, so I install a number of receptacles on an individual branch circuit that only serves that one piece of utilization equipment where ever I happen to roll too.


If the NEC was as restrictive as many here feel it is, I would have run entirely separate branch circuits for each location the machine might be used.

That would wasteful and would not provide any added safety.

 

[FionaZuppa]

from post #43

Substantiation:
Duplex receptacles are commonly installed for cord and plugconnected appliances, which in many cases (by manufactures standard) require an individual branch circuit. Once the duplex receptacle is installed, the circuit becomes a multi-outlet branch circuit.

i say BS to that statement. one duplexed yoke on the end of a BC is not a multi-outlet bc
the proposal was rejected anyways, but folks need to argue this stuff correctly

Art-100

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.

Receptacle. A receptacle is a contact device installed at the outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. A single receptacle is a single contact device with no other contact
device on the same yoke. A multiple receptacle is two or more contact devices on the same yoke.

Receptacle Outlet. An outlet where one or more receptacles
are installed.

also, this is nonsense statement

Panel Statement: The panel does not agree that a single receptacle is required. A receptacle other than a single receptacle could be used, and other means such as configuration or arrangement of the equipment could limit the application to a single utilization equipment.

again, BS. "a receptacle" by art-100 definition is a single receptacle, thus the panel's statement makes no sense. a duplexed "receptacle" device has two receptacles on same yoke, etc. perhaps they meant to say, "a device that is other than a single receptacle, as example per art-100 definitions, a Receptacle Outlet" ??

i think even the panel itself gets confused by nec verbiage

 

[FionaZuppa]

how the proposal could have been phrased is like this

Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment, or one Receptacle Outlet.

this covers hardwire and plug-in

 

[iwire]

how the proposal could have been phrased is like this

Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment, or one Receptacle Outlet.

this covers hardwire and plug-in

And it still would have been turned down based on the panel statement.

Panel Statement: The panel does not agree that a single receptacle is required. A receptacle other than a single receptacle could be used, and other means such as configuration or arrangement of the equipment could limit the application to a single utilization equipment.

 

[mwm1752]

And it still would have been turned down based on the panel statement.

maybe the CMP should be included in the code so that the wording can be interpreted without accessing a web site -- your example of multiple locations to plug in a preassure washer is nothing more than a general branch circuit IMO -- Just to let you know by your definition I could set 100 duplexes throughout a garage & claim it was for a drill press that I move around for a manufacture required individual branch circuit --

 

[ActionDave]

maybe the CMP should be included in the code so that the wording can be interpreted without accessing a web site -- your example of multiple locations to plug in a preassure washer is nothing more than a general branch circuit IMO -- Just to let you know by your definition I could set 100 duplexes throughout a garage & claim it was for a drill press that I move around for a manufacture required individual branch circuit --

And this is a safety issue or a design issue? I see no safety issue with the code as written.

 

[iwire]

Just to let you know by your definition I could set 100 duplexes throughout a garage & claim it was for a drill press that I move around for a manufacture required individual branch circuit --

Yes, you could and the CMP would be fine with that

This is simply a case of the code not prohibiting what you feel it should.

 

[FionaZuppa]

And it still would have been turned down based on the panel statement.

ah geez, not following me. a Receptacle Outlet does not mean a single receptacle. one quad duplex would still be compliant, one duplex recept would still be compliant :thumbsup:

maybe the CMP should be included in the code so that the wording can be interpreted without accessing a web site -- your example of multiple locations to plug in a preassure washer is nothing more than a general branch circuit IMO -- Just to let you know by your definition I could set 100 duplexes throughout a garage & claim it was for a drill press that I move around for a manufacture required individual branch circuit --

you did not quote me, but right, if art-100 def reference a "Recptacle Outlet" then you could not have 100 boxes around the room, etc.

 

[iwire]

ah geez, not following me. a Receptacle Outlet does not mean a single receptacle. one quad duplex would still be compliant, one duplex recept would still be compliant :thumbsup:

Oh geez, you still don't get it. The CMP is not looking to limit it to one outlet of any type.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Oh geez, you still don't get it. The CMP is not looking to limit it to one outlet of any type.

i think that is the exact intention or the nec verbiage. a single OUTLET, which has nothing to do with receptacles. you see it now?

the panel quotes thus far are around receptacles, the panel is ok with more than a single receptacle, thats all i see from what you all posted already. and the panel was replying to a proposal and making comments about receptacles, etc.

a indi-bc for the micro which also supplies juice to a single receptacle outlet on the counter is a no, but a single outlet w/ duplex or quad receptacle for the micro is ok.

i not trying to be a hard hat, but do you see what i mean?

 

[wwhitney]

i think that is the exact intention or the nec verbiage. a single OUTLET, which has nothing to do with receptacles. you see it now?

The definition writers are smart enough to know the difference between "outlet" and "utilization equipment". Why do you think they chose to write "one utilization equipment" if they meant "one outlet"? They didn't, they meant "one utilization equipment" and chose that precisely to allow multiple outlets for a single piece of utilization equipment.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[FionaZuppa]

The definition writers are smart enough to know the difference between "outlet" and "utilization equipment". Why do you think they chose to write "one utilization equipment" if they meant "one outlet"? They didn't, they meant "one utilization equipment" and chose that precisely to allow multiple outlets for a single piece of utilization equipment.

Cheers, Wayne

so, ya think AHJ would ever pass these wire-ups:

1) 4 outlets in the cab above the mounted plug-in micro, each outlet has a duplex receptacle, all of the receptacles (the only ones) are at the end of a BC.
2) a BC feeds one outlet single recept in the cab above the mounted plug-in micro, that BC also extends to 3 outlets in a closet each having a duplex recept, but the BC was installed for the micro and there is no intention of using the recepts in the closet due to closet location & size.

if a util equipment has 9 plug-ins you can still do that within a single outlet :thumbsup:

so regardless of what is plugged in or hard wired, art-100 def for indi-bc is not correct imho. why does it reference a type of load/device and not a description of termination? the def does not need "util equip", that can be replaced with "Outlet" . the art-100 def for "Outlet" already references "util equipment", etc

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.

see what i am saying?

i believe the intention of indi-bc is a single "outlet".
and, change indi-bc def to "Branch Circuit, Dedicated. A branch circuit that supplies
only one outlet"
you want to put a 4gang w/ 4 duplex recepts in that one outlet, ok.

would that not fix this issue, and still be ok for the nec book?

 

[iwire]

i think that is the exact intention or the nec verbiage. a single OUTLET, which has nothing to do with receptacles. you see it now?

the panel quotes thus far are around receptacles, the panel is ok with more than a single receptacle, thats all i see from what you all posted already. and the panel was replying to a proposal and making comments about receptacles, etc.

a indi-bc for the micro which also supplies juice to a single receptacle outlet on the counter is a no, but a single outlet w/ duplex or quad receptacle for the micro is ok.

i not trying to be a hard hat, but do you see what i mean?

Wow

Such a simple thing and it can't be explained.

One piece of 'utilzation equipment' is the intent. As many outlets of any kind are not prohibited and the intent is not to prohibit multiple receptacles or outlets.

End of story, it is that simple

 

[wwhitney]

i believe the intention of indi-bc is a single "outlet".
and, change indi-bc def to "Branch Circuit, Dedicated. A branch circuit that supplies
only one outlet"

So go ahead and make a proposal for the 2020 NEC. From the evidence posted in this thread, I doubt the CMP will agree with you.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[FionaZuppa]

so as the example already given. a 20A BC that has 20 outlets around the garage for the purpose of supplying juice to my drill press. and when inspector comes i just tell him/her that "yeah, those outlets around the garage are just there for my 800lb 18A drill press, thats why we installed a indi-bc, just for the drill press, but you know, we might move or replace the drill press from time to time"

if the intent was not to restrict # of outlets then please explain the purpose of the art-100 def of indi-bc.

...... As many outlets of any kind are not prohibited and the intent is not to prohibit multiple receptacles or outlets.

100% agree for the item in red, do not agree for the item in blue. i do not agree because of the simple example i gave above, which turns the bc back into art-100 gp-bc.

 

[mwm1752]

Yes, you could and the CMP would be fine with that

This is simply a case of the code not prohibiting what you feel it should.

you must work with special type inspectors that believe all -- with you example their is no reason for a definition of individual branch circuit