3 12-3 supplying kitchen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris, this was an ROP that was accepted and appears to have gone through all comments to date, so it will most likely be that all MWBC's will require handle ties in 2008.

Roger
 
What are you guys going to do in 2008 when the AF breakers must be installed. Say good bye to the MWBC or pay for the cost of a 240V AFCI. I hate to see two areas go out if there is only a problem on one.
 
roger said:
Chris, this was an ROP that was accepted and appears to have gone through all comments to date, so it will most likely be that all MWBC's will require handle ties in 2008.

Roger
Click to expand...


Let's hope a last minute effort is able to ditch this proposal. The thought of shutting off 3 circuits to work on one is ridiculous. This will go over well in an office building where three lighting circuits may shut down the entire floor.
 
infinity said:
This will go over well in an office building where three lighting circuits may shut down the entire floor.
Click to expand...

IMO what this will really mean is the death of most MWBCs and that may just be what supporters of this new requirement are after.

More material more labor....
 
infinity said:
The thought of shutting off 3 circuits to work on one is ridiculous. This will go over well in an office building where three lighting circuits may shut down the entire floor.
Click to expand...

What about rec. cirs. serving computers? Lets bring their business to a halt for an hour or so.
 
At the risk of being labeled a tree hugger, the fallout of this (unnecessary IMO) proposition will be increased use of natural resources, fuel to generate electricity, and the pollution that accompanies both, not to mention the already mentioned inconveniences.

With all the safeguarding why do we need a definition of Qualified Person?

Roger
 
I think that the definition of a Qualified Person would make it easier to keep the MWBC. Training individuals to install and maintain MWBCs would make it so the handle ties in certain instances would not be necessary, eliminating that 2008 proposal.
 
infinity said:
Let's hope a last minute effort is able to ditch this proposal. The thought of shutting off 3 circuits to work on one is ridiculous. This will go over well in an office building where three lighting circuits may shut down the entire floor.
Click to expand...
Is the ROP/proposed change for '08 going to affect NON dwelling units (in regards to AFIC...NJ, notwithstanding)???

(No, I haven't read the document)

EDIT:
Unless I brezzed past it, I noticed NO changes/indications that AFCI protection would enter the non-dwelling arena.
Correct me if I have misread the ROP.
 
Last edited:
Celtic, see Proposal 2-10, from Dorothy Kellogg. This effects all installations that would use a multiwire branch circuit, they'd all require handle ties. They'd be legal with handle ties, but that small comfort with many cases in which they're used.

Combine this with the AFCI requirement, and it essentially spells the death of MWBCs in the dwelling unit if accepted as it left the ROC. Installers will have to install two-pole AFCIs if they are to comply with the proposed 210.4.
 
roger said:
Chris, this was an ROP that was accepted and appears to have gone through all comments to date, so it will most likely be that all MWBC's will require handle ties in 2008.
Click to expand...



Interesting. So it looks like those who oppose MWBC's scored a victory in a back handed way. Well, it makes sense. If you can't beat something directly, try another angle. It worked this time.

As mentioned, requiring the use of handle ties will just about eliminate the use of MWBC's in non-residential settings. Circuiting is going to be a real hassle now with parking lot lighting, because no one is going to want to install handle ties on MWBC's for any lighting circuit.

Another rule designed to protect unqualified people worms its way into the NEC. Great. :rolleyes:
 
in this case I must agree that the pros out weigh the cons and I would have no problem putting a dishwasher and disposal on the same circuit. If you make a proper connection and all your tails are spliced correctly there should be no cause for concern. If some HO or dimwitted individual comes along and upsets that splice than the responsibility rest on that person. I mean think about it how many times does a disposal get used? Why spend the resources running that extra line when more can be achieved with less. Just teach your people the importance about proper connections. What ever happens after that is not in your hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top