Add text to 210.52

[George Stolz]

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52
2.) Proposal Recommends: [new text]
3.) Proposal: Add the following to 210.52.

Receptacles in the areas defined in this section shall be permitted to be switched, provided uninterrupted receptacles are installed at the spacings required by this section.

4.) Substantiation: Late for work, will write one.

My reason is, my living room switched recep is totally switched--no half-hot. A receptacle does exist at the required spacing, hence it's compliant with 210.52.

(No, I'm not writing a proposal because the dude who wired my house is a putz.)

[ April 15, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[charlie]

Re: Add text to 210.52

(No, I'm not writing a proposal because the dude who wired my house is a putz.)

George . . . UH . . . did you wire your own house.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Add text to 210.52

.....uhh....maybe....

4. Substantiation: As this section is currently written, there is no prohibition from allowing the required receptacles to be switched. A requirement that constant power is required at the intervals specified in 210.52(A)(1), and (C)(1) would add clarity to the existing text.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Add text to 210.52

Goerge,
first off, my company wires these as you are looking for, half-hot, or split, whatever you want to call them.

But isn't what you propose in reality a convenience, hence a design issue?
Todd

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Add text to 210.52

On the surface, I would agree, Todd. But what happens in this scenario? If the receptacle is used for a lamp, and there is a device that requires full time power next to this receptacle, an extension cord would be needed.

One main purpose of 210.52 is to reduce and attempt to eliminate extension cord use in the home, IMO. It isn't referred to as the "6' & 12' suggestion", it's the "6' & 12' rule."

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Add text to 210.52

From a CODE perspective, a person could leave the wall switch in the 'On' position so that the receptacle is always 'hot'. A floor lamp has a switch to turn in on and off.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Add text to 210.52

Do you think they intend to allow a person to switch off every receptacle required by 210.52? That doesn't seem right, does it?

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Add text to 210.52

If you so desire you can switch every receptacle in the house.Switch the refrig,dish washer,water heater,cook top,SA and all the gp receptacles.

 

[physis]

Re: Add text to 210.52

Well I think the whole 6' or 12', whichever you want to call it, rule is a design issue.

But none the less, I agree with the proposal.

It's pretty common in after market work to be asked to "fix that".

Edit: The letters keep rearranging themselves after I click the post button.

[ April 16, 2005, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Add text to 210.52

Originally posted by physis:
Well I think the whole 6' or 12', whichever you want to call it, rule is a design issue.

I am with you on that.

 

[George Stolz]

I can't be made happy, even when I succeed! :twisted:

2-189 Log #1409 NEC-P02 Action: Accept in Principle
(210.52)

Submitter: George Stolz, Pierce, CO
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Panel Statement: The recommended action is accomplished through the panel action on Proposal 2-190.

2-190 Log #3324 NEC-P02 Action: Accept in Principle
(210.52)
Submitter: Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services, Inc. / Rep. Massachusetts Electrical Code Advisory Committee
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise the second sentence in 210.52 to read:
The receptacles outlets required by this section shall be in addition to any receptacle that is part of a luminaire (lighting fixture) or appliance, or is controlled by a wall switch in accordance with 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1, or is located within cabinets or cupboards, or is located more than 1.7 m (5? ft) above the floor.
Panel Statement: The changes made by the panel provide additional clarity and address the submitter?s concerns.

Nuts and fiddlesticks! Why can't they just say "for lighting purposes" instead of referring to 210.70(A)(1) Exception 1 all the time?

If I install a luminaire to comply with 210.70(A)(1), then I can install a fully switched receptacle regardless of the exception! :x

Or am I misreading this?

 

[iwire]

George here is what I think about this one.

IMO you are looking at this kind of backward.

If I install a luminaire to comply with 210.70(A)(1), then I can install a fully switched receptacle regardless of the exception!

As Jim Walker pointed out there is no 'prohibition' against switching every receptacle in the house for any purpose.

A customer wants separate switches by the kitchen door for each SA receptacle you can do that.

A customer wants to have one switch at the exit door to kill every circuit in the house you can do that as well.

210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1 is not permission to switch the 210.52 required outlets, we don't need permission for that we where never prohibited from switching those receptacles.

210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1 is only about lighting outlets and the permission to provide a switched receptacle in lieu of a lighting outlet. There is no directive to make it one of the 210.52 receptacles or not.


2-190 Log #3324 NEC-P02 should be shot down, for one thing as written;

is controlled by a wall switch in accordance with 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1

Means I can still switch 210.52 required receptacles when switched for any other reason than 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1

IMHO this really is crossing a line from safety to design.

I grew up in a home that did not use the 'half switched' method.

Yes it was darn inconvenient at times.

Compliance therewith and proper maintenance will result in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

:wink:

 

[George Stolz]

It's such a difficult line to draw, once they delve into design in the name of "safety".

I've thought about this off and on, and I actually believe this is good as it sits, I retract my opinion about the "210.70(A)(1) exception" complaint. In a circumstance where this is exercised, the very minimum is being used.

In the case of a light and a switched receptacle in the same room (voiding the .70 exception), then the free market will likely make the installation as "safe" as the code could. The customer will prevail, they're noisier than a code book most of the time. An extension cord will not likely be used in a house with a light and a switched receptacle, IMO.

I think I am happy with the result of this proposal.