Annoyed by code violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother

Senior Member
Location
"I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewi
Im just tired of seeing this done over and over again. I know it may seem petty to some, but there's a remodel going on and I had mention this before, but when you have a duplex receptacle with 2 circuits, (one feeding the top, the other the bottom) then you are suppose to have a common disconnect for it. I see these circuits that are too far apart and you cant put a handle tie on them, For example, ckt 9 and ckt 25. None of these receptacles have the common handled tie. Its not like its hard to follow this code requirement, but some guys you just cant say anything to. Ok, Im done venting.
 
brother said:
Im just tired of seeing this done over and over again. I know it may seem petty to some, but there's a remodel going on and I had mention this before, but when you have a duplex receptacle with 2 circuits, (one feeding the top, the other the bottom) then you are suppose to have a common disconnect for it. I see these circuits that are too far apart and you cant put a handle tie on them, For example, ckt 9 and ckt 25. None of these receptacles have the common handled tie. Its not like its hard to follow this code requirement, but some guys you just cant say anything to. Ok, Im done venting.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see this installed this way and or enforced as of yet. It irritates me that because some are too simple to figure out proper phasing that this code has to be enactd to help uneducated electricians get it right.
 
Code violation now but not in the past. I would guess it depends on the code they use and when it was done. I agree I don't like to see it either and think its poor practice to do so that way.
 
mikeames said:
Code violation now but not in the past. I would guess it depends on the code they use and when it was done. I agree I don't like to see it either and think its poor practice to do so that way.
Click to expand...

It's been a code requirement for as long as I can remember. Do you know when it first appeared?

edit: It just occurred to me you might not have seen where he said two circuits on the same device.
 
Last edited:
Just consider yourself lucky if they aren't on the same phase :smile:
A great deal of my "tool time" was in industry and the maintenance guys were constantly randomly moving circuits. maybe the new rules on MWBCs will cut back on it some
 
monkey said:
It's been a code requirement for as long as I can remember. Do you know when it first appeared?

edit: It just occurred to me you might not have seen where he said two circuits on the same device.
Click to expand...

Your right I had my head wrapped up in a MWBC and didn't think about the same yoke. In the past a MWBC did not have to have a common trip so long as thy were not on the same yoke or device. Now all MWBC's have to have a common trip.
 
brother said:
Im just tired of seeing this done over and over again. I know it may seem petty to some, but there's a remodel going on and I had mention this before, but when you have a duplex receptacle with 2 circuits, (one feeding the top, the other the bottom) then you are suppose to have a common disconnect for it. I see these circuits that are too far apart and you cant put a handle tie on them, For example, ckt 9 and ckt 25. None of these receptacles have the common handled tie. Its not like its hard to follow this code requirement, but some guys you just cant say anything to. Ok, Im done venting.
Click to expand...

You dont need a handle tie if you have 2 seperate circuits running to a device unless you are sharing the neutral..right?
 
slick 50 said:
You dont need a handle tie if you have 2 seperate circuits running to a device unless you are sharing the neutral..right?
Click to expand...

doesn't matter

210.7 Branch-Circuit Requirements for Device Connections
and Locations.
(B) Multiple Branch Circuits. Where two or more branch
circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke, a
means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors
supplying those devices shall be provided at the
point at which the branch circuits originate.
 
monkey said:
It's been a code requirement for as long as I can remember. Do you know when it first appeared?
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not that old of a requirement.

The citation that Twoskinsoneman posted, 210.7(B), was first introduced to the NEC only in 2002. In 2002 it appeared as 210.7(C).
 
why would you do that? 2 ckts, one device? I know the obvious reason, but why wouldn't you just have 2 sep. recepts??

I haven't ever run into this, is there a good reason to do it?
 
In 30 something years I don't remember ever seeing it either.

I guess if you had two pieces of equipment that plugged in, sat right next to each other and required dedicated circuits it would make sense.
 
SiddMartin said:
why would you do that? 2 ckts, one device? I know the obvious reason, but why wouldn't you just have 2 sep. recepts??

I haven't ever run into this, is there a good reason to do it?
Click to expand...

I have done this a couple of times. I remember one about 5-6 months ago. Very small work bench area. Some key-making machines right next to each other on a bench. Two of the machine needed dedicated 20 amp circuits due to their load so I just put them on the same recep.
 
SOP for dishwasher/disposals around here, 2 circuits on a 20A duplex on 2pole 20A breaker. The 2 pole breaker here is strictly enforced.
 
220/221 said:
In 30 something years I don't remember ever seeing it either.

I guess if you had two pieces of equipment that plugged in, sat right next to each other and required dedicated circuits it would make sense.
Click to expand...
The classic example I see of a MWBC fully connected on a single yoke occurs in pre-GFCI kitchen counter receptacles.

Put in a duplex and break out the tab at the hot terminals and both small appliance circuits can be at the single gang opening.
rcarroll said:
I found it in the '84 NEC 210.4. There was a line beside the code indicating a code change. 84 is the oldest code book in my office.
Click to expand...
The OP says "two circuits".

I think of a MWBC as a singular circuit.

The 2002 NEC addition of 210.7(C) made an important expansion, of the handle tie requirement beyond MWBCs, to include circuits that also have separate neutrals at the devices on a common yoke, that is two hots and two neutrals from two separate circuits.
 
One example of two separate circuits (not a MWBC) that I occasionally see in the wild is a single gang opening duplex receptacle where one device is 125 V 15 A grounding type and the other device, on the same yoke, is a 250 V 15 A grounding type.

This will have been installed for a window AC, commonly in the living room, and will have a two pole OCPD for the AC and the 125 V receptacle will be tagged onto a general lighting branch circuit.

If I were to assemble this today, I'd need a three pole handle tie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top