I recently did a kitchen remodel in which I used a multi wire branch circuit to feed the dishwasher and garbage disposal. The inspector turned down the job citing that a common trip breaker was required to feed the dishwasher and disposal. When I inquired why, his response was "I don't do this for fun, I do this for a living". No electrician I work with has ever heard of this requirement. Our company doesn't do much residential work so is there such a requirement? Perhaps in the South Florida Building Code?
Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
- Thread starter sparky349
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
It's not an NEC requirement.
It's not an NEC requirement.
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
If you fed one duplex receptacle with the multiwire circuit than you must use a two pole breaker.
If you fed one duplex receptacle with the multiwire circuit than you must use a two pole breaker.
volt101
Senior Member
- Location
- New Hampshire
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Was the dishwasher and disposal cord and plug connected and the receptacle that they plug into is a split wired duplex receptacle?
The common trip, however, still confuses me as to why he would require it. Maybe it was just a common handle required?
Jim
Was the dishwasher and disposal cord and plug connected and the receptacle that they plug into is a split wired duplex receptacle?
The common trip, however, still confuses me as to why he would require it. Maybe it was just a common handle required?
Jim
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
An identified (2005) or approved (2002) handle tie would satisfy this. See 210.4(B), 210.7(B) and 240.20(A) and (B)(1).
An identified (2005) or approved (2002) handle tie would satisfy this. See 210.4(B), 210.7(B) and 240.20(A) and (B)(1).
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
A handle tie mignt not fulfill this requirement.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
It should, since "disconnect simultaneously" refers to manual operation, and not automatic overcurrent protection, as "common internal trip" would imply.Originally posted by jwelectric:
A handle tie mignt not fulfill this requirement.
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Sparky, see Ryans post, if the circuits terminate on a single yoke, a handle tie is all that is required or needed.
There is no need to trip both circuits under a fault or over current of one.
From what we hear from a couple of other Fl members, some Fl inspectors are some what weak in NEC accuracy.
Roger
Sparky, see Ryans post, if the circuits terminate on a single yoke, a handle tie is all that is required or needed.
There is no need to trip both circuits under a fault or over current of one.
From what we hear from a couple of other Fl members, some Fl inspectors are some what weak in NEC accuracy.
Roger
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Why would you think that "disconnect simultaneously" refers to a manual response and would not apply to an automatic response to ground fault or overcurrent?
Could you explain what you mean by this in a little more detail?
Why would you think that "disconnect simultaneously" refers to a manual response and would not apply to an automatic response to ground fault or overcurrent?
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
The reason for requiring simultaneous opening of both breakers has nothing to do with fault protection. It is to permit you to safely working on a device (i.e., to turn off all conductors that bring power to that device).
But if the dishwasher and the disposal are hard wired, or if they plug into separate receptacles (i.e., not on the same yoke), then you don't need even a handle tie.
The reason for requiring simultaneous opening of both breakers has nothing to do with fault protection. It is to permit you to safely working on a device (i.e., to turn off all conductors that bring power to that device).
But if the dishwasher and the disposal are hard wired, or if they plug into separate receptacles (i.e., not on the same yoke), then you don't need even a handle tie.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
I do believe that some people get complicit with their interpretation of the code language.
The way I read the infamous 240.20 (B)(1) is ?Except where limited by? to mean that the nest word will impose a limitation of the rest of the sentence, therefore 210.4(B) has a different meaning than the rest of this sentence.
Another problem I see with the interpretation some people have with the code is the interjection of words into a section that are not there or the omission of words that are there.
What that is in question here is two receptacles that are on the same yoke. 240.20 (B)(1) says ?Multiwire Branch Circuit. Except where limited by 210.4(B),? so let?s go see what limitation that is being imposed by this referral to 210.4 (B).
Low and behold what does it say here?
(B) Devices or Equipment. Where a multiwire branch circuit supplies more than one device or equipment on the same yoke, a means shall be provided to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors supplying those devices or equipment at the point where the branch circuit originates.
I see no where the words that state that this is for manual disconnection only or any other criteria but I do see where it states that it shall disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors.
Could some one explain how it can be guaranteed that under a ground fault that a handle tie will accomplish this? Where are you getting the words that would led you to believe that this is just for manual disconnection?
I can?t see this so please help.
I do believe that some people get complicit with their interpretation of the code language.
The way I read the infamous 240.20 (B)(1) is ?Except where limited by? to mean that the nest word will impose a limitation of the rest of the sentence, therefore 210.4(B) has a different meaning than the rest of this sentence.
Another problem I see with the interpretation some people have with the code is the interjection of words into a section that are not there or the omission of words that are there.
What that is in question here is two receptacles that are on the same yoke. 240.20 (B)(1) says ?Multiwire Branch Circuit. Except where limited by 210.4(B),? so let?s go see what limitation that is being imposed by this referral to 210.4 (B).
Low and behold what does it say here?
(B) Devices or Equipment. Where a multiwire branch circuit supplies more than one device or equipment on the same yoke, a means shall be provided to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors supplying those devices or equipment at the point where the branch circuit originates.
I see no where the words that state that this is for manual disconnection only or any other criteria but I do see where it states that it shall disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors.
Could some one explain how it can be guaranteed that under a ground fault that a handle tie will accomplish this? Where are you getting the words that would led you to believe that this is just for manual disconnection?
I can?t see this so please help.
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Jw, do you agree that 210.4(B) and 210.7(B) require the same thing as far as disconnecting the "ungrounded" conductors for the circuit or circuits?
Note, the only difference is 210.4(B) is addressing one circuit and 210.7(B) is addressing more than one.
Now, let's remember a MWBC can be considered as multiple circuits (we can look to 210.4(A)to find this) which puts us under 210.7(B) if we desire
Roger
Jw, do you agree that 210.4(B) and 210.7(B) require the same thing as far as disconnecting the "ungrounded" conductors for the circuit or circuits?
Note, the only difference is 210.4(B) is addressing one circuit and 210.7(B) is addressing more than one.
Now, let's remember a MWBC can be considered as multiple circuits (we can look to 210.4(A)to find this) which puts us under 210.7(B) if we desire
Roger
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Before we get to deep into this let me say that I have taught the handle tie thing but a student has laid this on me and I cannot disprove her thinking so therefore I will debate it here on this forum until I get a good answer to give her.
Yes Roger I agree
Before we get to deep into this let me say that I have taught the handle tie thing but a student has laid this on me and I cannot disprove her thinking so therefore I will debate it here on this forum until I get a good answer to give her.
Yes Roger I agree
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Well that last call was a dilly,
I have been instructed to stay out of it until then. I would ask that every one be easy on her when she does join.
Well that last call was a dilly,
I have been instructed to stay out of it until then. I would ask that every one be easy on her when she does join.
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Jw, I'm taking the easy way out,
Changing the word ?receptacle? to ?device or equipment? was intended to bring 210.7 in line with other NEC sections to create more consistency in the Code and to expand the requirements.
(B) Multiple Branch Circuits. Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke, a means to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors that supply those devices or equipment is required at the point where the branch circuit originates. Figure 210-4
Author?s Comment: See 210.4(B) for similar requirements for devices or equipment supplied by multiwire branch circuits.
Author?s Comment: Individual single-pole circuit breakers with handle ties identified for the purpose, or a breaker with common internal trip, can be used [240.20(B)(1)].
Roger
Jw, I'm taking the easy way out,
Changing the word ?receptacle? to ?device or equipment? was intended to bring 210.7 in line with other NEC sections to create more consistency in the Code and to expand the requirements.
(B) Multiple Branch Circuits. Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke, a means to disconnect simultaneously all ungrounded conductors that supply those devices or equipment is required at the point where the branch circuit originates. Figure 210-4
Author?s Comment: See 210.4(B) for similar requirements for devices or equipment supplied by multiwire branch circuits.
Author?s Comment: Individual single-pole circuit breakers with handle ties identified for the purpose, or a breaker with common internal trip, can be used [240.20(B)(1)].
Roger
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Roger
Yeah, okay, what ever you say we believe you.Originally posted by jwelectric:
Well that last call was a dilly,
I have been instructed to stay out of it until then. I would ask that every one be easy on her when she does join.
Roger
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
15 posts and the original post didn't mention a split wired receptacle.
15 posts and the original post didn't mention a split wired receptacle.
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Didn't mention any receptacle at all. Didn't mention hardwired either. Hard to give a good answer without a complete question.
volt102
Senior Member
- Location
- New Hampshire
Re: Common trip required for d/w & disposal?
Hey Sparky,
Give us just one more detail so we can go another 15 post.
Jim
Hey Sparky,
Give us just one more detail so we can go another 15 post.
Jim
- Status