Dishwasher and garbage disposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
pfalcon said:
Disposals are always fastened in place. Dishwashers are usually fastened in place. OP says they are using cord-and-plug which means a blender, toaster, or other can be supplied. The above section doesn't care that you wired a switch in place; Their total fastened load can only be half of the ratings.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are correct,.. for what it is worth I think the wording stinks.


from 2010 ROP
_________________________________________________________
2-211 Log #4795 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
(210.23(A)(2) Exception)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Adam J. Drozdowski, Artisan Electrical Contractors

Recommendation: Add the following new text:

Exception: When there is two or more receptacles used to supply a load for
utilization equipment fastened in place, it shall be permissible to use the full
allowable ampacity of the branch circuit if the receptacles are not readily
accessible.

Substantiation: The receptacles behind dishwashers, pigs, refrigerators, etc.
with cord and plug connection that are not readily accessible will not be
subjected to other loads of other equipment.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The current rule only invokes the 50% limitation if the
branch circuit supplies, in addition to the fixed in place equipment, lighting
units, cord and plug connected equipment not fixed in place, or both. As such,
if the circuit supplies only equipment fastened in place, the full branch circuit
can be used.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
Click to expand...
 
ok....so it is saying that if you supply units that are fixed in place AND other cord and plug attached units the 50% rules doesn't apply?

is that what it is saying?
 
I took some liberties
ok....so it is saying that if you supply units that are fixed in place AND other cord and plug attached units (not fixed in place) the 50% rules doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

If both are fixed and there is niether lighting or "free range" U.E. then the 50% doesn't apply..
 
M. D. said:
I took some liberties


If both are fixed and there is niether lighting or "free range" U.E. then the 50% doesn't apply..
Click to expand...

Yes.
210.23(A)(1) >> Only fastened assets and all power is captive to those assets = 100% usage.
210.23(A)(2) >> Either loose assets or receptacles available to lights or toasters = 50% combined usage.
 
pfalcon said:
Yes.
210.23(A)(1) >> Only fastened assets and all power is captive to those assets = 100% usage.
210.23(A)(2) >> Either loose assets or receptacles available to lights or toasters = 50% combined usage.
Click to expand...

the toaster is a small appliance ,.. the dishwasher and pig are not allowed on a sabc
 
M. D. said:
the toaster is a small appliance ,.. the dishwasher and pig are not allowed on a sabc
Click to expand...

Nor does that matter. Recheck your ROP under substantiation and you'll notice that accessability not intent is the issue. The dishwasher and the pig are on a circuit. If their receptacle is exposed enough I can plug in a toaster then (A)(2) must be used. That you never intended a toaster to be plugged into that circuit is not relevant.

Perhaps it would have been clearer had I added:
NOT 210.23 >> Dishwasher/Disposal receptacles are captive to those devices.
 
pfalcon said:
Nor does that matter. Recheck your ROP under substantiation and you'll notice that accessability not intent is the issue. The dishwasher and the pig are on a circuit. If their receptacle is exposed enough I can plug in a toaster then (A)(2) must be used. That you never intended a toaster to be plugged into that circuit is not relevant.

Perhaps it would have been clearer had I added:
NOT 210.23 >> Dishwasher/Disposal receptacles are captive to those devices.
Click to expand...

I disagree,.. I think . How would it ever not be exposed enough??

What article are you getting this exposed enough language from???

this is from the 2002 rop in regard to requiring a single receptacle for a 15 amp circuit supplying a fridge.. he wanted to remove the words in silver
Not the same issue but they would allow a 15 amp duplex on an IBC above a counter to serve the fridge ..

(Log #686)
2- 165 - (210-52(b)(1) Exception No. 2): Reject
SUBMITTER: Dan Leaf, Palmdale, CA
RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read as follows:

Exception No. 2: The receptacle outlet
A single receptacle for
refrigeration equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from an
individual branch circuit rated 15 amperes or greater.

SUBSTANTIATION:
Editorial. An individual branch circuit (per
definition) implies a single receptacle. The receptacle outlet (per
definition) may contain several receptacles.
A duplex receptacle at
the edge of and above a countertop supplied by a small appliance
circuit is not prohibited from supplying a refrigerator. The
exception permits a 15 ampere circuit for such receptacle, with no
load calculation required.

PANEL ACTION: Reject.

PANEL STATEMENT: The panel has attempted to be reasonable
with the exception and not require a single receptacle be used.
The panel notes that the exception permits an additional circuit
to supply the refrigerator. It is recognized that frequently the
receptacle is indeed located behind the refrigerator making the
single receptacle requirement overly burdensome. Should the
outlet be close to or above the countertop, it would not count as
the required countertop outlet by 210-52(c) and another outlet
would be required to be installed and connected to the small
appliance branch circuit.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 12
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
Click to expand...
 
M. D. said:
I disagree,.. I think . How would it ever not be exposed enough??

What article are you getting this exposed enough language from???

this is from the 2002 rop in regard to requiring a single receptacle for a 15 amp circuit supplying a fridge.. he wanted to remove the words in silver
Not the same issue but they would allow a 15 amp duplex on an IBC above a counter to serve the fridge ..
Click to expand...

ROP said:
Substantiation: The receptacles behind dishwashers, pigs, refrigerators, etc.
with cord and plug connection that are not readily accessible will not be
subjected to other loads of other equipment.
Click to expand...

Exposed/Captive as from the English language meaning not readily accessible as stated in the ROP substantiation section you posted and I referred you back to from post #41.

Both of the ROPs that you quoted affirm that if the "fastened" equipment gets power from a plug that is likely or intended to be used by other stuff; then the 50% kicks in.

PFalcon said:
210.23(A)(1) >> Only fastened assets and all power is not readily accessible to non-fastened assets = 100% usage.
210.23(A)(2) >> Either loose assets or receptacles available to lights or toasters = 50% combined usage.
NOT 210.23 >> Dishwasher/Disposal receptacles are dedicated and therefore readily accessible only to those devices.
Click to expand...

The panel statements from both ROPs show they are trying to avoid listing every single possible combination that might take place. The first ROP was a reject because the panel felt making the receptacle "not readily accessible" was already implied by the original text: therefore adding the exception was worthless. The second ROP was a reject because the panel did not want to enumerate every combination that makes a receptacle "not readily accessible": therefore use some good judgement.

I've rearranged the earlier quotes in a more wordy fashion to use more of the NEC/ROP language structure. Maybe that will help.
 
infinity said:
If hardwired they both require a disconnect of some sort.
Click to expand...

That's common for a disposal, but doing installation and service work in many kitchens, I've never seen a disconnect for a hardwired dishwasher. It's not done around here.

Often, the panel which feeds it is "line of sight," but often not.

I hadn't thought about it since it's so common, but it should by code
have a disconnecting means, shouldn't it ?
 
pfalcon said:
Both of the ROPs that you quoted affirm that if the "fastened" equipment gets power from a plug that is likely or intended to be used by other stuff; then the 50% kicks in.
Click to expand...

What???? Here it is again if the duplex supplies only the disposal no 50% if it supplies both disposal and fixed dishwasher no 50%. You are reading words that don't exist.

Panel Statement: The current rule only invokes the 50% limitation if the
branch circuit supplies, in addition to the fixed in place equipment, lighting
units, cord and plug connected equipment not fixed in place, or both. As such,
if the circuit supplies only equipment fastened in place, the full branch circuit
can be used.
Click to expand...

pfalcon said:
The panel statements from both ROPs show they are trying to avoid listing every single possible combination that might take place. The first ROP was a reject because the panel felt making the receptacle "not readily accessible" was already implied by the original text: therefore adding the exception was worthless.
Click to expand...

What? I'm not seeing that at all

pfalcon said:
The second ROP was a reject because the panel did not want to enumerate every combination that makes a receptacle "not readily accessible": therefore use some good judgement.
Click to expand...

Really ?? that's what you get from this ?

PANEL STATEMENT:

The panel has attempted to be reasonable
with the exception and not require a single receptacle be used.
The panel notes that the exception permits an additional circuit
to supply the refrigerator. It is recognized that frequently the
receptacle is indeed located behind the refrigerator making the
single receptacle requirement overly burdensome. Should the
outlet be close to or above the countertop, it would not count as
the required countertop outlet by 210-52(c) and another outlet
would be required to be installed and connected to the small
appliance branch circuit.
NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 12
VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 12
Click to expand...
 
paul said:
I don't know why they require separate circuits. How long do people run their disposal? Mine is only run about 5 seconds each time. By then I'm not running at full load, because all the food is ground to a pulp, therefore the motor is not drawing it's peak ampacity. Has anyone EVER tripped the circuit while running both? I doubt it!

I bought my house 11 years ago and it came with both on the same circuit. They have never tripped!
Click to expand...

Paul I am with you here. Only one circuit is needed.. A duplex receptacle which is half switched for the disposal and the Dishwasher plugged into the other half covers it all. I think you are wrong about the full load part on the disposal it is at a higher load when it is munching up the food and at close to no load when it is running free.
 
pfalcon said:
Nor does that matter. Recheck your ROP under substantiation and you'll notice that accessability not intent is the issue. The dishwasher and the pig are on a circuit. If their receptacle is exposed enough I can plug in a toaster then (A)(2) must be used. That you never intended a toaster to be plugged into that circuit is not relevant.

Perhaps it would have been clearer had I added:
NOT 210.23 >> Dishwasher/Disposal receptacles are captive to those devices.
Click to expand...

if one duplex receptacle is used how will you plug in a toaster while the pig and DW are plugged in?
 
flashlight said:
That's common for a disposal, but doing installation and service work in many kitchens, I've never seen a disconnect for a hardwired dishwasher. It's not done around here.

Often, the panel which feeds it is "line of sight," but often not.

I hadn't thought about it since it's so common, but it should by code
have a disconnecting means, shouldn't it ?
Click to expand...

you don't need a disconnect if you use a breaker lockout.
 
when I bought my house back in 2003, the former owners turned the garage into the kitchen. It has two 20 amp circuits, one for the dishwasher, and one for EVERYTHING else-refrig, micro,disposal, all counter tops outlets (4). Never tripped or overloaded the circuit so far, i use the blender, micro and coffee pot every morning, no problem. I will be changing that here in the near futher, when i get -----------you know more $$$$$$$$$$$. lived in a trailer out west for 17 years with the dw and disposal on same 15 amp circuit, again no problem ever. NOT saying it's right!! Just telling what I lived with. weird isn't it..:):):):)
 
greenjeans said:
when I bought my house back in 2003, the former owners turned the garage into the kitchen. It has two 20 amp circuits, one for the dishwasher, and one for EVERYTHING else-refrig, micro,disposal, all counter tops outlets (4). Never tripped or overloaded the circuit so far, i use the blender, micro and coffee pot every morning, no problem. I will be changing that here in the near futher, when i get -----------you know more $$$$$$$$$$$. lived in a trailer out west for 17 years with the dw and disposal on same 15 amp circuit, again no problem ever. NOT saying it's right!! Just telling what I lived with. weird isn't it..:):):):)
Click to expand...

Zinsco and Federal pacific comes to mind right now. Garbage disposals are illegal in Suffolk county so I never need worry about this situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top