Kitchen counter outlets (receptacles) on a switch?

Status
Not open for further replies.
mwm1752 said:
I agree - appliance circuits cannot be switched
210.52(B) Small Appliances.
210.52(B)(1) Receptacle Outlets Served.
Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose 15- or 20-ampere branch circuit as required in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.
Click to expand...
There is no prohibition on switching SABC receptacles in this quoted text.
 
david luchini said:
Nowhere does the Code say switched receptacles on SABCs are not permitted.
Click to expand...
It does, by inference, when it says they are allowed in those other scenarios.

I'll give you an example from a different context
(only to make the specific point).

We are going into stores now and seeing signs which say people who are vaccinated are allowed to enter without a mask.

The very clear inference is that if you haven't been vaccinated, then you you are prohibited from entering unless you wear a mask. It doesn't have to be spelled out in black and white to see the inference.

Same thing with the prohibition of awitched receptacles. There's an allowance and an inference
 
James L said:
It does, by inference, when it says they are allowed in those other scenarios.

I'll give you an example from a different context
(only to make the specific point).

We are going into stores now and seeing signs which say people who are vaccinated are allowed to enter without a mask.
Click to expand...

1) The signs that I have been seeing still explicitly state that masks should be worn if one is unvaccinated just to avoid the inference issue.

2) There is a very current history of requiring masks, which is rather different than switching SABCs. There is no history of requiring them to be unswitched.

3) All circuit breakers are effectively switches, and most are switch rated. There is no requirement for breaker locks or other means preventing convenient switching of the SABC breakers, which by inference is permission to switch these circuits. (Which is an example of using inference from code to say just about anything. )

Jon
 
david luchini said:
There is no prohibition on switching SABC receptacles in this quoted text.
Click to expand...

No there isn't but if you switch the small appliance branch circuit then you do need to install another receptacle to meet code requirement for the small appliance branch circuit. That being the case it is not a likely scenario. I am not sure but my bet is that the cmp would not want the small appliance branch circuit switched.

Here is the enhanced comment that is part of the 2020 online version. I think we all know this

An outlet containing a duplex receptacle that is wired so that only one of the receptacles is controlled by a wall switch can be used to meet the receptacle outlet spacing requirement. However, if both halves are controlled by a wall switch or other wall-mounted control device, such as an occupancy sensor, an additional unswitched receptacle has to be installed to meet the receptacle outlet spacing requirement. Where both halves of the duplex receptacle are controlled by a wall switch, the occupant could run an extension cord from a receptacle that is not controlled by a switch to an appliance that requires continuous power.
Click to expand...
 
James L said:
We are going into stores now and seeing signs which say people who are vaccinated are allowed to enter without a mask.

The very clear inference is that if you haven't been vaccinated, then you you are prohibited from entering unless you wear a mask. It doesn't have to be spelled out in black and white to see the inference.
Click to expand...
Inference is inferer-dependent. Thus, inference is not enforceable.

The sign SAYS that vaccinated people may enter unmasked - a permission clearly stated.

It DOES NOT say that un-vaccinated people may not enter unless masked - a prohibition clearly NOT stated.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
No there isn't but if you switch the small appliance branch circuit then you do need to install another receptacle to meet code requirement for the small appliance branch circuit.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's correct. The start of 210.52 says that a switched receptacle provided in lieu of a lighting outlet under 210.70(A)(1) Exception 1 may not count towards the 210.52 requirements. But if you choose to switch it for some other purpose, nothing in 210.52 says it doesn't count.

Cheers, Wayne
 
mwm1752 said:
I agree - appliance circuits cannot be switched
210.52(B) Small Appliances.
210.52(B)(1) Receptacle Outlets Served.
Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose 15- or 20-ampere branch circuit as required in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.
Click to expand...
That doesn't say that the SABC receptacles can't be switched. It is an exception to 210.52(B)(1) which says that all the subject receptacles shall be served by the SABCs. The exception allows a receptacle on a non-SABC, if it is a switched receptacle installed in lieu of a lighting outlet per 210.70(A)(1), Exception No 1. Since that latter exception doesn't apply to kitchens, the 210.52(B)(1) Exception is only relevant for dining rooms.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
I don't believe that's correct. The start of 210.52 says that a switched receptacle provided in lieu of a lighting outlet under 210.70(A)(1) Exception 1 may not count towards the 210.52 requirements. But if you choose to switch it for some other purpose, nothing in 210.52 says it doesn't count.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Did you read the comment made by the cmp.

However, if both halves are controlled by a wall switch or other wall-mounted control device, such as an occupancy sensor, an additional unswitched receptacle has to be installed to meet the receptacle outlet spacing requirement.
Click to expand...
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Did you read the comment made by the cmp.
Click to expand...
You mentioned that text is available as "part of the 2020 version," where exactly?

Anyway, if that is what the CMP intends, then they need to delete "in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1" from 210.52(2). What is currently written in the NEC obviously does not match the commentary.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Larry, I see your point of "permissive code" but If 210.52(B)(1) receptacles were allowed to be switched why give the exception?
210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.

wwhitney said:
You mentioned that text is available as "part of the 2020 version," where exactly?

Anyway, if that is what the CMP intends, then they need to delete "in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1" from 210.52(2). What is currently written in the NEC obviously does not match the commentary.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Don't know exact wording of 2020 but in 2017 the quoted text no where states "in accordance" but says that "as defined in ....." text quoted above. The defined receptacle is done for lighting "in lieu of lighting outlet(s)". This appears a switched outlet is only for use as a lighting outlet, and as an allowance given the "No other outlet" requirement to follow in:
"210.52(B)(2) No Other Outlets. The two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1) shall have no other outlets."
Again, if the SABC is allowed to be switched, there would be no need for the addition of the exceptions.
 
Fred B said:
Larry, I see your point of "permissive code" but If 210.52(B)(1) receptacles were allowed to be switched why give the exception?
210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1) Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.
Click to expand...
In my opinion and others', that's to allow additional circuits, not additional switches.

Don't know exact wording of 2020 but in 2017 the quoted text no where states "in accordance" but says that "as defined in ....." text quoted above. The defined receptacle is done for lighting "in lieu of lighting outlet(s)". This appears a switched outlet is only for use as a lighting outlet, and as an allowance given the "No other outlet" requirement to follow in:
"210.52(B)(2) No Other Outlets. The two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1) shall have no other outlets."
Again, if the SABC is allowed to be switched, there would be no need for the addition of the exceptions.
Click to expand...
That's to prohibit lighting on the SABC circuits, to minimize risk of a light outage amid malfunctioning hot appliances.
 
If you have a switched receptacle that is there to be the required lighting outlet in a room, I completely understand that it shouldn't count toward the required general purpose receptacles.

But if the required receptacles are themselves switched (say because the homeowner wants to be able to turn everything off conveniently) then IMHO that should be permitted.

Every receptacle in my kitchen is controlled by two switches; the circuit breaker and the GFCI built into the receptacle. I don't think anyone here nor the CMP would have a problem with the installation. But if I were to add a toggle switch some here would have a problem with the installation. What is the exact problem being prevented by prohibiting such additional switching.

Totally separate from the code argument, there may be a significant design issue here, worth discussing. For example maybe you really don't want to be flicking your appliances on and off looking for the light switch.

Jon
 
LarryFine said:
In my opinion and others', that's to allow additional circuits, not additional switches.


That's to prohibit lighting on the SABC circuits, to minimize risk of a light outage amid malfunctioning hot appliances.
Click to expand...
But 210.70(A)(1) exception clearly indicates that it (210.70(A)(1) exception no.1) doesn't apply to kitchen and bath receptacles. The required receptacles in a kitchen is the SABC, thus the switching seems to be not allowed. Thus the exception in 210.52(B)(1).
But if you are to insist that it "is allowed" then you must meet the requirements of 406.3(E) to be "permanently marked with the symbol shown in Figure 406.3(E) and the word "controlled"."
For perminant marking, it would not be a label affixed to the cover plate (it's removable, and replacable) but marking must be on the device.
 
wwhitney said:
You mentioned that text is available as "part of the 2020 version," where exactly?

Anyway, if that is what the CMP intends, then they need to delete "in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1" from 210.52(2). What is currently written in the NEC obviously does not match the commentary.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...


If you enroll in the NFPA Link- $100 a year, I think, it gives access to all the nfpa codes. The nec has the section and then there is a pull down to see the enhanced view. This is what it looks like

Recep.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top