MA amendment to 210.21(B)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnE

JohnE

Senior Member
Location
Milford, MA
I've searched, but do not see the any results for the following topic:

Massachusetts amends the NEC (2017) to add a new section 210.25(B) to add a new section that reads:

"201.25(B)(5) Receptacles on Individual Branch Circuits. A receptacle outlet installed to comply with a requirement for an individual branch circuit shall contain a single receptacle, or a multiple receptacle if, and then only to the extent that, the supplied equipment inscudes multiple supply cord connections."

So my question to you all is, do you feel that applies to something like a refrigerator, a garbage disposal, a washing machine, etc? I don't believe that it does, as none of these circuits are required to to be on an individual branch circuit. For example the refrigerator. Providing that the load doesn't trigger an individual circuit, it could be on one of the 2 SABC's. If by design choice it is installed on an individual branch circuit, I don't see the above is applicable, so it can be on an duplex receptacle.

For another example, one of the newer style plug-in boilers used for heating equipment is required to have no other outlets, per 422.12, which reads


422.12 Central Heating Equipment. Central heating
equipment other than fixed electric space-heating equipment
shall be supplied by an individual branch circuit.

In this case, if the boiler is the only load, the receptacle must be a single receptacle.

Am I off base?

Any an all thoughts and opinions welcome.

TIA,

John422.12 Central Heating Equipment. Central heating
equipment other than fixed electric space-heating equipment
shall be supplied by an individual branch circuit.
 
Thats 210.21(B) thats amended in Massachusetts to add a 5th paragraph...

(5) Receptacles on Individual Branch Circuits. A receptacle outlet installed to comply with a requirement for an individual branch circuit shall contain a single receptacle, or a multiple receptacle if, and then only to the extent that, the supplied equipment includes multiple supply cord connections.

I agree with you on the appliances...ref,pig,washer, etc. as long as there is no requirement for an "individual branch circuit"

On the boiler...422.12 has exceptions to permit a duplex receptacle for connection of associated equipment such as condensate pump, humidifier. I do not see and language in 422.12 saying "no other outlets".

That receptacle on the side of the boiler for associated equipment can not take the place of the receptacle required by 210.63
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Thats 210.21(B) thats amended in Massachusetts to add a 5th paragraph...

(5) Receptacles on Individual Branch Circuits. A receptacle outlet installed to comply with a requirement for an individual branch circuit shall contain a single receptacle, or a multiple receptacle if, and then only to the extent that, the supplied equipment includes multiple supply cord connections.

I agree with you on the appliances...ref,pig,washer, etc. as long as there is no requirement for an "individual branch circuit"

On the boiler...422.12 has exceptions to permit a duplex receptacle for connection of associated equipment such as condensate pump, humidifier. I do not see and language in 422.12 saying "no other outlets".

That receptacle on the side of the boiler for associated equipment can not take the place of the receptacle required by 210.63
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I probably should have been more clear on my example of the boiler. I was just looking to use an example of an receptacle that is required to be on an individual circuit (if there were no associated equipment)

Thank you for the reply, and I welcome other opinions. I've now had this conversation with 2 inspectors, (out of the dozen or so I deal with regularly) Each time they agreed to sign off if I agreed to go put in single receptacles. I did that, just to facilitate CO's and closings. And the reality is that it doesn't cost me anything more to put in the single receptacles "if that is what they want", it just means that I have to stock an item I haven't stocked since the requirement for all basement receptacles to be GFCI protected. Prior to that I'd use single receptacles often for condensation pumps on the furnaces and air handlers.
 
At least one laundry receptacle outlet is required by 210.52(F) and in 210.11(C)(2) laundry receptacle outlet(s) can be supplied by the required branch circuit. So the laundry branch circuit is not required to be an individual branch circuit. I think we could call it a dedicated branch circuit for laundry receptacle outlet(s)...

The refrigerator is not required to be on an individual branch circuit either. But I guess if you put a individual branch circuit (or dedicated) in for the refrigerator, it may need a single receptacle outlet by interpretation of the Massachusetts amendment.

I would say the amendment needs to go away. You can not control what is plugged into a receptacle outlet after you wire and install one. The amendment reaches over the line to "design" and that is not supposed to be the intent of the Code.
 
I have yet to see an AFCI or gfci single outlet. Plus, the fridge goes on a dedicated branch but I believe in many areas this originally had to do with making it easier at a later time to add backup power to a residence, as the fridge was one thing that would be wired to the back up system, same with a freezer. Washers were originally on dedicated circuits for water reasons, I believe.
 
peter d said:
What an absolutely stupid amendment. :happyyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a stupid amendment based on what I believe to be the correct interpretation. Probably an unnecessary amendment. I do believe it is a stupid interpretation of the amendment. In my example of a boiler, I wouldn't want any other receptacles on the circuit. However, if you use the example of a range hood, which requires an individual branch circuit (iirc and I can't look it up now, as it's getting late on a Saturday) what is the harm if it is a duplex receptacle? So maybe you're right, Peter, it may be a stupid amendment. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top