Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

[George Stolz]

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(B)(1), including exception 1

2.) Proposal Recommends: [revised text]

3.) Proposal: NEC-2005 text reads:

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

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.

Revise text to read:

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall, floor, and countertop receptacle outlets, and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment. One receptacle of duplex receptacle outlets installed shall be permitted to be switched per 210.70(A)(1), exception No. 1.


Exception No 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from another circuit for lighting purposes shall be permitted.

4.) Substantiation: The numerous references to other sections do not contribute to the effectiveness of this section, so omitting them will add clarity while not changing the substance of this section. The other sections are also effective without 210.52(B)(1) referencing them, as well.

210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1 states that "in other than kitchens and bathrooms one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets." There is no evident reason why small appliance branch circuits cannot perform this function, as most cord-and-plug connected lamps do not constitute a large enough load to compromise the primary function of these circuits. As a minimum standard, permitting the small appliance circuit to perform this function would be preferable to installing a 15-ampere receptacle beside a 20-ampere receptacle, inviting a small appliance load to be connected to the 15-ampere circuit.

In addition, the last statement in 210.52(B)(1), exception 1, is not literally correct, as no general purpose branch circuit is defined in 210.70(A)(1), exception 1.

Hee hee hee...

[ April 03, 2005, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[charlie]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

George, I think this is a good proposal. If nothing else, it will force the panel to come down on one side or the other of this issue.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

Thanks, Charlie.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

George, bless your heart, you intend to be able to switch the small appliance circuit for a lighting outlet.

I wish you the best of luck on your venture but I am afraid that you are doomed to fail.

Sometimes we have our grandchildren spend Saturday night with us and I get up Sunday morning and pretend I am the I-Hop man. I start a pot of coffee as I set up our eight quart mixer and start warming up our four slot waffle iron. Although I like using my 12x18 inch flat top grill for frying the eggs the breakers will not hold if I use the electric frying pan for the bacon. I use a 12/3 drop cord from the washing machine to power my little steam table as the kids refuse to get at the same time.

Where would I be if my lights were on the same circuit?

Should the code allow the small appliance circuit to be used a lighting outlet then people would be putting any and every thing they could on these circuits as was allowed a few code cycles back when the outside receptacle was allowed on the small appliance circuit.

Again good luck.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

It would indeed get them to see the poor wording.Perhaps an exception to the dining room or breakfast nook only.
reading
"It shall be permitted for a dining room or breakfast nook or similar eating area to have it's own SA circuit and permit receptacles on this circuit to be half switched to allow for lighting requirements"

I do feel if it included the kitchen that we are creating a hazard.Should i be using an electric skillet with hot grease ,the last thing i need is for the lights to go out leaving me in the dark.I had this exsplained to be back in 79 when i wired my first house (my own).I was trying to put the light over the sink on the SA circuit.

 

[charlie]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

Sorry guys, I have to side with George on this one. I don't think another ampere or two will make much difference on a 20 ampere circuit with inverse time circuit breakers. However, this proposal will point out the fact that it is not clear as it now reads and the panel will have the opportunity to fix the problem one way or the other. I really do not care which way it goes as long as it is clear.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

One more straw won't break the camels back

 

[physis]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

Oh, your going that way, I'm going the other way. Only because I believe that's there intent and, like Charlie, I don't care much which way they go.

 

[mc5w]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

The exception should also be modified to read as follows:

.....general purpose {20 ampere} branch circuit......

This would get rid of 1 of the hazards.

 

[mc5w]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

A better rule would be to require that ALL straight blade receptacles in dwellings be supplied by 20 ampere branch circuits. A 15 ampere locking receptacle would still be permitted on a 15 ampere branch circuit.

 

[pierre]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

"A better rule would be to require that ALL straight blade receptacles in dwellings be supplied by 20 ampere branch circuits. A 15 ampere locking receptacle would still be permitted on a 15 ampere branch circuit."

What is the reasoning behind this statement?

George
Cleaning this section up is not a bad idea, I still think you need some massaging.
If you leave the switched receptacle clause in this proposal, I think you will not have a prayer in it passing. Remove that from this proposal and add it to separate proposal, so your first proposal has a better chance.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

Okay, okay...

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

Per Pierre's suggestion:

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(B)(1), including exception 1

2.) Proposal Recommends: [revised text]

3.) Proposal: NEC-2005 text reads:

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

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.

Revise text to read:

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall, floor, and countertop receptacle outlets, and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.


Exception No 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from another circuit for lighting purposes shall be permitted.

4.) Substantiation: The numerous references to other sections do not contribute to the effectiveness of this section, so omitting them will add clarity while not changing the substance of this section. The other sections are also effective without 210.52(B)(1) referencing them, as well.

In addition, the last statement in 210.52(B)(1), exception 1, is not literally correct, as no general purpose branch circuit is defined in 210.70(A)(1), exception 1.

 

[benaround]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

George Stolz "Rookie of the Year 2005"

anyone else feel this way?

frank

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

Would that mean I get a picture by my name, or just that everybody gets drunk and I pick up the tab?

I was employee of the month once at Wendy's. I got free food.

(No thumbs in it, though.)

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall, floor, and countertop receptacle outlets, and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment. One receptacle of duplex receptacle outlets installed shall be permitted to be switched per 210.70(A)(1), exception No. 1.


Exception No 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from another circuit for lighting purposes shall be permitted.

George
Mr. Charlie should have seen this but I just saw it myself.
What you have purposed should be looked at with a little detail and may need some fine tuning.

1) You have referred to 210.70 (A) (1) exception one which would be the required lighting circuit. To install the lighting circuit on the same yoke with the small appliance circuit would be difficult at best.
210.4 (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

To achieve this would require at the very least a 20 amp general lighting circuit. Should this receptacle be installed on the counter top it would be required to have GFCI protection which again would be difficult with a multiwire circuit

2) Now we have two circuits that share the same neutral. These are two separate circuits as you have purposed to allow the circuit outlined in 210.70 to intermix with the circuit outlined in 210.52 thus a conflict with
300.3 (B) Conductors of the Same Circuit. All conductors of the same circuit and, where used, the grounded conductor and all equipment grounding conductors and bonding conductors shall be contained within the same raceway, auxiliary gutter, cable tray, cablebus assembly, trench, cable, or cord, unless otherwise permitted in accordance with 300.3(B)(1) through (B)(4).

Should you decide to run two circuits in two cables would not relieve the requirement of the handle tie nor the requirement of GFCI protection if installed above the counter top.


I think that a little research into past cycles of the code would reveal that it has been the intent of the code panel to reduce the items allowed to be installed on the small appliance circuit. Mr. Jim Pauley sits panel two and has always been eager to assist me with question concerning articles in 210 and 220. A lot of the statements I have made in this forum have been based on his remarks as well as Mr. Mark Ode of UL. Mr. Pauley can be reached through the Square ?D? web site.

Please understand that I am not trying to kill your proposal I am only trying to give another way that it could be looked at. If this is how I interpret your proposal some one else could see it the same way. If I can be of any help please let me know.

 

[roger]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

JW,

Mr. Jim Pauley sits panel two and has always been eager to assist me with question concerning articles in 210 and 220. A lot of the statements I have made in this forum have been based on his remarks as well as Mr. Mark Ode of UL.

remember, their comments or suggestions in everyday conversations are just that, and have no more weight as far as formal interpretation than the opinions here.

Roger

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

JW, thanks for the reply.

I don't think this code currently, or if accepted as proposed, would override the requirements of 210.4 or 210.7(B). But thanks for the input.

Also, in case you didn't see it, I have revised the proposal to eliminate the switching bits, per Pierre's suggestion. I currently have a proposal up for a full, head on approach, dealing with 210.52. Feel free to comment on that one, too.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

I just realized that this proposal unwittingly addresses more than one issue with the text, so I revised the substantiation.

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Revise text to read:

(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall, floor, and countertop receptacle outlets, and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.


Exception No 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from another circuit for lighting purposes shall be permitted.

4.) Substantiation: The numerous references to other sections do not contribute to the effectiveness of this section, so omitting them will add clarity while not changing the substance of this section. The other sections are also effective without 210.52(B)(1) referencing them, as well.

As is currently written, this text is currently commonly perceived as allowing other circuits to be present in the areas defined in (B)(1), so long as the other circuits' outlets are placed in between receptacles that have been placed at the maximum spacing requirements of 210.52(A) & (C). This results in a contradiction between sections (B)(1) and (B)(3), and renders (B)(3) highly ineffective.

In addition, the last statement in 210.52(B)(1), exception 1, is not literally correct, as no general purpose branch circuit is defined in 210.70(A)(1), exception 1.

[/QUOTE]

 

[charlie]

Re: Revise that pesky 210.52(B)(1) exception, moo ha haa

George, does this mean that the refrigerator can no longer be on an individual, non-GFCI protected, circuit?