Open neutral

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

Where? I don't see any reference to switched receptacles in 210.52

Greg, I don’t want to get into a code debate here where most of the members hate the word code and start getting a lot of red flags.

The required spacing for receptacles found in 210.52 if for just that, the receptacles. These receptacles can be either duplex or single device yoke receptacles. The requirement is for one receptacle not two and a duplex is just that, two receptacles.

210.70(A)(1) exception allows a switched receptacle to be installed in lieu of the required lighting outlet. This can be achieved in two ways. Either an additional receptacle can be installed or half of a duplex can be switched.
But
If the entire duplex is switched then the entire duplex now becomes the switched lighting outlet and no receptacle is present to fulfill the spacing requirement of 210.52.
Although this has always been the intent of the rule it was so widely abused that new verbiage was added to the 2008 code cycle to finally put it to rest.

[Greg Fretwell]

Ah... 2008. We don't have that yet and probably won't in Florida. They have said they are waiting for the 2011. That still may change.

I agree this was always ambiguous in 210.52 and I have seen the argument go either way. It was never specifically referenced. A receptacle outlet, lighting or otherwise, is still a receptacle.

FYI NACHI folks this is what they said in 2002 and 2005

210.52 Dwelling Unit Receptacle Outlets.
This section provides requirements for 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacle outlets. Receptacle outlets required by this section shall be in addition to any receptacle that is part of a luminaire (lighting fixture) or appliance, located within cabinets or cupboards, or located more than 1.7 m (51/2 ft) above the floor.

so it is very likely any house you see will not be built to the 2008 code unless it is new construction in a progressive state that adopts early and they just pulled the permits.

[Mike Whitt]

Not meaning to keep this thread hijacked nor to start a long debate but if I could be allowed one last comment on this subject let me try to explain a little deeper.

As outlined in the earlier editions of the NEC the part of 210.52 that says that the required receptacle could not be part of a luminaire (lighting fixture) as Greg has pointed out is why a duplex receptacle that is entirely switched can not count as the required receptacle outlined in the text of 210.52.

The exception outlined in 210.70(A)(1) is to allow the receptacle to be the light fixture. It is installed instead of installing an overhead light fixture. It is the same as installing the overhead light fixture on the wall at the same height as the receptacles. If the entire duplex is switched then both of the receptacles become the light fixture and no receptacle that is part of a light can count as the required receptacles.
This has always been the intent of the code panel concerning this type of installation as is evidenced through the reading on the Report on Proposals.

This why verbiage was added to the 2008 code cycle to clarify the intent.

Let close by saying I don’t see this as any kind of a safety issue unless the switch is a dimmer. This is one of those sections of the code that a bunch of code geeks gather together at a dinner table and talk about as though there has been some kind of break through in cancer research.

[David P. Valley]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Not meaning to keep this thread hijacked nor to start a long debate but if I could be allowed one last comment on this subject let me try to explain a little deeper.

As outlined in the earlier editions of the NEC the part of 210.52 that says that the required receptacle could not be part of a luminaire (lighting fixture) as Greg has pointed out is why a duplex receptacle that is entirely switched can not count as the required receptacle outlined in the text of 210.52.

The exception outlined in 210.70(A)(1) is to allow the receptacle to be the light fixture. It is installed instead of installing an overhead light fixture. It is the same as installing the overhead light fixture on the wall at the same height as the receptacles. If the entire duplex is switched then both of the receptacles become the light fixture and no receptacle that is part of a light can count as the required receptacles.
This has always been the intent of the code panel concerning this type of installation as is evidenced through the reading on the Report on Proposals.

This why verbiage was added to the 2008 code cycle to clarify the intent.

Let close by saying I don’t see this as any kind of a safety issue unless the switch is a dimmer. This is one of those sections of the code that a bunch of code geeks gather together at a dinner table and talk about as though there has been some kind of break through in cancer research.

Most of the time, I could care less about code. If I see any sort of unprotected electrical within reaching distance of standing water, it gets written up as "recommend having a licensed Electrician move light (or receptacle) to a safer location". If they don't move it and someone gets hurt....I told you so.

[Greg Fretwell]

Mike Our conversation at dinner would start in article 100 and we would define "receptacle" and "luminaire".
You seem to be confused. You can't make up rules that are not there by changing the definition of the parts.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

Mike Our conversation at dinner would start in article 100 and we would define "receptacle" and "luminaire".
You seem to be confused. You can't make up rules that are not there by changing the definition of the parts.

Which would be a good point as to what you were looking at. Your mind would see a receptacle but in reality you are looking at the light fixture. The receptacle is being installed in place of the light fixture not as a receptacle therefore the receptacle is part of the light fixture and not part of the required receptacles.

This is the very reason the rule was added to 210.52 in the 2008 code stating that a switched receptacle would not count for the required receptacles outlined in 210.52

[Greg Fretwell]

I guess you didn't read the ROP. Nobody suggested this was anything but a CHANGE in the code and one guy said it wasn't even necessary.
I agree a switched receptacle is used as an alternative way to meet 210.70(A)(1) but that does not make it a "luminare" unless it suddenly aquires the ability to become "A complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light"

The point of all this for the NACHI folks is you will be very likely to see switched receptacles fulfilling the <6' requirement and it was perfectly legal until the 2008 gets adopted or unless your local AHJ altered the rules
(either by addendum to the code or creative intrepretation)

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

I guess you didn't read the ROP. Nobody suggested this was anything but a CHANGE in the code and one guy said it wasn't even necessary.
I agree a switched receptacle is used as an alternative way to meet 210.70(A)(1) but that does not make it a "luminare" unless it suddenly aquires the ability to become "A complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light"

The point of all this for the NACHI folks is you will be very likely to see switched receptacles fulfilling the <6' requirement and it was perfectly legal until the 2008 gets adopted or unless your local AHJ altered the rules
(either by addendum to the code or creative intrepretation)

Am I right to assume that this is a fully switched receptacle and not a 1/2 switched as required up here for many years.

[Greg Fretwell]

Yes, unless a local AHJ has changed the code or simply twisted the language, a switched duplex could still be the required <6' receptacle.
As I said at the top of the thread, this varies by AHJ. Also splitting the receptacle was done by responsible electricians as a design choice.
BTW I agree with the code change.

[Mike Whitt]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

Am I right to assume that this is a fully switched receptacle and not a 1/2 switched as required up here for many years.

If it is a fully switched receptacle then it is no longer a receptacle but a light fixture as outlined in 210.70(A)(1) exception.

If it is a switched 1/2 receptacle then there is still one receptacle that will fulfill the spacing requirement.
This has been a code rule for longer than I have lived although seldom enforced.

It has been overlooked by both electricians and code officials simply becuse of their tunnel vision and all they see is a receptacle.

To simply take a moment and look at the installation it is simple to see that if the entire receptacle is switched then there is no receptacle for the spacing rule simply because the entire receptale is being used as the exception for a light.

Let me once again say that I don't see this as a major safety violation but it is a violation none the less.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by Mike Whitt

Let me once again say that I don't see this as a major safety violation but it is a violation none the less.

Not a major violation but if someone uses an extension cord to provide continous power in this area due to this fully switched receptacle, then it starts to raise my hackles. We shouldn't be using exetnsion cords as permanent wiring and my belief is the code is designed to prevent this. And as I tell everyone I can......codes are just minimum standards, not the best we can do. So let's at least get the minimum done well. One builder on Fine Homebuilding's MB has a tag on all his posts:
Bad builders build to code; good builders go beyond.

Had a story recounted to me 1.5 years ago:

A client's friend (single mother with 5-6 year old daughter) went to child's room one evening to read her a story and put her to bed. The child had just fallen asleep early so the mother wasn't going to go in to turn the light off for fear of waking the girl just into sleep. She hestitated but went in to find the smell of something overheating/burning. It was an extension cord serving the bedstand light. It was stretched and gotten under the opposite bed leg at the head. Mother's intuition/luck......good thing!!