ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues SABC Load

The fuzzy area is that the disposal is a small appliance. The big however is that the receptacle is 1. inaccessable, usually. 2. It serves a fixed appliance so it does not count as one of the required countertop receptacles.
Sometimes the intent of the Code is what the inspector has to consider, as opposed to a specific wording that allows or prohibits a particular installation. The intent of the Code is for the SABC to supply small portable kitchen appliances; coffee pots, toasters, etc. That is why they list only some specific exceptions such as the clock.
Instead of the inspector searcing for the wording that prohibits it ask the electrician to find were it would be allowed.
Alan CEI-M # 138

Alan:

I agree with your statement "Instead of the inspector searcing for the wording that prohibits it ask the electrician to find were it would be allowed."

But, unfortunatley, here in NJ I have to provide a NEC Article for red tags. I'm not implying that this is done on each red tag, but upon request, and mandatory on written Notice of Violations.

Most EC's/electricians will research the 'book', and understand the issue. Recent fails are 250.94 bond point, & 680.26 grid and water bond. AFCI issues (210.12) pops up too.

Wouldn't it be possible that 210.23[2] could come into play, depending on ampere rating of the dishwasher, since it would be utilization equipment fastened in place?

Not sure if a 1/2 HP disposal would be 50% of a 20A branch circuit though.

Kjay:
Basically, all the ECs I know would rather install a direct line for the DW and GD, as on rough the appliance info may not be available.

The DWs I've seen recently are in the 9.x to 12.x amp ranges, from nameplates. The GDs are a tough 'read' under the sinks and the booklets range from 1/2HP to a few 3/4 units.

I agree that most probably would run individual circuits, but I thought the question was if there were possibly a code article that might prevent these particular fixed appliances from being connected to the two or more small appliance branch circuits.

Kjay;
Yes, you are right, that was & still is the OPs question.

I copied & pasted the commentary from the '08 Handbook, noted that it is not verbatum Code in my original reply to George. Greg followed with his response of 210.52 (B) (1).

Some of the other replies were opinions, and delved into design commentary.

Perhaps, I should use the phrase 'standard trade practice'

And lastly, I appologize for not directly answering your ?? regarding 210.23(A)2); Yes, that precludes some of the DWs and perhaps some of the GDs.