20 Amp (12 wire) in dining rooms?

[iwire]

Nothing says that you must share circuits in the kitchen and dining room. You need a minimum of 2 circuits to serve kitchen counters. If the DR were some distance away, then serve it's wall receptacles with one or more completely separate circuits. The circuits you use for this purpose are also SA circuits. So if you use 2 in the kitchen, 2 in the DR, and 1 in the pantry, you have a total of 5 SA circuits.

Charlie I am not following you, where does it say any circuit supplying a DR is a SABC?

 

[jrannis]

Maybe thats why some people have a pool table in the dining room, they must have found they had #14 wire feeding the receptacles:grin:

 

[jrannis]

This all about cost. If your kitchen was used like ours you would wish you ran 12-3 to each outlet and split the tab. we use 4 crock pots and 2 mr coffees every saturday night. Thankfully they make 40 amp breakers LOL. Never try to outguess the owners use. We burn on average $3 per hour every saturday night , but only for 6 hours.

What time Saturday?:grin:

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Charlie I am not following you, where does it say any circuit supplying a DR is a SABC?

I think the issue here is the code says that in the dinning room the SABC shall serve all wall receps covered by section 210.52(A). I'm leaning toward the same view as charlie. It is not cut a dry but words like all wall and floor receptacles lead me to this conclusion.

Also it doesn't say all receps required by 210.52(A) just covered. kinda the same type of logic used for the TR recep arguement.

210.52(B) Small Appliances.
(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry,
breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling
unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance 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.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't see the big issue here. 210.52(B)(1) except 1 allows a 15 amp circuit as a switched wall outlet as long as the sabc covers the spacing requirements. With that logic why would we not allow a recep. for a window a/c unit that requires 15 amps.

I realize the words don't make exception for an a/c but common sense does. Oh yeah we are talking the NEC and people who only go by the book. I do try and go by the book but I see no danger in this arrangement.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I don't see the big issue here. 210.52(B)(1) except 1 allows a 15 amp circuit as a switched wall outlet as long as the sabc covers the spacing requirements. With that logic why would we not allow a recep. for a window a/c unit that requires 15 amps.

I realize the words don't make exception for an a/c but common sense does. Oh yeah we are talking the NEC and people who only go by the book. I do try and go by the book but I see no danger in this arrangement.

Do think it is okay to install a 15a circuit with a receptacle that serves a kitchen counter top in addition to the two SABC that are also serving the counter top? I'm not being challenging I really am trying to figure it out... if I decided it was okay I think the logic would apply to the dinning room also.

If you say it is not okay based on 210.52(B)(1) I think it has to apply to the dinning room also.

BTW my wife just told me I had to stop posting with you guys (actually she said "your other family" :roll:) for a while and do some to-do list items.
Later.

 

[480sparky]

Do think it is okay to install a 15a circuit with a receptacle that serves a kitchen counter top in addition to the two SABC that are also serving the counter top? ..........

No. 210.52(B)(3).

 

[charlie b]

Charlie I am not following you, where does it say any circuit supplying a DR is a SABC?

210.52(B), as twoskinsoneman has already said. In case I wasn't clear, however, I did mean this one in terms of receptacle outlets, not lights or smoke detectors or any other type of outlet.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

What time Saturday?:grin:

Actually we get some from that far away. Send pm if your serious and i send link. As far as #12 goes i prefer running it to everything as i rewire or add and often 12-3. Never know what you need in future and if your wrong and needed 20 amps and you ran 14 you will hate yourself for being so cheap. Now if its a track home then go for cheap but if custom offer it for bit extra. I made plenty of mistakes on my own home. If could start over all of it been piped.

 

[Brian Oshman]

I think we in the direction of less than one, especially in everyday life when we learned a lot about the technology are. We soon lost his job every night to the wind and solar energy will connect. IMO

Ewe must bee frum wun uf dem der rektangyellar states?.

 

[radiopet]

Here is my view ( For what it is worth )

B) Small Appliances.
1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry,
breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling
unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance 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.

Exception No. 2: The receptacle outlet for refrigeration
equipment shall be permitted to be supplied from an individual
branch circuit rated 15 amperes or greater.

My personal feeling is if the receptacle being installed is not intended to meet the required spacing of 210.52 and is simply installed for a dedicated reason like in one of bobs examples then it could be 15A and protected as such.

 

[220/221]

In the olden days people would use their dining rooms as an extension of their kitchens. Now days, not so much.

It's an antiquated requirement but it's still there.

 

[480sparky]

In the olden days people would use their dining rooms as an extension of their kitchens. Now days, not so much.

It's an antiquated requirement but it's still there.

Because there's still a lot of 'antiquated' people out there.

I have many aunts & uncles with their dining room table against the wall, and a receptacle about 40" AFF. Toaster, coffee maker, griddle, etc. all get plugged in.

 

[celtic]

I often use 20a for other receptacle circuits, mainly because I can place more receptacles on them.....

:-?

...and no one noticed this???



Slackers

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

:-?

...and no one noticed this???



Slackers

Given the choice i would prefer 15 receptacles on a 20 than 10 on a 15 amp. Voltage drop be lower and less likely to trip.

 

[charlie b]

If I were ever to become a stickler for precision in the application of words (?Nay, never, not he,? they all cry in unison! ), I might focus in on one particular word, emphasized below:

. . . the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets

covered by 210.52(A). . . .

What means this word, ?covered?? If I talk about something, then I will have covered the topic, right?

Suppose the NEC authors, in their infinite wisdom, enacted the following rule: ?All receptacles that are painted yellow must be installed horizontally. Exception: The requirement does not apply to receptacles that are painted yellow but that have alternating blue stripes.?

Clearly, this rule would ?cover? the yellow receptacles. But does it not also ?cover? receptacles that are yellow with blue stripes? The fact that the rule does not impose requirement on the yellow/blue receptacles does not change the fact that the yellow/blue ones are covered by the rule.

So now let us look at receptacles that are ?covered by 210.52(A).? To be specific, let?s talk about Bob?s receptacle under the DR table. 210.52(A)(3) says that you can?t count this one as being one of the required wall space receptacles. That covers the subject, doesn?t it. The receptacle under the table can?t replace one on the wall, but it is covered by the rule.

Conclusion: The receptacle under the table, being ?covered by 210.52(A),? goes on an SA circuit. QED.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

If I were ever to become a stickler for precision in the application of words (?Nay, never, not he,? they all cry in unison! ), I might focus in on one particular word, emphasized below:What means this word, ?covered?? If I talk about something, then I will have covered the topic, right?

Suppose the NEC authors, in their infinite wisdom, enacted the following rule: ?All receptacles that are painted yellow must be installed horizontally. Exception: The requirement does not apply to receptacles that are painted yellow but that have alternating blue stripes.?

Clearly, this rule would ?cover? the yellow receptacles. But does it not also ?cover? receptacles that are yellow with blue stripes? The fact that the rule does not impose requirement on the yellow/blue receptacles does not change the fact that the yellow/blue ones are covered by the rule.

So now let us look at receptacles that are ?covered by 210.52(A).? To be specific, let?s talk about Bob?s receptacle under the DR table. 210.52(A)(3) says that you can?t count this one as being one of the required wall space receptacles. That covers the subject, doesn?t it. The receptacle under the table can?t replace one on the wall, but it is covered by the rule.

Conclusion: The receptacle under the table, being ?covered by 210.52(A),? goes on an SA circuit. QED.

I agree with this viewpoint. So I guess receptacles listed in 210.52 are not required to SABC since they are not covered in 210.52(A)

These.
(1) Part of a luminaire or appliance, or
(2) Controlled by a wall switch in accordance with
210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, or
(3) Located within cabinets or cupboards, or
(4) Located more than 1.7 m (51⁄2 ft) above the floor

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Charlie this seems to support your viewpoint:
(the parts crossed out in the ROP I shrank and italicized, since the cross-out did not copy over.)

2-201 Log #2222 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
(210.52(B)(1))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
(B) Small Appliances.
(1) Receptacle outlets served in the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining
room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere smallappliance
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.

Substantiation: Under the 2005 code wording, if receptacles in addition to
those that are required by 210.52(A) or (C), these additional receptacles are not
required to be supplied by the two or more 20 ampere small appliance branch
circuits. This proposed change will require all installed receptacles in these
areas to be supplied by the small appliance branch circuits.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The panel added the references to make it clear as to what
receptacles had to be on the small appliance branch circuit. The use of the term
?covered? in the text was very specifically chosen instead of ?required? to
avoid the exact issue raised by the submitter.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
____________________________________________________________

 

[charlie b]

I agree with this viewpoint. So I guess receptacles listed in 210.52 are not required to SABC since they are not covered in 210.52(A)

Sorry, but I am not clear as to whether you are agreeing with me or not. As an example of my viewpoint, if you put a receptacle outlet 7 feet above the DR floor, I say it must be on a SABC. My reasoning is that this receptable is "covered" by 210.52(A), in the sense that it is mentioned therein, despite its not being included in the relevant requirements of that rule. Are you in agreement with that?

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Sorry, but I am not clear as to whether you are agreeing with me or not. As an example of my viewpoint, if you put a receptacle outlet 7 feet above the DR floor, I say it must be on a SABC. My reasoning is that this receptable is "covered" by 210.52(A), in the sense that it is mentioned therein, despite its not being included in the relevant requirements of that rule. Are you in agreement with that?

Well I guess I disagree somewhat. IMO (and this is beginning to get convoluted) floor recepts are covered by 210.52(A)(3). It mentions floor recepts unless within 18" blah blah. So I see it covering all the floor receps. However I don't see 210.52(A) covering receps that are more than 5.5ft above the floor. IMO 210.52 specifically calls out that 210.52(1)-(4) are not covered by sections (A)-(H).

If 210.52(B)(1) just said receps covered by 210.52 (kinda like TRs) than there would be no question. But IMO 210.52(A) does not in any way cover the items listed in 210.52(1)-(4)

And to be honest I think the 210.52(A)(3) would be better suitted to be 210.52(5) and if they were IMO they would not have to be SABC either.


Now if you are trying to say that just because 210.52(A) uses the word receptacle every single recept is covered you would have to include other than 15 and 20 125v receps....range and anything else. But of course we know that because 210.52 says that the sections (A)-(H) only cover 15 and 20a 125v recepts other than those listing in 210.52(1)-(4) we don't need to include the range...or anything in 210.52(1)-(4)