210.52(B)(1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
I have an inspector who takes the second sentence of this code to say that it is requiring any SA circuit that feeds "kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit" has to also be the circuit that feeds one of the two or more counter SA circuits. :mad:

The problem is he is interpreting " the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all receptacle outlets covered" as requiring these SA circuits to have to serve both the counter and the other areas?
I tried to show him that this requirement is only to not allow these rooms on other than SA branch circuits, but he insists that it requires the counter circuit to serve these other outlets.
I have for years kept my counter circuits separate from any SA circuit feeding a dinning room or the like. I have never had this type of spin put on this requirement. :confused:

When we look at 210.52(B)(3) it permits you to supply receptacle outlets in the kitchen and other rooms with additional SA circuits.

Has anyone ever run into this?
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

He's mistaken. So he wants you to use less circuits? You need a minimum of 2 SA circuits and they can serve the counter only, the dining room only or a combination etc. He needs to read 210.52(B)(3).
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

Wayne,
I agree with you.

As a matter of fact, we also seperate the circuts. The dining/nook has a seperate 20amp circut, the counter receptacles are on two (or more) 20amp circuts, Frig is seperate 20amp, gas stove/micro seperate 20amp, and so on.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

I agree with TY. This sounds reminescent of codes gone by (1984?). Wording and interpretation begat ignorance for some inspectors at that time. Sorry for your luck.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

I read this the same way you do too wayne. You can either extend from the counter top recs, or add additional SA circuits as a design decision.

IMHO the intention is to insure that in these areas, the circuits are 20 amp, and the recs are calculated at 180 va, un-like the requirements in the rest of the house.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

IMHO the intention is to insure that in these areas, the circuits are 20 amp, and the recs are calculated at 180 va, un-like the requirements in the rest of the house.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point but I don't think that the NEC requires a 180 VA calculation applied to these receptacles. It does require 2 or more 20 amp circuits and that's all.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

This provision shall not be applicable to the receptacle
outlets specified in 210.11(C)(1) and (C)(2).

I stand corrected.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

The way I look at it is from the opposite direction. You have a living room. OK, then it will need receptacles along the wall. By definition, the circuit that feeds those receptacles is a ?small appliance circuit.? Then by rule, that circuit has to be 20 amps, and it cannot also feed power to the garage.

In other words, it is the fact that it powers receptacles in the living room, and not the question of whether it also powers receptacles in the kitchen, that causes it to be an SA circuit.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

charlie, did you mean dining room?

When did a living room become a similar area to a dining room?
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

How does something so easy get so screwed up.SA circuits are for dining rooms,kitchens,pantry,etc.If you want you can have 30 or 40 SA circuits all dedicated.Differance in what the circuit is called is based on the room its in.Same
12-2,box,receptacle ,plate cover,breaker in a living room is not called a SA CIRCUIT.But move it to the dining room and it now is a SA circuit
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

Originally posted by jimwalker:
How does something so easy get so screwed up.SA
Click to expand...
Jim, was it always this easy for you or did you have to learn it at some point too? :)
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

i have been doing commercial/ industrial work for years. maybe i forgot, maybe the code changed... but either way, i had to catch up on this section from the posts here. :)

simple to one person is maybe not simple to another.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

Originally posted by jbwhite:
simple to one person is maybe not simple to another.
Click to expand...
Very true.
However, if you are putting on the inspector hat and you are red tagging people you better make damn sure you know what you are talking about.
This inspector does not.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

IMO, (B)(3) clearly states that there could be additional circuits that could feed receptacles in the kitchen (as in, not countertop ones).

That said, if the bozo wants to stick to his guns, and you don't have the time for it, simply wirenut your third circuit with one of the countertop circuits in the panel. Problem solved. Now they only have two countertop circuits.

Then ask the bozo if he likes this installation better. :)

[ December 17, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

I would not put up with an inspector that can't read code.Call his boss every time he tries s--- like this and he will learn to back off unless he is sure he is right.
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

"However, if you are putting on the inspector hat and you are red tagging people you better make damn sure you know what you are talking about."

I agree with this. I cannot speak for other areas, but there has been an attitude that once an inspector, the job went their way. It should only go the "code way".
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

Originally posted by jimwalker:
I would not put up with an inspector that can't read code.Call his boss every time he tries s--- like this and he will learn to back off unless he is sure he is right.
Click to expand...
Jim do you really want me to find all your posts where you explain how you do things not required by code because that how things are in FL? :D
 
Re: 210.52(B)(1)

Bob,doing things not required is an option.To simply let an inspector think it's gotta be his way is another.Letting an inspector know you will call him on his mistakes will simply make him think twice.If he is sure he is right then let him cite the code.I had one of them once.He only cited one violation and even used the number.7:00 am next morning i called him.I asked him to read the exception,Jim ,i see no exceptions.Turn the page.Sorry Jim, i missed it,signing you off.Inspectors do make mistakes but when they do it cost you money and time.Let them know that if they tag you it better be a violation or they get a call.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top