Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
- Thread starter sfav8r
- Start date
- Status
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
Well I am back at the house and see where a lot of discussion has taken place.
What I have not seen is where any one has backed up that 210.11 (C) (1) is a permissive rule. Not one post to show where the permission is given to install more circuits.
The fact still remains that 210.11 (C) (1) is a mandatory rule in the very wording of
two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits SHALL BE PROVIDED
No where does it say shall be permitted. Please show me the shall be permitted and I will back down.
When 220.52 refers back to those required by 210.11 (C) (1) it states the word EACH not the two required circuits. Being 210.11 (C) (1) is a mandatory rule any and all circuits installed for small appliance circuits WILL be required to be in the service calculation period.
Well I am back at the house and see where a lot of discussion has taken place.
What I have not seen is where any one has backed up that 210.11 (C) (1) is a permissive rule. Not one post to show where the permission is given to install more circuits.
The fact still remains that 210.11 (C) (1) is a mandatory rule in the very wording of
two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits SHALL BE PROVIDED
No where does it say shall be permitted. Please show me the shall be permitted and I will back down.
When 220.52 refers back to those required by 210.11 (C) (1) it states the word EACH not the two required circuits. Being 210.11 (C) (1) is a mandatory rule any and all circuits installed for small appliance circuits WILL be required to be in the service calculation period.
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
SEESAW - one person is up while the other is down, then the other person is up while the other is down.
I say it is time to get off the seesaw and move on to another piece of playground equipment
Do you know how many chips a guy can eat reading this thread Save me!!!!
[ June 27, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]
SEESAW - one person is up while the other is down, then the other person is up while the other is down.
I say it is time to get off the seesaw and move on to another piece of playground equipment
Do you know how many chips a guy can eat reading this thread
Save me!!!![ June 27, 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
And I ain?t budging.
These same words have been it the Handbooks for years as well as text books that are sold every day at the community colleges.
The IAEI has made a stand on this as well as CMP when they wrote this article.
Now if it was wrong it would have been shot down years ago long before this thread.
And no one has yet to shown where that 210.11 (C) (1) is a permissive rule. They just say it is. Show me.
(B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.
And I ain?t budging.
These same words have been it the Handbooks for years as well as text books that are sold every day at the community colleges.
The IAEI has made a stand on this as well as CMP when they wrote this article.
Now if it was wrong it would have been shot down years ago long before this thread.
And no one has yet to shown where that 210.11 (C) (1) is a permissive rule. They just say it is. Show me.
(B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
I can see your point. Can you see ours?
This is a stalemate. The mass volume of reference material that adds more than two SA circuits into the load calc isn't proof of anything, except that many distinguished authors and teachers have decided that that is what the code is trying to say.
They could be right. We could be right.
The wording just flat sucks. Hopefully, someone will toss a proposal their way to fix it. If I get time, I might take a stab at it.
I think the exerpt from a handbook Pierre posted framed it nicely: Given the ambiguity of the sections in question there is no correct answer.
Bull. They played "follow the reference" and lost. Their wording flat sucks. They very well could intend to include 30 SA circuits--the wording is too stinkin' soft to enforce. They were so worried about the flowers, they forgot the dirt.
Mike, can't you see the flip side? The rule is requiring two circuits.
I can see your point. Can you see ours?
This is a stalemate. The mass volume of reference material that adds more than two SA circuits into the load calc isn't proof of anything, except that many distinguished authors and teachers have decided that that is what the code is trying to say.
They could be right. We could be right.
The wording just flat sucks. Hopefully, someone will toss a proposal their way to fix it. If I get time, I might take a stab at it.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
[ June 27, 2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
[ June 27, 2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
George
I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe.
What I have a problem with is when they say that 210.11 (C)(1) is a permissive rule.
All I have asked is show me, and I am still waiting.
How many times have you heard these same people say that the intent of the code can?t be enforced?
Are not these same people now debating these same thoughts, intent?
Can you find any wording in 210.11 (C)(1) that leads you to think it is permissive?
I stand my ground. Three circuits installed three will be counted in the service calculation.
George
I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe.
What I have a problem with is when they say that 210.11 (C)(1) is a permissive rule.
All I have asked is show me, and I am still waiting.
How many times have you heard these same people say that the intent of the code can?t be enforced?
Are not these same people now debating these same thoughts, intent?
Can you find any wording in 210.11 (C)(1) that leads you to think it is permissive?
I stand my ground. Three circuits installed three will be counted in the service calculation.
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
We are permited to add lots of things.We can add a freezer,dishwasher,disposal,trash compactor,wine cooler,GDO ,etc.
Permitting only means we are allowed.But when we do it must be added to the load calculations.Can't simply say i am not adding it because it wasn't REQUIRED.So if we don't add 1500 va for each and every SA outlet we might end up with an over loaded service.Not saying that just because i have them that they will be ever used.I have some of them never used ones in my house.Next owner might use them.
At risk of showing my age ,i wonder how many remember back about 20 years to when we only had 2 duplexes per HR for kitchen counters.
We are permited to add lots of things.We can add a freezer,dishwasher,disposal,trash compactor,wine cooler,GDO ,etc.
Permitting only means we are allowed.But when we do it must be added to the load calculations.Can't simply say i am not adding it because it wasn't REQUIRED.So if we don't add 1500 va for each and every SA outlet we might end up with an over loaded service.Not saying that just because i have them that they will be ever used.I have some of them never used ones in my house.Next owner might use them.
At risk of showing my age ,i wonder how many remember back about 20 years to when we only had 2 duplexes per HR for kitchen counters.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
If you are REQUIRED to get 2 or more questions correct on a test to pass, does that mean you must get more than two questions right to pass. No, you only need two. If you get more than two right, fantastic, it's just not required, but permitted.
No matter how large a house is or how many outlets are served, I am only required to supply 2 small appliance circuits. If by DESIGN I choose to spilt those same loads that are permitted to be on just 2 circuits into 3 circuits, I have not added anymore load to the service and therefore it should not be added to the calculation.
The beauty of the whole thing is that if you want to continue adding 1500 va to your calculations for every additional small appliance circuit, well go ahead. You service will be be larger than required. No harm in that. I hardly find contractors installing the minimum anyway.
If you are REQUIRED to get 2 or more questions correct on a test to pass, does that mean you must get more than two questions right to pass. No, you only need two. If you get more than two right, fantastic, it's just not required, but permitted.
No matter how large a house is or how many outlets are served, I am only required to supply 2 small appliance circuits. If by DESIGN I choose to spilt those same loads that are permitted to be on just 2 circuits into 3 circuits, I have not added anymore load to the service and therefore it should not be added to the calculation.
The beauty of the whole thing is that if you want to continue adding 1500 va to your calculations for every additional small appliance circuit, well go ahead. You service will be be larger than required. No harm in that. I hardly find contractors installing the minimum anyway.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
jw,
The bottom line is that none of the major posters in this thread are likely to change their position on this issue so I think that we should all agree to disagree and move on.
I would like to thank all who have participated in this thread, because with all of the disagreement on the code issues it has remained a very gentlemanly discussion.
Don
jw,
I have done that a number of times in this thread. If I can't be cited for installing only two SA circuits, then additional circuit are not required by the code. There is no way around this. The calculation rule says to count the SA circuits that are required, it does not say to count the ones that are installed.
The bottom line is that none of the major posters in this thread are likely to change their position on this issue so I think that we should all agree to disagree and move on.
I would like to thank all who have participated in this thread, because with all of the disagreement on the code issues it has remained a very gentlemanly discussion.
Don
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
Don
This is not a true statement. You are trying to manipulate the wording of the code to suit your thought.
Again I challenge you or anyone to prove that 210.11 (C) (1) is permissive in any way. The wording shall be provided is mandatory as out lined in 90.5
The minute that the word more is fulfilled then it is required to be added to the service calculation.
This is the wording of the code weather we agree or not.
Don
This is not a true statement. You are trying to manipulate the wording of the code to suit your thought.
Again I challenge you or anyone to prove that 210.11 (C) (1) is permissive in any way. The wording shall be provided is mandatory as out lined in 90.5
The minute that the word more is fulfilled then it is required to be added to the service calculation.
This is the wording of the code weather we agree or not.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
Don that sounds like a good idea.
I have said all that I can say on this issue.
I remain unswayed.
I am sure that does not surprise anyone.
I also agree with Roger, this thread should be closed.
Don that sounds like a good idea.
I have said all that I can say on this issue.
I remain unswayed.
I am sure that does not surprise anyone.
I also agree with Roger, this thread should be closed.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
If someone installed one SABC in a house, then the code cited on the red-tag could be 210.11(C)(1). That code can be used to enforce the number of SA's. If a house had three, then that section is satisfied. What changed? They had more than two.
The section in 220 has just so many extra words. You and the makers of textbooks (and probably half the CMP) seize on the word each: Why would that word be there if it wasn't necessary?
For the most part, we seize onto the phrase "required by", and I do believe that is the more effectively accurate reading of the text. I don't know if that's what they meant to say, but that's what they're saying.
Is the intent clear on this one? I find it hilarious that both the examples in Annex D (which CMP-2 is responsible for, BTW) mention and use two. Do they even know what their intent is?
I hope you will release your death grip on this, and just agree the wording stinks. They really need to hire a good english teacher to pitch in at the NFPA.
If you're expecting somebody to pull a bunny out of their hat, I hope you packed a lunch. Quit being silly, Mike, of course it's a mandatory rule. You're totally neglecting what about it is mandatory. How much is "or more"?
If someone installed one SABC in a house, then the code cited on the red-tag could be 210.11(C)(1). That code can be used to enforce the number of SA's. If a house had three, then that section is satisfied. What changed? They had more than two.
The section in 220 has just so many extra words. You and the makers of textbooks (and probably half the CMP) seize on the word each: Why would that word be there if it wasn't necessary?
For the most part, we seize onto the phrase "required by", and I do believe that is the more effectively accurate reading of the text. I don't know if that's what they meant to say, but that's what they're saying.
I've said it a number of times. This is more diabolical in my mind, because we're rarely ever going to see an AHJ "enforcing" this. The only spot where this is an issue is on the test.
Is the intent clear on this one? I find it hilarious that both the examples in Annex D (which CMP-2 is responsible for, BTW) mention and use two. Do they even know what their intent is?
And if like-minded people wrote the test, then you and your students will get it right.
I hope you will release your death grip on this, and just agree the wording stinks. They really need to hire a good english teacher to pitch in at the NFPA.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
I agree: this hasn't really gone anywhere in ten pages, as far as I can tell.
Besides, if it's closed, I might get the last word.
I agree: this hasn't really gone anywhere in ten pages, as far as I can tell.
Besides, if it's closed, I might get the last word.
GG
Senior Member
- Location
- Ft.Worth, T.X.
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
Didnt have anything to add. I just wanted to be able to say that I posted on the longest thread in Mike Holt history.
Didnt have anything to add. I just wanted to be able to say that I posted on the longest thread in Mike Holt history.
lady sparks lover
Senior Member
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
What happened??
What happened??
luke warmwater
Senior Member
Re: Dedicated Circuit for referigerator
Well, I just sat and read the whole thread, so I will comment again now.
I agree with Bob, Don, Roger, George, etc....
JW ,your use of the Handbook and other text books are not Code, and can not be used to enforce Code.
I would be willing to bet that most of the text books authors based their information on the Handbook and not the Code book.
Anyway, JW, by your view, say I do a load calc. and it says I need to have (5) 15amp general lighting circuts. But, we install (12). Are you saying I would have to add to the service calc.??
In Annex D, even the examples only account for (2) SA circuts. Also only (1) laundry circut.
In a typical residence that we do, we have way more than the required circuts.
We do (2) SA circuts on the countertops minimum, plus firdge circut, and dining/nook circut. Laundry typically gets minimum of (2) circuts, and a minimum of (2) bathroom circuts (which we could have (5) and they aren't even counted in the service calc. at all).
Code requires (2). It allows more.
(2) are calculated.
In the state(s) that I'm licensed in and the countless classes that I've attended, I've never once heard it any other way. The Handbook is not even discussed, nor do I own one.
BTW, none of the Handbook authors sit on CMP 2.
Well, I just sat and read the whole thread, so I will comment again now.
I agree with Bob, Don, Roger, George, etc....
JW ,your use of the Handbook and other text books are not Code, and can not be used to enforce Code.
I would be willing to bet that most of the text books authors based their information on the Handbook and not the Code book.
Anyway, JW, by your view, say I do a load calc. and it says I need to have (5) 15amp general lighting circuts. But, we install (12). Are you saying I would have to add to the service calc.??
In Annex D, even the examples only account for (2) SA circuts. Also only (1) laundry circut.
In a typical residence that we do, we have way more than the required circuts.
We do (2) SA circuts on the countertops minimum, plus firdge circut, and dining/nook circut. Laundry typically gets minimum of (2) circuts, and a minimum of (2) bathroom circuts (which we could have (5) and they aren't even counted in the service calc. at all).
Code requires (2). It allows more.
(2) are calculated.
In the state(s) that I'm licensed in and the countless classes that I've attended, I've never once heard it any other way. The Handbook is not even discussed, nor do I own one.
BTW, none of the Handbook authors sit on CMP 2.
- Status