Dining Room Receptacles

[caj1962]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

I have been following this post from the start and have refrained from comenting until now. Toni you have said severall times all doesn't always mean all do you think shall doesn't always mean shall also? In a hospital aricle 517 says all the 120 volt outlets that serve a patient bed location have to be hospital grade does that not mean all of them? I know our host has sided with you on this and he as well as you are entitled to your opionon, but a wise old man once told me if one person tells you it is a rumor if everyone tells you it is probably true. Count the posts and you and Mike are a minotity here. I am not trying to change your mind or Mikes, But think of it this way, you posted up the question,probably because you got dinged on an inspection, and for a long time no one else agreed with you. Does that not make you stop and think that maybe, just maybe you might have misinterpeted the afformentioned codes. I know for me the longest and most vigourus arguments I fight are the ones where early on I know I am wrong but have try any way

Have a great day

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by caj1962:
Toni you have said severall times all doesn't always mean all do you think shall doesn't always mean shall also? In a hospital aricle 517 says all the 120 volt outlets that serve a patient bed location have to be hospital grade does that not mean all of them?

In the case of 517.18(B) you mention "all" DOES indeed mean "all" in the most all encompassing sense.

The reason why these two situations are very different? In a word - SCOPE. The 517 requirement does NOT have any higher level sections (other than HCF's themselves) that explicitly define or limit its applicability.

In the case of the small appliance branches, the 20A requirement language occurs deep down in a section talking about branches mandated by load calcs and fixed loads. Because of this, its applicability is SCOPED.

Think back to the Ven diagrams in grade school math classes. This applicability scoping is the same thing - sets, supersets, subsets, disjoint, intersections, etc.

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by russellroberts:
From a practical standpoint,why,if you've already pulled a 20a ckt to the dr,would you want to pull a 15a ckt. to the same place?

In new construction, its not a big issue really. In old work and remodel, where rooms are being redesignated, its a bigger issue.

There's a lot of reasons related to installation ease why one might go with 15A rather than 20A in an old work situation.

 

[roger]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Glory hallelujah, the word "All" only counts in article 517.

Roger

[ October 22, 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[caj1962]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Tonyi
If you are dueing a remodel as you suggest then will not the following code section make you compliant if you do nothing to the existing circuits?

80.9
(C) Additions, Alterations, or Repairs. Additions, alterations, or repairs to any building, structure, or premises shall conform to that required of a new building without requiring the existing building to comply with all the requirements of this Code. Additions, alterations, installations, or repairs shall not cause an existing building to become unsafe or to adversely affect the performance of the building as determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Electrical wiring added to an existing service, feeder, or branch circuit shall not result in an installation that violates the provisions of the Code in force at the time the additions are made.

If in fact your local AHJ dinged you on this topic then you could use this section to make him rethink his postion.
That being said if you do a service change we are not required to rewire the whole house. We must only make ALL of what we work on conform to any and ALL codes that are applicable.

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by caj1962:
Tonyi
If you are dueing a remodel as you suggest then will not the following code section make you compliant if you do nothing to the existing circuits?

From a strictly NEC POV, yea, it gets you off the hook. Some localities may want things brought up to current code levels in a particular area of the building depending on the extent of the remodel. I know of at least one that (in theory) wants permits and an electrical inspection if someone just re-rocks a wall. That's a town with a lot of late 1800's era buildings and a lot of 1920's vintage electric still in place though. I understand their concern. A lot of people never consider the condition of their electric when they do a remodel and would just cover over decrepit stuff and never give it a thought.

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by roger:
Glory hallelujah, the word "All" only counts in article 517.

All means all when its intended to mean all - and that's not necessarily all the time

The term "scope" shouldn't be a foreign one to an inspector - every article begins with a paragraph titled "scope" that says what its talking about.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Tony,
Are you telling me that if I put receptacles on 2' centers above the kitchen countertop that only every other receptacle would be requied to be fed by the two or more small appliance branch circuits?
Don

 

[iwire]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Are you telling us that if you put the counter top receptacles on 2' centers in place of the required 4' centers that the extra receptacles are not required to be on the small appliance branch circuits? And are you telling us that if the dinning room receptacles are closer together than 12' on center that the intermediate receptacles can be on a 15 amp general purpose circuit, but the ones 12' on center must be on the two or more small appliance circuits?
Don

Don for what it is worth IMO you have presented the strongest argument yet when you asked this on page 5 of this thread and I notice Tony did not respond to it.

So Tony what do you say in regards to Don's question?

I am still convinced that all outlets in the kitchen, dinning room, etc must be 20 amp. Except for the dedicated refrigerator and lighting exception.


I will say you do stick to your guns though.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

My head actually just exploded!

[ October 22, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Tony,
Are you telling me that if I put receptacles on 2' centers above the kitchen countertop that only every other receptacle would be requied to be fed by the two or more small appliance branch circuits?
Don

Once you fulfill the minimum branches, capacities and placements indicated by load calcs and countertop placement guidelines of 210 III, then 210 III is no longer a consideration - because all "Required" outlets are in place.

All the rules of 210 III are for "required" outlets. I don't know why people are having such a hard time understanding what the word "Required" means in the 210 III title.

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by iwire:

So Tony what do you say in regards to Don's question?

a) Read the paragraph under 210.11 - this makes it plain that "required" branch circuits are based on load calcs and certain fixed loads.

b) Now look at the title of 210 III - "Required outlets".

If something isn't required per 210.11, then how can the 210 III rules possibly apply to it? 210 III title plainly states what this section is all about - REQUIRED STUFF, not optional stuff.

Optional stuff is of course STILL bound by ALL the provisions of 210 I and 210 II though -- which is why additional 15A in a bath or kitchen would STILL be required to be GFCI protected, and any bedroom branches beyond the minimums would still be required to have AFCI. At the 210 I "General provisions" level, those kinds of requirements do apply to "ALL" in the broadest sense, even extras.

Exceeding minimums isn't a licence to do anything at all you want with them, like ignore GFCI or AFCI, or put #14 wire on a 50A breaker. You still have to look at the surrounding scope(s) and apply whatever rules are present at those levels that still can affect the extras (like 100, 210 I and 210 II, 250, etc)

 

[iwire]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Tony, do us all a favor and call the AHJ in your area and ask them about this.

I have to say if only one other person saw things my way, even it is Mike Holt and everyone else disagreed I would have to question my position.

I do not believe any AHJ here in MA or RI would accept 15 amp circuits on a kitchen counter no mater how many 20 amp circuits where already there. :roll:

Is it possible that you have lost your objectivity on this issue as you have dug your heels in and are not listening to the number of people disagreeing with you.

 

[ty]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Tony,
from many a code class that I've attended, your point of view has been taught.
I tried to agree with you in my earlier post (hence the fact that we install 15amp 'holiday' receptacles in a bathroom). When I stated 20amp for the dining room, that would be for the 'required outlets'.
We also routinely put 15amp 'holiday' receptacles under the center of dining room windows without citation. We of course have the required 20amp receptacles in the dining room.
These are special receptacles for a specific purpose.
Some may argue, "what if's..." That then becomes a convenience and design issue.

 

[ty]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Tony,
Are you telling me that if I put receptacles on 2' centers above the kitchen countertop that only every other receptacle would be requied to be fed by the two or more small appliance branch circuits?
Don

Don, that's what he is saying.
I just read this post and contrary to our 'holiday' receptacles, we would Not do this, although I have heard this view before.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

I guess we have to agree to disagree. The information in the ROP and ROC for the '96 code when the present wording of the section in question first appeared in the NEC is about as confusing as this thread. My whole points rests on the existence of the exceptions to 210.52(B)(1). If Tony and Mike are correct, then there is no reason for these exceptions to be in the code. However the wording was changed in the '96 code and the words "shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A)" replaced the words "shall serve all receptacle outlets, including refrigeration equipment, in the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dinning room or similar area". This wording change supports the position of Tony and Mike, but the substantiation was not clear as to the panels intent.
Don

[ October 22, 2003, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[roger]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

My last post here. Don you're being a perfect gentleman.

To "All" (this may or may not mean you since "All" doesn't mean anything) others.

It's not a good thing to argue with a/an ______ since you will end up at the same level and be beaten with experience.

Roger

 

[Guest]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

I can only guess what an _____ is. Are you implying Mike & Tony are _____'s? If so, Ouch!

I don't know what else to say.

I hope I'm mistaken, as I feel we should stay on topic and criticize the statement, not the stater. No matter how frustrated we get, it's just an opinion and not worthy of character assassination.

[Stater may not be the right word, but it has an electrical ring to it ]

 

[roger]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Why do you always look for the worst, maybe it could be "politician", oh excuse me, that may be the worst.

Roger

 

[Guest]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Why do you always...

Hey, those are fighting words

Sorry, I fell into the trap. You're right. You got me good. Help me with some suggestions for the _______ to get my mind out of the gutter

Thanks!

../Wayne C.