re-visited those 8 pages

[david]

The code says the wall space shall be served by a rec. so that no wall space is further than six ft from a rec. Since there is no measurement given to space the required outlets apart. What spacing do you use to determine if a rec is one of the required ones or an extra ones According to the rule the required outlets would be those that are ? in. apart but no further than 12 ft apart.

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by david:
The code says the wall space shall be served by a rec. so that no wall space is further than six ft from a rec. Since there is no measurement given to space the required outlets apart. What spacing do you use to determine if a rec is one of the required ones or an extra ones According to the rule the required outlets would be those that are ? in. apart but no further than 12 ft apart.

If some extra receptical's properties (placement, capacity, AF/GF, other junk on the branch(or lack thereof) etc) is adequate to meet your required minimums, there's no reason why it can't be used to. There's no max on the number of branches you COULD use to meet the code minimum requirements. From a code POV, I don't see where there's any difference between two recepticals on different branches right next to each other that have identical properties. An inspector is just looking for one to meet the requirement for that space. That another exists that could also do it is just a bonus. If the characteristics of the other is incapable of satisfying minimums for an area (like 15A in a kitchen somewhere), then where its placed is not important.

ex. A bedroom could 10 distinct AFCI branches - one serving each receptical spaced 5' apart. Pricy, but perfectly OK to do.

ex. a 15A branch going to a supplemental kitchen receptical somewhere could also be used to supply a mandatory hallway receptical, or hall light.

The only real limits here are how many breakers can you legally fit into the panel(s) in the place.

 

[hurk27]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

From what I know if you start from a door way and this includes the space behind the door the first receptacle has to be within 6' then they can be no father than 12' until you get to another break in the wall this could be a fire place closet or a fixed in place appliance. then you must have a receptacle within 6' feet of this break in the wall it doesn't matter if you were to install more than you needed just as long as you meet the minimum. and a fixed wall will include the solid portion of French or sliding doors too, and railing. and there are receptacles that can be mounted in base board heaters that count toward the wall receptacles. But if there are extra receptacles it wouldn't matter as long as there are as many that is needed to meet the required distance. floor receptacles within 18" of a wall also count.

 

[david]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

(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 receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (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.

I am going to use this exception and switch a rec. in my kitchen for a lamp.


Handbook commentary following 210.70(A) (1)
A wall switch-controlled lighting outlet is required in the kitchen and bathroom. A receptacle outlet controlled by a wall switch is not permitted to serve as a lighting outlet in these rooms. Occupancy sensors are permitted to be used for switching these lighting outlets, provided they are equipped with a manual override or are used in addition to regular switches.

 

[pierre]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Tonyi
A suggestion:
Email NFPA for an informal answer to your question/idea of using a 'supplemental' 15 amp supplied receptacle in a kitchen, then let us know the result.
Everyone has an 'opinion', and I think before information is posted in the manner you have posted it, that something from the NFPA would help to substantiate what you say.
I do not agree with your statement and I have read the long thread on the subject. My answer is not the authoritative answer, and I would be interested in the response.

Pierre

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by pierre:
Tonyi
A suggestion:
Email NFPA for an informal answer to your question/idea of using a 'supplemental' 15 amp supplied receptacle in a kitchen, then let us know the result.
Everyone has an 'opinion', and I think before information is posted in the manner you have posted it, that something from the NFPA would help to substantiate what you say.
I do not agree with your statement and I have read the long thread on the subject. My answer is not the authoritative answer, and I would be interested in the response.

Pierre

Tell you what - I'm willing to fall on my sword publicly if all the doubting thomases are publicly willing to eat crow.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Tonyi, while I don't buy your argument I can see where it comes from. One thing that is clear is if kitchen receptacles are installed for countertop use they must be on one of the small appliance ciruits, there is no exception to that. Also another note, when you reply to a question there is no need to repost the entire question again.

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
Tonyi, while I don't buy your argument I can see where it comes from. One thing that is clear is if kitchen receptacles are installed for countertop use they must be on one of the small appliance ciruits, there is no exception to that.

I'm not convinced even that is 100% clear. The countertop requirements occur within the context of minimum number of required branches and where required recepticals on those branches have to be placed.

 

[iwire]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Tony do you think your view is the intent of the code.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

This is pretty clear to me. 210.52(B) 3 "Receptacles installed in a kitchen to serve countertop surfaces shall be supplied by not fewer than two small appliance branch circuits........" Crystal clear. If you are installing receptacles to serve the kitchen countertop they absolutely have to be supplied by the small appliance branch circuits. 15 amp circuit will not satisfy this requirement.

Also another note, when you reply to a question there is no need to repost the entire question again

[ October 28, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
This is pretty clear to me. 210.52(B) 3 "Receptacles installed in a kitchen to serve countertop surfaces shall be supplied by not fewer than two small appliance branch circuits........" Crystal clear. If you are installing receptacles to serve the kitchen countertop they absolutely have to be supplied by the small appliance branch circuits. 15 amp circuit will not satisfy this requirement.

Hold on a minute - I never claimed a 15A branch in a kitchen could be used to satisfy ANY small appliance or countertop spacing requirement!!!!(because they can't, because they're not small appliance branches)

It seems you still don't truly understand the logical path I'm taking through the code here.

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by iwire:
Tony do you think your view is the intent of the code.

I think the intent of the code is to provide a minimally usable installation to meet (kinda) modern kitchen life requirements because without those minimums, places would still be getting wired like they were 70 years ago.

There are certainly ways to put an extra 15A branch in a kitchen somewhere that would be maddening to a user and cause constant trips if it were positioned so as to tempt them to use it rather than one of the 20A branches.

If someone is foolish enough to put it where people will be tempted to misuse it rather than use it to their advantage, then you deserve to hear the complaints that will result.

Placed wisely, it can reduce counter cord clutter and free up plug space for genuine hi-draw appliances. If you had a neon Budweiser sign and wanted to put it in your kitchen on the wall above the sink, what are your choices in a "Stock" installation? Run a lead cord hanging down like clothsline over your sink to a counter top receptical - in a word, that choice SUCKS and might even be somewhat dangerous, and the goofy sign is going to burn a receptical slot on your countertop you might want to plug other junk into.

Put a receptical on some other branch up near the ceiling, and the whole installation become neater, cords aren't dangling, and the appliance branches remain at their full capacity.

I really don't see what the frigging problem people have with something like this is. All it does is allow the appliance branches to do the job they were REALLY intended to do rather than being crapped up with extraneous low draw stuff people like to plug in in odd places.

You can be smart about it or stupid. If you're stupid, then you'll feel the pain from customers who ***** . If you're smart, they'll love what you did and tell all their friends.

 

[roger]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Tony,

Placed wisely,

what does this mean? You seem to be the one who is always having somebody cut into the walls to replace your installations.

You can be smart about it or stupid. If you're stupid, then you'll feel the pain from customers who ***** .

Once again, You seem to be the one who is always having somebody cut into the walls to replace your installations. Or did I misinterpret all your arguments about people tearing things up in finished walls?

Roger

[ October 28, 2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[david]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

(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 receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

210.70 Lighting Outlets Required.
Lighting outlets shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), and (C).
(A) Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), (2), and (3).

(1) Habitable Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room and bathroom.

Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.


I made the statement that I am going to use this exception and install a switch rec. for a lamp in my kitchen.

If I take a very strict look at this rule I could conclude that as I install a wall switched controlled ceiling light in my kitchen then my wall switched controlled rec. for a lamp is not in lieu of the required lighting outlet. But is my conclusion correct is this what the code is really saying. If I consider a historical view and understand that most of the rules in this book are built on the foundation of previous code cycles, and unless it is clear that the new wording is meant to change the historical view of this rule then I should be care full not to take to liberal of an interpretation of the new wording.

Member # 4 posted October 22, 2003 09:48 PM 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 ]


?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".

I concede that the new wording changes the strictness of the rule for small appliance circuits in these specified areas. I could agree that the new wording changes the small appliance outlets to the outlets serving the wall space and the outlets serving counter spaces. I could see allowing a clock outlet from being on a small appliance circuit. I could see other lighting rec. not serving the wall space or the counter space as being allowed on a lighting circuit.

I conclude from an historical view on this rule that the new wording changes the strictness from all rec. in these specified rooms from being on the small appliance circuit. To specifying that the rec serving the wall space and the rec serving the counter space are required to be on the small appliance circuit. I think your view as to what rec. are required to be on the small appliance circuit is to liberal and has no historic foundation.

[ October 28, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: david ]

 

[david]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Tonyi:

Being smart or stupid about it has nothing to do with it. In this great commonwealth I have to inspect houses being wire by the owner who is building it. This installer will praise himself for a job well done. Two years later he sales his home along with his wiring job to the next fellow. I can?t enforce smart or stupid decision I have to try and insure that the next fellow is getting a code compliant wiring job.

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by david:
I have to try and insure that the next fellow is getting a code compliant wiring job.

If the MINIMUMS for required branches and required recepticals have been met, the job is code compliant as long as any extras meet higher level requirements for the area in which they're installed (i.e. GFCI in a kitchen/bath, AFCI in bedroom, etc - NOTE THAT THESE AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR AFCI AND GFCI DO *NOT*, I REPEAT, NOT, OCCUR IN THE SECTIONS SPECIFYING CODE MANDATED MINIMUMS FOR BRANCHES AND RECEPTICALS)

Extras can be foolishly placed to confuse and annoy or carefully placed to enhance and delight. Neither of these possibilities has any impact on the code compliance of the installation though, just the installers reputation

 

[hurk27]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Didn't we go through this in bathroom's?

 

[david]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Tonyi:
In 1990 the code,

210-52 (b) small appliance.

(1) the two or more 20-ampere small appliance branch circuits required by Section 220-4(b) shall serve all receptacle outlets, including refrigeration equipment, in the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room , dinning room, or similar area of a dwelling unit. Such circuits, weather two or more are used, shall have no other outlets.

Exception No. 1 A receptacle installed solely for the electrical supply to and support of an electric clock in any room specified above.

Exception No. 3: In addition to the required receptacles specified by section 210-52, switched receptacles supplied from a general ?purpose branch circuit as defined in section 210-7(a), exception No. 1 shall be permitted.

You are still ignoring the historic foundation this rule is based on.

 

[tonyi]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Originally posted by david:

You are still ignoring the historic foundation this rule is based on.

So? The words present in 2002 are what we must use today, not what someone thought years ago, then decided to change and left some redundant cruft in because they were in a hurry or didn't proof the whole article for redundancies after the change.

The fact that some redundant or unnecessary exceptions may exist does not alter the meaning of the words that are present when that section is read in relation to the sections that take you to it. A top down reading of the code doesn't have you encountering any of this stuff when putting in stuff that's above and beyond code minimums.

A bottom up reading of the code will cause you all sorts of problems with the scope of rule applications. You can't just dive down to the lowest level pick things in isolation and then apply them to the world.

Take this phrase for example : "receptical outlets shall be permitted to be located conveniently for permanent furniture layout"

Hey cool - I don't need to put a recepticle behind where the dude plans to put a big bookcase! WRONG. Oh, bummer...that only applies to hotels/motels.

Now look at 210 III - it quite plainly states "Required Outlets". If something isn't required, this section and any requirements it makes do NOT apply - because you WILL NOT be reading this section when figuring out what extra junk DOES need to comply with.

 

[david]

Re: re-visited those 8 pages

Sorry Tonyi, I Don?t agree,

The term or heading required outlets wasn?t just thrown into the 2002 addition of the code.

1990 code:
Exception No. 3: In addition to the required receptacles specified by section 210-52, switched receptacles supplied from a general ?purpose branch circuit as defined in section 210-7(a), exception No. 1 shall be permitted.

210-52 in part
(a) General Provisions.
In every kitchen, family room, dinning room, living room, parlor, library, den, sun room, bed room, recreation room, or similar room or area of dwelling units, receptacle outlets shall be installed so that no point along the floor line in any wall space is more than 6 feet measured horizontally, from an outlet in that space,

2002 code
210.52 Dwelling Unit Receptacle Outlets.
(A) General Provisions. In every kitchen, family room, dining room, living room, parlor, library, den, sunroom, bedroom, recreation room, or similar room or area of dwelling units, receptacle outlets shall be installed in accordance with the general provisions specified in 210.52(A)(1) through (A)(3).

1990 code
210-52 (b) small appliance.
(1) the two or more 20-ampere small appliance branch circuits required by Section 220-4(b) shall serve all receptacle outlets, including refrigeration equipment, in the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room , dinning room, or similar area of a dwelling unit. Such circuits, weather two or more are used, shall have no other outlets.
Exception No. 1 A receptacle installed solely for the electrical supply to and support of an electric clock in any room specified above.

Exception No. 3: In addition to the required receptacles specified by section 210-52, switched receptacles supplied from a general ?purpose branch circuit as defined in section 210-7(a), exception No. 1 shall be permitted.


(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 receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (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.

IN both the 1990 code and the 2002 code the exceptions are relevant and necessary if you are going to install a 15-amp circuit serving the wall space in these specified rooms.

Again the current wording only gives allowance for rec on lighting circuits outside of the rec serving wall space and rec serving counters.

That is why it says, shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A){wall space} and (C) {counter Rec.} and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

[ October 29, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: david ]