uh oh, another SA question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Is the breaker gonna trip at 15A? It may last for a while.
My question is really, what is going to keep someone from plugging in a SA into a general lighting outlet if they look the same?
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:
Is the breaker gonna trip at 15A? It may last for a while.
My question is really, what is going to keep someone from plugging in a SA into a general lighting outlet if they look the same?
Click to expand...
good point with the advent of color codes nm it is easy for an inspector to see what is in 12 or what is in 14.But I did a house for a friend recently and the entire home was wired in #12,Does anyone think an inspector will trace a wire from SA to SA receptacle and ensure that lighting has not been tapped of this circuit :p It is the resposibility of the EC to ensure that what he has put out there is code compliant after all he has the license at risk.It is the resposibility to ensure spacing is met and yes that the EC has complied with applicable codes .This is a double edged sword.Especially when a home is wired in all #12.Who`s responsibility is it to ensure lighting isn`t off a SA circuit and that a SA receptacle isn`t off a bath gfci circuit ? I say the EC any opposers
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

The house i just finished is all #12 romex.Where is the hazard if my gp circuit get a SA load ? As long as no lights in kitchen are on it where is the hazard ?
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I have code issues with that, which I have expressed earlier, I won't go into that now.

As you just stated though, there would be nothing 'wrong' as far as the conductor.

If you want to run your general purpose circuits in #12, that's your prerogative (and your money).

My question was to those that think that they could put a 15A gp circuit #14's on the countertop or in the dining room.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I think this is another csae where poor wording was used.In 23 years i have never tried to do this and will not start now legal or not,it is a bad idea and i can not understand anyone doing it.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

This has been the debate of more than one thread. It seems to me that one of the most over looked articles or most misunderstood is 210.11.
Here we are told branch circuits for lighting shall be provided to supply the loads calculated in accordance with 220.10. In 220.10 the lighting load is outlined. We are also told that for dwelling unit loads as specified in 210.11(C) which is the small appliance, laundry and bathroom circuits.

In 210.11 we are told that these circuits shall be provided and in 210.52 we are told how to install the receptacle and lighting outlets on these circuits.
In 210.70 for a dwelling we are required to have a lighting outlet in every room and storage space that has equipment and at every door. The one at the door can be elsewhere as long as there is light at the door.

In 210.52 (B) (1) there is an exception that allows a receptacle to be used on the lighting circuit where the small appliance circuits are present. There is nothing anywhere that forbids the lighting circuit to be in the same location as any other required circuit.

To address the desk that is in the kitchen or dinning room, as long as it is a desk then why would it require a small appliance circuit? If it is a desk then it is not part of the counter so therefore not required to be on the small appliance circuit.

The debate that someone might is not inspecting but is the art of expecting. If we are to inspect on the grounds of what someone might do then we will have to look at the scenario of the single wide mobile home being wired up to an outside panel of a dwelling unit. Therefore an outside main will not pass inspection.

By-the-way, I?m back!!!!!
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

In 210.52 (B) (1) there is an exception that allows a receptacle to be used on the lighting circuit where the small appliance circuits are present. There is nothing anywhere that forbids the lighting circuit to be in the same location as any other required circuit.
Click to expand...
210.52 does not say that a lighting circuit outlet can be in the same location as small appliances. The exceptions are very specific as to what can be on a lighting circuit.
Besides, 210.70(A)(1) exception (1) (which is reference in one of the exceptions of 210.52(B)) states 'in other than kitchens and bathrooms'.
This code rule is cited by some as for a reason to install a 'lighting outlet' or an lighting circuit recept on a countertop, when it specifically says that you can't do that in kitchens.
To address the desk that is in the kitchen or dinning room, as long as it is a desk then why would it require a small appliance circuit? If it is a desk then it is not part of the counter so therefore not required to be on the small appliance circuit.
Click to expand...
A desk is a countertop located within the confines of a kitchen, dining room, dinette, buffet, breakfast area or other similar location.
Even if it is a different material, if it is fixed to the wall, and is a broad flat surface, it is still a countertop. You may use it as a desk, but it is still a countertop. The outlet above may be for a pencil sharpener, but it would have to be a small appliance circuit, as spelled out in 210.52(C).

[ May 13, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: milwaukeesteve ]
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

milwaukeesteve

one or the other of us is reading this exception the wrong way. When I read it I read the words ?as defined? and can not find the words ?other than kitchens and bathrooms'?
This exception allows me to install a general purpose receptacle in addition to those required by the small appliance circuit.
Your referral to the ?other than kitchens and bathrooms'? would apply if I was trying to use the switched receptacle to replace the required lighting outlet.


210.52 (B) (1) 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

As I have stated 210.52 (C) (1) requires the small appliance circuit to be installed at each wall counter space and no where does it state over a desk.

210.52 (C) (1) Wall Counter Spaces. A receptacle outlet shall be installed at each wall counter space that is 300 mm (12 in.) or wider.

Let?s not forget that the inspector is just that and not the designer of the house. If this space is named the office desk on the plans then it is a desk when the inspector comes to inspect.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

before I go any further, 2002? ir 2005?
I am in 2002, that may be a problem.
My reference to not in kitchens and baths was straight from 250.70 which is what defines 'defined by'.
Again, 250.52 tells us what outlets can go on a countertop. The exceptions are very specific. Nowhere in 250.52 says that we can put a general purpose outlet and circuit on a countertop.
This exception allows me to install a general purpose receptacle in addition to those required by the small appliance circuit.
Click to expand...
The desk is a countertop. If you want to use a countertop as a desk, that is fine. But that is still a countertop.
If you wanted to use a 'desk' as countertop, and you wired it with a lighting circuit, you would be wrong.

Can I ask that you do me a favor:
Please explain to me (I am obviously not seeing it), how you do come up with the qp outlet on a countertop. Disregard the desk for a minute, focus on the other. I don't see it when I read it. Try not to paraphrase. Use code references so I can see it.
I don't want to be an a**, but I have to somehow either see your way or see your error.
Thank you.

[ May 13, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: milwaukeesteve ]
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

The only differences between the ?02 and the ?05 cycles ate as follows;
?02- 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.
?05- 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.

The exception is word for word the same, ?05 - 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

Don?t be deceived by the wording ?as defined? and take that to mean that these receptacles must be for the required lighting outlet as outlined in 210.70
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

In 210.52 (B) (1) we are told that ALL countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C),
Notice that I used caps for the word ALL as I quoted the sentence. Also note that the sentence points out that it is the outlets that are required by (C).
What are the outlets required by (C)?
The ones that are to be 2 ft. and 4 ft. apart and any over a 12 inch counter top.
Now that I have fulfilled this requirement I am allowed to go back and install general purpose outlets until my heart is happy.

Pay close attention to the placement of this exception. It is found under the section that is giving the requirement for the counter top receptacles (all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C)). Another thing to pay close attention to is the wording (as defined) it does not state as required.

The wording of the exception explains that in addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, or in other words I can add to these required receptacles or install more if I so desire.

It goes on to tell me that these permitted receptacles are to be supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1.
The exception to 210.70 (A) (1) will let me install a switched receptacle for the required lighting outlet.
The exception under .52 (B) is not talking about the required lighting outlet that is referred to in .70 (A) (1) therefore the words ?as defined?.

Why put this exception under .52 (B) (1) if it was referring to the required lighting outlet? Would not the exception under .70 (A) (1) forbid it?
If this was the case then the exception under .52 (B) (1) would be useless and serve no purpose.
I hope this clears this up.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

What are the outlets required by (C)?
The ones that are to be 2 ft. and 4 ft. apart and any over a 12 inch counter top.
Now that I have fulfilled this requirement I am allowed to go back and install general purpose outlets until my heart is happy.
Click to expand...
(C) does not require anything. (C) states where and how outlets are installed in regards to the countertop.
It says nothing about mininum or required minimum.

If you were install outlets only 1 ft along the countertop, they would all fall under the (C). Even ones that are 'added once you meet the requirement'.

Nowhere does it say anything about meeting the minimum only.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:

If you were install outlets only 1 ft along the countertop, they would all fall under the (C). Even ones that are 'added once you meet the requirement'.
Click to expand...
Show me a code article or section to back up this statement and explain the exception to 210.52 (B) (1).
:confused:
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

You know what? I'm starting to change my mind on this issue.

(B)(3) really shoots the "extra" circuit theory in the foot.
(3) Kitchen Receptacle Requirements. Receptacles installed in a kitchen to serve countertop surfaces shall be supplied by (not fewer than) two small-appliance branch circuits, either or both of which shall also be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in the same kitchen and in other rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1). (Additional small-appliance branch circuits shall be permitted to supply receptacle outlets in the kitchen and other rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1).) No small-appliance branch circuit shall serve more than one kitchen.

Bolded parenthesis are added by me, for demonstrative purposes.
Click to expand...
Receptacles installed to serve countertop surfaces shall be supplied by small appliance branch circuits. No if's, no exceptions, no "if you pass 'Go' do not collect $200".

In fact, the lack of exceptions is saying something else, that JW has touched on: 210.52(B)(3) is aware of 210.70, and has flat rejected the presence of other circuits on it's countertops. Sprinkle whatever "extra" outlets you may desire in dining rooms, etc, but that countertop gets only SA circuits.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by jwelectric:
In 210.52 (B) (1) we are told that ALL countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C),
...
What are the outlets required by (C)?
Click to expand...
This is as much a poke at myself as you, Mike, because I have always done it too.

Why do we change "covered by" to "required by"? I think it's a subconscious attempt to inject our attitude about what it says. :)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Originally posted by jwelectric:
In 210.52 (B) (1) we are told that ALL countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C),
...
What are the outlets required by (C)?
Click to expand...
This is as much a poke at myself as you, Mike, because I have always done it too.

Why do we change "covered by" to "required by"? I think it's a subconscious attempt to inject our attitude about what it says. :)
Click to expand...
this is so easy to answer

(1) Wall Counter Spaces. A receptacle outlet shall be installed at each wall counter space that is 300 mm (12 in.) or wider. Receptacle outlets shall be installed so that no point along the wall line is more than 600 mm (24 in.) measured horizontally from a receptacle outlet in that space.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Hey George,
Nice to see you again. :)

The way I do see this is like you just stated.
paraphrasing.... 'covered by' and 'required' are two different things.
Only one is mentioned in regards to these SA, countertop outlets. Previously, I had been saying that ANY recept installed falls under ALL recepts installed, whether it would be 'required' or extra, they still fall under the criteria set forth by 210.52(C) as 'covered by'.

Is it that we believe that the NEC only is for the minimum requirements in anything that we do? In this section, they use strong language. ALL, SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE TO, AS COVERED BY. It is hard to say anything can be just a minimum requirement with such strong language in place.

Unlike wording like 'adjascent to' or 'nearest the point of entry'. Those phrases are calling out for someone to debate and argue, because of their not so strong language.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I will not be dragged into another debate on this issue about the kitchen circuits. The wording is very clear to those who want to read them. .52 (B) (3) only states that I can have more than two small appliance circuits and that all must be installed according to 52.(C) and (C) states, In kitchens and dining rooms of dwelling units, receptacle outlets for counter spaces shall be installed in accordance with 210.52(C)(1) through (C)(5).

If you are sold on the fact that your way is the only way then by all means go for it. I stand on what is written in the book and try as hard as I can to not inject anything to it. It is all so simple when you take the time to sit down and read what is written.

I am waiting for an answer for this question.
The exception under .52 (B) is not talking about the required lighting outlet that is referred to in .70 (A) (1) therefore the words ?as defined?.

Why put this exception under .52 (B) (1) if it was referring to the required lighting outlet? Would not the exception under .70 (A) (1) forbid it?
If this was the case then the exception under .52 (B) (1) would be useless and serve no purpose.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

jw, your shall be idea is flawed.
If you install two outlets 4ft apart, they fall under 'shall be' no more than 2ft...
If you install two outlets 3ft apart, they also fall under 'shall be' no more than 2ft...
And so on...

I think you are looking at this as a minimum requirement for spacing. That is the wrong way to see this rule.

The 2ft/4ft rule is referring to the MAXIMUM spacing. Any distance less than the maximum means nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top