uh oh, another SA question

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

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I am waiting for an answer for this question.
...
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?
Click to expand...
Because more than kitchens are referred to in (B)(1). :p

.70 is obviously referring to the Lighting Outlets Required, hence the snappy title. :p
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

210.52(C) is not just for kitchen countertops. It is also for breakfast areas, buffets, dining rooms, and wet bars.
210.70 the excecption listed puts a qualifier on to which rooms can have a switched recept 'in lieu of' a switch controlled lighting outlet

210.70 Also is talking about the wall switch that is required for entrance into the room. This is not referring to under or over the cabinet lights, just the required lighting outlet for entering the room.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:

210.70 Also is talking about the wall switch that is required for entrance into the room. This is not referring to under or over the cabinet lights, just the required lighting outlet for entering the room.
Click to expand...
What book are you using to quote from?
Please quote the code section that you found the above statement in.
Where do I find the article that requires a switch for the entrance of a room?
:confused:
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by jwelectric:
As I close my last post I would like for you to read these words from this gentleman. click here
Click to expand...
Not to speak for John but the way I read what he says in that is you can add addtional 15 amp circuit fed receptacles where you may want to switch them. This is already clearly permitted. I am not convinced that the "intent" of the NEC is to allow 15 amp circuits for counter use kitchen receptacles. What I am convinced is that unless theses articles are written in third grade english spelling out exactly what you can and can not do and included with pictures and diagrams, there will be people that can read into them and interpret them in different ways.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Scott, You know we have reported your Mom's illegal installed lamp and the authority's are in route.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

jw electric,
I thought you weren't going to continue anymore, but I am glad you did. ;)
When 210.52 (C) references art 210.70, it does so to clarify that kitchens and bathrooms need to be treated differently with recept installations.
Now for your answer for 210.70
210.70 states that rooms may be utilize a wall switch controlled outlet in lieu of the lighting outlet. The NEC requires us to have a wall switch controlling some kind of light as you enter a room. 210.70 allows you to use a switched outlet for that purpose. It does not, however say all wall switches must conform to this. That is why you can install a cord and plug connected over the cabinet light.
The difference with such an outlet is that it does not comply with 210.52 (A) or (C), and therefore does not need to be a SA. If you were to try this with a undercabined light and the outlet was below the cabinet, above a countertop, then it would comply with (A) and (C).
210.70 limits which rooms can be wired for a switched outlet as your entrance to the room to exclude kitchens and bathrooms.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

jwelectric,
I am glad you did come back and bring a reply. I would rather you and I and whoever else wants to debate this to actually debate this.
I was disappointed with the way you dropped on us that link to John's reply, and said you were going to leave us with that.
I do have disagreement's with John's perspective, too, but I was not in conversation with him at the time. If he wants to join in, he will.
I was disappointed in you with your response and action on that kind of reply. I know you are a person with a good mind and good handle of the NEC. I have stood behind you before on other topics, when it seemed like know one was listening and I will do it again. You are knowledgable.
I had given up on one of these posts (dealing with SA's) earlier, and I changed my mind.
If you feel strongly about something, use this forum to explain yourself and stand up for what you think.
Again, I am glad you changed your mind again and responded after that ultimatum you posted previous.
Someone else just told me the same thing recently, and I thank him for doing that. :D
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Scott,
I do not know what your full take on this issue is from your last reply, but it does look like you have a little trouble with the 'intent' behind a code ruling like this, or maybe just the citing of the 'intent' for interpretation purposes.

I don't know what the intent was. Most of the time I don't care. Some times it's self explanatory, though. Intent only tells us why the code rule exists. However, intent cannot be your sole justification when interpreting a code rule.
We can interpret and debate and twist, but in the end, the code rule's don't change. They are what they are. We cannot inflict the intent on one code rule because it helps us here, yet disregard intent when ever we want.
Intent is intent. The Code rule is the code rule. Yes, we wouldn't have a code rule if the intent wasn't there originally, but in the end, the code rule is still the rule.
I am going with the code rule.

I am not agreeing with you or disagreeing with you, I don't know your opinion. I was just addressing 'intent' because I love that word so much. :roll:

[ May 14, 2005, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: milwaukeesteve ]
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I don't usually use "Intent" to back up my opinion because I would rather hope the answer is black and white. But I know this is rarely the case. In this case I believe the intent of the NEC is to require all kitchen counter and wall required receptacles to be fed from 20 amp circuits. The only evidence I have to support this is the way I interpret the intent of the article as written and the fact that there is a specific exception allowing a switched receptacle fed from a general purpose (ie 15 amp) circuit. This is the only written permission that allows 15 amp circuits to feed any of the receptacles. I do see how someone could interpret this differently but in this case I have to argue Intent. PS Is this what we are even talking about? :confused:
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I will try this just one time and pay close attention to the way that I state this. I will be using the 2005 code.

In 210.70 a lighting outlet is required.
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), (A)(2), and (A)(3).
(1) Habitable Rooms At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room and bathroom.

As it is clearly stated a lighting outlet MUST be installed but I can install a switched receptacle instead of the lighting outlet.
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.
This switched receptacle is now the required lighting outlet.

In 210.52 (B) two small appliance circuits are required to be installed in certain rooms to supply receptacles.
(B) Small Appliances.
(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 wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.
Take notice which receptacle outlets that is required to be supplied by these two small appliance circuits.

Once these requirements has been fulfilled then the exception under 210.52 (B) (1) can be applied.
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.

No where in 210.52 (B) is the lighting outlet required to be installed, therefore the exception to 210.52 (B) has nothing at all to do with the required lighting outlet. This exception allows the installation of more than the required small appliance receptacles as long as they are on the general purpose circuit. This inclusion of general purpose receptacles is for the use of light fixtures weather under, over or in the cabinets as well as hood fans as outlined in 422.16 (B) (4).

Take a few minutes and read 210.11 which mandate the required circuits for a dwelling unit and this will all fall in place with out confusion. Try as hard as you can to leave out what you think should be done and read what is written. This is so easy to understand that I find it hard to believe that people are having such a hard time with it.

As Scott has stated, this is plain black and white as long as the exception to .52 is left there and the exception to .70 is left there.
The one I like best is the under cabinet task fixtures that are hard wired but comes with a single receptacle mounted in them. I have never heard a word said about this 15 amp receptacle.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

JW,
Your 15Amp outlet that is found in a U/C fixture would be illegal. That outlet fall under 210.52 (A) and (C), and would then need to be 20A.
Just look at the outlet. Does it comply with (A) and (C), yes. If it complies, then it falls under 'covered by' as written in (B)(1)

Unfortunately your logic is flawed. If you keep thinking that these code rules (and the NEC) as the minimum requirements only, you will forever get things like this wrong.

When we have the 6ft/12ft rule or the 2ft/4ft rule, they tell us what the maximum spacing for outlets. Yes, that will tell us what the minimum # of outlets per area that are needed, but the code rule itself is telling us the maximum spacing allowed between outlets.

This is where your problem is. You now see this as the absolute minimum requirement needed to satisfy the NEC. Then you say that other things added beyond the minimum do not need to conform to the original rules. Here is a previous quote from you.
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.
Click to expand...
I am glad that even you pointed out the ALL. However, in your next sentence you make a leap. The code rule does not say 'outlets that are required by (C)'. Nothing says required, only 'covered by'.


You implied that I read into the code rule. That would be hard to show, when you somehow find 'minimum required' when the word 'all' is in the rule. 'All' is an encompassing word, where as 'minimum' is a limiter.
I don't see minimum required anything. If you try and say the intent of the code panel was for the minimum, again, the code rule doesn't say that.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

JW, could you please put code references into quote brackets? It would make your posts a lot easier to read. :)

Steve wrote:
Unfortunately your logic is flawed. If you keep thinking that these code rules (and the NEC) as the minimum requirements only, you will forever get things like this wrong.
Click to expand...
Steve, 90.1(B) essentially declares the NEC to be a minimum standard. In general, the NEC is permissive, and is generally perceived as forbidding unsafe practices; therefore, it's generally interpreted that if a practice isn't forbidden by the NEC, it is permitted.

Aside from the countertop restrictions I have put forward from 210.52(B)(3), there is no real restriction from adding other receptacles to the minimum requirements of (B)(1).
NEC-2005 210.52(B)(1) Exception 1:
In addition to the required receptacles required 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.
Click to expand...
As you consider this wording, look at the portion I have italicized. This statement makes it clear that there is a number of receptacles required by 210.52, and that number may be exceeded for a purpose. That is why John's statement makes sense, and why in general, that principle is accepted by so many.

However, I stand firm in my conviction that (B)(3) is requiring all countertop receptacles to be supplied from SABC's as defined in 210.11. There is no reference in (B)(3) to the minimum requirements of other sections of 210.52, only a reference to "other rooms as specified in 210.52(B)(1)".
Steve wrote (a few posts back):
210.70 Also is talking about the wall switch that is required for entrance into the room. This is not referring to under or over the cabinet lights, just the required lighting outlet for entering the room.
Click to expand...
You are almost 100% correct in this statement; but you inflict your interpretation that the switch for a required lighting outlet must be at the entrance to the room. That is (rightfully) assumed, but not spelled out in the code. :D

JW wrote:
No where in 210.52 (B) is the lighting outlet required to be installed, therefore the exception to 210.52 (B) has nothing at all to do with the required lighting outlet. This exception allows the installation of more than the required small appliance receptacles as long as they are on the general purpose circuit.
Click to expand...
JW, this statement is nonsensical at best. The exception points you to the exception of the required lighting outlets section, so it's very reasonable to assume that the exception to (B)(1) can only be used in the application of that other code.

JW wrote:
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.
This switched receptacle is now the required lighting outlet.
Click to expand...
I've said it before, I'll say it again. That statement flies directly in the face of logic. I'll leave it at that.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Mornin' George
jumping-smiley-014.gif
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I know that in your heart you feel that you are right and so be it. I know that I am only quoting the code as it is written. Let?s try one last time to look at the very words that you are pointing out.

210.52 (B) (1) ???all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C),
Click to expand...
What are these outlets that are covered by 210.52 (C)?

210.52 (C) Countertops. 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).
Click to expand...
Pay close attention to the use of the word SHALL above. Now look at 90.5 (A).

Now to put the two together, All the required small appliance receptacles must be on a 20 amp circuit. These are those installed by the 2 and 4 foot rules.

The exception found in 210.52 (B) (1) has absolutely nothing to do with the required lighting outlet. We find the requirements for lighting outlets in 210.70. We also see that in a kitchen we are NOT ALLOWED to switch a receptacle for the required lighting outlet. Then what is this exception in .52 talking about?
The additional receptacles that must be on a general purpose circuit.

As to the fixture that has a 15 amp receptacle factory installed. This is a single receptacle and it is rated at 15 amps but it is also listed and labeled by a third party testing lab and legal as can be.
By the thinking you are purposing then the listed fixture can not be installed and the listing must be void. We need to get in touch with UL and have them recall all of these fixtures immediately.
Or UL could be right in which case the way me and John M. Caloggero along with code panel two see the installation outlined above are right.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Mornin', Sam! (More like afternoon, now.) :)

JW, what is your stance on this? I'm trying to agree or disagree and am winding up confused.

Your UC light w/receptacle analogy is flawed in one serious way: Who required an UC light in the first place? Who required one with a receptacle? Who required one to be installed in the kitchen? I really don't get what you're getting at.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Still mornin' for me George. Thinkin' bout a pick-a-nick or goin' fishin' or somthin'.
sport-smiley-027.gif
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

George

What I am pointing out here is that if an under cabinet light was hard wired on a 15 amp circuit that contained a receptacle then we would have a 15 amp receptacle above the counter top. This light is UL listed for this application so therefore it is legal.

The ALL that Steve is stating in 210.52 (B) needs to be used with the complete sentence.

all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C),

Now we need to look at 210.52 (C) in order to see ALL of what. Here we see that ALL of the 2 and 4 foot receptacles that are required (shall be installed).

I am trying as hard as I can, with out getting into another mess, to show that the code is very clear that after satisfying the small appliance circuits and receptacles that general purpose receptacles can be installed through out and over the counter of the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit as outlined by the exception directly following the section of the article stating that small appliance receptacles must be installed.
:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top