uh oh, another SA question

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

Why do I take issue? An error in thinking manifests itself in erroneous future misinterpretations, both on your part and those you teach.

Or why, regarding this exception?
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.
Click to expand...
At first glance: Looking at this statement, one would be led to assume that there is a specific general purpose branch circuit that the switched receptacle is supposed to be supplied from.
In other than kitchens or bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.
Click to expand...
But when we look at 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, we see no such circuit defined. We see no mention of a circuit at all. The exception to (B)(1) is misleading, poorly worded, and only contributes to the headache we've been going around with for the past month. This exception falls flat on it's face.

Anyway, so now that we see no circuit as promised, we must look again to judge intent. Since the words have fallen short, we have to look at the grunt and pointing gesture that (B)(1) offers, and try and discern some reason for being sent here. Maybe they meant that the switched receptacles were defined? So, let's look at it with that in mind and see if it fits:

In other than kitchens or bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear that this statement is saying that somewhere, lighting outlets are required, and that this exception is allowing receptacles to exist in lieu of them, in certain places.

This is a specific purpose - to replace lighting outlets. If you remove that content from the exception there is nothing left.

The very section to 210.52 that you say forbids the general purpose receptacles is the one that refers me to the section that has the exception that allows the installation.
Click to expand...
If anything, this exception still would not allow the installation, based on it's very clear exclusion of kitchens.

What allows the extra circuits to be sprinkled in? Because they're not forbidden. It has nothing to do with (B)(1)'s exception. If anything, (B)(1)'s exception makes the argument for the opposite; without (B)(1)'s exception's permission, it could be argued you could not exercize 210.70(A)(1)'s exception in a dining room.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

George
As you stated we cannot switch a receptacle for the required lighting outlet in a kitchen as mentioned in 210.70 (A) (1)

The exception found in 210.52 (B) (1) does not state, as outlined, as mentioned, as specified nor as required. Should it be stated like either one of these then it would be referring to the required lighting outlet.

What it does say is as defined which would then relieve the demand of the required lighting outlet and only be stating a switched or not switched receptacle.

I do agree that it should be worded differently but I don?t sit panel 2 (yet). Should I have my choice to a panel to sit I think I would like to sit panel 17 first. I think those boys blowed that job to bits.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

What is the debate it says receptacles installed in kitchens nothing about living rooms dens etc. shall be 20 amp SA circuits 210 52 B 1 which references 210 52 C 1 - 5 and shall serve no other outlets,so you can`t use these circuits to supply a receptacle outlet on the back side of a kitchen for one receptacle outlet in a famoly room just because it is easier to run it that way :D
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I do agree that it should be worded differently but I don?t sit panel 2 (yet). Should I have my choice to a panel to sit I think I would like to sit panel 17 first. I think those boys blowed that job to bits.
Click to expand...
LOL :D
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

jw, I am behind a few replies, sorry.
In your reply addressed to Scott and Steve, you went on and on about what the code is. Yet in your last paragraph, you (and it looks like you often do this) say how 210.52(b)(1) allows you to install general purpose outlets.
You just went through explaining all your points in the above paragraphs, yet in no way do you bother to explain this one, because you can't.

The exceptions are very specific as to what general purpose recepts can be installed. It doesn't say that it allows gp outlets.
First, it only allows switched recepts supplied from a gp circuit as defied in 210.70(A)(1).
250.70(A)(1)exception 1 states 'IN OTHER THAN KITCHENS AND BATHROOMS'
Second, it only refers to refrigeration equipment.
That code rule does not allow to install general purpose receptacles on the countertop.

I know you like arguing this, but you are not arguing all of it.
Scott's arguement is based in the use of the word 'SHALL'.
My arguement is based in the use of 'ALL'
Your arguements are based on things that you are implying or selectively omitting; stating intent, minimum, reqired only and other such language.
I am a little harsh with my writing, but I am tired of what we are arguing and what we are using for our arguements. Don't mean to be an a**, but I was a little frustrated while responding.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

milwaukeesteve

I have used the full article each and every time that I addressed this issue. I have NOT tried to pick one word out of a subsection and hold on to it to prove the whole article.

posted May 15, 2005 10:37 AM
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'.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what the code says, read it;
210.52 (B) (1) all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and just what does 210.52(C) say? ?receptacle outlets for counter spaces shall be installed in accordance?. It sure sounds to me like they are required.

posted May 18, 2005 01:50 PM
The exceptions are very specific as to what general purpose recepts can be installed. It doesn't say that it allows gp outlets.
First, it only allows switched recepts supplied from a gp circuit as defied in 210.70(A)(1).
250.70(A)(1)exception 1 states 'IN OTHER THAN KITCHENS AND BATHROOMS'
Second, it only refers to refrigeration equipment.
That code rule does not allow to install general purpose receptacles on the countertop.
Click to expand...
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 can be installed and must be on a general purpose circuit.


posted May 18, 2005 01:50 PM
I know you like arguing this, but you are not arguing all of it.
Scott's arguement is based in the use of the word 'SHALL'.
My arguement is based in the use of 'ALL'
Your arguements are based on things that you are implying or selectively omitting; stating intent, minimum, reqired only and other such language.
Click to expand...
The ALL that you are pointing out is ?all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C)? and ?C? requires through the words ?receptacle outlets for counter spaces shall be installed in accordance?
The SHALL that Scott is pointing out is found in (3) ?shall be supplied by not fewer than two small-appliance branch circuits? which states that we must have both small appliance circuits on the counter top.

The bottom line remains that 210.52 (B)(2) states;
.52 (B) (1) 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), The exception is for the above sentence and allows receptacles switched or not as DEFINED not required by .70.

[ May 18, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

8 pages and it is agreed that the article says All counter top receptacles NOT SOME BUT all :mad:
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

allenwayne

21052 (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.

Would you please tell me which of the outlets that are covered in part (C) as stated above.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

This is ALL the outlets that are covered

(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).

(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.

Exception: Receptacle outlets shall not be required on a wall directly behind a range or sink in the installation described in Figure 210.52.

(2) Island Counter Spaces. At least one receptacle shall be installed at each island counter space with a long dimension of 600 mm (24 in.) or greater and a short dimension of 300 mm (12 in.) or greater. Where a rangetop or sink is installed in an island counter and the width of the counter behind the rangetop or sink is less than 300 mm (12 in.), the rangetop or sink is considered to divide the island into two separate countertop spaces as defined in 210.52(C)(4).

(3) Peninsular Counter Spaces. At least one receptacle outlet shall be installed at each peninsular counter space with a long dimension of 600 mm (24 in.) or greater and a short dimension of 300 mm (12 in.) or greater. A peninsular countertop is measured from the connecting edge.

(4) Separate Spaces. Countertop spaces separated by rangetops, refrigerators, or sinks shall be considered as separate countertop spaces in applying the requirements of 210.52(C)(1), (C)(2), and (C)(3).

(5) Receptacle Outlet Location. Receptacle outlets shall be located above, but not more than 500 mm (20 in.) above, the countertop. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible by appliances fastened in place, appliance garages, sinks, or rangetops as covered in 210.52(C)(1), Exception, or appliances occupying dedicated space shall not be considered as these required outlets.

Exception to (5): To comply with the conditions specified in (1) or (2), receptacle outlets shall be permitted to be mounted not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop. Receptacles mounted below a countertop in accordance with this exception shall not be located where the countertop extends more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond its support base.
(1) Construction for the physically impaired
(2) On island and peninsular countertops where the countertop is flat across its entire surface (no backsplashes, dividers, etc.) and there are no means to mount a receptacle within 500 mm (20 in.) above the countertop, such as an overhead cabinet

now that I have fulfilled these requirements I can do as outlined in exception 1 of 210,52 (B) (1)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The exception found in 210.52 (B) (1) has absolutely nothing to do with the required lighting outlet.
Click to expand...
That has to be the weirdest thing I've seen you say yet, Mike. Why in blue blazes would (B)(1)'s exception send you to the Lighting Outlets Required section to discuss "other non-lighting-outlet-related receptacles."
If they were attempted to explicitly permit all other circuits, even CMP-2 could have accomplished it without a stupid reference to a non-related code.

You are so twisting that to make it mesh with your thinking, despite the fact that you don't have to!!! :(

[ May 19, 2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Is it me or did he ask and answer his own question in the two posts :D Sorry roger but had to put that in there ;) :p
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Sorry George didn?t mean to anger you. I was addressing milwaukeesteve?s post at the bottom of the last page where he makes reference to the word ALL in .52 (B) (1), and SHALL in (B) (3).

I was trying to point out to him that the ALL points directly to .52 (C) where we are required to install the receptacles and their placement. Once this requirement is fulfilled then the ALL he keeps referring to the small appliance receptacles are done and nothing else is required.

Exception 1 found in .52 (B) (1) has the word DEFINED which indicates that it is referencing a description instead of a requirement. Look at 110.26 (D). Here the reference to 210.70 A)(1), Exception No. 1 the words ?as permitted by? are used.
This should let you see the difference between the meaning of the words, DEFINED and AS PERMITTED BY.

The exception in 210.70 (A) (1) clearly states ?In other than kitchens and bathrooms? so to state ?as permitted by? would not work therefore the CMP used the word ?defined? to indicate that these receptacle can look or be like those as in .70 (A) (1) exception. It is to let the installer know that it is NOT for the required lighting outlet but can be used for other things such as the disposal, dishwasher, hood fan, under cabinet lights or other pieces of equipment. Take a look at 422.16 (B) (4) and maybe this will help.
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Didn't mean to blow up, Mike.

So, don't you think it's possible that they are referring to every room in (B)(1), with the exception referring to all the same rooms except kitchens?
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

George
Here is 210.52
(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.
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.
Click to expand...
As we read this section it starts off stating in the kitchen , pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit and goes on to state that the required circuits outlined in .11 (C) (1) shall serve receptacles covered in .52 (A) and (C).
Then we find an exception right under this section that states that in addition to these receptacles we add some more.
This exception is to this section .52 (B) (1) and does not exclude any of it.

Now read the exception and replace the word defined with permitted and see if it means two different things.

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.
Or
In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as permitted in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.

Can you see that if the word defined was changed to permitted then the receptacle could not be used in the kitchen but using the word defined then we are looking at is as an example instead of the acceptable rule.

This is an insert from the ?05 Handbook. Maybe it will help.
Exception No. 1 to 210.52(B)(1) permits switched receptacles supplied from general-purpose 15-ampere branch circuits to be located in kitchens, pantries, breakfast rooms, and similar areas.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

I was trying to point out to him that the ALL points directly to .52 (C) where we are required to install the receptacles and their placement. Once this requirement is fulfilled then the ALL he keeps referring to the small appliance receptacles are done and nothing else is required.
Click to expand...
Again you do it. You state that 'ALL' is there, yet you finish by saying 'ALL' doesn't include some outlets. Why do you do this?

Answer one simple question:
If you have 3 receptacles within a 4ft span of countertop, is that 'extra' outlet installed 'in accordance to' 210.52(C)?
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

jwelectric,
Just a 2 or 3 replies ago, you spent the whole reply spelling out what 210.52(C)says. You included (C), you included (1) thru (5), and you included the exceptions.

Then you finished with this:
now that I have fulfilled these requirements I can do as outlined in exception 1 of 210,52 (B) (1)
Click to expand...
What makes you think you can do anything beyond the requirements (this is where I say you make leaps and jumps)?
What part of exception 1 of 210.52(B) (1) allows you to install anything other than a SA outlet there?

You regret to see that 210.52(B)(1) is not limited to kitchens, yet when it refers you to 210.70, it states NOT in kitchens.


You have thrown out of excuses and code rules that don't matter. Yes, cord and plug disconnecting means is allowable, but not for outlets on the countertop. Does a disposal or a dishwasher comply with 210.52(C)(1thru5), NO. Therefore it is not subject to 210.52(B). Neither woud a hood fan, because it is over 20".

You reach and search for anything right now. Heck you are even starting to turn George in circles, and he is on your side.

Just because another code has any kind of reference to what we have here, you will use it as gospel, yet the code reference doesn't pertain (i.e. 422.16)
Again, I stand on what is written. Not inflection or supposition.
I go from SHALL to ALL to IN ACCORDANCE TO to NOT IN KITCHENS AND BATHROOMS, and I throw in a couple of very limiting and definitive exceptions to make my case strong.

You jump from 'all' not meaning all, to 'in accordance to' meaning required, to 'not in kitchens' meaning yes, in kitchens, to the NEC only being a minimum (which goes directly against the SHALL, ALL, and IN ACCORDANCE TO listed in this section), to motor disconnecting means which doesn't even relate.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:
Answer one simple question:
If you have 3 receptacles within a 4ft span of countertop, is that 'extra' outlet installed 'in accordance to' 210.52(C)? [/QB]
Click to expand...
Depends on the circuit it is installed with.

I could install plug mold where the receptacles are six inches on center and wired to a 20 amp circuit and install another wire mold identical to it either just above or below it and wire it to a 15 amp circuit.

If I so desired I could stack them up solid from the counter top to the bottom of the cver head cabinet and alternate them on 15 and 20 amps circuits.

What I MUST do is:
(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).

.
 
Re: uh oh, another SA question

What are you talking about?

210.52(C)(1thru5) states how you install outlets on the countertop.
210.52(B) states what outlets CAN be installed in 210.52

You neglect to include the pertinent codes when making your argument.
Your arguments are getting weaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top