# Sabc



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

a kitchen is a kitchen. I don't have the 2011 yet, tho; is there an exception in there that you only have to supply sa ckts to one kitchen in a house ?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

210.52(B)(3) .............. No small-appliance branch circuit shall serve more than one kitchen.



Two kitchens = 4 SABCs.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Two kitchens = 4 SABCs.


732,619 kitchens = 1,465,238 SABCs


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Let me be more specific, the KITCHEN is arranged with a sink, CT's and portable MV and a wood burning oven located in a private rm on the opposite side of the summer kitchen which also has a prepping area for making pizza's. The prepping area is a low boy fridge with granite CT's. The two rooms are separated my a stained glass wall.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

*Kitchen.* An area with a sink and permanent provisions for
food preparation and cooking.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

A kitchen with current transformers and medium voltage? :blink:



Salvatoreg02 said:


> ...... the KITCHEN is arranged with a sink, ...... has a prepping area for making pizza's. .........


*Kitchen*. An area with a sink and permanent facilities for food preparation and cooking.


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

480sparky said:


> A kitchen with current transformers and medium voltage? :blink:


These new appliances are really going to change the way we cook


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

*C*ounter *T*ops


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

BBQ said:


> *C*ounter *T*ops



*N*ot *m*uch *o*f *a* *k*itchen *w*ithout *C*ounter *T*ops.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Kitchen. An area with a sink and permanent provisions for
> food preparation and cooking.


Yes, read the def, but one area doesn't have permanent cooking appliances but has a sink and CT's
While the other doesn't have a sink but permanent cooking appliances with a portable low boy fridge with a granite countertop. 

The kitchen area has (1) SABC
While the pizzeria area also has (1) dedicated circuit for the low boy fridge

Inspector wants me to install (2) additional ckts in both areas. He never picked this up during roughing inspection and now that it's finished he wants me to do so. I believe he's wrong. 
Based on what I wrote and what is permissible by code.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Also, there are walk outlets as well.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

You have a sink, oven and food prep area. Appliances are not part of the definition.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> You have a sink and food prep area. Appliances are not part of the definition.


So, are you agreeing with inspector or me.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

The low boy fridge has (1) receptacle on the front of it.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

If you have no heat in summer kitchen... then it is not a kitchen..


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> So, are you agreeing with inspector or me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum



The inspector.

You have a sink, a prep area and a means to cook. By your own description, it's a kitchen.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

B4T said:


> If you have no heat in summer kitchen... then it is not a kitchen..


Code reference, please. 

So people living down south don't have kitchens?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

The inspector's right


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Sink with counter tops and NO means to cook is kitchen?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Code reference, please.
> 
> So people living down south don't have kitchens?


I started a thread last year about a pool house and if the kitchen needed to be wired to code..

It was said here not having a source of heat makes it a non-livable space for year round use..


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

B4T said:


> If you have no heat in summer kitchen... then it is not a kitchen..


Oh paaleezzzzz


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

B4T said:


> I started a thread last year about a pool house and if the kitchen needed to be wired to code..
> 
> It was said here not having a source of heat makes it a non-livable space for year round use..


It has to meet all the requirements of 210 to be considered finished space. However it only has to meet the definition of kitchen, to be a kitchen.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I don't get it.

You have two areas? One with the sink & ct. The other has the fridge & oven.

What is between these 'areas'?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

480sparky said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> You have two areas? One with the sink & ct. The other has the fridge & oven.
> 
> What is between these 'areas'?


A stained glass wall &window


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

B4T said:


> .......It was said here not having a source of heat makes it a non-livable space for year round use..



I'd like to see the Code on that one. Not everyone lives north of the Mason-Dixon line.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

mcclary's electrical said:


> A stained glass wall &window


The inspector may consider it all to be one area. "Area" is not defined, so it's open to interpretation.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> The inspector.
> 
> You have a sink, a prep area and a means to cook. By your own description, it's a kitchen.


Separated by a glass wall and you actually have to walk thru the family rm to get to the pizzeria rm. 
Neither one of the two rms physically meet the description of kitchen. one rm has a sink while the other does. One rm has a pizza oven with no sink. 
In total there are (2) circuits one for the CT's in one rm while the other has a floor receptacle for the low boy fridge. Both of them are equal too the requirements of (2) SABC. He wants me to add two more!

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> Separated by a glass wall and you actually have to walk thru the family rm to get to the pizzeria rm.
> Neither one of the two rms physically meet the description of kitchen. one rm has a sink while the other does. One rm has a pizza oven with no sink.
> In total there are (2) circuits one for the CT's in one rm while the other has a floor receptacle for the low boy fridge. Both of them are equal too the requirements of (2) SABC. He wants me to add two more!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


He's right


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> You have two areas? One with the sink & ct. The other has the fridge & oven.
> 
> What is between these 'areas'?


A stained glass wall with a glass door that way no smoke enters the main lower area while making pizza in the pizza room.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I'm totally baffled now. First, it was an outdoor kitchen. Now it's two rooms separated by a family room.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> The inspector may consider it all to be one area. "Area" is not defined, so it's open to interpretation.


That's what I said. That they were two different rms. and in total they still had (2) SABC's

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> I'm totally baffled now. First, it was an outdoor kitchen. Now it's two rooms separated by a family room.


It's not an outdoor kitchen it's in the basement. The basement alone is about 2600sq ft.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)




----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

IF the rooms in question are SEPARATE rooms and neither has a sink, countertops AND provisions for cooking it does not meet the definition of a kitchen IMO.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

if they can afford the stained glass wall, they can probably afford two more circuits. if you want to whine about it whine to the inspector or his boss.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

wildleg said:


> if they can afford the stained glass wall, they can probably afford two more circuits. if you want to whine about it whine to the inspector or his boss.


It's not whining it's knowing what right vs wrong. The place is finished. I called in for a final inspection.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

wildleg said:


> if they can afford the stained glass wall, they can probably afford two more circuits. if you want to whine about it whine to the inspector or his boss.


Thats not the way the roll around here. They don't undermine each other.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Sal, See if I got this straight-- Main floor has a standard kitchen that has the req. 2 sabc. Correct?

Lower floor has the two separate areas and neither one meets the def. of a kitchen because the rooms are separate. Well, IMO there is no kitchen then you don't need 2 more sabc's however it could be a judgement call by the inspector as to seeing the two rooms as one kitchen with a door. I am not sure how I would rule it but by the NEC the inspector is not correct-- if I understand this situation.


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Sal, See if I got this straight-- Main floor has a standard kitchen that has the req. 2 sabc. Correct?
> 
> Lower floor has the two separate areas and neither one meets the def. of a kitchen because the rooms are separate. Well, IMO there is no kitchen then you don't need 2 more sabc's however it could be a judgement call by the inspector as to seeing the two rooms as one kitchen with a door. I am not sure how I would rule it but by the NEC the inspector is not correct-- if I understand this situation.


That's how I see it.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Sal, See if I got this straight-- Main floor has a standard kitchen that has the req. 2 sabc. Correct?
> 
> Lower floor has the two separate areas and neither one meets the def. of a kitchen because the rooms are separate. Well, IMO there is no kitchen then you don't need 2 more sabc's however it could be a judgement call by the inspector as to seeing the two rooms as one kitchen with a door. I am not sure how I would rule it but by the NEC the inspector is not correct-- if I understand this situation.


I will show him this post. I explained to him that they were to separate rooms. But, he keeps on insisting otherwise. He is awaiting to hear back from his colleagues on their opinion. I told him either way I'm not doing it and the HO shouldn't have to either it's all done to min code.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> I will show him this post. I explained to him that they were to separate rooms. But, he keeps on insisting otherwise. He is awaiting to hear back from his colleagues on their opinion. I told him either way I'm not doing it and the HO shouldn't have to either it's all done to min code.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


If he's seeing it as one room, then 2 are needed. If he sees it as two kitchens, 4 are needed


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> I will show him this post. I explained to him that they were to separate rooms. But, he keeps on insisting otherwise. He is awaiting to hear back from his colleagues on their opinion. I told him either way I'm not doing it and the HO shouldn't have to either it's all done to min code.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


Young dumb and does code minimum installs. Sounds like you are gonna do fine as an EC.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Bulldog1 said:


> Young dumb and does code minimum installs. Sounds like you are gonna do fine as an EC.


This is not fair as he may have no choice. The market in other areas are very different and the owners may have wanted minimum. Generally I walk from those jobs.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Bulldog1 said:


> Young dumb and does code minimum installs. Sounds like you are gonna do fine as an EC.


I'll take that as a compliment from you. But, there is still no reason to exceed the code.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> there is still no reason to exceed the code.


Now that I disagree with as there are many times where it is necessary to exceed the code.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I have no problem with people doing work to code minimum; but I have a huge problem with people who wait until all the finishes are done before wondering whether they should pull 2 ckts or 4 ckt. If this was your job, then you can't blame anyone else for this predicament, because you could have avoided all these issues on the rough.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

wildleg said:


> I have no problem with people doing work to code minimum; but I have a huge problem with people who wait until all the finishes are done before wondering whether they should pull 2 ckts or 4 ckt. If this was your job, then you can't blame anyone else for this predicament, because you could have avoided all these issues on the rough.


Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

what do your prints say? Didnt the inspector sign off on the prints before you did the job?


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

electricalwiz said:


> what do your prints say? Didnt the inspector sign off on the prints before you did the job?


No electrical plans other than the location and size of service.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

is that normal up there?
how does he know what he is inspecting


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> This is not fair as he may have no choice. The market in other areas are very different and the owners may have wanted minimum. Generally I walk from those jobs.




I was commenting on the way he said he TOLD the inspector......And I see no reason to taunt " We do code minimum installs" ....

Put that with his general inability to comprehend in the generator thread the other day he deserves what I said. I think all us young guys were Sal at one time. Difference is we listened and learned and didn't spend 3 pages of a thread disagreeing with guys who know......


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> I'll take that as a compliment from you. But, there is still no reason to exceed the code.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum





Actually I have no issue with you. I do however have an issue with you disagreeing with people who know what the code requires for 3 pages on something as cut and dry as when you can use #4 on a genny. Wiring a kitchen not a kitchen without asking the AHJ how they see it. All of this is like what we all do when we are young and dumb. The code minimum was just icing on the cake. Every mistake you make one of us here has made before. Well maybe not your mistakes.....:jester:


----------



## Bulldog1 (Oct 21, 2011)

electricalwiz said:


> is that normal up there?
> how does he know what he is inspecting




Residential remodels never have electrical plans here.....unless it is a mansion and a complete redo with all sorts of the latest gadgets.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

that still doesn't explain why the issue didn't come up on the rough. As a professional installer, the last thing you want on the final is some issue that could have been prevented from prior foresight, that might lead to drilling/fishing/pulling/cutting and patching that could have been prevented.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

IMO.. it is much better to up sell the job and plan for the future in the beginning..

We all know that a kitchen has the highest demand per receptacle in a standard house..

Adding circuits after the walls are closed can cost made times the price of when the walls are open..

I never had a customer not trust my judgment when it came to planning for what if..


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

wildleg said:


> that still doesn't explain why the issue didn't come up on the rough. As a professional installer, the last thing you want on the final is some issue that could have been prevented from prior foresight, that might lead to drilling/fishing/pulling/cutting and patching that could have been prevented.


But, I knew my install was to code. The inspector on this other hand seemed to think otherwise. But, as of today at 4pm my inspection sticker has a check next to pass. He couldn't enforce what he thought was true so he excepted my install.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Bulldog1 said:


> Actually I have no issue with you. I do however have an issue with you disagreeing with people who know what the code requires for 3 pages on something as cut and dry as when you can use #4 on a genny. Wiring a kitchen not a kitchen without asking the AHJ how they see it. All of this is like what we all do when we are young and dumb. The code minimum was just icing on the cake. Every mistake you make one of us here has made before. Well maybe not your mistakes.....:jester:


Rewind, IMO I was always adamant about installing number 4cu or 2al for a 20kw generator. Maybe my code reference didn't agree with the others. 

In this case it didn't seem necessary to ask his opinion. I knew my install was correct, even though it may have been to min code, there was no need for (2) circuits for 6' of CT space and where the pizzeria prep area is located I installed one dedicated 20amp circuit for the low boy as per nameplate spec. 

There was no CT's installed along the perimeter of the room in the pizzeria area. The low boy was basically a movable fridge with a granite CT. which was an island in the center of the room with pizza tables and chairs. We also installed wall receptacles as well. 
So, in essence I did my job as a contractor and electrician.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

BBQ said:


> 732,619 kitchens = 1,465,238 SABCs



Thats the way I just bid on a house. It is a big one.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

"Code minimum"

Now there's a concept that needs some examination.

First off, let's not forget Article 90, which clearly states that the code is not a design manual. By very definition, 'code minimum' violates the code. 

It's been my experience that good design is almost guaranteed to meet code, but 'code minimun' usually does not. At a minimum, you wind up wiith a very ugly and inconvenient arrangement.

Then there's the practical aspect. Just how much 'economy' is there in trying to dance so close to the margins? By the time you do all the work and run the wire all over the place, you might as well have just run a new circuit, anyways. We haven't even addressed the costs of replacing your work if the AHJ disagrees with your decision.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

leland said:


> Thats the way I just bid on a house. It is a big one.



I wanna be your 12/2 supplier. :whistling2:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Amish Electrician said:


> "Code minimum"
> 
> Now there's a concept that needs some examination.
> 
> ...


So, if the Code says I need a 20a laundry circuit, and I install a 20a laundry circuit, my 20a laundry circuit doesn't meet the 20a laundry circuit Code?

If the Code says I need a 20a bath circuit, and I install a 20abath circuit, my 20a bath circuit doesn't meet the 20a bath circuit Code?

If the Code says I need tamper-resistant receptacles, and I install tamper-resistant receptacles, my tamper-resistant receptacles don't meet the tamper-resistant receptacles Code?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

480sparky said:


> So, if the Code says I need a 20a laundry circuit, and I install a 20a laundry circuit, my 20a laundry circuit doesn't meet the 20a laundry circuit Code?
> 
> If the Code says I need a 20a bath circuit, and I install a 20abath circuit, my 20a bath circuit doesn't meet the 20a bath circuit Code?
> 
> If the Code says I need tamper-resistant receptacles, and I install tamper-resistant receptacles, my tamper-resistant receptacles don't meet the tamper-resistant receptacles Code?


I agree. His post is crazy. We get asked for a "code minimum" bid quite often.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Amish Electrician said:


> "Code minimum"
> 
> Now there's a concept that needs some examination.
> 
> ...


I am certain you do a lot of work that is code minimum, we all do.


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

If you want the right answer, you have to ask the right question.

I never ask 'what is the least I can get away with.' Instead, I ask 'what are we trying to accomplish?'

Therefore, I cannot answer whether I have ever done 'code minimum.' I don't collect that data. Nor can I answer such hypotheticals such as those posed, as I am not there, on site. 

What I can do is point to a record of never having had a failed inspection, or a set of prints kicked back for correction. More importantly, I can point to a series of customers who came to appreciate some of my "questionable" design choices once they occupied the properties.

Ironically, the choices get questioned far more by the GC than by the customer .... why, I can't say, because the price of the work has already been agreed upon.

If you're only doing what someone else tells you to do, you are little more than an ape with a tool belt. Funny, I thought journeymen were expected to exercise their professional judgement ... and Master's? EC's make such opinions a matter of record when they sign a print. 

Let's take a simple bedroom as a means to illustrate my point about good design. Go on - draw it out. Now, space your receptacles in two different ways.
"Method A" is where you start at the door, pace off six ft, place a receptacle, pace off 12 ft., ... etc. The way we see it done all too often.
"Method B" is where you sketch in the furniture first - then place the receptacles to serve the occupants.

Chances are, the two sketches will have the same number of receptacles. Chances are that 'method B' also happens to meet the code requirements.

It's also likely that 'method A' (the "code minimum" method) will have most of the receptacles located behind the bedboard or along a walkway. Hello to extension cords, tripping hazards - and the creation of the AFCI industry. 

I see one of the hypotheticals mentions laundry rooms. Does the poster believe that the installation of the 'laundry receptacle' also relieves him from complying with the requirements for convenience receptacles as well?

Let's look at the requirements for SABC's. The dining room is also required to be served by an SABC. How many are tempted to use one of the two kitchen SABC's for this room? Is it really easier / cheaper to feed the dining room from a counter than it is to run a third SABC? How do you provide the dining room with the required AFCI protection? Gee, maybe "code minimum" really is the wrong place to start.

Remember? It was the pinched plug / cord behind the bedboard that was used back in the '90's to persuade us that we needed AFCI's. 

I cannot understand this race to the bottom so many seem to have as a business model. Were that a good model, then the most successful car dealers would be selling Yugos - rather than Lexus. Folks would brag about how cheap their lawyers and surgeons were. 

One need not agree with me; one need only read Article 90. If you're using the code to dictate your design, you're violating Article 90. It's that simple.

Finally .... sure, I get the 'I want the minimum' approach all the time. I don't answer it. Instead, I ask them what they want, and prepare a design accordingly. That's what I offer them. Sure, sometimes this has the result of only teaching the guy what lies to tell the next guy- but that's not my problem. In my experience, liars and schemers aren't the best customers; I prefer my competition get them.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I have yet to see where meeting the code minimums somehow automatically translates into not meeting them.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Amish Electrician said:


> If you want the right answer, you have to ask the right question.
> 
> I never ask 'what is the least I can get away with.' Instead, I ask 'what are we trying to accomplish?'
> 
> ...


Don't misinterpret what is meant by min code. If in the design stage min code is appropriate, why should anyone exceed it?
Common sense should be used wether or not meeting min code is suffice and more cost effective as well.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

OK, consider this ....

There's no NEC requirement that there be a receptacle in the kitchen for a fridge. The fridge, epsecially in efficiency apartments, can be of the 'under counter' type (so the 'convenience receptacle' rules don't apply). The cord from the fridge won't reach the countertop receptacle. 

"Code minimum" would lead to the occupant using an extension cord ... which violates the rule against using a cord in place of fixed wiring.

"But MY work meets code." Yea, right- but I wouldn't brag about it!
----------------------------

Code requires at least two SABC's. The dining room must be served by an SABC - and that one has to be on an AFCI. Code also requires the counters to be served by at least two SABC's.

So- what will you do to meet code 'minimum?' Absent the fabled AFCI device, you would have to serve part of the counter with an AFCI-protected circuit .... which exceeds code. There is no way to meet ONLY the 'minimum' requirements.

---------------------------------

AFCI rules do not apply to stairways. Will you run a non-AFCI, non-required dedicated circuit ... or will you exceed code by tapping into an AFCI circuit for that stairway?

---------------------------------

Had a 'Mcmansion' with seven bathrooms- and ONE bathroom circuit. That guy ran the circuit all over the place - up, down, around, up again, over, you name it. There were at least 15 receptacles on that one GFCI device. Considering all the backtracking and labor involved .... did he save any money? I doubt it.

---------------------------------------

The point I'm making is that a pro starts with the design first, he designs to the needs of the customer .... and looks to the code as a check. The various absurdities I have described above only arise when someone looks to the code first, and uses it as a design manual.

Which, of course, is a code violation. Designing 'to code' leads to 'automatic' code violations, if for no other reason that Article 90 says so.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Amish Electrician said:


> OK, consider this ....
> 
> There's no NEC requirement that there be a receptacle in the kitchen for a fridge. The fridge, epsecially in efficiency apartments, can be of the 'under counter' type (so the 'convenience receptacle' rules don't apply). The cord from the fridge won't reach the countertop receptacle.
> 
> "Code minimum" would lead to the occupant using an extension cord ... which violates the rule against using a cord in place of fixed wiring.


No.... they would just plug into one of the courtertop receps. Still perfectly legal.



Amish Electrician said:


> "But MY work meets code." Yea, right- but I wouldn't brag about it!


Just because YOU don't like it and it's not commonly done DOES NOT make it a Code violation.



Amish Electrician said:


> Code requires at least two SABC's. The dining room must be served by an SABC - and that one has to be on an AFCI. Code also requires the counters to be served by at least two SABC's.
> 
> So- what will you do to meet code 'minimum?' Absent the fabled AFCI device, you would have to serve part of the counter with an AFCI-protected circuit .... which exceeds code. There is no way to meet ONLY the 'minimum' requirements.


Put an AFCI one one of the two SABCs, and you've met minimum Code. Or install a 3rd SABC for the DR. Issue solved with NO violation.



Amish Electrician said:


> AFCI rules do not apply to stairways. Will you run a non-AFCI, non-required dedicated circuit ... or will you exceed code by tapping into an AFCI circuit for that stairway?


You're not making one bit of sense here. Absolutely no reason to run an non-AFCI-protected circuit just for stairways. Yes, it could be done, but it's expensive and impractical. Still, doing so is NOT a Code violation.




Amish Electrician said:


> Had a 'Mcmansion' with seven bathrooms- and ONE bathroom circuit. That guy ran the circuit all over the place - up, down, around, up again, over, you name it. There were at least 15 receptacles on that one GFCI device. Considering all the backtracking and labor involved .... did he save any money? I doubt it.


Saving money has NOTHING to do with wiring to Code. You can have 5, 15, hell, even *50* bathrooms on one 20a bath circuit and STILL BE TO CODE. Is that so hard to understand?



Amish Electrician said:


> The point I'm making is that a pro starts with the design first, he designs to the needs of the customer .... and looks to the code as a check. The various absurdities I have described above only arise when someone looks to the code first, and uses it as a design manual.
> 
> Which, of course, is a code violation. Designing 'to code' leads to 'automatic' code violations, if for no other reason that Article 90 says so.


Your logic is so twisted it ain't even funny.

Why not try to tell us using one switch to turn on all the lights on the first floor is a violation as well?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Amish Electrician said:


> OK, consider this ....
> 
> There's no NEC requirement that there be a receptacle in the kitchen for a fridge. The fridge, epsecially in efficiency apartments, can be of the 'under counter' type (so the 'convenience receptacle' rules don't apply). The cord from the fridge won't reach the countertop receptacle.
> 
> ...


Surely you jest?


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Someone has fallen often the deep end!

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Amish Electrician (Jan 2, 2010)

I'll try one more time ... not for those hopelessly lost, but for the innocent who may wander by in future days ...

Perhaps I am mistaken; I thought the whole point to trying to wire to 'code minimum' was to save money .... 

Now, if someone wishes to assert that 'wiring to code is to ensure the practical safeguarding of electricity,' he and I would be in complete agreement. 

Which, of course, suggests that there is a difference between 'meeting code' and 'code minimum.' As I stated in my first post, good design invariably meets code.

Some have implied that it was possible to wire a house without exceeding the code, yet still meet code. My SABC example demonstrates that it is not possible to do so; having kitchen receptacles AFCI protected 'exceeds' code, as there is no such requirement. Yet, if you run a separate circuit to the dining area, you have exceeded the minimum number of SABC's. We've got the conundrum here of 'code minimum' also 'exceeding code.' Thus, the concept of there even being such a thing as 'code minimum' is illogical.

The stairwell example underscores the economic folly of doing 'code minimum.' Of course it would be wasteful to run a separate circuit, just because you can. Yet, again, you have that conundrum of 'minimum' exceeding code. 

As for my assertion that even attempting to design to code is of itself a violation ... what part of 90.1(C) is so hard to understand?

"This code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons." 

Will someone now assert that Article 90 'cannot be enforced?' Isn't that akin to admitting that you are breaking the code, because you can get away with it?


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> Someone has fallen often the deep end!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


"off "

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Amish Electrician said:


> .......Perhaps I am mistaken; I thought the whole point to trying to wire to 'code minimum' was to save money ....
> ........


Well, let's look at your oft-touted Art. 90.



> 90.1 Purpose.
> (A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.


Hmm. Nothing about money there. :no:

The key word here is practical.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

@ Amish. I have simple question Your thoughts on a your mind set. 
How many circuits would you use for a 2bedroom, 4 room apt. With 1 bathroom. 
I can do the whole apt legally by code with 
4 circuits and that's more then enough

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> @ Amish. I have simple question Your thoughts on a your mind set.
> How many circuits would you use for a 2bedroom, 4 room apt. With 1 bathroom.
> I can do the whole apt legally by code with
> 4 circuits and that's more then enough
> ...



Shall we assume there's laundry facilities available in the building?


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Shall we assume there's laundry facilities available in the building?


Yes

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> Shall we assume there's laundry facilities available in the building?


700sq ft

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> 700sq ft
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


That's not an apartment..... that's a walk-in closet! :laughing:


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

480sparky said:


> That's not an apartment..... that's a walk-in closet! :laughing:


Hey it's low income apt housing. There lucky they have power

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------

