User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: So do you want to see how they addressed the Peninsular Issue?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan. It's a beautiful penninsula, I've looked around.
    Posts
    10,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JFletcher View Post
    It seems every code cycle they're changing something in a kitchen.... makes me wonder how I didn't starve to death or electrocute myself growing up in a kitchen built in 1953...
    My sister was nearly killed in 1960 when she was a few months old because she pulled on a cord connected to an electric coffee pot full of boiling coffee and the pot fell on her lap. She suffered 3rd degree burns to 40% of her body. She is 57 now and still suffers from her injuries since she had to spend months in a cast from the waist down and it affected how her legs and feet grew.
    Cheers and Stay Safe,

    Marky the Sparky

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So is the idea that with this change to 210.52(C)(1), sections 210.52(C)(2) and 210.52(C)(3) will be deleted? If so, there are definitely some problems:

    (1) The effect of the new language is to remove the requirement for any receptacle specific to a peninsula (unless the current 210.52(C)(4) requires the the peninsula to be divided into two separate spaces). When a countertop space includes both peninsular area and wall area, then the proposed language allows choosing option (a) for the entire countertop space. That requires only receptacles along the wall line, and nothing specific to the peninsula.

    Fixing this while retaining the new version of 210.52(C)(1) would require adding some language such as: countertops located more than 30" from a wall shall be considered a separate countertop space from the countertops within 30" of a wall.

    (2) If the intent of (b) is to require more than one receptacle for a sufficiently large island, the language proposed doesn't do that. Again, the language allows choosing (a) for an island countertop space, and (a) is vacuously true when there is no wall-line. That leaves only the basic requirement from the first sentence of 210.52(C)(1) that at least one receptacle be installed for the island.

    (3) For a standard countertop along a wall of say, 25" depth (24" base cabinet plus a 1" overhang), the effect of allowing the choice of (b) is to permit the receptacles on the wall to be spaced 51.8" apart instead of the previous 48" apart. [sqrt(36^2 - 25^2) = 25.9] Is that really the intention?

    Cheers, Wayne

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by K8MHZ View Post
    My sister was nearly killed in 1960 when she was a few months old because she pulled on a cord connected to an electric coffee pot full of boiling coffee and the pot fell on her lap. She suffered 3rd degree burns to 40% of her body. She is 57 now and still suffers from her injuries since she had to spend months in a cast from the waist down and it affected how her legs and feet grew.
    I encourage you to send that message to CMP2 when the Public Comment stage begins.
    *All code responses are based on the 2017 National Electrical Code®[NEC®]

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    So is the idea that with this change to 210.52(C)(1), sections 210.52(C)(2) and 210.52(C)(3) will be deleted? If so, there are definitely some problems:

    (1) The effect of the new language is to remove the requirement for any receptacle specific to a peninsula (unless the current 210.52(C)(4) requires the the peninsula to be divided into two separate spaces). When a countertop space includes both peninsular area and wall area, then the proposed language allows choosing option (a) for the entire countertop space. That requires only receptacles along the wall line, and nothing specific to the peninsula.

    Fixing this while retaining the new version of 210.52(C)(1) would require adding some language such as: countertops located more than 30" from a wall shall be considered a separate countertop space from the countertops within 30" of a wall.

    (2) If the intent of (b) is to require more than one receptacle for a sufficiently large island, the language proposed doesn't do that. Again, the language allows choosing (a) for an island countertop space, and (a) is vacuously true when there is no wall-line. That leaves only the basic requirement from the first sentence of 210.52(C)(1) that at least one receptacle be installed for the island.

    (3) For a standard countertop along a wall of say, 25" depth (24" base cabinet plus a 1" overhang), the effect of allowing the choice of (b) is to permit the receptacles on the wall to be spaced 51.8" apart instead of the previous 48" apart. [sqrt(36^2 - 25^2) = 25.9] Is that really the intention?

    Cheers, Wayne
    Yes, it is very much their intent to remove the provisions directly for Peninsular and Islands and let the option of (a) or (b) rule the day and just call all locations countertop and work surfaces.

    The provisions for the actual locations, such as not above 20" or under overhangs that exceed 6" over the base and so on didn't change just got renumbered to match the changes.
    *All code responses are based on the 2017 National Electrical Code®[NEC®]

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    So is the idea that with this change to 210.52(C)(1), sections 210.52(C)(2) and 210.52(C)(3) will be deleted? If so, there are definitely some problems:

    (1) The effect of the new language is to remove the requirement for any receptacle specific to a peninsula (unless the current 210.52(C)(4) requires the the peninsula to be divided into two separate spaces). When a countertop space includes both peninsular area and wall area, then the proposed language allows choosing option (a) for the entire countertop space. That requires only receptacles along the wall line, and nothing specific to the peninsula.

    Fixing this while retaining the new version of 210.52(C)(1) would require adding some language such as: countertops located more than 30" from a wall shall be considered a separate countertop space from the countertops within 30" of a wall.

    (2) If the intent of (b) is to require more than one receptacle for a sufficiently large island, the language proposed doesn't do that. Again, the language allows choosing (a) for an island countertop space, and (a) is vacuously true when there is no wall-line. That leaves only the basic requirement from the first sentence of 210.52(C)(1) that at least one receptacle be installed for the island.

    (3) For a standard countertop along a wall of say, 25" depth (24" base cabinet plus a 1" overhang), the effect of allowing the choice of (b) is to permit the receptacles on the wall to be spaced 51.8" apart instead of the previous 48" apart. [sqrt(36^2 - 25^2) = 25.9] Is that really the intention?

    Cheers, Wayne
    Wayne......we all know their intentions may not exactly be what they wanted to achieve BUT their actions make it clear we have issues if the Public Inputs do not add clarity to something that was kinda broke but easily fixed to now...who knows. I think they should not have said "or" in the opening statement. I have no issue with the 36" with regards to things like islands and peninsular. The problem is the way it is written the wall spacing can use option (a) or (b) and this leaves the traditional 48" spacing on the wall receptacles and so on out with the bath water.

    It must be their intent to not need any point along the "wall" at no more than 24" from a receptacle as it has been for decades......I can only assume that was their intent based on the language but I did not see anything in the substantiation and I was the one who submitted the PI to correct the issue from the 2017 NEC which would have allowed the single wall receptacle to serve double duty.....and so I have no idea how this all came about but I do know we as CMP members have leeway to write code at the table and ignore the PI's.
    *All code responses are based on the 2017 National Electrical Code®[NEC®]

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,770
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterTheNEC View Post
    I think they should not have said "or" in the opening statement.
    If they said "and" in the opening statement, then that would cover islands and peninsulas very well, but it would be a large increase in the number of receptacles required for an island or peninsula. For example, any island that is wider than 6' in both dimensions would require the use of tombstones. A 3' x 6' island countertop space would require 3 receptacles, I think.

    One option would be to change "or" to "and" and change (b) to read something like:

    (b) Every point on the countertop or work surface is within 36 inches measured horizontally from one of the wall receptacle outlets in that space, or within 72 inches measured horizontally from some other receptacle outlet in that space.

    That could be stated in a negative form as (b) currently is, but the positive form is easier to understand in my opinion.

    This version would mean small to medium peninsulas and island countertop spaces would be covered by one non-wall receptacle outlet, and large areas might require more than one.

    Cheers, Wayne

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    McKinney, Texas
    Posts
    1,454
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    If they said "and" in the opening statement, then that would cover islands and peninsulas very well, but it would be a large increase in the number of receptacles required for an island or peninsula. For example, any island that is wider than 6' in both dimensions would require the use of tombstones. A 3' x 6' island countertop space would require 3 receptacles, I think.

    One option would be to change "or" to "and" and change (b) to read something like:

    (b) Every point on the countertop or work surface is within 36 inches measured horizontally from one of the wall receptacle outlets in that space, or within 72 inches measured horizontally from some other receptacle outlet in that space.

    That could be stated in a negative form as (b) currently is, but the positive form is easier to understand in my opinion.

    This version would mean small to medium peninsulas and island countertop spaces would be covered by one non-wall receptacle outlet, and large areas might require more than one.

    Cheers, Wayne
    I am sure they can't wait for the Public Comments when its finally published as the First Draft. I am sure many will comment on this one.
    *All code responses are based on the 2017 National Electrical Code®[NEC®]

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    6,042
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by K8MHZ View Post
    My sister was nearly killed in 1960 when she was a few months old because she pulled on a cord connected to an electric coffee pot full of boiling coffee and the pot fell on her lap. She suffered 3rd degree burns to 40% of her body. She is 57 now and still suffers from her injuries since she had to spend months in a cast from the waist down and it affected how her legs and feet grew.
    Wow I'm sorry to hear that and that she had to go through such an injury. Modern coffee pots would do the same thing, maybe they should have magnetic breakaway cords like fry-daddy's have.

    I was referring more to the number of outlets where they have to be placed, and what not. a kitchen built even 10 years ago would not be up to today's code, even though it would be virtually identical in regards to electrical outlet placement.
    Electricians do it until it Hertz!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan. It's a beautiful penninsula, I've looked around.
    Posts
    10,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JFletcher View Post
    Wow I'm sorry to hear that and that she had to go through such an injury. Modern coffee pots would do the same thing, maybe they should have magnetic breakaway cords like fry-daddy's have.

    I was referring more to the number of outlets where they have to be placed, and what not. a kitchen built even 10 years ago would not be up to today's code, even though it would be virtually identical in regards to electrical outlet placement.
    I was thinking that if the coffee pot was plugged into a receptacle serving the counter top, it wouldn't have been plugged into a wall receptacle which placed the cord in reach of a toddler in a walker.
    Cheers and Stay Safe,

    Marky the Sparky

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, VA
    Posts
    6,042
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by K8MHZ View Post
    I was thinking that if the coffee pot was plugged into a receptacle serving the counter top, it wouldn't have been plugged into a wall receptacle which placed the cord in reach of a toddler in a walker.
    Very true. Still wouldn't be a bad idea to have Breakaway chords on coffee pots, I know my Fry Daddy only has like an 18 inch long cord and it is a breakaway type. 190 degree water or 400 degree oil, either way I don't want to come in contact with either.

    I don't suppose it is possible to submit such proposals as appliances are outside the scope of the NEC?
    Electricians do it until it Hertz!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •