Location of receptacles for gas ranges

Status
Not open for further replies.
M. D.

M. D.

Senior Member
and yup,.. you guessed it ,..2010 ROP

It is very unlikely that it is a violation.
But Bob feel free to submit a proposal :) just because he's been shot down four times is no reason for you not to try.;)


17-27 Log #1800 NEC-P17 Final Action: Reject
(422.33(A) and (C))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dan Leaf, Seneca, SC

Recommendation: Revise last sentence of (A): Where the separable cord
connector, plug and receptacle or flanged surface device are not readily
accessible, cord and plug connected appliances shall be provided with
disconnecting means in accordance with 422.31.
Revise (C): The rating of an attachment plug, a receptacle, or a separable
cord connector or flanged surface device shall not be less than the rating of any
appliance connected thereto.

Substantiation: ?Accessible? as used in (A) appears to apply to equipment.
Receptacles are required to be accessible and the disconnecting means of
422.31 are required to be accessible.
(C) should include attachment plugs and flanged surface services.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: CMP-17 does not accept the changes to the wording as there
is no improved clarity with respect to the word ?accessible? applying to the
separable connector, plug, and receptacle.

Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
Click to expand...
 
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
So based on this . . . I can now locate any disconnecting means behind any 'appliance'.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Based on this (the CMP words quoted by M.D.), you can put a plug and cord type disconnection means behind any appliance.
 
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
M. D. said:
. . . just because he's been shot down four times is no reason for you not to try.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't know. I cannot tell for certain whether he was shot down four times because, in the view of the CMP, he was trying to sell a bad idea, or because he was not very effective at selling a good idea. :confused:
 
M. D.

M. D.

Senior Member
Well I'm done ,.. the language is there the receptacle is accessible ,How else was it connected?? just do the reverse for disconnecting purposes. just thought I'd post one more opinion , and by the way , not that it matters ,.. I can't find any worthy written word that supports your view ,.... If I had,. I'd a posted it :)

Mike Holt newsletter


Q4. My question is about the new trend for residential, under the counter, washer and dryer installations. I don?t think the cord is accessible to be used as a disconnecting means when the appliance is installed? Am I correct in my interpretation of the term ?accessible??

A4. No. Accessible means capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building [100]. So the installation is fine, see 422.33.
Click to expand...
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
M. D. said:
Well I'm done ,.. the language is there the receptacle is accessible ,How else was it connected??
Click to expand...

OK so anything that was connected is accessible?:)

Why does 422.33(A) tell us that receptacles that are not accessible have to have another disconnecting means?

Under your interpretation (the receptacle is accessible ,How else was it connected) when would a receptacle ever be non-accessible as 422.33(A) mentions?

Why did the CMP at one time see a need for 422.33(B) if the permission to have a disconnecting means behind an appliance already exists?

It is not as black and white as you try to paint it.
 
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
Using Charlie's rules the code book does not make that distinction. :)
Click to expand...
Now come on, Bob. Play fair. ;) No using "Charlie's Rule" against me, when that is not warranted. I was not attempting to apply code language outside the words themselves. I was commenting on your post #78, in which you were infering (obviously in jest) that you can now alter your installations on the basis of a CMP statement that did not make it into the actual code language.
 
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
Why does 422.33(A) tell us that receptacles that are not accessible have to have another disconnecting means?
Click to expand...
Because it recognizes that some plug and cord connections behind (or otherwise near) some appliances will be accessible, and others will not.

Then it proceeds to not tell us which is which.

If that is essentially your point, then I agree with you.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
charlie b said:
Because it recognizes that some plug and cord connections behind (or otherwise near) some appliances will be accessible, and others will not.
Click to expand...

I agree but feel (B) really clues us in on what is not accessible, specifically receptacles located behind ranges without drawers.


If that is essentially your point, then I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Essentially.:)
 
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
I agree but feel (B) really clues us in on what is not accessible, specifically receptacles located behind ranges without drawers.
Click to expand...
For starters, that is electric ranges only.

But let me invoke Charlie's Rule at this point. :grin: That article allows the electrician to reach a hand under the range, all the way to the back, with whatever vertical space exists between the floor and the bottom of the range, and uses the word "accessible" in describing that situation. I would call that a more awkward way to pull a plug than just moving the range. Then, at the end of the paragraph, it does not say that that is to be considered accessible enough. Rather, it says it meets the intent of an earlier paragraph.

Also, it does not say that if the electric range does not have a drawer, and if you therefore have to move the range to get at the plug, you have left the realm of "accessible," and now have to provide a separate disconnect. I submit that if you have two otherwise identical kitchens, and if one has a gas range and the other an electric range (with no drawer), and if the plugs are in the same location at the back, then both plugs are accessible, and neither needs a separate disconnect.

Again, the essence is that the code does not tell us how much trouble we can face, before we call the situation no longer accessible.
 
Pierre C Belarge

Pierre C Belarge

Senior Member
Location
Westchester County, New York
iwire said:
I agree but feel (B) really clues us in on what is not accessible, specifically receptacles located behind ranges without drawers.




Essentially.:)
Click to expand...



I would think more like receptacles behind ELECTRIC ranges.


The definition of accessible, either of them, would work with the gas range and a receptable behind the gas range.


Bob
If you want us to agree with you, you will need to share some of the medication...please. :D


I still say the easy way to keep all happy is to spend the extra couple of bucks to install the breaker lock.
 
Sierrasparky

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Bob.
Thanks
by any chance did you download the PDF for the post in # 51 cause it's a Gas Range.
So exuse me if I am a bit baffled. Usually you are right on the money. Here I am confused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top