NEC is not a design manual but......

[acrwc10]

California not to be stopped by logic and reason, has amended the 2008 NEC to add, 210.50 (E)

Originally Posted by 210.50 CEC

(E) [DPH w/ exceptions] Installation Height. The center of 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacle outlets required by sections 210-

52 (A), (B), and (C) shall be installed not less than 12 inches above the floor or working platform.



Exception No.1: Receptacle outlets installed as part of permanently installed baseboard heaters are exempt.

Exception No.2: Required receptacle outlets shall be permitted in floors when adjacent to sliding panels or walls.
Exception No.3: Baseboard electrical outlets used in relocatable partitions, window walls or other electrical convenience floor outlets are not subject to the minimum height requirements.

 

[cadpoint]

Get'r done

Get'r done

All states have the right to do this or anyone that has the like authority can also submit and get it done, I really don’t see what the problem is.

I‘m sitting in a 1940’s house, all the receptacles are in the baseboard’s, I think you should write your own amendment to make a Exception #4, IE; “Any existing receptacle that is below 12” shall be grandfathered if serviced”.

NC edited 08’ and in one case said that it’s not required in crawl spaces to drill sub floor framing members for circuits. MH had submitted and it passed into the NEC.

We’ll see if that hold’s for 11’… BTW is was a major local contractor that worked the system for this one Code change to be dropped, have at it.

Doesn't your State have such avenues to submit exceptions or proposals?

 

[ceb58]

California not to be stopped by logic and reason, has amended the 2008 NEC to add, 210.50 (E)

Originally Posted by 210.50 CEC

(E) [DPH w/ exceptions] Installation Height. The center of 15-, 20-, and 30-ampere receptacle outlets required by sections 210-

52 (A), (B), and (C) shall be installed not less than 12 inches above the floor or working platform.



Exception No.1: Receptacle outlets installed as part of permanently installed baseboard heaters are exempt.

Exception No.2: Required receptacle outlets shall be permitted in floors when adjacent to sliding panels or walls.
Exception No.3: Baseboard electrical outlets used in relocatable partitions, window walls or other electrical convenience floor outlets are not subject to the minimum height requirements.

OK, not much different than 110 II look at all the requried measurements in there. The only problem I would see is around here people are going back to the wide 6"-8" base board. they are going for the old look with the recpt. in the base board. Do them all day and you would be glad to see that amendment

 

[jusme123]

All states have the right to do this or anyone that has the like authority can also submit and get it done, I really don?t see what the problem is.

I?m sitting in a 1940?s house, all the receptacles are in the baseboard?s, I think you should write your own amendment to make a Exception #4, IE; ?Any existing receptacle that is below 12? shall be grandfathered if serviced?.

NC edited 08? and in one case said that it?s not required in crawl spaces to drill sub floor framing members for circuits. MH had submitted and it passed into the NEC.

We?ll see if that hold?s for 11?? BTW is was a major local contractor that worked the system for this one Code change to be dropped, have at it.

Doesn't your State have such avenues to submit exceptions or proposals?

what if someone likes the idea of having the outlets installed in the baseboards of a new home THEIR building, what is the danger

 

[readydave8]

Maybe they're making the receptacles higher to make it easier to inspect them.

 

[cadpoint]

CA is aligning itself to meet the ADA requires, and they don't even meet their requirements, baseboard install are out of date. But CA didn't address existing conditions and I know there's a lot of house out there with baseboard installs. Good Luck patching Baseboard's

I understand your statement, oh well we want but the fall back will be "it's the Code, ah No!"...

 

[jusme123]

CA is aligning itself to meet the ADA requires, and they don't even meet their requirements, baseboard install are out of date. But CA didn't address existing conditions and I know there's a lot of house out there with baseboard installs. Good Luck patching Baseboard's

I understand your statement, oh well we want but the fall back will be "it's the Code, ah No!"...

...if I build a 3 story house with 4 bedrooms on the 3rd floor, if the electrician placed all 4 bedroom light switches in the basement, would that be code compliant?

 

[cadpoint]

...if I build a 3 story house with 4 bedrooms on the 3rd floor, if the electrician placed all 4 bedroom light switches in the basement, would that be code compliant?

Someone should would look silly...

 

[jusme123]

Someone should would look silly...

the point is that it would be a compliant installation. Sometimes the NEC pokes where it does not belong and other times is just silent (standard color coding for normal voltage systems 120/208v black,red,blue...277/480 brown, orange, yellow argument) I get the 'it is not a safety issue and it is not a design manual' thing, been there! JMHO

 

[infinity]

Although the NEC is not intended to be a design manual it can be and sometimes is.

ARTICLE 90 Introduction
90.1 Purpose.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

 

[LEO2854]

what if someone likes the idea of having the outlets installed in the baseboards of a new home THEIR building, what is the danger

there is no danger it is all the pain and agony of the install

 

[infinity]

what if someone likes the idea of having the outlets installed in the baseboards of a new home THEIR building, what is the danger

I agree. ADA requirements do not apply to a single family dwelling. If someone prefers the receptacles in the baseboard (there can be less obtrusive there) it should be their decision alone. This in not a safety issue.

 

[dbuckley]

Lets look at 90.1(C) again, a bit more closely this time:

ARTICLE 90 Introduction
90.1 Purpose.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

So there are (at least!) two possible meanings

A: (This Code is not intended as a design specification) or (an instruction manual for untrained persons).

B: This Code is not intended as a (design specification or an instruction manual) for untrained persons.

But - what if you're a trained person? That negation varies according to where you think the parenthesis lay. So if you are trained the NEC could be a design manual if you believe version B is the correct version, and given the lack of commas, i think that's what it says.

If Version A was what was intended then this would be the better construct:

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

All of which is a good job really, because it is a design manual and for anyone to pretend otherwise is nuts.

 

[480sparky]

Lets look at 90.1(C) again, a bit more closely this time:..............All of which is a good job really, because it is a design manual and for anyone to pretend otherwise is nuts.

I think you missed the obvious change:

This Code is not intended as a design specification nor as an instruction manual for untrained persons.

 

[dbuckley]

Yes, 'nor' is such a good word, and is just the right choice in this case.

Good catch!

 

[jim dungar]

The NEC is far from being a complete design manual. Yes, it does contain some very specific design criteria, primarily for residential, but there are a huge number of areas that are not covered at all.

Simply having minimum requirements does not make something a design manual.

 

[norcal]

Although the NEC is not intended to be a design manual it can be and sometimes is.

Quote:
ARTICLE 90 Introduction
90.1 Purpose.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.


Requiring neutrals at switches in the 2011 NEC sounds like design to me....

 

[acrwc10]

I don't see this code as being a life safety issue and it makes little sense to have made the code, but it's not the first and won't be the last code section that makes little sense. I do not think it will get inforced and wonder if it will last to the next code cycle. You cant argue baseboard outlets are a pain to install and I am not getting any extra on a bid for it.

 

[infinity]

Although the NEC is not intended to be a design manual it can be and sometimes is.

Quote:
ARTICLE 90 Introduction
90.1 Purpose.
(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.


Requiring neutrals at switches in the 2011 NEC sounds like design to me....

I think that I just said that.

 

[dbuckley]

The fact that it (sort of) claims not be design manual, and even if it were, it is, as noted Jim, a far from complete design manual, that doesn't mean it doesn't have good ideas in there. In my opinion, now I am used to being in a juristiction where having neutrals at the switches has been the norm for decades, I think its a really good idea.