• We will be performing upgrades on the forums and server over the weekend. The forums may be unavailable multiple times for up to an hour each. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work to make the forums even better.

2017 NEC Pdf is available

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sierrasparky

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Sierrasparky said:
I thought the NEC was not a design guide!
Click to expand...

rbalex said:
It depends somewhat on the CMP. CMP14 was heavy into using Section 90.1(C). Those CMPs that are especially heavy into residential or light commercial are more likely to give design directives. A few unnamed aren't quite sure.
Click to expand...


Yes I would have to agree with you.
The more and more the CMP's tweak and twiddle the more complex and the more confusing their clarifications get.
I pointed out the code is not intended to be a design guide "

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


Well darn if it does not look like one.
 
Smart $

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Dennis Alwon said:
I understand that you can't do it even under the 2014 but I was wondering if they were trying to clarify it...Did a great job of it if that was their intent.:D
Click to expand...
As best I can tell, the intent was to include any work surface similar to a countertop. The term countertop is not defined in the NEC and the definition varies in dictionaries.
 
romex jockey

romex jockey

Senior Member
Location
Vermont
Occupation
electrician
Dennis Alwon said:
I ordered the 2017 NEC book with the pdf from Nfpa.org. I got an email that the pdf is available for download. I just downloaded it-- simple easy. Just thought you would all like to know
Click to expand...

I'm looking for 2 handbooks and a pdf , need a link if you've one Dennis

~RJ~
 
Dennis Alwon

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I just called... You will not get the tabs unless you use the link. They were nice enough to add the tabs to my order for free since they were not sent. Glad you brought that up Smart..:thumbsup:
 
MasterTheNEC

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Dennis Alwon said:
I would like some comment on this one please


Here is an interesting one. I read this to mean if we have a desk area with receptacles at the desk top then the space below may need a receptacle if it falls into the standard distance rule req. for recep. on a wall. That's nuts. I can see if it were in a cabinet with a door---Maybe I am reading this incorrectly
Click to expand...

Greetings Dennis,

The language was presented by my friend Mr. Brian Rock to simply acknowledge that the receptacles required by 210.52(C) can't be used to meet the requirements of 210.52(A), which as you eluded to was near the intended language of previous cycles as far as the intent of not allowing such a receptacle to serve such a use. With the addition of the term "similar work surfaces" the submitter was trying to address the need for receptacle in those similar work surface areas to those in 210.52(C), needing to fully meet the spacing and intent of 210.52(C).

So if the space in question is considered a wall space then it would need to met the spacing requirements of 210.52(A) as you have stated. Again it was simply to clarify that the new countertop surfaces or similar work spaces in those same specific locations are required to meet 210.52(C) and that again they are not to be used to meet any of the requirements of 210.52(A).

So I think you nailed it from what I can gather.
 
Dennis Alwon

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
MasterTheNEC said:
Greetings Dennis,

The language was presented by my friend Mr. Brian Rock to simply acknowledge that the receptacles required by 210.52(C) can't be used to meet the requirements of 210.52(A), which as you eluded to was near the intended language of previous cycles as far as the intent of not allowing such a receptacle to serve such a use. With the addition of the term "similar work surfaces" the submitter was trying to address the need for receptacle in those similar work surface areas to those in 210.52(C), needing to fully meet the spacing and intent of 210.52(C).

So if the space in question is considered a wall space then it would need to met the spacing requirements of 210.52(A) as you have stated. Again it was simply to clarify that the new countertop surfaces or similar work spaces in those same specific locations are required to meet 210.52(C) and that again they are not to be used to meet any of the requirements of 210.52(A).

So I think you nailed it from what I can gather.
Click to expand...


Thanks Paul. At first I was taken for a loop on it but then I did feel that the intent was as you stated.
 
MasterTheNEC

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
Dennis Alwon said:
Thanks Paul. At first I was taken for a loop on it but then I did feel that the intent was as you stated.
Click to expand...
agreed. In short it was a CYA from a previous change. However, some on the CMP disagreed and felt that adding the new terms "similar work surfaces" or something to that effect would cause confusion since no definition exists. But only two voted against it and it passed mustard.
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Occupation
EC
MasterTheNEC said:
Greetings Dennis,

The language was presented by my friend Mr. Brian Rock to simply acknowledge that the receptacles required by 210.52(C) can't be used to meet the requirements of 210.52(A), which as you eluded to was near the intended language of previous cycles as far as the intent of not allowing such a receptacle to serve such a use. With the addition of the term "similar work surfaces" the submitter was trying to address the need for receptacle in those similar work surface areas to those in 210.52(C), needing to fully meet the spacing and intent of 210.52(C).

So if the space in question is considered a wall space then it would need to met the spacing requirements of 210.52(A) as you have stated. Again it was simply to clarify that the new countertop surfaces or similar work spaces in those same specific locations are required to meet 210.52(C) and that again they are not to be used to meet any of the requirements of 210.52(A).

So I think you nailed it from what I can gather.
Click to expand...

Any idea of the logic of why a receptacle about right above the end of a countertop can't serve the first two feet of 210.52(C) counter top and the first six feet 210.52(A) wall on the other side? This presuming the wall is still in space allowed to be on the same circuit.

As is worded now for 2017, one could still put a two gang box or even turn a single gang box horizontal and put centerline directly over the counter edge so that one receptacle is over the counter and the other is past the counter and you still are compliant but essentially have the same thing, it just took a little more care in exact placement.

IMO this is encroaching too far on NEC being a design manual.
 
MasterTheNEC

MasterTheNEC

CEO and President of Electrical Code Academy, Inc.
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
CEO
kwired said:
Any idea of the logic of why a receptacle about right above the end of a countertop can't serve the first two feet of 210.52(C) counter top and the first six feet 210.52(A) wall on the other side? This presuming the wall is still in space allowed to be on the same circuit.

As is worded now for 2017, one could still put a two gang box or even turn a single gang box horizontal and put centerline directly over the counter edge so that one receptacle is over the counter and the other is past the counter and you still are compliant but essentially have the same thing, it just took a little more care in exact placement.

IMO this is encroaching too far on NEC being a design manual.
Click to expand...

Greetings kwired,

Well I have found that when I try to enlist my own logic to examine someone else's logic that never works out well for me. I can only present what is discussed or what is recorded in the submittal and justification process of the code making process, and we all can view that on TarraView (think thats the name of it) when it works and it does for the most part. I think there is nearly anything in the NEC that if you think long and hard about it can be circumvented in some fashion, so again I prefer to keep with the intent and let everyone else have their own opinions on it. The intent was to not co-mingle the two requirements for serving the needs of 210.52(C) and 210.52(A). The additional statements " or similar work surface" has been coming a long time for those folks who have the built in desks in kitchens and dinning rooms so this was a natural progression. Quite frankly I think it was the best language they could muster on that day and it works for the most part.

my own logic is that in the 2014 NEC it was presented that a countertop receptacle (required by 210.52(C)) could not serve the requirements of 210.52(A). With the addition of the "similar work surface" the CMP had to write it so that it keeps the integrity of what was established in the 2011 NEC via 210.52(A)(4) and include the work surfaces that tend to (in the proponent for the change) be left without receptacles that should (agree or not) on the small appliance branch circuit.

Full disclaimer - This is not what Mr. Rock has stated or his logic or the CMP's logic....it is my analysis of their intent only.

Hope it was helpful and if not...my apologies for my long winded response.
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Occupation
EC
MasterTheNEC said:
Greetings kwired,

Well I have found that when I try to enlist my own logic to examine someone else's logic that never works out well for me. I can only present what is discussed or what is recorded in the submittal and justification process of the code making process, and we all can view that on TarraView (think thats the name of it) when it works and it does for the most part. I think there is nearly anything in the NEC that if you think long and hard about it can be circumvented in some fashion, so again I prefer to keep with the intent and let everyone else have their own opinions on it. The intent was to not co-mingle the two requirements for serving the needs of 210.52(C) and 210.52(A). The additional statements " or similar work surface" has been coming a long time for those folks who have the built in desks in kitchens and dinning rooms so this was a natural progression. Quite frankly I think it was the best language they could muster on that day and it works for the most part.

my own logic is that in the 2014 NEC it was presented that a countertop receptacle (required by 210.52(C)) could not serve the requirements of 210.52(A). With the addition of the "similar work surface" the CMP had to write it so that it keeps the integrity of what was established in the 2011 NEC via 210.52(A)(4) and include the work surfaces that tend to (in the proponent for the change) be left without receptacles that should (agree or not) on the small appliance branch circuit.

Full disclaimer - This is not what Mr. Rock has stated or his logic or the CMP's logic....it is my analysis of their intent only.

Hope it was helpful and if not...my apologies for my long winded response.
Click to expand...
I agree that reading the official comments and proposals or inputs does at least help with figuring out what the intent was. Won't agree that what goes into final print always meets those goals though. And sometimes there are other effects from a change they never considered - this might be one of them. Sounds like their primary focus was on the built in desk in kitchen areas, and the way it ended up that next six feet of wall adjacent to the counter unintentionally was effected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top