210.52(D) A duplex satisfies requirement for two basins? Or Not?

[Sea Nile]

I'm studying Mike Holt's understanding the NEC 2020 edition.

I've heard that a duplex can be used to provide a receptacle for each basin of a bathroom that has two basins. Provided of course that the duplex is within 3 feet of each sink. But thats not how I'm reading the code.

210.52(D) states that a "Receptacle Outlet" must be provided for 'Each' basin.

100 Definition: Receptacle Outlet - An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed.

If I'm understanding the difference between a "receptacle" and a "receptacle outlet", then a duplex would not work.
Even though there are two outlets in a duplex, it's still only a single "receptacle outlet"

To compare how another section uses "Receptacle Outlets" consider the attached graphic. The attached graphic shows a kitchen countertop with receptacle outlets. If a receptacle outlet with a duplex was considered two receptacle outlets, then according to 210.52(C) the lower outet could be used for the counter and the upper outlet would be an "additional" outlet and therefore would be able to be used to cover the wall space to the door. But that's obviously not true.

As far as I can tell, everyone who was using a duplex for two basins have been doing it wrong.

 

[LarryFine]

Nope, you're overthinking it. A basin requires a receptacle within the 3' distance to its rim.

One receptacle certainly may serve two basins as long as it's within the required distance of each.

The graphic correctly shows that the counter and wall spaces may not share one receptacle.

Single vs duplex has nothing to do with which spaces a receptacle serves; it's not one per space.

 

[tthh]

In the real world, you want more. Think hair dryers, hair straightener, electric toothbrushes, electirc shavers, lighted makeup mirrors, just to name a few common items.

 

[Sea Nile]

@LarryFine - What you say seems right if you think about it logically. But where does it say that in the code?

@tthh - absolutely, but that won't help me on an exam .

 

[LarryFine]

210.52(D) states that a "Receptacle Outlet" must be provided for 'Each' basin.

It actually says: "In dwelling units, at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed in bathrooms within 900 mm (3 ft) of the outside edge of each basin."

So, it's saying that a receptacle must be within three feet of each sink, not that each sink requires its own dedicated receptacle. Thus, one receptacle can satisfy the requirement for two sinks if they're close enough.

 

[Sea Nile]

Thanks, the language of the section seemed like it could be interpreted either way. I'm not an English major but it seemed like it would be more grammatical correct if it was a receptacle outlet for each sink. But I would never argue that in the real world.

 

[Sea Nile]

On a similar note, I think I could argue that the shared receptacle outlet wouldn't have to be a duplex. The way I read it, it could be a single receptacle and still meet code.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Thanks, the language of the section seemed like it could be interpreted either way. I'm not an English major but it seemed like it would be more grammatical correct if it was a receptacle outlet for each sink. But I would never argue that in the real world.

Welcome to the NEC... Being on the side of trying to write changes to the code I can attest that it is extremely difficult, at times, to write something that is only interpreted one way.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

On a similar note, I think I could argue that the shared receptacle outlet wouldn't have to be a duplex. The way I read it, it could be a single receptacle and still meet code.

I believe that would be acceptable but dumb...lol

 

[infinity]

It actually says: "In dwelling units, at least one receptacle outlet shall be installed in bathrooms within 900 mm (3 ft) of the outside edge of each basin."

So, it's saying that a receptacle must be within three feet of each sink, not that each sink requires its own dedicated receptacle. Thus, one receptacle can satisfy the requirement for two sinks if they're close enough.

I agree, the wording could be better but that is what it means.

 

[kwired]

Thanks, the language of the section seemed like it could be interpreted either way. I'm not an English major but it seemed like it would be more grammatical correct if it was a receptacle outlet for each sink. But I would never argue that in the real world.

We have on this site what we call "Charlies rule". Maybe hasn't come up in a while but it applies here.

Abbreviated version: it says what it says, not necessarily what you think it says or what you think it should say.

 

[Sea Nile]

it says what it says, not necessarily what you think it says or what you think it should say.

Reminds me of the movie ' The General's Daughter' "There's a right way, a wrong way, and the Army way."

Of course I agree with Charlie's Rule, but the only way I can determine if what I think it says, is actually what is says, is to ask. I think you would agree that I don't know what I don't know.

But if I scrutinize what it says to see if it says what I think it says, then I can validate my understanding and not be forced to assume what I think it says is what it actually says.

At no point did I say what it should say.

 

[kwired]

Reminds me of the movie ' The General's Daughter' "There's a right way, a wrong way, and the Army way."

Of course I agree with Charlie's Rule, but the only way I can determine if what I think it says, is actually what is says, is to ask. I think you would agree that I don't know what I don't know.

But if I scrutinize what it says to see if it says what I think it says, then I can validate my understanding and not be forced to assume what I think it says is what it actually says.

At no point did I say what it should say.

Fair enough, and no you didn't say what you think it should say. Will add that some inspectors are good at doing that though, and will not listen to any reasoning when challenged about it.

 

[Rick 0920]

I believe that would be acceptable but dumb...lol

90.1 (B) and the I.N. seems to be the disclaimer for the "dumb" part.

 

[Sea Nile]

Lol, yes... 90.1 (B) states the code doesn't care if it's convenient or efficient.

I don't see how the informational note applies. Besides I.N.s are not enforcible.

I'm sure the panel did not intend for someone to put the switch accross the house. But it's a pretty funny loop hole

 

[Sea Nile]

I'm sure the panel did not intend for someone to put the switch accross the house. But it's a pretty funny loop hole

Ignore this last sentence, I answered from my phone and thought this was the stairway thread. Need more coffee.

 

[Rick 0920]

Lol, yes... 90.1 (B) states the code doesn't care if it's convenient or efficient.

I don't see how the informational note applies. Besides I.N.s are not enforcible.

I'm sure the panel did not intend for someone to put the switch accross the house. But it's a pretty funny loop hole

IMO, the way the I.N. applies is because they now make hair dryers that produce enough heat to take tint off of windows. The current NEC code for bathroom receptacles is that ALL bathroom receptacles can be on one 20 amp circuit. So if my wife and daughter are getting ready for church on Sunday morning and both using hair dryers or curling irons in their respective bathrooms, there will no doubt be more than 2400 watts consumed and I will be resetting a breaker. You are correct that I.N.'s are not enforceable codes, but they are useful. Remember, you are looking at a book that is a MINIMUM standard for electrical installations. I can't speak for everyone, but I try to do things above a beyond minimum if it means a better job.

 

[Sea Nile]

Remember, you are looking at a book that is a MINIMUM standard for electrical installations. I try to do things above a beyond minimum if it means a better job.

If I came off the wrong way here is my intent. I'm not advocating doing the minimum. My intent is purely educational. I want to understand what the minimum requirements to be compliant to not only be able to pass an exam, but also be able to call B.S. when someone tells me it has to be a certain way.

 

[Rick 0920]

If I came off the wrong way here is my intent. I'm not advocating doing the minimum. My intent is purely educational. I want to understand what the minimum requirements to be compliant to not only be able to pass an exam, but also be able to call B.S. when someone tells me it has to be a certain way.

There can be several ways to do an installation and still be code compliant. Good luck!