kitchen subpanel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

archer117

Member
I am installing a kitchenette in a basement studio apartment. The kitchenette is fed by a single 10/3 NM cable which originates in a subpanel that is dedicated to the basement apartment. I would like the kitchenette to have 3 or 4 seperate 15 or 20 A circuits for small apliances, mini hot water heater and a small refrigerator. I would like to do this by feeding a small subpanel with the 10/3 cable, and running my individual circuits with 12/2 and seperate breakers. The only convenient location to install this panel is directly above the sink. Is this permitted under NEC? I know that panels are not permitted in bathrooms. If it is permitted, does the entire panel need to be fed by a GFCI double pole breaker? Or may I simply use GFCI outlets like a normal kitchen setup? Finally, because the kitchenette will be part of a small 12 by 12 room, do all of the outlets in the room need to be GFCI? I am assuming "yes" because NEC would consider the whole room to be a kitchen.

Your reply is appreciated

Glenn
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

You can not locate the panel over anything.

110.26 requires space to the floor.

Wherever you mount the panel it will not have to be GFCI protected.

The GFCI requirement is only for 120 volt 15 and 20 amp outlets serving the counters.
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

Some years ago I was working at a home where the electrician had located the breaker panel for the pool eqipment on tyhe side of the house but behind the pool heater. The inspector failed it for this obstruction. The electrician overcame this by leaving the panel in the same place, but installed a main disconnect throw switch several feet away from the panel in an unobstructed location. Would this be an option in my case?

The irony of this is that my preferred location above the sink would give unrestricted access, whereas a nearby location with clearance to the floor would likely end up with a refrigerator in front of it. But that would be up to code as long as the refrigerator wasn't there at time of inspection.
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

Originally posted by archer117:
The irony of this is that my preferred location above the sink would give unrestricted access, whereas a nearby location with clearance to the floor would likely end up with a refrigerator in front of it. But that would be up to code as long as the refrigerator wasn't there at time of inspection.
Click to expand...
No it would not be up to code.

110.26(B) Clear Spaces. Working space required by this section shall not be used for storage. When normally enclosed live parts are exposed for inspection or servicing, the working space, if in a passageway or general open space, shall be suitably guarded.
Click to expand...
You could not 'store' the refrigerator in front of the panel.

I have never heard of a disconnect changing the rules of 110.26, I would not count on it.

[ July 28, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

Originally posted by archer117:
The electrician overcame this by leaving the panel in the same place, but installed a main disconnect throw switch several feet away from the panel in an unobstructed location. Would this be an option in my case?
Click to expand...
I don't see how this corrected the problem. Adding a main disconnect somewhere else doens't eliminate the issue of required working space for the panelboard. So no, this would not be an option.

I don't understand why you can't run your required and desired circuits from where the 10/3 originates.
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

(quite)I don't see how this corrected the problem. Adding a main disconnect somewhere else doens't eliminate the issue of required working space for the panelboard. So no, this would not be an option.
That's because it didn't solve anything
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

"the only convenient location"

The NEC is not in place for convenience. I cannot see how a studio apartment does not have some location that the panel can be located in.
Above the sink - give me a break!!!!

Pierre
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

Archer117: Perhaps it would help if you knew the reason for the working clearance requirements of article 110.26.

It starts by noting that there is always a possibility that some electrician will have to do work on that panel, sometime in the future. They may have to replace a breaker or add a new one for a new load. If (heaven forbid) the electrician were to accidentally touch an energized part, the amount of current that would flow would almost certainly exceed the ?let go? value. That means that the current is high enough to force the muscles in the hands and arms to contract so strongly, that the person would not be able to let go of the panel.

In such cases, the only thing that is likely to save the person?s life is when the body collapses. The weight of the falling body may be enough to pull the hands away from the panel. This can only work if there is enough room for the body to fall. That is the one and only reason for the working clearance requirement. Therefore, as a design engineer, I fiercely defend this hypothetical future electrician, by permitting no compromise on the working clearance requirements.

By the way, I learned this perspective from an electrician who told me that the only reason he was alive is the reason I describe above.
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

Originally posted by jimwalker:
(quite)I don't see how this corrected the problem. Adding a main disconnect somewhere else doens't eliminate the issue of required working space for the panelboard. So no, this would not be an option.
That's because it didn't solve anything
Click to expand...
But it did create the need for working space in front of the disconnect too, lol.

BTW, I've actually been asked for a disconnect ahead of a disconnect, "in case we ( a maintenance-man ) need to work on the first one", and this was on a fire pump.
 
Re: kitchen subpanel?

Originally posted by charlie b:

The weight of the falling body may be enough to pull the hands away from the panel. This can only work if there is enough room for the body to fall.
Click to expand...
Devil's advocate here:
So then why wouldn't a panel above a counter be ok? If a body were to collapse it would surely fall to the floor, wouldn't it?

That is the one and only reason for the working clearance requirement.
Click to expand...
Yet the handbook talks about a step-back distance. so maybe it's not the one and only reason?

I'm not defending the installation nor do I intend any offense, just questioning

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top