New 120v gas range recepticle

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm saying that the definition does not encompass a space left in front of a wall for an appliance but since there are dissenting opinions then obviously a clearer definition is needed.

And no, a box around a column is not wall space. Even the CMP agrees. :)
 
infinity said:
I'm saying that the definition does not encompass a space left in front of a wall for an appliance but since there are dissenting opinions then obviously a clearer definition is needed.
Click to expand...
Expanding on definition, or better defining criteria, would be a better use of CMP time than considering all the half-baked notions in proposals and comments... IMO.

And no, a box around a column is not wall space. Even the CMP agrees. :)
Click to expand...
:happyno::happyyes::p
 
Yes, it's unfortunate that so much of their time is wasted on trivial proposals. The system is somewhat flawed since it's hard to get a formal interpretation from the NFPA. So the next best thing is to submit a proposal and hope that the CMP will answer your question in their comment as to why they've rejected your proposal. Essential this is what they did with my proposal to exempt the aforementioned column from the wall space. They just said a column is not wall space. :D


2-153 Log #2734 NEC-P02
Final Action: Reject
(210.52(A)(2) Exception (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Robert Meier, Norwood, NJ
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
210.52(A)(2) Wall Space. As used in this section, a wall space shall include
the following:
(1) Any space 600 mm (2 ft) or more in width (including space measured
around corners) and unbroken along the floor line by doorways and similar
openings, fireplaces, and fixed cabinets
(2) The space occupied by fixed panels in exterior walls, excluding sliding
panels
(3) The space afforded by fixed room dividers, such as freestanding bar-type
counters or railings
Exception: Rectangular, square, round or other shaped columns shall not
be required to comply with this section.
Substantiation: Some inspectors have been requiring columns with an outer
dimension of 24 in or more, particularly those in basements, to comply with
210.52(A)(2). In many cases it is impracticable to install receptacles in these
locations (think of trying to install a receptacle on a round column with a 24 in.
circumference). The new exception will clarify that columns do not need to be
counted as wall space when complying with 210.52(A)(2).
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The Exception is unnecessary. A column is not a ?wall
space? as defined in 210.52(A)(2)(1) and, as such, the 24? dimension has no
application.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
Click to expand...
 
infinity said:
Yes, it's unfortunate that so much of their time is wasted on trivial proposals. The system is somewhat flawed since it's hard to get a formal interpretation from the NFPA. So the next best thing is to submit a proposal and hope that the CMP will answer your question in their comment as to why they've rejected your proposal. Essential this is what they did with my proposal to exempt the aforementioned column from the wall space. They just said a column is not wall space. :D
Click to expand...
I agree. Then, some of the really good proposals go rejected because the CMP can't perceive the real world implications from the way the proposal is written. Critiquing yours I can see how it may have been better written so not to have gotten rejected outright, perhaps accepted at least in principle. That is, less emphasis on the column aspect, and more on how it is interpreted as wall space.
 
Last edited:
infinity said:
Yes, it's unfortunate that so much of their time is wasted on trivial proposals. The system is somewhat flawed since it's hard to get a formal interpretation from the NFPA. So the next best thing is to submit a proposal and hope that the CMP will answer your question in their comment as to why they've rejected your proposal. Essential this is what they did with my proposal to exempt the aforementioned column from the wall space. They just said a column is not wall space. :D
Click to expand...

I think the CMP is / was mistaken given the current wording of the NEC.
 
thanks for the great discussion. In my research i also felt it came down to the definition of wall space. Without the appliance in place there would be no cooking eqiupment other than a counter top microwave (not to mention the Unsightly Gas pipe). with the appliance in place the recepticle is not readily accessible and most people wouldn't know it was there.
 
Is space behind the refrigerator wall space? If it is, then I believe the space behind a range that is not surrounded by cabinets is also wall space. I think that neither one should be considered wall space.
 
I care not whether a range, dishwasher, refrigerator, or (ordinary) laundry equipment is bolted to the floor. IMO, it's a 'fixed' appliance, even if it has wheels or rollers that let you shift it around for cleaning. The space where it sits is 'dedicated' space, and not 'open' wall space by any stretch of the imagination.

Why do I say that? I say that because the plumbing connections, the gas connections, the sewer connections, and the big, fat 240v 30a (or greater) requirements preclude the appliances from being used in just any odd corner.

I don't think I have ever seen any house where areas that were designed to take these large appliances also had receptacles in them. spaced according to the '12 ft. rule.' Nope - especially since '96, and the requirement for a 'laundry circuit.'

We did have a code cycle or two where it was debated whether a refirgerator could be powered by an SABC. Current code says it has to be.

Current code also says there can be NO other outlets on the SABC's. If we can't have the microwave in the upper cabinets, the dishwasher and the disposall on an SABC .... I'd say we're also forbidden to have the range igniter on it. (I thought you were allowed to have such incidentals, though. Where did that language go?)

I'd suggest tying it into the range hood / microwave circuit ... but there's another 'dedicated' circuit we can't tap into.

Code language certainly leaves quite a bit to be desired. That's what happens when you try 'one size fits all' design rules.

Personally? Were I inspecting, I would NOT trace back the igniter circuit to determine its' source. I'm not going to look that close. I expect that nearly all such igniter receptacles are ties into whatever circuits are nearby and handy.

What would ne nice would be .... a receptacle that had an OCPD, so I could tap into a 50A circuit for it ... then I could run power for an electric range - and provide for a gas rang as well, with the same circuit! (The handy-box covers with the Edison fuse holders don't quite do it.)
 
renosteinke said:
What would ne nice would be .... a receptacle that had an OCPD, so I could tap into a 50A circuit for it ... then I could run power for an electric range - and provide for a gas rang as well, with the same circuit! (The handy-box covers with the Edison fuse holders don't quite do it.)
Click to expand...

You are in luck check this out:http://products.geindustrial.com/IndustrialProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=SPECPAGE&PRODUCT_NUMBER=U355C010
but you will have 110.26 issues if you place it behind the range.

I don't think the link works here is PDF of that page View attachment Midwest U355C010.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top