"Permanent provisions for cooking."

[kwired]

To anyone in the electrical trade that does not believe life safety is a priority in installation & inspections should find an occupation in which does not incorporate such personal responsibility. I meant no offense to those who flip burgers but they do not have as many codes & restrictions to follow.

flip burgers is maybe somewhat limiting your liability, but so is working as an electrician for a EC - your employer takes on liabilities of your actions while on the job, unless they can prove gross negligence or willful intent on your part.

Ever done work in a food processing facility? Doing so as an electrician you not only need to know electrical codes and safety practices you also need to know safe food processing and handling that everyone else in the plant has to know or they will not want you in their plant, and it goes beyond just what you should do in the area of open product. Some even make you wear clothing that doesn't leave the plant - aside from maybe via outside contracted laundry services, you come in - change clothes, do your work and change back into your "outside" clothes when you leave.

I've seen a lot of sunrises and sat thru a lot of meetings where this and a similar topic, does a microwave constitute permanent cooking, have taken up eons of time by contractors, inspectors and even CMP members. As noted in this thread, there are often good points made on both sides of the argument and such discussions occasionally end in Code changes such as the 2014 dormitory rule.
Until such details are specifically spelled out in the Code such discussions will continue. I think it is to the inspectors credit that he (a) had overall safety in mind and (b) was willing to have the decision reviewed. In the end, IMO the Code addresses such issues by use of 90.4 allowing the local jurisdiction to solve such problems. Here we can only give opinions.

But the biggest change for 2014 was introduction of AFCI protection - not everything else that needs to apply if it is a dwelling unit. Plus many will assume that the AFCI protection is for the individual private room or "bedroom" and not the whole floor. Perhaps they need a definition for dormitory or define it better then they do - see what I posted further down.

They already are, see 210.60, but that doesn't really change this discussion.


Roger

I should have looked harder - here is 210.60:

Guest rooms or guest suites in hotels, motels, sleeping rooms in dormitories, and similar occupancies shall have receptacle outlets installed in accordance with 210.52(A) and (D). Guest rooms or guest suites provided with permanent provisions for cooking shall have receptacle outlets installed in accordance with all of the applicable rules in 210.52

IMO sleeping rooms in dormitories does not include the kitchen in the common area - it then follows up with mentioning guest rooms or suites with permanent cooking provisions - may need some work on clearing up the intent as is though, but my guess is the intention was to mean the cooking provisions need be in the suite and not in a common area to call it a dwelling unit.

 

[kwired]

bump

 

[sandsnow]

To anyone in the electrical trade that does not believe life safety is a priority in installation & inspections should find an occupation in which does not incorporate such personal responsibility. I meant no offense to those who flip burgers but they do not have as many codes & restrictions to follow.

Agreed. I do my best to enforce the Code - no more - no less. Deviating from the Code requires careful thought proportionate to the impact of the deviation.
Section 90.1 and 90.4 doesn't give me in the field to do whatever I want in the name of safety. That approach is ripe for abuse.

 

[roger]

Section 90.1 and 90.4 doesn't give me in the field to do whatever I want in the name of safety. That approach is ripe for abuse.

It's too bad that some do not realize this.

The truth is that article 90 is not code and it makes this clear in 90.3, article 90 is simply an introduction explaining the code, a set up for the actual story.

Roger

 

[mwm1752]

Agreed. I do my best to enforce the Code - no more - no less. Deviating from the Code requires careful thought proportionate to the impact of the deviation.
Section 90.1 and 90.4 doesn't give me in the field to do whatever I want in the name of safety. That approach is ripe for abuse.

We all know code is minimum -- It is not my intentions to insinuate personal beliefs not within the code should be required in the name of safety. The point was that the code is based upon methods as voted in by the CMP to insure safety. How someone puts the pieces together is not an issue unless it is noncompliant to code which would indicate an unsafe installation. When the inspector says "I said so" without any proper backing in the name of safety, certainly that is abuse. We can agree to disagree on many issue in this forum, may not get it right, but at least we discuss which IMO is proper.

 

[jwelectric]

but my guess is the intention was to mean the cooking provisions need be in the suite and not in a common area to call it a dwelling unit.

Help me to understand your meaning here. Do you mean that the cooking provisions need to be in the sleeping quarters in order to be a dwelling unit?

If each floor had only one lockable bedroom and a common area that also had a kitchen area would we be having this discussion? Just what does the number of bedrooms have to do with the definition of dwelling unit? The bedroom is not a suite.
The common area is the living space which you said had a kitchen. You have yet to say if this kitchen has provisions for cooking.

 

[Strathead]

If they want to call them that I don't have a problem with it, but if this common kitchen on a floor is part of what qualifies it as a dwelling unit then IMO it needs more then just AFCI protection included - it needs 210.52 compliance, 210.70(A) compliance, and possibly some other sections related to dwellings need applied for the entire area between each "bedroom" and this "kitchen". Each occupant also needs access to their overcurrent protection devices including for the kitchen, bath and other common areas that are also part of the "dwelling unit"- that may also be something not so common in such buildings but there typically is site maintenance people, maybe not in the building but on the campus.

I am more in favor of treating these more like guest rooms or suites then as dwelling units, this still puts some of the dwelling unit rules in the "sleeping rooms" but keeps the common areas separate to some degree. Now if you have a situation where there are separate cooking and sanitation provisions in individual "suites" then I agree each "suite" is a individual dwelling unit, but the way most college dormitories are designed the common bathroom and the common kitchen on a floor is more of a public area then a private suite area.

This is exactly the way I feel about it. Since each unit has a condensing unit on the roof fed from panels on the roof, code would absolutely require every kid to have a key to access the roof unrestricted because it clearly states that have to have access to their breakers and you can't argue they are communal AC.

However, one other person is right that my intent as the OP WAS to open a discussion. As such the implication is that there is more than one way to look at it. So the discussion shouldn't dissolve in to absolutes. To be clear, you are not dissolving it in to absolutes, I am just taking this as an opportunity to mention it.

One thing I will say to attack my inspection department though. I accept and stated earlier that failure on the part of the review to catch a code violation doesn't absolve us from complying with code. If my inspection department wants to interpret something this aggressively, (and I hope even jw will agree controversial) and they didn't note it during plan review they should not force that construction to comply but instead force it on the next review.

Also, it can be considered nothing but bogus to say that we must remove the word kitchen from the plans in order to pass final inspection. Nowhere in the code does it say kitchen in reference to this issue.

 

[sandsnow]

We all know code is minimum -- It is not my intentions to insinuate personal beliefs not within the code should be required in the name of safety. The point was that the code is based upon methods as voted in by the CMP to insure safety. How someone puts the pieces together is not an issue unless it is noncompliant to code which would indicate an unsafe installation. When the inspector says "I said so" without any proper backing in the name of safety, certainly that is abuse. We can agree to disagree on many issue in this forum, may not get it right, but at least we discuss which IMO is proper.

We're on the same page

 

[sandsnow]

It's too bad that some do not realize this.

The truth is that article 90 is not code and it makes this clear in 90.3, article 90 is simply an introduction explaining the code, a set up for the actual story.

Roger

Unfortunately, I would say: It's too bad that "so many" do not realize this. Just in my little world which is Souther California, 25% at least are "my way or the highway" types.

Management is either weak or lazy or both.

 

[kwired]

Help me to understand your meaning here. Do you mean that the cooking provisions need to be in the sleeping quarters in order to be a dwelling unit?

If each floor had only one lockable bedroom and a common area that also had a kitchen area would we be having this discussion? Just what does the number of bedrooms have to do with the definition of dwelling unit? The bedroom is not a suite.
The common area is the living space which you said had a kitchen. You have yet to say if this kitchen has provisions for cooking.

You seriously think this is black and white that the situation the OP has is a dwelling unit and has no possibility of being anything else? I know there is some clarification of intent for such a situation missing from NEC definitions, but come on, this is not really that much like having a typical single family apartment "dwelling unit". All the people living in such an apartment typically have some relationship, or at least have met one another and agreed to live together in said apartment. The dormitory on typical college campus brings many together for first time with no prior meeting one another, and is part of reason they each have their own private room - though usually they do have a roommate that they have to learn to get along with within that private room - but are not forced to deal with all the occupants of the same floor or entire building on as personal of a level. Plus the bathroom and so called kitchen and maybe even a open study or recreation area are there but are open to anyone in the building not just the person(s) renting a space, unlike if it were a typical single family apartment "dwelling unit" where guests would normally not just come in unexpected they would need to be allowed access by a normal occupant of the dwelling unit. The dormitory may have some increases in security and limit some access, but those common areas are still more public areas then they are private areas.

As I said if NEC wants to call such a typical dormitory set up a dwelling unit, I sort of have no problem with it, but IMO in the past they have not considered them dwelling units, though the 2014 AFCI requirements do put them even closer to being more like a dwelling unit in many ways. From electrical installation perspective, they also still typically are missing other dwelling unit requirements from my casual observations as a guest in such places - never been in one as an installer or as repair person so I don't have much of the nitty gritty details. From my observations the common areas seldom meet 210.52 receptacle placement. Common area lighting may not always meet 210.70(A) requirements - egress routes may not even have lighting controls (or at least not on all luminaires) and are illuminated 24/7. If they are indeed "dwelling units" then those requirements do apply and not just the AFCI requirements.

 

[jwelectric]

I have a search on the PDF version of codes and cannot find anywhere in the codes that requires that everyone living in a dwelling unit be akin or to know each other. I cannot find where a dwelling unit has to look like an apartment or a single family dwelling either.
All I can find is the requirement for there to be sleeping, living, sanitation, and cooking.

I see where some of the posters have been on a campus and didn?t see some of the requirements of today?s codes. I to have been on campuses that didn?t meet today?s codes. One of the colleges opened their doors in 1879 and here some of the dorm rooms only have one receptacle per room and a FPE panel, Livingstone College in Salisbury, NC. If it was code compliant at the time of installation it is still compliant today.

However the original post is talking about new construction and if memory serves me he is under the 2008 code cycle and the only code that would apply. As an inspector I cannot compare a standing building to one being built today and say make this one just like that one. What I MUST do is my best to adhere to the codes that are in effect at the time of construction.

Believe it or not but we also have apartments in my jurisdiction. With these apartments we have lighting common to all units and even parking lot lighting. None of the occupants of these apartments have access to the overcurrent devices controlling these lights nor do they have access to switches controlling these lights. Can?t find in the code where they are required to have access to these items either so just what makes a dorm any different?

We have several colleges in my jurisdiction that are constantly building new dorms. These dorms are dwelling units and must adhere to the codes pertaining to dwelling units except were modified or amended by other sections of the code. Each unit has 6 to 8 bedrooms that sleep 1,2, or 4 people. Each bedroom has a bath with two baths in the hall. They have a study area and a kitchen.
The last building I inspected had the heat and AC on the house panel therefore Section 240.24(B)(1)(1) applies and each resident does not have access to those overcurrent devices. These buildings had 12 units per floor. Should each bedroom have its own heat pump where would these 300 plus units be installed, on the roof, parking lot, or three blocks down the street?
The halls stairwells and parking lights were also on the house panel and the occupants do not have access to the overcurrent devices nor the switches that control them. The halls, stairwells, and parking lot lighting are not part of the dwelling unit so 210.70 (A) would not apply but all other codes will most certainly apply, Building, ADA, Energy ect.

 

[david]

Boy this discussion takes me back a few years to Ft Sill OK. Our Barracks where residential we shared a common shower area a day room and the building had a kitchen. If you knew the cook well enough you might even gain access to the kitchen after hours.

The definition of a dwelling unit is not do you have access to a kitchen rather the definition keys on what the unit provides.

The barracks I lived in and the dormitory in discussions the individual units do not provide a permanent means of cooking.

The agreements to house these units you may have a contract that includes a clause no hot plates allowed. They do not want to expose the tenants to risk of a grease fire.

We were not allowed hot plates in the military barracks for similar reasons.

If the individual unit itself does not provide XXX plus a permanent means of cooking then it is not a dwelling unit

 

[iwire]

If the individual unit itself does not provide XXX plus a permanent means of cooking then it is not a dwelling unit

Seems both reasonable and accurate.

Sometimes just a few words can say so much more than lengthy explanations.

 

[sandsnow]

A dorm room or dormitory will never ever be a dwelling unit. Not the one in the OP or any other one.

Just like a guest room or suite will never be a dwelling unit. These two have their own definitions. The rules for dwelling units (210.52 for example) may kick in, but they will still never be a dwelling unit.

Unfortunately, at least up to the 2011, Dormitories are only mentioned in 210.60. So AHJs are left to make an interpretation of the rules.

The closest thing to dormitory is guest room or suite. Those definitions envision a compartment. As in compartments off a common corridor. So my opinion is you can't look at the floor as a whole. Just what is in each compartment.

If your still on dwelling unit, remember the definition contemplates a single unit. Again as in the case of apartments, off a common corridor. Could be with it's own outside access as well.

A simple floor plan of the dorm might help, I don't know.

 

[sandsnow]

If the individual unit itself does not provide XXX plus a permanent means of cooking then it is not a dwelling unit

I agree except to "not treated as a dwelling unit"

Of course that was the OPs original argument with his AHJ.

 

[iwire]

We have several colleges in my jurisdiction that are constantly building new dorms. These dorms are dwelling units and must adhere to the codes pertaining to dwelling units except were modified or amended by other sections of the code.

A dorm room or dormitory will never ever be a dwelling unit. Not the one in the OP or any other one.

It is a wonderful thing about the NEC and each area.

So AHJs are left to make an interpretation of the rules.

And to me that is key, no one can say for sure how each area will interpret the rules.