So do you want to see how they addressed the Peninsular Issue?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
KitchenCounterandIslands.jpg

Hope you can see the image. It is extracted from TerraView and is the CMP 2 solution to the issue of the connecting edge and how to determine the receptacles at the islands and peninsular but also covers the counters also. Here is their code panel response as well.

CMP2Kicthen.jpg

I see more issues that this will create......

Ahhh...nevermind.....the screen captures are too small and I am too lazy to type it all. Basically, it is getting rid of the island and peninsular rules and saying you have to have a receptacle within 3' of any point on the surface and so while that may be ok, it also gave an option for wall spacing to use the same option which makes the normal 24" rules the ability to option of out.....well you will see it when it is actually released. I was hoping the images would work but they are just too small.
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
This image may help explain it....and will help with your public comments to possible fix this unless you think this makes it better.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I see big problems with this on peninsulars and islands. These units are not designed for receptacles except at the ends, in most cases anyway.


Better talk with designers before they build those islands and peninsulars
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
I added a bit more to make sure EVERYONE knows what they are trying to do.....Sorry for the crude image...I am at the NEMA Meetings and created this on the fly.....the final graphic will be cleaner but wanted you all to see one of the first drafts on this.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
I see big problems with this on peninsulars and islands. These units are not designed for receptacles except at the ends, in most cases anyway.


Better talk with designers before they build those islands and peninsular
I see even more issues with this.....basically it is giving you an "OR" option which seems to remove the 24" wall spacing requirement since it gives an option now to space at 24" or so that no point is more than 36 in.....if you read their substantiation they say it can be either.
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
Anyway.....They deviated from mu PI which would have solved the issue that the 2017 NEC Created. So I urge you all to get your PC's ready and enjoy the process because there are ALOT of big changes coming in the 2020.
 

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Pretty ridiculous,

If you have a Very large island or peninsula 1 or even 2 receptacles will not work. I did a home years ago and the island took 2 complete slabs it was like 5 feet by 10 feet with a sizable overhang at the width. This scenario will present some new solutions to deal with.
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
It seems every code cycle they're changing something in a kitchen.... makes me wonder how I didn't starve to death or electrocute myself growing up in a kitchen built in 1953...
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
Paul, I take it that at this point that information is not available to the public...just to panel members?
And to those who attended as visitors......the first revision in print is only available to panel members but again this was based on all public information that was shared at the meetings in Hilton Head, SC and was again open to the public. I as a panel member will concur that the language online is accurate to what the image depicts.

Still needs to pass 2/3rd vote but wanted to give folks time to develop some well defined Public Comments if this moves forward. The use of option (a) or (b) to me creates an issue with traditional wall countertop receptacle placement rules to now allow a 36" component that will cause confusion. The (b) rules would work fine for a peninsular or island perse' but its the issue with the option of (a) or (b) with regards to all receptacle placement on countertops, even the wall receptacles that concern me.
 
It seems every code cycle they're changing something in a kitchen.... makes me wonder how I didn't starve to death or electrocute myself growing up in a kitchen built in 1953...
My sister was nearly killed in 1960 when she was a few months old because she pulled on a cord connected to an electric coffee pot full of boiling coffee and the pot fell on her lap. She suffered 3rd degree burns to 40% of her body. She is 57 now and still suffers from her injuries since she had to spend months in a cast from the waist down and it affected how her legs and feet grew.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
So is the idea that with this change to 210.52(C)(1), sections 210.52(C)(2) and 210.52(C)(3) will be deleted? If so, there are definitely some problems:

(1) The effect of the new language is to remove the requirement for any receptacle specific to a peninsula (unless the current 210.52(C)(4) requires the the peninsula to be divided into two separate spaces). When a countertop space includes both peninsular area and wall area, then the proposed language allows choosing option (a) for the entire countertop space. That requires only receptacles along the wall line, and nothing specific to the peninsula.

Fixing this while retaining the new version of 210.52(C)(1) would require adding some language such as: countertops located more than 30" from a wall shall be considered a separate countertop space from the countertops within 30" of a wall.

(2) If the intent of (b) is to require more than one receptacle for a sufficiently large island, the language proposed doesn't do that. Again, the language allows choosing (a) for an island countertop space, and (a) is vacuously true when there is no wall-line. That leaves only the basic requirement from the first sentence of 210.52(C)(1) that at least one receptacle be installed for the island.

(3) For a standard countertop along a wall of say, 25" depth (24" base cabinet plus a 1" overhang), the effect of allowing the choice of (b) is to permit the receptacles on the wall to be spaced 51.8" apart instead of the previous 48" apart. [sqrt(36^2 - 25^2) = 25.9] Is that really the intention?

Cheers, Wayne
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
My sister was nearly killed in 1960 when she was a few months old because she pulled on a cord connected to an electric coffee pot full of boiling coffee and the pot fell on her lap. She suffered 3rd degree burns to 40% of her body. She is 57 now and still suffers from her injuries since she had to spend months in a cast from the waist down and it affected how her legs and feet grew.
I encourage you to send that message to CMP2 when the Public Comment stage begins.
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
So is the idea that with this change to 210.52(C)(1), sections 210.52(C)(2) and 210.52(C)(3) will be deleted? If so, there are definitely some problems:

(1) The effect of the new language is to remove the requirement for any receptacle specific to a peninsula (unless the current 210.52(C)(4) requires the the peninsula to be divided into two separate spaces). When a countertop space includes both peninsular area and wall area, then the proposed language allows choosing option (a) for the entire countertop space. That requires only receptacles along the wall line, and nothing specific to the peninsula.

Fixing this while retaining the new version of 210.52(C)(1) would require adding some language such as: countertops located more than 30" from a wall shall be considered a separate countertop space from the countertops within 30" of a wall.

(2) If the intent of (b) is to require more than one receptacle for a sufficiently large island, the language proposed doesn't do that. Again, the language allows choosing (a) for an island countertop space, and (a) is vacuously true when there is no wall-line. That leaves only the basic requirement from the first sentence of 210.52(C)(1) that at least one receptacle be installed for the island.

(3) For a standard countertop along a wall of say, 25" depth (24" base cabinet plus a 1" overhang), the effect of allowing the choice of (b) is to permit the receptacles on the wall to be spaced 51.8" apart instead of the previous 48" apart. [sqrt(36^2 - 25^2) = 25.9] Is that really the intention?

Cheers, Wayne
Yes, it is very much their intent to remove the provisions directly for Peninsular and Islands and let the option of (a) or (b) rule the day and just call all locations countertop and work surfaces.

The provisions for the actual locations, such as not above 20" or under overhangs that exceed 6" over the base and so on didn't change just got renumbered to match the changes.
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
So is the idea that with this change to 210.52(C)(1), sections 210.52(C)(2) and 210.52(C)(3) will be deleted? If so, there are definitely some problems:

(1) The effect of the new language is to remove the requirement for any receptacle specific to a peninsula (unless the current 210.52(C)(4) requires the the peninsula to be divided into two separate spaces). When a countertop space includes both peninsular area and wall area, then the proposed language allows choosing option (a) for the entire countertop space. That requires only receptacles along the wall line, and nothing specific to the peninsula.

Fixing this while retaining the new version of 210.52(C)(1) would require adding some language such as: countertops located more than 30" from a wall shall be considered a separate countertop space from the countertops within 30" of a wall.

(2) If the intent of (b) is to require more than one receptacle for a sufficiently large island, the language proposed doesn't do that. Again, the language allows choosing (a) for an island countertop space, and (a) is vacuously true when there is no wall-line. That leaves only the basic requirement from the first sentence of 210.52(C)(1) that at least one receptacle be installed for the island.

(3) For a standard countertop along a wall of say, 25" depth (24" base cabinet plus a 1" overhang), the effect of allowing the choice of (b) is to permit the receptacles on the wall to be spaced 51.8" apart instead of the previous 48" apart. [sqrt(36^2 - 25^2) = 25.9] Is that really the intention?

Cheers, Wayne
Wayne......we all know their intentions may not exactly be what they wanted to achieve BUT their actions make it clear we have issues if the Public Inputs do not add clarity to something that was kinda broke but easily fixed to now...who knows. I think they should not have said "or" in the opening statement. I have no issue with the 36" with regards to things like islands and peninsular. The problem is the way it is written the wall spacing can use option (a) or (b) and this leaves the traditional 48" spacing on the wall receptacles and so on out with the bath water.

It must be their intent to not need any point along the "wall" at no more than 24" from a receptacle as it has been for decades......I can only assume that was their intent based on the language but I did not see anything in the substantiation and I was the one who submitted the PI to correct the issue from the 2017 NEC which would have allowed the single wall receptacle to serve double duty.....and so I have no idea how this all came about but I do know we as CMP members have leeway to write code at the table and ignore the PI's.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
I think they should not have said "or" in the opening statement.
If they said "and" in the opening statement, then that would cover islands and peninsulas very well, but it would be a large increase in the number of receptacles required for an island or peninsula. For example, any island that is wider than 6' in both dimensions would require the use of tombstones. A 3' x 6' island countertop space would require 3 receptacles, I think.

One option would be to change "or" to "and" and change (b) to read something like:

(b) Every point on the countertop or work surface is within 36 inches measured horizontally from one of the wall receptacle outlets in that space, or within 72 inches measured horizontally from some other receptacle outlet in that space.

That could be stated in a negative form as (b) currently is, but the positive form is easier to understand in my opinion.

This version would mean small to medium peninsulas and island countertop spaces would be covered by one non-wall receptacle outlet, and large areas might require more than one.

Cheers, Wayne
 

MasterTheNEC

Host of ElectricianLIVE.com
Location
McKinney, Texas
Occupation
Master Electrician & Director of Codes and Standards
If they said "and" in the opening statement, then that would cover islands and peninsulas very well, but it would be a large increase in the number of receptacles required for an island or peninsula. For example, any island that is wider than 6' in both dimensions would require the use of tombstones. A 3' x 6' island countertop space would require 3 receptacles, I think.

One option would be to change "or" to "and" and change (b) to read something like:

(b) Every point on the countertop or work surface is within 36 inches measured horizontally from one of the wall receptacle outlets in that space, or within 72 inches measured horizontally from some other receptacle outlet in that space.

That could be stated in a negative form as (b) currently is, but the positive form is easier to understand in my opinion.

This version would mean small to medium peninsulas and island countertop spaces would be covered by one non-wall receptacle outlet, and large areas might require more than one.

Cheers, Wayne
I am sure they can't wait for the Public Comments when its finally published as the First Draft. I am sure many will comment on this one.
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
My sister was nearly killed in 1960 when she was a few months old because she pulled on a cord connected to an electric coffee pot full of boiling coffee and the pot fell on her lap. She suffered 3rd degree burns to 40% of her body. She is 57 now and still suffers from her injuries since she had to spend months in a cast from the waist down and it affected how her legs and feet grew.
Wow I'm sorry to hear that and that she had to go through such an injury. Modern coffee pots would do the same thing, maybe they should have magnetic breakaway cords like fry-daddy's have.

I was referring more to the number of outlets where they have to be placed, and what not. a kitchen built even 10 years ago would not be up to today's code, even though it would be virtually identical in regards to electrical outlet placement.
 
Wow I'm sorry to hear that and that she had to go through such an injury. Modern coffee pots would do the same thing, maybe they should have magnetic breakaway cords like fry-daddy's have.

I was referring more to the number of outlets where they have to be placed, and what not. a kitchen built even 10 years ago would not be up to today's code, even though it would be virtually identical in regards to electrical outlet placement.
I was thinking that if the coffee pot was plugged into a receptacle serving the counter top, it wouldn't have been plugged into a wall receptacle which placed the cord in reach of a toddler in a walker.
 

JFletcher

Senior Member
Location
Williamsburg, VA
I was thinking that if the coffee pot was plugged into a receptacle serving the counter top, it wouldn't have been plugged into a wall receptacle which placed the cord in reach of a toddler in a walker.
Very true. Still wouldn't be a bad idea to have Breakaway chords on coffee pots, I know my Fry Daddy only has like an 18 inch long cord and it is a breakaway type. 190 degree water or 400 degree oil, either way I don't want to come in contact with either.

I don't suppose it is possible to submit such proposals as appliances are outside the scope of the NEC?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top