Thread: Two bathroom sinks = 2 outlets?

Master bathroom in a new house.

Similar Threads:

• Outlets under soffits
• Exterior light fixtures and recept. outlets
• Testing GFCI Outlets
• Gas Dryer in Bathroom
• CPSC Recall: Floor Electrical Outlets

Looks like that one properly serves both sinks:



just calls for "a" receptacle, not a dedicated receptacle.

Providing it is a GFCI protected outlet, it is a compliant installation.

A left handed person using the left sink will have the cord draped across or around the sink bowl. I would have more than likely put one to the left of the left sink but not to the right of the right sink due to it being right next to the tub. Some one could have something plugged in and have it fall in the tub and then they would be the tester for the GFCI.

Thanks guys....

Am I imagining things or did I hear about that one outlet per sink thing somewhere? Maybe the 2008 electric code?

Maybe if you could only plug one appliance of sorts into that receptacle then the other sink would not have a recptacle to plug anything into.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

.
Maybe if you could only plug one appliance of sorts into that receptacle then the other sink would not have a recptacle to plug anything into.

.
Yeah ,
Like She lets you come in while She's in there.
.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

Thanks guys....

Am I imagining things or did I hear about that one outlet per sink thing somewhere? Maybe the 2008 electric code?

Imagining it, probably because 'it would be the right thing to do', but code does not require one 'to do the right thing'.

210.52
- (D) Bathrooms. 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. The receptacle outlet shall be located on a wall or partition that is adjacent to the basin or basin countertop, or installed on the side or face of the basin cabinet not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Imagining it, probably because 'it would be the right thing to do', but code does not require one 'to do the right thing'.

210.52
- (D) Bathrooms. 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. The receptacle outlet shall be located on a wall or partition that is adjacent to the basin or basin countertop, or installed on the side or face of the basin cabinet not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop.

Ah, but there is an outlet within 3 ft of each basin.

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation It says one outlet within 3 feet of each basin. It does not say there that each basin had to own their own.

I would have put one, as I said, to the left of the left sink

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Imagining it, probably because 'it would be the right thing to do', but code does not require one 'to do the right thing'.

210.52
- (D) Bathrooms. 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. The receptacle outlet shall be located on a wall or partition that is adjacent to the basin or basin countertop, or installed on the side or face of the basin cabinet not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Ah, but there is an outlet within 3 ft of each basin.

I know that, that's what I said. You can read it right in the code I posted.

Not sure what the "Ah, but there is an outlet within 3 ft ... " is about???

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation It says one outlet within 3 feet of each basin. It does not say there that each basin had to own their own.

I must be missing something in what I typed, either that or you are reading something which is not there.

Please show me where I said it was not right.

I have just been reading all the other threads and posts.

I did not say you were wrong or did not post it right.

Just saying that the particular code could be interpreted as each basin needs its own outlet.

I read the codes all the time and always ask myself.

"Is that what that means"

Just as I inspect new homes and with the ground to the steel under the slab (rebar coming up and the ground wire connected to it in a junction box) (I am trying to find it now) You don't need a grounding rod. Of course there are many exceptions.

Same thing with the detached garage. I made the mistake for a some time of writing it up if if the panel in the detached garage also had a ground rod.

As you see all the time even with yourself it is a constant learning curve to keep up with what was not long ago to what it should be now.

The code is a constant rewrite of the local play and you have to keep seeing the play year after year to see what has changed.

I don't respond in depth about code because by the time I check on it to make sure I state things right someone has usually gone there already. I never did get all the code software to just pull it up and copy and paste.

I wasn't question you Jerry.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

IJust saying that the particular code could be interpreted as each basin needs its own outlet.

Nope, it can't, not unless some is reading words which are not there.

Just as I inspect new homes and with the ground to the steel under the slab (rebar coming up and the ground wire connected to it in a junction box) (I am trying to find it now) You don't need a grounding rod. Of course there are many exceptions.

Actually, that is not allowed and not the correct way to do it as that is no longer a "concrete encased electrode" that becomes 'part of' the 'grounding electrode conductor' and that connection is not allowed for a 'splice' in the 'grounding electrode conductor', and, that rebar is not an approved 'grounding electrode conductor'.

Which is why almost every area (all that I have been in) require the 'grounding electrode conductor' to go down into the "concrete encased electrode' - i.e., down into the concrete slab or footing.

I am sure the above will raise holly cain with some people reading it, but, if you are one of them, read it again, then read what the code says, then show me where that connection is allowed in the grounding electrode conductor and show me where rebar is an approved grounding electrode conductor.

I wasn't question you Jerry.

Oh, okay. I thought you were getting ready to become another Jeff, Rolland, Jim Port, or sometimes Fred.

I was beginning to think that maybe I was not typing the words I was typing, and that the words were not the words I was then reading afterward.

So you are saying that the rebar sticking up out of the concrete becomes the grounding conductor but you want the grounding conductor to go down into the concrete??????

Well then. If either one (Copper wire, or rebar) are both the conductors if they are not into the concrete (which they are). but if you run the conductor down into the concrete (you are) you are OK. Well. You just said the ground conductor (rebar) needs to go down in the concrete. It does.

The connection is accessible when you remove the junction box cover to check a proper connection. I am not sure what the problem is.

If you have the proper clamp connecting the copper to the rebar then it does become one piece and it is into the concrete. No matter how you look at it it is in the concrete.

Sorry with the ring around the rosy but it all comes out the same way.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

So you are saying that the rebar sticking up out of the concrete becomes the grounding conductor but you want the grounding conductor to go down into the concrete??????

Yep.

That's the way it is done everywhere I've been.

That is because the grounding electrode conductor "goes to" the "concrete encased electrode".

That rebar is no longer a "concrete encased electrode", it is a "stub up" grounding electrode conductor, to which the other part of the grounding electrode conductor gets spliced together.

Being as that is splicing the grounding electrode conductor, that clamp is not an approved splice.

But that is only part of it: that rebar is not an approved grounding electrode conductor material.

Well then. If either one (Copper wire, or rebar) are both the conductors if they are not into the concrete (which they are). but if you run the conductor down into the concrete (you are) you are OK.

Correct.

You are using an approved conductor for the GEC with the copper GEC.

Well. You just said the ground conductor (rebar) needs to go down in the concrete. It does.

No, I did not say it had to "go down into" the concrete. I said that it is not a "concrete encased electrode" because it is not 'encased in concrete', it is sticking up in the air. That vertical piece of rebar is no longer encased in concrete and is thus not a "concrete encased electrode". The rebar now becomes a section of the GEC.

[quote]The connection is accessible when you remove the junction box cover to check a proper connection. I am not sure what the problem is.[/quote[

The problem is that the rebar is no longer a "concrete encased electrode" and the rebar is not an approved conductor material for use as a GEC.

If you have the proper clamp connecting the copper to the rebar then it does become one piece and it is into the concrete. No matter how you look at it it is in the concrete.

And if it were encased in concrete, it would be okay, but it is not encased in concrete, your own admission stated it was sticking up in the air (not in concrete) and in a junction box.

Sorry with the ring around the rosy but it all comes out the same way.

Nope. It does not. Would you bring your grounds from your circuits and tie them to a short piece of rebar and then tie the rebar to the ground terminal in the panel? You are saying it is the same thing, "it all comes out the same". But it is not - see the difference?

So the way you (Code) is stating it. If the grounding conductor burns off in , say, a lightening strike, one must bust up the concrete to reconnect the conductor to the electrode (rebar) and then pour concrete back over it?????

Oh, okay. I thought you were getting ready to become another Jeff, Rolland, Jim Port, or sometimes Fred.

More names will be added to that list which will still make Jerry the common denominator. Sometimes you gotta look at yourself Jerry and just wonder.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

So the way you (Code) is stating it. If the grounding conductor burns off in , say, a lightening strike, one must bust up the concrete to reconnect the conductor to the electrode (rebar) and then pour concrete back over it?????

That's not going to happen (not all the way back to the concrete encased electrode), but, yes, that is the way the code states it.

If the GEC were to be cut, damaged, etc., by a lightning strike or a lawn mower, all that would need to be done is use one of those "irreversible compression connectors" discussed on an earlier thread or by exothermic welding.

- 250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
- - (C) Continuous. Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint except as permitted in (1) and (2):
- - - (1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.
- - - (2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be connected together to form a grounding electrode conductor.

Again, not me, the code.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

More names will be added to that list which will still make Jerry the common denominator. Sometimes you gotta look at yourself Jerry and just wonder.

Yep. And then you wonder how it is that those people can be so mis-informed, and eventually they come around, one-by-one, when they understand what the code says, what is being written, and what they thought they were reading. See, *I* was, at one time, on your mis-formed side of the fence, but, through knowledge gained, *I* have continued to learn and progress.

Time will come when you will too. Just wait, it will happen. And you will be a better person for it.

[quote=Jerry Peck;72350]Yep.

"That is because the grounding electrode conductor "goes to" the "concrete encased electrode".
That rebar is no longer a "concrete encased electrode", it is a "stub up" grounding electrode conductor, to which the other part of the grounding electrode conductor gets spliced together.
Being as that is splicing the grounding electrode conductor, that clamp is not an approved splice.
But that is only part of it: that rebar is not an approved grounding electrode conductor material.
The problem is that the rebar is no longer a "concrete encased electrode" and the rebar is not an approved conductor material for use as a GEC."

I thought I had heard all the crap and now there is more crap. Jerry you don't know what you are talking about. Certainly shows you cant read and discern meaning from simple material. You are all wet. AGAIN!

A 20' piece of properly rebar is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

A GEC is attached to the end of the rebar in question with a clamp that is listed and labeled for attachment to rebar and for both DB and concrete encasement.

Are any of you stating that this would not be a proper installation?

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

A 20' piece of properly rebar is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

A GEC is attached to the end of the rebar in question with a clamp that is listed and labeled for attachment to rebar and for both DB and concrete encasement.

Are any of you stating that this would not be a proper installation?

Not what is being discussed.

Go back and re-read what Ted was saying.

irc E3508.1.2 PARAPHRASED
20 foot rebar not less than #4 encased by at least 2 inches of concrete

Again, Jerry, simple question and does not matter the original post because we have way off that thread for quite some time now.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

Again, Jerry, simple question and does not matter the original post because we have way off that thread for quite some time now.

Jeff,

It was a simple question, HOWEVER, it was in response to a discussion about a different issue.

And I have no idea where you pulled up "original post" from ... I specifically stated "Go back and re-read what Ted was saying.", THAT is what Ted and I were discussing.

THEN we can address your question.

I understand

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Nope, it can't, not unless some is reading words which are not there.



Actually, that is not allowed and not the correct way to do it as that is no longer a "concrete encased electrode" that becomes 'part of' the 'grounding electrode conductor' and that connection is not allowed for a 'splice' in the 'grounding electrode conductor', and, that rebar is not an approved 'grounding electrode conductor'.

Which is why almost every area (all that I have been in) require the 'grounding electrode conductor' to go down into the "concrete encased electrode' - i.e., down into the concrete slab or footing.

I am sure the above will raise holly cain with some people reading it, but, if you are one of them, read it again, then read what the code says, then show me where that connection is allowed in the grounding electrode conductor and show me where rebar is an approved grounding electrode conductor.



Oh, okay. I thought you were getting ready to become another Jeff, Rolland, Jim Port, or sometimes Fred.

I was beginning to think that maybe I was not typing the words I was typing, and that the words were not the words I was then reading afterward.

Fred agrees with your interpretation.

Making the rebar available for an exposed connection does not change the fact that the CEE still exists and once a rebar always a rebar. This would be an accepted connection.

This is how it is in the real world..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Making the rebar available for an exposed connection does not change the fact that the CEE still exists and once a rebar always a rebar. This would be an accepted connection.

This is how it is in the real world..

Maybe in your own "real" world, but in my part of the real world, that is not acceptable.

The people I have contact with in the State of Florida that are AHJs all allow it.. Jerry your real world must be very small..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

The people I have contact with in the State of Florida that are AHJs all allow it.. Jerry your real world must be very small..

Must be North Florida Panhandle people, those where the same people who said that hurricanes do not blow very hard beyond 1 mile inland from the Gulf coastline, so they got the Legislature to make that into a law, which held until a few years ago, after people realized that mother nature does not follow directions.

Sorry, old buddy, you are not going to be able to sneak that one through.

Hmmm, wonder if they are the same people who "really understood the NEC" regarding the wording change from the 2002 NEC to the 2005 NEC regarding "available" and "present" ... Yep, probably.

Mostly it is a matter of being the reasonable, ordinary person on the street or being bazaar and on the fringes of insanity like Jerry.. Jerry you have picked up some very obscure ideas and promote them as mainstream and they are not. Do you bare-foot water ski??

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

me very obscure ideas and promote them as mainstream and they are not. Do you bare-foot water ski??

You mean like Mike Holt?

Simple question on post #1 was correctly answered by posts 2 & 3.

How did this turn into 32 posts when the correct answer was given initially?

Where is the value in this?

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

Where is the value in this?

Education.

It happens here.

And it happens here in the strangest of ways.

Enjoy it.

The age old question: Is the glass half full or half empty?
-> The pessimist thinks the glass is half empty ... and is worried that they are losing even more due to evaporation.
-> The optimist knows the glass is half full ... and understands that, over time, condensation will finish filling the glass.
- Jerry Peck, 2009

And the Engineer thinks that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be!




-