Thread: power for gas cook top ignitors

All of the gas cooktop manuals I have read "recommend" (not require) a dedicated 120V circuit for the ignitors. But they cover their bases by also saying to meet your local code.....

So technically, a kitchen small appliance circuit is not allowed to power a built in appliance since those circuits have limits in the NEC right?

I see many gas cooktops on dedicated circuits (or at least they are not on a GFCI circuit) in mecklenburg county but still see some that are on the protected side of one of the kitchen GFCI circuits.

How many check for this and report it as a defect if tripping the GFCI kills the cook top ignitors?

Similar Threads:

• Plumbers & Electricians Should Not Be Allowed Power Tools
• High Line Power Wires
• Receptacle-cook top clearence requirement.
• Gas line for cook top routed through down draft vent
• No power

Originally Posted by Bruce King

All of the gas cooktop manuals I have read "recommend" (not require) a dedicated 120V circuit for the ignitors. But they cover their bases by also saying to meet your local code.....

So technically, a kitchen small appliance circuit is not allowed to power a built in appliance since those circuits have limits in the NEC right?

Wrong.

- 210.52 Dwelling Unit Receptacle Outlets.
- - (B) Small Appliances.
- - - (2) No Other Outlets. The two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1) shall have no other outlets.
- - - - Exception No. 1: A receptacle installed solely for the electrical supply to and support of an electric clock in any of the rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1).
- - - - Exception No. 2: Receptacles installed to provide power for supplemental equipment and lighting on gas-fired ranges, ovens, or counter-mounted cooking units.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

All of the gas cooktop manuals I have read "recommend" (not require) a dedicated 120V circuit for the ignitors. But they cover their bases by also saying to meet your local code.....

So technically, a kitchen small appliance circuit is not allowed to power a built in appliance since those circuits have limits in the NEC right?

I see many gas cooktops on dedicated circuits (or at least they are not on a GFCI circuit) in mecklenburg county but still see some that are on the protected side of one of the kitchen GFCI circuits.

How many check for this and report it as a defect if tripping the GFCI kills the cook top ignitors?

What do you do if the receptacle is installed ahead of a GFCI receptacle??

Article 210.52(B)(2) exception # 2 allows the igniter to be on the small appliance branch circuit......

From the 2008 NEC:

(2) No Other Outlets. The two or more small-appliance
branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1) shall have no
other outlets.
Exception No. 1: A receptacle installed solely for the electrical
supply to and support of an electric clock in any of
the rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1).
Exception No. 2: Receptacles installed to provide power
for supplemental equipment and lighting on gas-fired
ranges, ovens, or counter-mounted cooking units.

This is unchanged from the 2005 also.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

How many check for this and report it as a defect if tripping the GFCI kills the cook top ignitors?

Why would you consider this a defect??

I consider it an upgrade in order to meet the manufacturers recommendation for a dedicated circuit.

The reason for this is the possibility of a tripped GFCI causing someone who is unfamiliar with gas appliances to try and light a burner and leaving the knob in the "light" position and walking off while gas is flowing into the house.

I do remember another inspector telling me once that he saw this in one installation manual as a "required" dedicated circuit.

There are no rules against protecting EVERY receptacle in the house with an AFCI. so why would a range receptacle that's on one be a defect?

At any rate, there gets to be a point where you can't protect against stupid anymore. What is the difference between walking off from a gas stove that has a burner turned on but unlit because of a tripped GFCI or because of a tripped breaker? Seems like if this is a big issue ranges would be required to have a sensor that shuts off the gas after a fixed time if no flame is present. It would be pretty simple to shut off the gas if the ignition circuit wasn't operable or if a bypass to allow manual lighting wasn't operated.

In the scheme of things it is pretty stupid to require a separate circuit for the needs of a small ignition device and a clock/timer on a gas range. Most of the reasonable installations I see have a 20 AMP circuit installed for the refrigerator. This circuit also feeds the 120 volt range receptacle for a gas range. Although many over the range microwaves require a dedicated circuit I wouldn't see a major problem if the 120 volt gas range receptacle was allowed on these circuits and would like to see this to be able to be implemented.

This thread indicates why terminology is so important.

(bold red is my highlighting)

Originally Posted by Bruce King

All of the gas cooktop manuals I have read "recommend" (not require) a dedicated 120V circuit for the ignitors. But they cover their bases by also saying to meet your local code.....

So technically, a kitchen small appliance circuit is not allowed to power a built in appliance since those circuits have limits in the NEC right?

Originally Posted by ken horak

Why would you consider this a defect??

Originally Posted by Bruce King

I consider it an upgrade in order to meet the manufacturers recommendation for a dedicated circuit.

Bruce,

First you stated it was not allowed (a defect) as a question, and the answer was given that, no, it is not a defect.

Then you stated that you would consider it an upgrade, which is not a defect, but a potential improvement of something not wrong but which could be made better.

Curious as to whether you consider it a reportable defect (several of us have provided documentation why it is not) or whether you consider it an upgrade, for which virtually everything can be improved upon and upgraded to a higher level of safety/convenience/anything.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

This thread indicates why terminology is so important.

(bold red is my highlighting)



Bruce,

First you stated it was not allowed (a defect) as a question, and the answer was given that, no, it is not a defect.


No I did not, I only asked the question.



Then you stated that you would consider it an upgrade, which is not a defect, but a potential improvement of something not wrong but which could be made better.

Exactly, after being asked if I considered it a defect I answered, upgrade.



Curious as to whether you consider it a reportable defect (several of us have provided documentation why it is not) or whether you consider it an upgrade, for which virtually everything can be improved upon and upgraded to a higher level of safety/convenience/anything.

See above for your answer, hint: The manufacturer also recommends a dedicated circuit. I think some code inspectors have also required it since I see many of these connected to the non-gfci side of a circuit or on a dedicated non-gfci circuit.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

I think some code inspectors have also required it since I see many of these connected to the non-gfci side of a circuit or on a dedicated non-gfci circuit.

Not sure why this would be a problem. The receptacle is obviously not serving a counter area.

I have never put a receptacle for this on a dedicated circuit and probably never will. To do so IMO is just plain silly. If the appliance is all gas the draw is negligible. It is expressly permitted in the code to have this receptacle on one of the SA circuits.

(bold and red are mine)

Originally Posted by Bruce King

See above for your answer, hint: The manufacturer also recommends a dedicated circuit. I think some code inspectors have also required it since I see many of these connected to the non-gfci side of a circuit or on a dedicated non-gfci circuit.

Bruce,

Again, ... back to terminology.

"recommends" does not equal "shall"

The manufacturer may well wiggle their way out of legal trouble if there is a problem and one does not install their product *as they "recommend" it to be installed*, nonetheless, though, when it comes to code, which is a "minimum" requirement standard, "recommend" simply means it is "allowable" to do it that way.

In fact, if the manufacturer had not "recommended" that way, it would still have been "allowable" provided it also met the minimum requirements of the code and manufacturers installation instructions.

Thus, as you see, there are two distinctly different implications of "recommend":
- 1) To allow the manufacturer to squirm out of legal trouble if something happens, not as "recommended" equals *not good*.
- 2) For code enforcement *requirements* "recommended" does not equal "shall" and is therefore unenforceable. Acceptable, yes, but unenforceable.

This is more of the misguided (in my opinion) perennial argument regarding the use of mandative subjunctives such as suggest, recommend, require, demand, insist, et al.
The subjunctive can be used as a directive or order. The mandative subjunctive is a very distinct kind of directive and it always takes the same form. In each of these sentences, the main verb makes some sort of demand, from very mild (ask/suggest) to very strong (demand/insist). In each case, the direct object of the main verb is a clause (the structure in brackets). In each case it is clear that the writer's intent is to mandate action on the part of the reader. Though the particular words used may seem more or less polite, action is mandated nevertheless.


I suggest [that you learn the English language].
I demanded [that she refuse to speak with ignorant people].
We asked [that he stop telling lies].
I insist [that you study up on your grammar].
I require [that you quit bullshifting me].


So then, while a manufacturer may have no method of enforcing its mandates through the courts, it can make its requirements, recommendations, demands, insistence, suggestions, or whatever you wish to label them known. The organizations like the NEC and ICC can mandate that contractors and builders follow these instructions. One step further has a municipality adopting the ICC mandates and giving them the effect of law. This now makes the manufacturer's mandate, no matter how politely it may have been stated, mandatory.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

This now makes the manufacturer's mandate, no matter how politely it may have been stated, mandatory.

Quite incorrect.

The NEC, ICC, etc., codes are MINIMUM requirements, and as such, their requirements are that the code AND the installation instructions be followed, and, therefore, bull crap, et al, what *is stated* is what *can be enforced*, thus, as a code inspector I can REQUIRE all "shalls", and I can recommend all "recommendations", and 'recommendations' are not the same as 'shalls' and 'shall nots'.

A "recommendation" is just that: a "recommendation" to do something, or to not do something, a certain way.

Just because Aaron would like to be able to enforce a recommendation does not mean that a recommendation is enforceable, it is not.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(bold and red are mine)


Bruce,

Again, ... back to terminology.

"recommends" does not equal "shall"

The manufacturer may well wiggle their way out of legal trouble if there is a problem and one does not install their product *as they "recommend" it to be installed*, nonetheless, though, when it comes to code, which is a "minimum" requirement standard, "recommend" simply means it is "allowable" to do it that way.

In fact, if the manufacturer had not "recommended" that way, it would still have been "allowable" provided it also met the minimum requirements of the code and manufacturers installation instructions.

Thus, as you see, there are two distinctly different implications of "recommend":
- 1) To allow the manufacturer to squirm out of legal trouble if something happens, not as "recommended" equals *not good*.
- 2) For code enforcement *requirements* "recommended" does not equal "shall" and is therefore unenforceable. Acceptable, yes, but unenforceable.

Jerry, your preaching to the choir if you posted that for me. : )
You need to understand that this discussion is a "thread" and all posts are often interelated for which you need to remember all posts before responding.

For instance, my first post contained this:
All of the gas cooktop manuals I have read "recommend" (not require) a dedicated 120V circuit for the ignitors.


I guess I should explain the entire list of reasons for creating a post before doing so. Sometimes I do it because I know the discussion will help others in my area who I know are reporting things wrong.

Check out this manuf document..........


This is from page 4 of:
http://www.whirlpool.com/assets/pdfs...nstruction.pdf

This cooktop is equipped with an electronic ignition system that
will not operate properly if plugged into a ground fault interrupt
circuit.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Check out this manuf document..........

This is from page 4 of:
http://www.whirlpool.com/assets/pdfs/product/ZINSTALL/GLS3665RS_Installation%20Instruction.pdf

This cooktop is equipped with an electronic ignition system that
will not operate properly if plugged into a ground fault interrupt
circuit.

Bruce,

This, from your linked document, is really the key for that appliance:

A 120-volt, 60 Hz., AC only, 15-amp fused, electrical circuit is required

That alone prohibits that appliance from being connected off a kitchen small appliance circuit.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

How many check for this and report it as a defect if tripping the GFCI kills the cook top ignitors?

I write it up every time. I had an inspection in San Clemente in a brand new home with the builders customer service rep at the inspection. I hit the burner 'click, click' I tripped the GFCI and no more 'click'. Customer service rep went pale. He stated that there were 500 homes wired by the same company. Off to the phones he went in a hurry.

Chuck

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Bruce,

This, from your linked document, is really the key for that appliance:
A 120-volt, 60 Hz., AC only, 15-amp fused, electrical circuit is required

That alone prohibits that appliance from being connected off a kitchen small appliance circuit.

Not if someone ran the 20amp GFCI circuit to a 15 amp fuse box located under the cooktop. Then the other requirement would come into play where it says not to connect to a GFCI circuit.

Originally Posted by Bruce King

Not if someone ran the 20amp GFCI circuit to a 15 amp fuse box located under the cooktop. Then the other requirement would come into play where it says not to connect to a GFCI circuit.

Taking your "what if" another step: Not if the 15 amp branch was run from the circuit prior to the GFCI protection.

We can add all the "what ifs" we want and it will continue to change the outcome.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Quite incorrect.

The NEC, ICC, etc., codes are MINIMUM requirements, and as such, their requirements are that the code AND the installation instructions be followed, and, therefore, bull crap, et al, what *is stated* is what *can be enforced*, thus, as a code inspector I can REQUIRE all "shalls", and I can recommend all "recommendations", and 'recommendations' are not the same as 'shalls' and 'shall nots'.

A "recommendation" is just that: a "recommendation" to do something, or to not do something, a certain way.

Just because Aaron would like to be able to enforce a recommendation does not mean that a recommendation is enforceable, it is not.

JP: I am assiduously attempting to whittle this down so that you can grasp it, but I've hit the basement of elemental and can go no further than the root of the grammatical dilemma that is your quagmire.

Let me try examples, if I may. We meet.

(1) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I am politely asking you to put your hands above your head.
or
(2) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I am suggesting that you to put your hands above your head.
or
(3) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I am recommending that you to put your hands above your head.
or
(4) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I am demanding that you to put your hands above your head.
or
(5) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I am insisting that you to put your hands above your head.
or finally
(6) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I am requiring that you to put your hands above your head.

For anyone with the slightest detectable brain activity the six situations above would appear to be precisely the same as one another other than the insignificant semantical differences in the politeness of the mandate that you raise your hands. Nothing else has changed. The gun (law) is still the gun (law) and your compliance is mandated on a scale from very politely to not politely at all. Should you fail to raise your hands above your head the resulting bullet in your ass will pain you just the same.

Now that we have agreed on that, take it a step further. Don't fret, this is a very small step indeed. Using the same scenarios:

(1) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that you may put your hands above your head.
or
(2) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that I that you probably ought to put your hands above your head.
or
(3) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that it is recommended that you to put your hands above your head.
or
(4) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that you should strongly consider putting your hands above your head.
or
(5) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that you are required to put your hands above your head.
or finally
(6) I pull out a pistol (the law) and tell you that you shall put your hands above your head.

Once again, for anyone other than the clinically brain-dead, it should (shall) be obvious that you had damn well put your hands up.

If this sort of logic pains you in the ass, you may stop to wonder why. Actually, you should do so. I insist.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: I am assiduously attempting to whittle this down so that you can grasp it, but I've hit the basement of elemental and can go no further than the root of the grammatical dilemma that is your quagmire.

Aaron,

See if you can grasp this simplistically written explanation:

The speed limit signs along the highway state '40 MPH MINIMUM SPEED' and 'SPEED LIMIT 65 MPH', which means you may legally drive ANYWHERE between 40 mph and 65 mph.

So, you are tooling along at 60 mph and an officer pulls up behind you and puts his lights on and pulls you over. Can he legally give you a speeding ticket?

No.

Now say that I am driving along in my Jaguar, which likes to drive at 100 mph all day long, so I am driving along at that DESIGNED (i.e., "recommended") speed, and along comes that same officer and his dang flashing lights - and he writes me a stupid speeding ticket ... legally doing so.

The problem is that I did not meet BOTH the code and the manufacturers design, which is required by the code.

I realize that is a reversal of what you do not understand, but being as it will give you a chance to take a shot at my British kitty I figured you could understand it and deal with it.