Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

210.52(C)(5)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    210.52(C)(5)

    Hi folks, sorry I've been out so long, been hectic.

    So, I got a question for you: I have an island with a code-required island on one side, and one side has a receptacle that can not be considered acceptable for countertop space. Must the receptacle under the overhang be removed?

    #2
    Hey, George!

    As long as there is a compliant receptacle, a non-compliant one does not need to be removed, unless its existence breaks a restriction.
    Master Electrician
    Electrical Contractor
    Richmond, VA

    Comment


      #3
      I agree...as long as the code is met with the first receptacle then there is no issue adding more
      They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
      She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
      I can't help it if I'm lucky

      Comment


        #4
        The inspector is claiming the receptacle is prohibited from existence by 210.52(C)(5) (and exception).

        Comment


          #5
          Well, it would hard to argue with him if he reads it that way. IMO, he is not getting the intent. In order to qualify as a required receptacle it cannot be more than 12" down from the top. It does not mean there cannot be other receptacles.

          Suppose the island was a room divider and there was a dining room on the back side. Is the inspector saying I cannot add a required outlet down low for the dining area? I have no doubt his interpretation is incorrect as the situation for outlets installed for other areas has always been accepted.

          What is his reason for not allow it?
          They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
          She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
          I can't help it if I'm lucky

          Comment


            #6
            Also, the exception states to comply with 1 and 2 of 210.52(C).... It does not state no other outlets are allowed just that they would not comply with 1 and 2
            They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
            She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
            I can't help it if I'm lucky

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
              What is his reason for not allow it?
              "A kid could pull an appliance onto his head."

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by George Stolz View Post

                "A kid could pull an appliance onto his head."
                That makes no sense. A kid could pull a lamp off the table in the living room also. He gonna make you remove them??

                Comment


                  #9
                  A kid could pull it onto his head.... with the 2' cord on most appliances, it probably wouldn't reach the outlet under the top. But... plug in that same appliance close to the outlet at the edge of the countertop, and I'll bet there's a nice loop not quite a foot long dangling over the edge of the counter. Ban all of the outlets!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by George Stolz View Post

                    "A kid could pull an appliance onto his head."
                    Couldn't a kid do the same thing with a cord connected to the required receptacle on the side of the cabinet? Maybe his logic is that two receptacles with cords connected to them doubles the chance of that happening.

                    -Hal

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I suppose you could say that a coffee pot full of hot coffee is more dangerous than a lamp falling on someone, but what do you expect to have in a kitchen? If you are going to allow and require receptacles on the sides of cabinets you just invite that kind of accident. If you are concerned about it I say don't allow receptacles in kitchens located where they create dangling cords that kids can pull on. Encourage the use of pop-ups.

                      -Hal

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by George Stolz View Post

                        "A kid could pull an appliance onto his head."
                        Hey George! Glad to see you back. We had this same debate years ago and the hot pot of death falling on a child was the reason a lot of the members agreed with your inspector's interpretation.
                        If Billy Idol is on your playlist go reevaluate your life.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by ActionDave View Post

                          Hey George! Glad to see you back. We had this same debate years ago and the hot pot of death falling on a child was the reason a lot of the members agreed with your inspector's interpretation.
                          I can possibly see that the wider the overhang, the closer the appliance has to be to the edge until the cord doesn't reach anymore. But the Code doesn't come out and say that or prohibit receptacles under the overhang. So I can't see any reason why the receptacle under the overhang shouldn't remain.

                          -Hal

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Are you allowed to remove the outlet and blank off the box or are you going to be required to remove the wiring also?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I recall that we have been down this road before. I don’t recall where the journey left us. But I can make a case for the Inspector’s point of view.

                              Although I agree that the code’s intent would not prohibit “additional” receptacles that don’t satisfy the location requirements, I have to turn to “Charlie’s Rule”: the words are what the words are. In this instance, it is the “missing word” that tells the story. 210.52(C)(5) starts with, “Receptacle outlets shall be located. . . .” The word that is not present is the word, “Required.” Specifically, 210.52(C)(5) does not start with, “(The) REQUIRED receptacle outlets shall be located. . . .” That can be interpreted as meaning that if any receptacle is installed, whether it be the code-required one or otherwise, it shall be located as described.

                              Now let me throw a question back at you all: Why would anyone want a receptacle in that location anyway? All questions of safety aside, it is essentially unusable for countertop appliances. I can’t see anyone plugging a vacuum cleaner into that receptacle. So why is it there?

                              Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle
                              Comments based on 2017 NEC unless otherwise noted.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X