210.52(C)(1) - Sidewalls of counter spaces

Status
Not open for further replies.

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(C)(1)
2.) Proposal/Comment Recommends: [revised text]
3.) Proposal/Comment: Add the following sentence at the end of (C)(1):

Sidewalls that run perpendicular to the counter shall be permitted to be omitted from this measurement.


4.) Substantiation: A receptacle installed along the back wall of a counter space is usually close to 24" from the front edge of a counter. This would serve as a clarification as to where the measurement begins, the back corner of the wall counter space.

(end)

This is another one where I'm not sure how to word exactly what I'm trying to say here. :mad:
 
I don't believe there is, but it is a valid interpretation and common to Minnesota, I believe. Being young, I want to be able to wire houses my way in Minnesota someday. :D

Not the whole reason for a proposal, but one of the funnier options. ;)
 
I have never had those side walls counted towards the wall space, unless the cabinents also "turned the corner" as well, but I can see how the present wording can be interpreted that way.
 
George Stolz said:
1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(C)(1)
2.) Proposal/Comment Recommends: [revised text]
3.) Proposal/Comment: Add the following sentence at the end of (C)(1):

Sidewalls that run perpendicular to the counter shall be permitted to be omitted from this measurement.


4.) Substantiation: A receptacle installed along the back wall of a counter space is usually close to 24" from the front edge of a counter. This would serve as a clarification as to where the measurement begins, the back corner of the wall counter space.

(end)

This is another one where I'm not sure how to word exactly what I'm trying to say here. :mad:

Very good idea for a proposal, but you need to get the wording right.

JohnJ0906 said:
I have never had those side walls counted towards the wall space, unless the cabinents also "turned the corner" as well, but I can see how the present wording can be interpreted that way.

The current language allows for an open interpretation: "no point along the wall line" means you could have the exact same counter space, but if you add side walls then you need to add more plugs because you've increased your measurement "along the wall line". . Doesn't make much sense to me.

Since counters are commonly 25" deep and 210.52(C)(1) says that "outlets shall be installed so that no point along the wall line is more than 600 mm (24 in.)", that would mean that every return wall would need a plug.


Sidewalls that run perpendicular to the counter shall be permitted to be omitted from this measurement.

That's a little ambiguous, I don't think it's clear enough to get the CMPs attention. . You need to assume that if their first quick read doesn't give them a clear idea of the application, then they move on to the next proposal in a huge stack of proposals.

If you have an L shaped counter and both extreme ends don't end at a sidewall, you still have 2 walls behind the L and one wall is perpendicular to the other. . In that situation, you're relying too heavily on the definition of the word "sidewall" to correctly apply your rule and you don't define "sidewall".

How about the wording style used in 210.52(H) ? . Which would go something like this:

Return Walls shall be permitted to be omitted from this measurement. . As used in this subsection, a Return Wall shall be defined as walls that abut the counter side edge along the depth of the counter up to a maximum of 26".


If it's not completely clear on the first reading, then maybe my wording needs work. . Also you can put in multiple proposals and tweak the language for each one.
 
dnem said:
Return Walls shall be permitted to be omitted from this measurement. . As used in this subsection, a Return Wall shall be defined as walls that abut the counter side edge along the depth of the counter up to a maximum of 26".

If it's not completely clear on the first reading, then maybe my wording needs work. . Also you can put in multiple proposals and tweak the language for each one.

It's not completely clear on the first read, but after reading it a couple times, I'm starting to dig it. :cool:

Thanks, David. I'll keep thinking on this and see if I can see an even clearer way of wording it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top