Frustration regarding 210.52(c)

[sfav8r]

Okay, so this is arguably the simplest section of the NEC, however we have found away to argue it. I have interpreted 210.52(c) to mean that an island of 24" or greater that is at least 12" or deeper needs at least 1 receptacle. We have done it this way since the code was written. Now, an inspector in a city we don't normally work in has a "special" (IMHO) interpretation. So here is the actual code section.

At least one receptacle outlet must be installed at each island countertop space with a long dimension of 2 ft or more and a short dimension of 1 ft or more [210.52(C)This jurisdiction is saying that since the code uses the word "space" they interpret it to mean that all island spaces bigger than 24" need a receptacle. In other words, a 6' island needs 3 receptacles. There argument is that if it was intended that a counter of 24" OR MORE was to need only one receptacle it was say that explicitly. But since it says each counter SPACE of 24" or more, they intended it to be each 24". Any thoughts on how I can convince them? They brought this up on final, not rough-in.

 

[PaulMmn]

Does the AHJ have a brother-in-law who's an electrician, and he's annoyed that you got the job instead?

Would mounting one of those 2-to-6 outlet adapters satisfy him? 6 sockets...

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I can tell you for a fact that is not the intent of this section. The inspectors interpretation is, IMO, a bit silly thinking that an island or peninsula would need that many receptacles.

I would go over his head and explain to him why...

 

[sfav8r]

I can tell you for a fact that is not the intent of this section. The inspectors interpretation is, IMO, a bit silly thinking that an island or peninsula would need that many receptacles.

I would go over his head and explain to him why...

Thanks for the response Dennis. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on how you know for a fact. To me, it is obvious for a couple of reasons. 1) Why would the island require receptacles every 24" when the counter only requires 48" 2) If it was the intent of the section to have receptacles every 24", there would be no need to have the clarification about a 2nd receptacle when there is a sink or cook top. I do wish they had omitted the word "space". I don't see that it adds any clarification. If they had simply said "Islands 24" or greater in length" it would have been clearer.

 

[kwired]

Okay, so this is arguably the simplest section of the NEC, however we have found away to argue it. I have interpreted 210.52(c) to mean that an island of 24" or greater that is at least 12" or deeper needs at least 1 receptacle. We have done it this way since the code was written. Now, an inspector in a city we don't normally work in has a "special" (IMHO) interpretation. So here is the actual code section.

At least one receptacle outlet must be installed at each island countertop space with a long dimension of 2 ft or more and a short dimension of 1 ft or more [210.52(C)This jurisdiction is saying that since the code uses the word "space" they interpret it to mean that all island spaces bigger than 24" need a receptacle. In other words, a 6' island needs 3 receptacles. There argument is that if it was intended that a counter of 24" OR MORE was to need only one receptacle it was say that explicitly. But since it says each counter SPACE of 24" or more, they intended it to be each 24". Any thoughts on how I can convince them? They brought this up on final, not rough-in.

I think most people interpret it to only require 1 receptacle, but as is worded if you throw a sink, range, or other dividing item in there you do effectively create more than one countertop space. I don't know what the CMP that wrote current language intention was.

Catching this on final - Islands often are not in place at rough in stage, so there is nothing to catch.

 

[charlie b]

Your jurisdiction is letting language get in the way of communication. They are forgetting that everyone in our profession speaks at least two languages. One is the language of the profession itself. That is the language in which the NEC is written. The other is what I like to call, “conversational English.” That is the language many of us grew up with, and the one you will quite often hear in city offices. That is also the language that your jurisdiction is using, when they read the word, “space.” In “conversational English,” a 6 foot countertop can be viewed as having three 2-foot “spaces,” each intended perhaps for a separate appliance. So I guess it would not be evil to have 3 receptacles serving such a countertop. But it is not required.

A dictionary that I keep at my desk has 19 definitions for the word, “space.” We can't be basing our design and installation decisions on each of them in turn.

As I said, the NEC is not written in that language. It uses words the way its authors intended us to interpret them. How do we discern their intent? You gave a perfect example that, I believe, absolutely confirms that your installation is compliant. In 210.52(C)(4), the code describes what would be meant by “separate spaces,” and what would therefore require additional receptacles.

 

[charlie b]

One more contribution for you:

This jurisdiction is saying that since the code uses the word "space" they interpret it to mean that all island spaces bigger than 24" need a receptacle.

They are right! A countertop that is 6 feet wide is, in fact, bigger than 24 inches. So it needs a receptacle.

 

[kwired]

One more contribution for you:They are right! A countertop that is 6 feet wide is, in fact, bigger than 24 inches. So it needs a receptacle.

I agree six foot or even 10 foot long island counter only needs one receptacle. That is if it has one continuous counter space. If you have a sink or range in the island typically you are left with two counter spaces, if they are over 24 x 12 then I think they need a receptacle and if both sides are over the dimension - each one needs a receptacle, but only one because it is an island/peninsula.

 

[LarryFine]

Tell the inspector this:

Each space 12" x 24" or larger requires a receptacle; we agree on that. One contiguous space larger than that in area is not another space; it's merely a larger single space.

Were it divided in a way that reduced the connecting "bridge" between the separate portions to less than 12", then it would be two spaces, each requiring its own receptacle.

If they meant that each 12" x 24" portion of a single large counter top required a receptacle, they would likely have used the word 'area' instead of 'space' in the code section.

 

[jap]

Tell the inspector this:

Each space 12" x 24" or larger requires a receptacle; we agree on that. One contiguous space larger than that in area is not another space; it's merely a larger single space.

Were it divided in a way that reduced the connecting "bridge" between the separate portions to less than 12", then it would be two spaces, each requiring its own receptacle.

If they meant that each 12" x 24" portion of a single large counter top required a receptacle, they would likely have used the word 'area' instead of 'space' in the code section.

That may be your interpretation and I would tend to agree , but, if Charlie was the Electrical Inspector you were arguing with, I would tend to agree with his point of view also.

So where do you find common ground?

That is going to have to be decided on between the OP and the Inspector.

JAP>

 

[LarryFine]

That may be your interpretation and I would tend to agree , but, if Charlie was the Electrical Inspector you were arguing with, I would tend to agree with his point of view also.

Charlie did not agree with the inspector.

 

[sfav8r]

Update from OP

Update from OP

I received a text from the inspector today. I had previously asked him to please ask his supervisor and see what his interpretation was. I don't know if he did that or not, but I got an interesting text that read "I checked the office permit copy and it is not annotated so I am going to approve the installation." I have my ideas as to why it is worded that way, but I'll just accept that it is approved and moved on. Thanks for the replies. I always enjoy hearing everyone's views. I am sometimes amazed at how if you analyze what appears to be a simple sentence for a long enough time, you can eventually decide it means something else.

 

[PaulMmn]

Why would the permit have to be 'annotated?'

 

[jap]

I received a text from the inspector today. I had previously asked him to please ask his supervisor and see what his interpretation was. I don't know if he did that or not, but I got an interesting text that read "I checked the office permit copy and it is not annotated so I am going to approve the installation." I have my ideas as to why it is worded that way, but I'll just accept that it is approved and moved on. Thanks for the replies. I always enjoy hearing everyone's views. I am sometimes amazed at how if you analyze what appears to be a simple sentence for a long enough time, you can eventually decide it means something else.

And that's the only answer that matters.

JAP>

 

[charlie b]

Why would the permit have to be 'annotated?'

It wouldn't have to be. I believe that what the inspector is now saying is that, since the rough-in inspector did not choose to put a note in the record calling for a receptacle every 2 feet of countertop space, the final inspection will not require that. Perhaps it is a bit of a face-saving measure.

 

[Little Bill]

I bet they meant "lamenated"!

 

[kwired]

Why would the permit have to be 'annotated?'

It wouldn't have to be. I believe that what the inspector is now saying is that, since the rough-in inspector did not choose to put a note in the record calling for a receptacle every 2 feet of countertop space, the final inspection will not require that. Perhaps it is a bit of a face-saving measure.

Or it may mean no correction notices were on file yet, which may complicate things. Of course if he already submitted any kind of notice it would need to be intercepted before it gets recorded

 

[jap]

Charlie did not agree with the inspector.

Nor is Charlie the inspector being argued with.

Point was, different people may interpret things differently.

In the end, the only decision that's going to matter is the one decided upon between the individuals actually involved.


JAP>