When doodles go bad

[George Stolz]

This poll has ended.

What should the installer be required to do (or be allowed to do)?
Omit the receptacle -- ?74%? [ 23 ]
Place the receptacle in the adjacent area "behind the sink" -- ?9%? [ 3 ]
Surface-mount a receptacle on the face of the tile -- ?9%? [ 3 ]
Cut the receptacle in anyway, code is code -- ?6%? [ 2 ]

Total Votes : 31

My conclusions:

• My incomplete description of the scenario tainted the results.
• Many votes and posts occured before I returned to find the hole in my information and fill it.
• My personal vote would have been different today than it was when I originally voted. I wonder if others feel the same way.
• Illustrations in the NEC can be widely interpreted. Since Figure 210.52 has no text supporting it, it is difficult to come to a uniform interpretation of how to implement it.
• I need to start printing bumper stickers that say "When in doubt, leave it out" and retire from the sales.

Ready for some controversy? If my most recent interpretation of Figure 210.52 is correct, then I feel that 89% of the members who voted (I am among them) are dead wrong.

Only the three members had it right: "Placing the receptacle in the adjacent area behind the sink" was the only correct answer to this poll.

Now, I acknowledge that it was a misnamed option, due to my misinterpretation of the code when I started the poll. If I am now correct, then there is no adjacent area behind the sink. It is not "behind the sink" as described in 210.52(C)(4). It is all counterspace as though the sink wasn't there at all.

I sincerely desire input from the members here to see if my conclusions are correct. While it would make the whole poll to appear to be a total waste of time, it would be an excellent exercise if some us suddenly learned how to read this section correctly. That's my only reason in beating this into the ground. I appreciate all the responses, and I would greatly appreciate further attention to this subject, even if you just chime in with a two word response. Thanks!

If someone needs me to repost Figure 210.52 with the color on it from a few posts back, I can. For some reason, I can't see it at the moment, I'm not sure if others can, or need it.

Edit to add: this post has a glitch in it. If you see half the text at large font, that's not my doing, please don't be irritated at me! Looks as though the new forum has some bugs in it, still...

Edit #462: I beat it into submission with some clever tricks. Looks normal now.

 

[JohnE]

George, with no offense meant, I think the wording of your post was misleading. When you wrote, basically "what should the installer be allowed to do", I focused on "allowed". In other words I thought you wanted opinions on what code should allow, now what it actually requires. Perhaps polling "what will fulfill NEC requirements" would have resulted in different responses.

John

 

[iwire]

George

I am now even more confused. :shock: :lol:

A yes or no response here please.

Is the area behind the sink in your graphic required to have a receptacle or not?

A) Yes

B) No

Was your 'epiphany' correct, is it one continuous counter?

A) Yes

B) No


Are you ready to move to commercial work so you can tare 210.52 right out of your code book?

A) Yes

B) No

C) I don't have to tare it out as I have already read the ink right off the paper.

Bob

 

[George Stolz]

Is the area behind the sink in your graphic required to have a receptacle or not?

A) Yes But, which graphic?
Was your 'epiphany' correct, is it one continuous counter?

A) Yes IMO, but that's what I seeking feedback on.


Are you ready to move to commercial work so you can tare 210.52 right out of your code book?

C) I don't have to tare it out as I have already read the ink right off the paper.

:lol:

 

[iwire]

Are you ready to move to commercial work so you can tare 210.52 right out of your code book?

C) I don't have to tare it out as I have already read the ink right off the paper.

:lol:

I figured as much. :lol:

People say that Article 250 is tough.

Heck I will take Article 250 over 210.52 any day.

At least I have a fair idea of what the intent of 250 is, I have much less of an idea about the intent of 210.52 every day. :shock:

 

[George Stolz]

I'm going to submit a proposal to change 210.52(C)(4) to also reference the figure. Or perhaps someone already has, or a comment can get it into the 2008:

Exception: Sinks and ranges shall not be considered a seperation of counter spaces when the distance between a wall and the sink or range is greater than the distance indicated in Figure 210.52.

Something along those lines would have led me to understand that picture when it came out, a year and a half ago. :roll:

The sad thing is, it's been right there the whole time, and I couldn't see it.

 

[benaround]

George,

Here's a thought, most countertops are the same depth, the sinks are

fairly standard also when it comes to depth, a corner sink will always be

at the same 45 deg. angle.

Therefore, the demention behind the sink should be just about the same

every time. I wonder if this was known while writing this particular art.

 

[George Stolz]

That's true.

I wonder if they realize how difficult it is to be absolutely certain of that determining distance at the rough.

It may sound petty, but it truly is important, due to the fact that if the distance were to be less than 18" and you thought it was greater, you could wind up with a receptacle behind the sink, and then a receptacle 3' away from the edge of the sink as defined by the figure.

On the flip side, here I sit. I legitimately thought I was less than 18" on my first rough-in of this model under the 2005, so I laid out accordingly. It didn't occur to me to double-check my guess at the trim, so several houses have been laid out incorrectly under an assumption.

Strangely, no fatalities to report as yet, but I will keep the members here posted.

 

[ronaldrc]

Anyone who has worked in this trade any length of time knows you can't follow the NEC to the letter.

If it where me I would talk to the inspector and see if he would let me omit this receptacle.

 

[rcarroll]

I'll be honest with you, I don't check the kitchen cabinet layout with the recep. layout. I've seen too many changes in cabinet layout after the fact. Most was due to appliance garages which, rarely are on plans.