210.52(C)(5) - Windows that touch counters

Status
Not open for further replies.
George Stolz

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.52(C)(5), exception
2.) Proposal/Comment Recommends: [new text]
3.) Proposal/Comment: Add a third condition to the exception of (C)(5):

(3) On wall counter spaces where windows are within 4" of the counter surface.

4.) Substantiation: There is currently no provision for installation of a receptacle on counters that are backed entirely by glass. This is becoming a much more popular feature in expensive homes, and presents installers with an impossible predicament when trying to adhere to the code. A wall composed of glass is not an acceptable reason to mount receptacles below counter height in today's NEC. This will provide relief for installers, whose receptacle requirements are frequently a back-burner item when a dwelling is designed.
 
Last edited:
I bet that one won't fly... especially with the "pop-ups" available...

just my humble opinion
 
George do I understand your proposal correctly?

If I had windows within 4" of all my kitchen counter tops I would not have to include any receptacle(s) at all?
 
iwire said:
George do I understand your proposal correctly?

If I had windows within 4" of all my kitchen counter tops I would not have to include any receptacle(s) at all?
Click to expand...

I believe George is proposing to allow a receptacle below the counter height where windows are involved. In other words, on the front surface of the cabinets.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I believe George is proposing to allow a receptacle below the counter height where windows are involved. In other words, on the front surface of the cabinets.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything like that at all in the proposal. :-?
 
iwire said:
I don't see anything like that at all in the proposal. :-?
Click to expand...

I believe George may have the wrong art. number. 210.52(C)(5) add the 3rd exception to be countertops with windows

George wants add a 3rd exception to (C)(5) since (C)(4) has no exceptions.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I believe George may have the wrong art. number. 210.52(C)(5) add the 3rd exception to be countertops with windows

George wants add a 3rd exception to (C)(5) since (C)(4) has no exceptions.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think that must be the idea. :cool:
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I believe George may have the wrong art. number. 210.52(C)(5) add the 3rd exception to be countertops with windows

George wants add a 3rd exception to (C)(5) since (C)(4) has no exceptions.
Click to expand...

You're right, I goofed on the section number. I just editted the OP and title to correct that.

Mark, the problem is in many kitchens (at least, several people have staggered in here wondering what to do) there are essentially glass walls that touch the countertops, and aside from drilling pop-ups into the trillion-dollar granite-plutonium countertops (which is questionably legal, depending on the particulars and who reads them) the only code compliant option is to cut a receptacle into the window. :)
 
I think the NEC places too much credence in the placement of receptacles to begin with. Like "if there isn't a receptacle in such and such location, then the user will use an extension cord and either A. Kill someone, or B. Burn the place down." Couple that with "your kid might jam a paperclip in the freaking receptacle" and we can save the world!!! I think the CMP's all need a little dose of reality.
 
I don't have any suggestions on this one but I think it's good idea to test the CMP willingness to add to the current physically impaired and no backsplash exceptions. . They should address the range of designs we see in the field.

PS . Is wiremold still an option with '08 whole house TR ?
 
I don't feel stongly either way about this proposal. . I agree something should "test the waters" of 210.52(C)(5) but I'm not sure what's the best way to go.

j_erickson said:
I think the NEC places too much credence in the placement of receptacles to begin with. Like "if there isn't a receptacle in such and such location, then the user will use an extension cord and either A. Kill someone, or B. Burn the place down." Couple that with "your kid might jam a paperclip in the freaking receptacle" and we can save the world!!! I think the CMP's all need a little dose of reality.
Click to expand...

I do stongly disagree with j_erickson. . I think extension cords are a big safety problem and as TR prices come down, they are becoming the cheapest form of antishock "insurance" that you can get.

Extension cords are usually purchased for their low profile and/or color and/or cost. . The overwhelming majority purchased are of inferior quality and a very real fire/shock hazard.

The "dose of reality" comes when you read the emergency room reports. . We can't save the world but we can make reasonably smart decisions on allowable building materials and installations. . The contractor that would place plugs 20 feet apart if there was no NEC requirement is just thinking about the lower install costs. . He's not around to see the results of the extension cords. . TRs are now down to the 75 cent range. . They increase safety more than enough to justify that cost.
 
Kitchen counters - as well as peninsulas, islands, work stations, etc. - are a major design challenge. I agree that the code needs a lot of help here. I'm just not sure we can ever 'fix' the problem .... at least, not at the installer level.

Kitchen design trends seem intended to make receptacle placement impossible. Even the placement of receptacles on the sides, backs, and tops of counters (pop-ups) is precluded by the movement of under-counter drawers.
Then there are the aesthetic objections, where Suzy Homemaker doesn't want to see that ugly receptacle.
As you might guess, receptacle placement is WAY down on the list of concerns to the "kitchen artist." I have taken a few magazines to task over the lack of required receptacles in their 'dream kitchen' articles.

Naturally, this happens at a time where the kitchen uses more electrical appliances than ever before .... and many kitchen elements are designed to serve multiple functions as craft centers, social centers, etc.

Drop cords? Sure .... wives have a special word for them: Divorce! (and you can keep the house with the ugly kitchen!)

So, where does that leave us?
One solution is to get the NEC out of the design business, and let the market design. Trust me- the lack of receptacles will be the first thing addressed in the next kitchen remodel.
Such inadequate kitchens might even spur manufacturers to come up with some creative solutions .... like, say, a wiremold-like combination backsplash/power strip. Upper cabinets with receptacles, as well as lights, as part of their bottoms. Maybe even tilt-out receptacles (similar to the soap/sponge trays found in front of some sinks) at the front edge of the counter.

If we're going to have the NEC address kitchen counters at all .... the next step is for towns to visit every cabinet or counter shop, and make clear that their jobs WILL fail if the needed receptacles are not included. Yea, right. Not with all the DIY and non-permitted remodels done.

However well-intentioned, I think we're bumping into an unenforceable area. Maybe we need to back off, and let the customer be the AHJ.
 
There are other options. Sillite.com

BTW , this is a window sill.

StepSCR.jpg
 
I don't think 4 inches is a workable number. Below windows in modern homes there is a doubled 2x4. So according to your proposal, 4.5 inches would require a recep there. You pretty much blew out those 2x4's. I think you need at least 7 inches to mount a box sideways and not blow out the bottom 2x4's and have room below the box so it's a little bit above the counter.

I'm of the thinking that architects need to design around code requirements. What usually happens is the building official is asked to change the code around design requirements.

This might be a good compromise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top