Counter overhang Island or penisula.

[raider1]

code ref please???:-?

It's not a violation to have one located there, it's just that the receptacle can't be counted as the required countertop receptacle.

Check out 210.52(C)(5) Exception to #5.

Chris

 

[charlie b]

I think it is a violation to have one there. But I also think this has been debated here before, with no clear consensus on the outcome. :roll:

 

[mcclary's electrical]

210.52(c)(5)

I wanted to make sure we were reading the same section. IMO, this is open to interpretation. It doesn't mean that a receptacle cannot beplaced under the overhang, but it means that that receptacle,,,that is placed under the overhang more than 6",cannot be counted as the required outlet.

I say (think) you could have a flat island, with one pop up receptacle on top, and 12" of overhang everywhere.

Under neath you could put 35 receptacles fed from 15 amp circuit, all the way around the island and be compliant. The requiremnts are for the SMBC. IMO

 

[charlie b]

IMO, this is open to interpretation.

I?ll agree with that.

I say (think) you could have a flat island, with one pop up receptacle on top, and 12" of overhang everywhere.

I?ll agree with that as well.

It doesn't mean that a receptacle cannot be placed under the overhang, but it means that that receptacle that is placed under the overhang more than 6",cannot be counted as the required outlet. . . . Underneath you could put 35 receptacles fed from 15 amp circuit, all the way around the island and be compliant.

I do not agree here. And as I said, I seem to recall that this has been debated before. The essence of my point of view is that the code language is not written in the manner of, ?at least one must be this way, and you can do what you want with the rest.? Rather, the language is written along the lines of, ?receptacles shall be located here, except that in limited circumstances you might be able to put them there.? There is no opening in the language to allow ?extras? to go anywhere we want. If there is a receptacle, it must go in the place the code says to put it.

The requirements are for the SABC.

It doesn?t say that. It says receptacles go here, and that is all it says. There is a reason for the 6 inch limit on the overhang. The reason has to do with safety, with legs and knees bumping into cords and spilling hot coffee pots on laps. That reason does not disappear, if you put the ?required? receptacle on the countertop surface itself, then add one ?extra? receptacle under a 12 inch overhang.

 

[mpd]

I applaud you for using common sense and having the nads to make a decision based on reason rather than fear.

would you applaud him if he was using commons sense to fail you for a non code issue


there is no reason not to fail this, this is just lack of communication between the contractors, not the inspectors problem

 

[slick 50]

my thought is....why have an overhang on a counter if the space cannot be used. If you drill a hole the real estate is lost.

 

[jxofaltrds]

a receptacle located below a counter top that extends more than 6" beyond its support base is a violation and should have failed, no exception

As an inspector do you make judgement calls? Or do you follow the 'letter' of the law?

There is NO contractor that can build to code, and if you find him let me know, it is impossible.

This is the first thread, that I have read, that has people using common sense.

Just being a common guy I look at the FIRST sentence in the code.

90.1(A) Practical Safeguarding.

I like the word 'practical'.

What does practical mean to you guys?

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

As an inspector do you make judgement calls? Or do you follow the 'letter' of the law?

There is NO contractor that can build to code, and if you find him let me know, it is impossible.

This is the first thread, that I have read, that has people using common sense.

Just being a common guy I look at the FIRST sentence in the code.

90.1(A) Practical Safeguarding.

I like the word 'practical'.

What does practical mean to you guys?

And just why can't they build to code ???
They make mistakes and you tag it
Then it is to code.

 

[LarryFine]

What does practical mean to you guys?

A lot of fun tomorrow, as in practical jokes.

 

[mpd]

As an inspector do you make judgement calls? Or do you follow the 'letter' of the law?

There is NO contractor that can build to code, and if you find him let me know, it is impossible.

This is the first thread, that I have read, that has people using common sense.

Just being a common guy I look at the FIRST sentence in the code.

90.1(A) Practical Safeguarding.

I like the word 'practical'.

What does practical mean to you guys?

look at 90.5 (A), and 210.52 (C) exception says shall not, common sense tells me that does not comply and fails inspection

 

[jxofaltrds]

look at 90.5 (A), and 210.52 (C) exception says shall not, common sense tells me that does not comply and fails inspection

Please tell me where it says the outside edge of a countertop.

Drilling a hole or cutting a slot creates an inside edge to the countertop.

Again this should be approve. And the OP has used good judgement.

 

[mpd]

Please tell me where it says the outside edge of a countertop.

Drilling a hole or cutting a slot creates an inside edge to the countertop.

Again this should be approve. And the OP has used good judgement.

what it says is "receptacles located below a countertop in accordance with this exception shall not be located where the countertop extends more than 6 in. beyond its support base" cutting a slot or drilling a hole does not change the overhang of the countertop beyond its support base

 

[PetrosA]

While it may be against code, I'm for it as a common sense solution. On the one hand, the NEC isn't supposed to be a design guide, on the other, you have to design around it with some pretty serious limitations to the general design at times. I've seen a number of bushed drop holes installed in counter tops, especially when a section of kitchen is designed to be used as a desk with a phone, computer, printer etc. and the height of that section is lower than the rest of the counters. No rational person wants that whole jumble of cords and cables plugged in above the counter. If an island/peninsula counter overhang is designed to be used as a seating area/bar, what's the point of having outlets there in the first place? Doesn't matter, you gotta have 'em. If designers were abusing the bushed holes to eliminate above counter recepts, I'd agree that it's a problem, but the reality is that customers generally want their recepts to be accessible.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

I?ll agree with that.I?ll agree with that as well.I do not agree here. And as I said, I seem to recall that this has been debated before. The essence of my point of view is that the code language is not written in the manner of, ?at least one must be this way, and you can do what you want with the rest.? Rather, the language is written along the lines of, ?receptacles shall be located here, except that in limited circumstances you might be able to put them there.? There is no opening in the language to allow ?extras? to go anywhere we want. If there is a receptacle, it must go in the place the code says to put it. It doesn?t say that. It says receptacles go here, and that is all it says. There is a reason for the 6 inch limit on the overhang. The reason has to do with safety, with legs and knees bumping into cords and spilling hot coffee pots on laps. That reason does not disappear, if you put the ?required? receptacle on the countertop surface itself, then add one ?extra? receptacle under a 12 inch overhang.

It doesn't say that directly, but the wording leads me to believe that. I agree with Chris, when the exemption is listed it starts out by saying, "to comply with 1&2",,,,,,,that means to comply with the "at least one receptacle". So to me that is talking about the SMBC. And secondly it says "receptacles mounted in accordance with this section",,,,,meaning if it's not for meeting 1&2,,,,,,,the requirement of not being under an overhang wouldn't apply.

I would like to point out
I would not put one there, I do not install receptacles there, And I will continue not to, I'm only debating how it's written. If a homeowner told me they did not like draping the vacuum cord over the counter to vacuum floors, I would have no problem installing her a receptacle under a 12" overhang, down 14" off the floor for her to plug her vacuum in, and It would be a better situation for her, not worse, illegal, or against code

 

[mpd]

While it may be against code, I'm for it as a common sense solution. On the one hand, the NEC isn't supposed to be a design guide

it not a may be against code it is against code, unless your state or town has an amendment to that section you have no choice but to enforce it as written, if you don't like it, put in a code change proposal, this has nothing to do with a design issue it is a required receptacle.

 

[PetrosA]

it not a may be against code it is against code, unless your state or town has an amendment to that section you have no choice but to enforce it as written, if you don't like it, put in a code change proposal, this has nothing to do with a design issue it is a required receptacle.

I wasn't saying it "may be against code," I was acknowledging that it is against code. "While the speed limit may be 55mph, most drivers go faster."

Code becomes a design mandate at times which affects how architectural and interior design gets done and how much it will cost to get something made in an aesthetically pleasing way. This isn't always a rational or attractive thing.

 

[eprice]

unless your state or town has an amendment to that section you have no choice but to enforce it as written, if you don't like it, put in a code change proposal, this has nothing to do with a design issue it is a required receptacle.

Well, that is not entirely true. The second paragraph of 90.4 gives the AHJ the authority to permit alternative methods. If the AHJ feels that drilling a hole in the counter top as described in this thread achieves equivalent objectives to the code prescribed method, then this alternative may be permitted.

 

[mpd]

Well, that is not entirely true. The second paragraph of 90.4 gives the AHJ the authority to permit alternative methods. If the AHJ feels that drilling a hole in the counter top as described in this thread achieves equivalent objectives to the code prescribed method, then this alternative may be permitted.

yes by special permission (whatever that means), is that like double secret probation, why would anybody grant special permission or a written variation would be required in my area and i can tell i would reject it, i would never sign my name to that, makes no sense there is always a way to comply with that section

 

[Volta]

I think it is a violation to have one there. But I also think this has been debated here before, with no clear consensus on the outcome. :roll:

Sub-section (C) only refers to outlets for countertops. Has nothing to do with wall or floor receptacle outlets, they are covered by 210.52(A). Fine to have others below the counter.

I wanted to make sure we were reading the same section. IMO, this is open to interpretation. It doesn't mean that a receptacle cannot beplaced under the overhang, but it means that that receptacle,,,that is placed under the overhang more than 6",cannot be counted as the required outlet.

I say (think) you could have a flat island, with one pop up receptacle on top, and 12" of overhang everywhere.

Under neath you could put 35 receptacles fed from 15 amp circuit, all the way around the island and be compliant. The requiremnts are for the SMBC. IMO

Well, one could be an individual circuit for a refrigerator, and the other 34 would need to be switched. Otherwise, no 15 amp receptacle SAB circuits in food rooms.

... There is no opening in the language to allow ?extras? to go anywhere we want. If there is a receptacle, it must go in the place the code says to put it. It doesn?t say that. It says receptacles go here, and that is all it says. There is a reason for the 6 inch limit on the overhang. The reason has to do with safety, with legs and knees bumping into cords and spilling hot coffee pots on laps. That reason does not disappear, if you put the ?required? receptacle on the countertop surface itself, then add one ?extra? receptacle under a 12 inch overhang.

The ability to be safe would exist then. Again, (C) is only for countertop outlets. If one was 30" below the counter a standard 24" appliance cord wouldn't reach anyhow.

There is NO contractor that can build to code, and if you find him let me know, it is impossible.

Pretty much. No building wired to code either.

yes by special permission (whatever that means),

Written permission.

is that like double secret probation, why would anybody grant special permission

Because it has been assured that an equivalent level of safety would be obtained by allowing the proposed altenative installation.

or a written variation would be required in my area and i can tell i would reject it, i would never sign my name to that, makes no sense there is always a way to comply with that section

True, one can always find a means to comply. They could have added an angle bracket to extend the support base to within 6" . Compliant, but may not be better.

 

[mpd]

True, one can always find a means to comply. They could have added an angle bracket to extend the support base to within 6" . Compliant, but may not be better.

if you can always find a means to comply, then you should not be granting special permission, IMO i do not think an angle bracket would extend the support base, adding another base cabinet would to reduce the overhang or here is a better idea communication before cutting that hole for the receptacle, does not seem that hard to me