Desks in kitchens

[infinity]

IMO, it is a desk. To avoid the argument, I would have pushed to relocate the receptacle and phone outlets under the desk. This is where they belong. Then there would be less of an argument that the HO would plug in her crock pot on the desk.

Regardless of where the receptacle is installed, I'm still not getting why a crock pot on the desk would require GFCI protection in the first place. Should we be worried that it would have a major potential hazard?

 

[ryan_618]

Hi Pierre. I have discussed this with my office, and we all seem to agree.

With the building code, alot of the rules hinge on intended use. With that said, I think that is probably how Icame up with my decision, and my office agrees with me.

We do have a comittee in the Salt Lake City area that we use to help promote uniform interpretation between cities. Perhaps I will bring this up there and see if anything interesting comes out of it.

 

[sparky_magoo]

A crock pot on a desk wouldn't need GFI protection. I guess my revised point is that with the outlets under the desk, the installation would look more like a typical built-in desk. I think this would strengthen the argument that the intended use is as a desk, not desk / slash countertop.

BTW. George, is this an actual installation or just a very clever way to start a heated debate? Either way, it is a great topic.

 

[George Stolz]

Trevor, I can imagine the inclusion of all countertop surfaces is due to the idea that cooking is a fluid, messy undertaking. The presence of fluids remote from sinks and offers a hazard; when skin is wet, it's resistance drops, regardless of the source of moisture. The closer the impedance of the skin gets to the impedance of the EGC, then the more current a sudden ground fault could share with the person in parallel with the EGC.

That's a total guess. Somebody with older ROP's could probably offer a more informed opinion than mine.

Ryan, it doesn't seem as though you've addressed my particular predicament. The desk in your picture is arguably outside the kitchen. For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming it to be a given that the desk in question is indisputably in the kitchen. Edit: Your most recent post was made while I was slowly typing. I understand your position.

Does the IRC define countertops? If there was a minimum height dictated (with the possible exception of ADA requirements), then it would bolster the "no GFCI requirement" argument.

Another question I have for all: There have been a couple discussions lately as to the interaction of building codes, the NEC, and the people administering and complying with the two. If the building code adopted by the AHJ defines something (such as a desk), does that necessarily define it for the NEC, if the NEC hasn't bothered to do so? If the NEC and IRC are adopted as law, then they bear equal weight. They would essentially be two halves of the same book, right? If they conflict on an issue, it would be up to the AHJ to choose a position and overlook (or delete) the conflicting position of the other law.

 

[George Stolz]

BTW. George, is this an actual installation or just a very clever way to start a heated debate?

It's very real. Click here to see the actual model in question.

 

[sandsnow]

Does the IRC define countertops? If there was a minimum height dictated (with the possible exception of ADA requirements), then it would bolster the "no GFCI requirement" argument.

I don't see why this matters. We don't use IRC definitions to enforce NEC rules and vice versa.

Another question I have for all: There have been a couple discussions lately as to the interaction of building codes, the NEC, and the people administering and complying with the two. If the building code adopted by the AHJ defines something (such as a desk), does that necessarily define it for the NEC, if the NEC hasn't bothered to do so? If the NEC and IRC are adopted as law, then they bear equal weight. They would essentially be two halves of the same book, right? If they conflict on an issue, it would be up to the AHJ to choose a position and overlook (or delete) the conflicting position of the other law.

Both codes have to be complied with. Here's an example:

The Mech Code and the NEC both require a receptacle for service. Used to be the NEC allowed it to be up to 75' away while the Mech Code allowed only 25'.
The recep had to be within 25'.

The Chief Building Official (AHJ in the NEC) has the power to delete or change or add to any requirement in any Code book. That is one of the functions of his job. The decision "should" documented in writing and backed up by a solid line of reasoning or evidence or test data. Ultimately it "should" go to City Council for adoption as an ordinance.
This completely different from a field inspector changing or adding to rules in any Codes.
Of course we all know what happens in the real world.

 

[sandsnow]

BTW. George, is this an actual installation or just a very clever way to start a heated debate?

It's very real. Click here to see the actual model in question.

Uh oh!!! The great room merges into the dining room!!!! Where will we stop our SA circuits?!?!?! It's all one big room, maybe the "entire room" should be on SA circuit!?!?!? Whose to say they would not put in a 20' long dining table?!?!?! I want my dining room table in front of the entertainment center so I can watch while I eat!!!!!

We don't do that, right? I hope not! Usually there is a ceiling outlet intended for a luminaire over the table and the dining room is kind of defined around that.

 

[LarryFine]

George, looking at that floor plan, I'd say that the desk is not "in" the kitchen, which is the U-shaped area around the island.

 

[jes25]

Another question I have for all: If the NEC and IRC are adopted as law, then they bear equal weight. They would essentially be two halves of the same book, right? If they conflict on an issue, it would be up to the AHJ to choose a position and overlook (or delete) the conflicting position of the other law.

In Michigan the IRC is the book. It supersedes the NEC. I do believe if the IRC is silent on an issue we defer to the NEC, but I am not real sure. I was hoplelessly trying to find out last night on michigan.gov.
I suppose a phone call is in order.

George, Colorado is an NEC only state?

 

[George Stolz]

Usually there is a ceiling outlet intended for a luminaire over the table and the dining room is kind of defined around that.

Yeah. The dining light is 5.5' off the window, center of the window.

George, looking at that floor plan, I'd say that the desk is not "in" the kitchen, which is the U-shaped area around the island.

So what room do you find the fridge in?

Jes, the NEC is the electrical code here, and the IRC for a building code (newly adopted last year).

Does the IRC define countertops? If there was a minimum height dictated (with the possible exception of ADA requirements), then it would bolster the "no GFCI requirement" argument.

I don't see why this matters. We don't use IRC definitions to enforce NEC rules and vice versa.

Larry, without a definition in the NEC, then the AHJ can call a kitchen a bathroom. I think if it's convenient for the inspector, he can use the IRC's opinion, but it doesn't seem binding unless both have been adopted as a law. But I'm rapidly getting away from what I know to be facts, and beginning to make assumptions.

If the IRC did place requirements on countertops, it could be easily argued that the desk isn't a countertop, especially if both were law.

So, is 36" an industry standard, or required by some code?

 

[sandsnow]

[quote="georgestolz

Larry, without a definition in the NEC, then the AHJ can call a kitchen a bathroom. I think if it's convenient for the inspector, he can use the IRC's opinion, but it doesn't seem binding unless both have been adopted as a law. But I'm rapidly getting away from what I know to be facts, and beginning to make assumptions.

The Codes are meant to be independent. I should keep my mouth shut on the IRC though, we are not using it. We did look at the definition of habitable rooms in the UBC in relation to Article 334 in the past in order to NOT allow NM in commercial occupancies which was wrong. It was done because we did not like the idea of NM in office spaces. We used our authority to enforce our preferences.

If the IRC did place requirements on countertops, it could be easily argued that the desk isn't a countertop, especially if both were law.

So, is 36" an industry standard, or required by some code?[/quote]

I doubt any Bldg Code will define a countertop because it has nothing to do with safety of occupants. Maybe someday the NEC will define it to help enforce 210.8 and 210.52.

Your right that 36' is a typical height based on common usage.

 

[George Stolz]

Thanks, Larry.

 

[allenwayne]

The floor plan gives specific dimensions of what is within the area defined kitchen dining and or nook area.There is no disputing that fact.As well as what is defined within the confines of what is within these areas.Now if the desk area in question does not have a fixed desk top ( I didn`t say counter top but a FIXED desk top,then it is not considered a counter top within the confines of a KITCHEN).That is the key word KITCHEN......A countertop within the confines of a dining/nook area still must be on 20 a SA circuit but not gfci protected,but any receptacles that serve any countertops within the determined area KITCHEN must be gfci`d

 

[JohnE]

I interpret this "desk" as countertop.

For those who don't, would you even require a receptacle above it?

Either the fridge or the pantry would be a break in the wall space; so there would need to be a receptacle within six feet of the pantry to be compliant if this were not a countertop. The receptacle could be installed above or below the desk and still comply with 210.52(A).

I'm going to repeat this question, as I thought it was important enough to mention when I was debating this with the inspector about the house. His response was interesting, but I'm not going to post it yet.

So, if you would require a GFCI...

What happens when someone plugs in their surge protector, and puts their computer on this desk?

As I interpret NEC, it still appears to be countertop to me. If someone needed to plug in a computer with surge suppressor, I might recommend a receptacle below the desk without GFCI protection and a grommet through top.

My common sense tells me desk should be different than countertoop, but I don't see NEC article to support it.

What if I "lower" my island or peninsula and call it a desk on the blueprints?

 

[charlie b]

I don't want to be controversial or anything :shock: :wink: 8) :lol: , but my view is,

• It's a desk, and its surface is not a kitchen countertop.

• Therefore, it does not require GFCI protection.

• The desk breaks the wall along the floor line.

• Therefore, no "wall receptacle" is required by 210.52(A).

• Therefore, if you put a receptacle above the desk surface, it would not be among the list of receptacles that 210.52(B) requires to be powered by a Small Appliance circuit.

Bottom line: Not an SA circuit; no GFCI.

 

[charlie b]

To avoid the argument, I would have pushed to relocate the receptacle and phone outlets under the desk. This is where they belong.

Then you should also put a hole in the surface of the desk, to accommodate the power cord for the computer that is likely to be put on that surface.

 

[charlie b]

But if this is a counter which would require a receptacle above it, there are those (well at least one, right Charlie) that will say you can not have a receptacle on the wall below it.

This is neither an island nor a peninsula. So my previous comments about receptacles located under an overhang that exceeds 6 inches do not apply to this situation. Anyway, as I just said in an earlier post, it's not a countertop.

 

[jwelectric]

I stand in agreement with Charlie B and I believe his answer is dead on the head.

I would like to add that it is the job of the ?inspector? to inspect the installation and it is NOT the job of the inspectors to ?expect? anything. ie? someone might plug in a coffee pot.

A good example is my old way of thinking that an under cabinet light would make the small appliance receptacle a lighting outlet. Once the CO is issued who is to say what will be plugged into what.

 

[al hildenbrand]

A few years back I wired the kitchen this "desk" is in.


Click to view larger image

How does the NEC tell me there is a "desktop" here?

 

[charlie b]

How does the NEC tell me there is a "desktop" here?

It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. There is no wall space over or under the "desk" surface. So there is no question of whether a receptacle outlet is needed on that wall, and therefore no question of SA circuits or GFCI protection.

However, if you changed the design such that that window by the desk becomes a floor to ceiling wall, I would treat the desk surface as "kitchen counter space," and not as a desk.