Toe kick peninsula

Status
Not open for further replies.
wyreman

wyreman

Senior Member
Location
SF CA USA
Occupation
electrical contractor
So would it be code compliant to put the peninsula outlet in the Toe kick because they don't want an outlet on the peninsula

is going to look too noticeable
And they only eat in restaurants anyway

I got a long
23b3643ec554aaeb863b061caeb9c227.jpg
2567af0caa322d4a3ad9fcac4e8b5097.jpg
MC in the cavity


In belief, man can do anything
 
A receptacle in the toe kick would not fly here. In the recessed panel or horizontal mounting in the top rail is what I would do. Usually the inspector will not budge just because somebody finds the look of the receptacle objectionable.
 
The receptacle must be within 12" of the counter. Ask the home owner if a sillite receptacle is acceptable. They come in white and black and are TR

Gallery13.jpg





Gallery10.jpg
 
You can certainly install one there it just wouldn't count as the required receptacle for the peninsula.
 
infinity said:
You can certainly install one there it just wouldn't count as the required receptacle for the peninsula.
Click to expand...
Kind of what I was going to say, put one every 8 inches if you want along the toe kick nothing prhibits that but you still never placed one in an area that counts as serving the countertop on the peninsula.
 
iwire said:
Which is pretty logical considering the appliances will have 24" cords. :)

A receptacle at the toe kick would be worthless for counter appliances.
Click to expand...

I agree, we use the receptacle in our island quite often. But then we've all heard the argument about not having receptacles installed at the end of the peninsula because a small child can pull the appliance off of the counter. So far the NEC has not reacted to those claims.
 
infinity said:
But then we've all heard the argument about not having receptacles installed at the end of the peninsula because a small child can pull the appliance off of the counter. So far the NEC has not reacted to those claims.
Click to expand...

I am putting in a proposal to require TR, GFCI, AFCI, overhead cord reels every 4' of peninsula.


Kitchen-Leash-Multiple.jpg
 
Reminds me of wiring an upscale house where the owner did not want a receptacle in what could be considered a hallway/large entry way. I informed him that we could leave it out, but that the electrical portion would not pass, therefore no electrical to the house & no certificate of occupancy. He then said, install the receptacle, he could put a plant or something in front of it! :D
 
They are great. I found these many years ago and I got my suppliers to stock them. They are basically a cord cap with a small rim around the receptacle. Use a 1 3/4" drill bit but there is not much of a fudge factor in the amount of overlap.
 
iwire said:
Unless you are still under an older NEC cycle or have a local amendment the 3 story limitation of NM cable has been done away with.
Click to expand...

I just called the dbi and he said that residential has a 75 foot limit for Romex.
Didn't seem to want to explain more than that.
I googled that and found nothing.
This is in San Francisco.
I already wired the whole place up in MC.
Just that cabinet turn behind the drawer now in mc looks tight.


ARTICLE 334 ? NONMETALLIC-SHEATHED CABLE: TYPES NM, NMC, AND NMS
334.10. Revise Item (2) as follows:
334.10. Uses permitted.
(2) Multi-family dwellings permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction not exceeding 4 stories as defined by the San Francisco Building Code except as prohibited in 334.12.
334.12. Add Item (11) as follows:
334.12. Uses Not Permitted.
(11) In any nonresidential structure or occupancy.
 
Last edited:
I just called the factory and he said it wasn't the listing but rather the

nec definition of self contained receptacle
which only allows for Romex in the definition of SCR.
So they have a proposal in to modify the definition.
 
wyreman said:
I just called the factory and he said it wasn't the listing but rather the

nec definition of self contained receptacle
which only allows for Romex in the definition of SCR.
So they have a proposal in to modify the definition.
Click to expand...
That strikes me as a bit odd, since I cannot find a definition of self contained receptacle in the NEC, and the term self contained device is used in conjunction with specific wire types but never defined.
Possibly the problem is in AHJ interpretation?
 
GoldDigger said:
That strikes me as a bit odd, since I cannot find a definition of self contained receptacle in the NEC, and the term self contained device is used in conjunction with specific wire types but never defined.
Possibly the problem is in AHJ interpretation?
Click to expand...

I am betting it has to do with 300.15(E) or (H)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top