ISLAND OUTLET NON GFCI

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

HEY ALL

happy turkey after day--doesn't this island outlet have to be gfci protected--2011 house ???

cvf

[Rick Cantrell]

HEY ALL

happy turkey after day--doesn't this island outlet have to be gfci protected--2011 house ???

cvf

are there any other outlets?

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

yes there is one on side of island and it is protected

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

First, and what I think Rick is alluding to, is that receptacle is not suitable for the required countertop space receptacle for the island. It is, however, suitable for the required wall space outlet for the room in which you were standing.

To your intended question (as interpolated from the above "first" aspect) - yes, the receptacles which are installed to serve the countertop space are required to be GFCI protected.

[Rick Cantrell]

The outlet is only required to be GFIC if it serves the counter top.
Looks like it was designed to serve a room, not counter top.

[Jim Port]

Without measuring, that receptacle appears to be too low to count as the required island countertop receptacle. If so no GFI protection would be required.

[CHARLIE VAN FLEET]

thanks guys thought that but wanted to check

cvf

[Jerry Peck]

Another thing, if that wall space is longer than 12 feet then another receptacle outlet for the wall space would be required - it looks close to 12 feet, may 10-11 feet?

[Rick Cantrell]

I have a question
Where are the outlets for the counter top?

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Is it within six feet sphere/arc of a sink?Looks to be under a breakfast bar/dining area of a kitchen or dining area suggested by the overhang. Needs to at minimum be on a SABC. You're calling it "kitchen" and it obviously is within 6-ft arc of a sink so I'd say yep GFCI and since "kitchen" not required to be arc fault protected.Where are the receptacles serving the countertop?

[Jim Port]

What "within a 6' arc of a sink" "rule" is there?

Since the sink is on the other side of that island I do not think the side that we are looking at is in a kitchen. If it is not, and the room adjacent is not a dining room, there is no need for a SABC to supply the receptacle in question.

The OP said there is a receptacle to serve the countertop on the end of the island.

[James Duffin]

I go with 6' of a sink has to be GFCI protected regardless of where it is. In the picture I can see a radio plugged in and falling into the sink.

[Bob Spermo]

Guys need to read 2009 IRC 3902.7. The "6' rule" applies to laundry, utility and bar sink receptacles. Kitchen and bath countertops are different and the "6 ft" rule does not apply.

[Jim Port]

I go with 6' of a sink has to be GFCI protected regardless of where it is. In the picture I can see a radio plugged in and falling into the sink.

That is your option, but that is not aligned with the NEC GFI requirements for countertops.

[James Duffin]

That is your option, but that is not aligned with the NEC GFI requirements for countertops.


I don't see where a countertop receptacle is defined.

(6) Kitchens — where the receptacles are installed to serve
the countertop surfaces

[Jim Port]

The height restrictions are in Article 210.

(5) Receptacle Outlet Location. Receptacle outlets shall
be located on or above, but not more than 500 mm (20 in.)
above, the countertop. Receptacle outlet assemblies listed
for the application shall be permitted to be installed in
countertops. Receptacle outlets rendered not readily accessible
by appliances fastened in place, appliance garages,
sinks, or rangetops as covered in 210.52(C)(1), Exception,
or appliances occupying dedicated spaces...

Exception to (5): To comply with the conditions specified in
(1) or (2), receptacle outlets shall be permitted to be
mounted not more than 300 mm (12 in.) below the countertop.
Receptacles mounted below a countertop in accordance
with this exception shall not be located where the
countertop extends more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond its
support base.

[Eric Barker]

Side note here: I saw an very interesting demonstration a few months ago where an operating GFCI protected hairdryer was put into a bucket of water. When pulled back out the dryer was still running. This was not due to a defective device. Electrocution is still possible with a GFCI protection. One of those tidbits I find kinda neat.

[Roger Frazee]

Side note here: I saw an very interesting demonstration a few months ago where an operating GFCI protected hairdryer was put into a bucket of water. When pulled back out the dryer was still running. This was not due to a defective device. Electrocution is still possible with a GFCI protection. One of those tidbits I find kinda neat.

So what was the explanation by the authority doing this test ? .. or was this simply someone proposing that gfcis' will not protect you if immersed in water? If they truly believed that then maybe they should include placing the hair dryer in the bucket of water while holding it in their hand or having their hand in the water while it is lowered into the bucket .... :) At any rate any test should provide reasoning for the results or it isn't believable.

[Bruce Ramsey]

Is it an island or a peninsula?

Is the side of the island/peninsula in the kitchen or does the island/peninsula seperate the ktichen from XXX room and this is the XXX room side?

[bruce audretsch]

Side note here: I saw an very interesting demonstration a few months ago where an operating GFCI protected hairdryer was put into a bucket of water. When pulled back out the dryer was still running. This was not due to a defective device. Electrocution is still possible with a GFCI protection. One of those tidbits I find kinda
neat.

As long as there was no "fault to ground" there was no reason for it to trip.
And yes, you can "electrocute yourself, even with a functioning gfci, as long as you are only allowing a hot to neutral current. Only if currents strays and goes to ground will they trip.

[Jerry Peck]

Is it within six feet sphere/arc of a sink?
.
You're calling it "kitchen" and it obviously is within 6-ft arc of a sink so I'd say yep GFCI ...


What "within a 6' arc of a sink" "rule" is there?

I agree with Jim - "What "within a 6' arc of a sink" "rule" is there?"

[Jim Port]

I agree with Jim - "What "within a 6' arc of a sink" "rule" is there?"

Especially when the OP says the house is new and we don't need to worry about things from almost 30 years ago.

[Bruce Ramsey]

What "within a 6' arc of a sink" "rule" is there?

No longer applicable to kitchen but there is a 6' arc of a laundry sink rule.

[Ted Menelly]

I know what the reporting is or should I say should be but really, if there is an outlet that someone can plug an appliance in that is in the kitchen "area", then why would one not protect it with a GFCI.


I know it is all semantics but as I said, really?

I have not inspected a new home in so long that I can even remember that had an outlet backing up to a kitchen (like this situation) that was not GFCI protected.

I would report that the outlet technically does not have to have GFCI protection (based only by the picture) but as a safety matter I would spend then few dollars and install one.

Working counter space, receptacle that can be used by that area, write it up, as far as I am concerned. You are certainly not harming anyone or "killing a deal" if you do write it up. In the end you are adding a bit of knowledge and protection for your client.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Kitchen not a room but an area.

That area containing the pictured receptacle is NOT a "kitchen" area as defined by both the electrical chapters of the IRC and as defined in Ch. 1 of the NEC. A "kitchen" is not a room, a "kitchen" contains A (singular) sink. That is a flat partition or wet bar projection. The pictured contains a sprayer.

Every area except a code defined and limited kitchen area and a life support receptacle in a patient care area within 6' of the edge of a sink is required to be GFCI protected in every occupancy.

The corbelled countertop projection demarks an area designed to accomodate seating, dining, consuming, it is beyond the minimally defined ascribed "kitchen".

You cannot have it both ways. It either IS or IS NOT "kitchen". In this case it is (the area containing the receptacle pictured), NOT kitchen. It (receptacle) IS within a 6-ft arc of A SINK EDGE and is not guarded (flat top, no backsplash, change in elevation to protect or direct flow of water, corbelling directed to wall surface, flow of water).

The six foot arc from sink edge rule applies to ALL sink edges except A (one per) "kitchen" sink in a one- or two-family dwelling unit, and those outlets in "kitchen" of dwelling units, and dedicated life support receptacle outlets in patient care areas, which this obviously is not, and the projectection above same would invalidate such a designation.

The definition of "kitchen" as pertains to this subject is that of a limited area, not a room, and includes a singular sink. An area beyond that of the limited minimum "kitchen" area is other than THE "kitchen". The receptacle in question is not a part of the kitchen, and is within 6' of a sink edge.
The receptacle is installed upon a wall (half wall though it may be) not a cabinet.

It is in a dining area, wet-bar - and must be small appliance branch circuit supplied, GFCI protected due to proximity to sink edge, and because not in the demarked ascribed "kitchen" area it must be further AFCI protected.

2008, 2011 NEC; 2009, 2012 IRC.

FOR SAFEFTY and proximity to sink edge and flat surface containing no guard and containing sink, and especially those laps, feet, and body contact to water upon the surface for those standing or sitting at this projection and in proximity to receptacle and therefore necessarily any equipment, appliance, or device at same - yes it must be GFCI class A protected.

[Jerry Peck]

Crimey, Watson, that area IS a KITCHEN.

No one, except possibly you, is trying to call it anything else.

As such, that island IN the KITCHEN requires receptacles for the countertop space, and we have been told that there is one or more receptacles which serbe the countertop space. and thst those receptacles ARE GFCI PROTECTED.

The question is about that receptacle which is in the wall space of THE ADJOINING ROOM - note that we have now moved to a DIFFERENT room - and the wall space requires one or more receptacles, depending on the length of that wall space, AND that receptacle needs to be on a SABC, AND that it needs to be AFCI protected.

Your other garbled-gook does not apply.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

What "within a 6' arc of a sink" "rule" is there?

Since the sink is on the other side of that island I do not think the side that we are looking at is in a kitchen. If it is not, and the room adjacent is not a dining room, there is no need for a SABC to supply the receptacle in question.

The OP said there is a receptacle to serve the countertop on the end of the island.

I was responding to Jim Port's conclusion.

Peck it isn't gobbledygook it is statutory construction.

A "kitchen" is NOT a room as per the NEC and per the IRC. You really should try checking the actual definitions that apply. A kitchen contains "A sink". The projection and partition half-wall, as well as its overhanging projection are NOT kitchen therefore if within a six foot arc of a sink edge and NOT IN the literal ASCRIBED "kitchen" it MUST be GFCI protected, and since not within the ascribed (defined) "kitchen" area it must also be ARC fault protected. It is without a doubt a dining, breakfast, or similar area and must furthermore also be upon a SABC.

[Rich Goeken]

HEY ALL

happy turkey after day--doesn't this island outlet have to be gfci protected--2011 house ???

cvf

Same to you Charlie. I assume you tested the outlet to see if it was sourced from a protected GFCI outlet located elsewhere..... (Didn't say if you did or didn't) ;)

[Rich Goeken]

I was responding to Jim Port's conclusion.

Peck it isn't gobbledygook it is statutory construction.

A "kitchen" is NOT a room as per the NEC and per the IRC. You really should try checking the actual definitions that apply. A kitchen contains "A sink". The projection and partition half-wall, as well as its overhanging projection are NOT kitchen therefore if within a six foot arc of a sink edge and NOT IN the literal ASCRIBED "kitchen" it MUST be GFCI protected, and since not within the ascribed (defined) "kitchen" area it must also be ARC fault protected. It is without a doubt a dining, breakfast, or similar area and must furthermore also be upon a SABC.

Jerry, in this interesting situation. From what I understand here, once you have met the requirements of the code(s) for Kitchen and Dining Room, it doesn't say you can't add other circuits.

[W. Craig McDougald]

An old West Texas Judge once told Dad he would fire any Deputy who couldn't temper the law with common sense.

That said, where's the common sense in all this "diarrhea of the mouth" discussion? Only Ted is using the old grey cells here.

Is there a chance, however remote, of electrocution here? Is that chance enhanced by the proximity of water, or kitchen, or countertop, or island, or any other code-referred description that MIGHT be convoluted by some lawyer who doesn't give a dang about what "code" really says?

Do you think you, as an Inspector, might have some liability if the new Owner's air-head kid plugs a faulty mixer into it, and decides to wash it off after making cookies and gets electrocuted?

What's a GFCI plug cost? Is it gonna "kill the deal" if you report it? Chances are neither party will fix it, but you've just covered your hindside if you do report it. You don't even have to say it's a code violation if you don't want to, just say some blurb about it being a safety consideration.

Than you've alerted all concerned to a POSSIBLE problem, given them a simple and economical fix and protected yourself in the process. Go on to the next inspection.

[Michael Derrick]

also was it checked to see if it might be on the same circuit as the GFCI on the other side?
I have run into that a few times.

Mike



An old West Texas Judge once told Dad he would fire any Deputy who couldn't temper the law with common sense.

That said, where's the common sense in all this "diarrhea of the mouth" discussion? Only Ted is using the old grey cells here.

Is there a chance, however remote, of electrocution here? Is that chance enhanced by the proximity of water, or kitchen, or countertop, or island, or any other code-referred description that MIGHT be convoluted by some lawyer who doesn't give a dang about what "code" really says?

Do you think you, as an Inspector, might have some liability if the new Owner's air-head kid plugs a faulty mixer into it, and decides to wash it off after making cookies and gets electrocuted?

What's a GFCI plug cost? Is it gonna "kill the deal" if you report it? Chances are neither party will fix it, but you've just covered your hindside if you do report it. You don't even have to say it's a code violation if you don't want to, just say some blurb about it being a safety consideration.

Than you've alerted all concerned to a POSSIBLE problem, given them a simple and economical fix and protected yourself in the process. Go on to the next inspection.

[Jim Port]

An old West Texas Judge once told Dad he would fire any Deputy who couldn't temper the law with common sense.

That said, where's the common sense in all this "diarrhea of the mouth" discussion? Only Ted is using the old grey cells here.

Someone could also use an extension cord from a bedroom receptacle to that location. Would you recommend GFI protection for the bedroom? I don't call that train of thought using the grey cells.


Is there a chance, however remote, of electrocution here? Is that chance enhanced by the proximity of water, or kitchen, or countertop, or island, or any other code-referred description that MIGHT be convoluted by some lawyer who doesn't give a dang about what "code" really says?

Do you know that a GFI may not prevent electrocution?


Do you think you, as an Inspector, might have some liability if the new Owner's air-head kid plugs a faulty mixer into it, and decides to wash it off after making cookies and gets electrocuted?

I don't see that happening when kitchen appliances have a 2' cord.



Than you've alerted all concerned to a POSSIBLE problem, given them a simple and economical fix and protected yourself in the process. Go on to the next inspection.

Do you also report that the roof should be braced with steel columns and beams because the truss may fail?

[Jim Port]

I was responding to Jim Port's conclusion.

Peck it isn't gobbledygook it is statutory construction.

A "kitchen" is NOT a room as per the NEC and per the IRC. You really should try checking the actual definitions that apply. A kitchen contains "A sink". The projection and partition half-wall, as well as its overhanging projection are NOT kitchen therefore if within a six foot arc of a sink edge and NOT IN the literal ASCRIBED "kitchen" it MUST be GFCI protected, and since not within the ascribed (defined) "kitchen" area it must also be ARC fault protected. It is without a doubt a dining, breakfast, or similar area and must furthermore also be upon a SABC.

OK HG, a kitchen is more than an area with a sink so maybe you should read the definitions. Using your defintion a kitchen cannot contain two sinks because "a sink" is singular.

You cannot keep trying to apply GFI protection rules from other areas like laundry sinks etc to every receptacle. This does not serve the countertop and you cannot find a NEC requirement for GFI protection for dining room receptacles within 6'. It is not there regardless of your thinking.

[ken horak]

........

[Roger Frazee]

Charlie

The receptacle in question is a very common installation, you see it often and you would not be code required to gfci that outlet....you could.... but it is not required by the nec or any local code that I have ever been experienced. As Jim mentioned earlier there are height requirements for gfci receptacles installed below counter tops in order to serve counter tops. It looks to me like you could not even install a receptacle intended to serve the island counter top in your photo due to the overhang dimensions.

There is no way on the planet to prevent someone from using that receptacle to operate an appliance on the island counter top. Your question was ... is gfci required. Nope not from what I'm seeing in your photo ... it's simply a wall receptacle and as Jerry said needs to be sabc and likely needs to be afci but some of that will be dictated by local code amendments to the NEC if they exist.


Also I would think that two gfci protected receptacles would be required for the island your showing in the photo if enough counter space exists. One on each side of the sink. You mentioned that there was only one installed.

EDIT: I should also comment that we are talking about the minimum requirements for safety as far as code compliance as it exists today. Adding gfci protection to the receptacle due to the proximity to a sink or the use of a counter top appliance should not be discouraged.

[Mike Schulz]

I tell my clients that common sense would install a GFCI in that area but it's not required. When I tell builders this on new construction they also agree and some even change it.
The funny part is the main dining room which can be in another area can be on that circuit and all the wall outlets in that room are protected. I don't know how many times I find one of the required circuits for the kitchen have one receptacle with the GFCI and the rest are in the dining room.

[Ted Menelly]

Everyone, or should I say some, come back with how silly it is to call that area wet. Or as Ken said

"Is is a Good idea to GFCI protect it ? ---- No more then putting GFCI protected outlets in in every location through the house.
Reporting it as wrong is just like reporting the wall color as wrong."

That particular statement , as far as I am concerned, is silly.

That is more of a wet area than most wet areas. It may not call for protection but the simple fact is is that is is far from silly to protect it.

As far as discounting everything HG said, well, that is pretty silly as well. I repeat, it is a wet area and cannot be denied that status no matter what code source one uses.

Just because something is not in a book does not make it right or logical. Water can run over that counter at any time from spill or a leaking faucet or an overflowing sink. There is no protection to keep water from getting to that receptacle or to keep anyone that goes to unplug an appliance or whatever from standing in that puddle or leaning on the wet counter top while unplugging that item. With a large piece of granite it would not take water to become a good ground. Bad cord, leaning on counter, unplugging item while doing so? The likelihood of electrocution from that receptacle compared to any receptacle in the home other than the other kitchen or bath or garage or exterior receptacles etc is about ten fold or better.

Does the silly little books that are printed to protect folks with better construction practices say that that outlet needs GFCI protection? Not likely, kind of, sort of, does not, but maybe it does.

Its a wet area folks, ten fold over the rest of the home with no back splash to that counter to stop water or to prevent likely use of the receptacle for kitchen use. You just cannot get anymore simple than that. God man ........ There are already receptacles, or at least one, that has GFCI protection for that island. Why the heck would anyone in their right, or left mind, argue the point on whether it needs it. You had to wire that one receptacle and GFCI protect it. Why the heck would one not protect that darn receptacle. The reason there are so many questions and debate about this is so simple to see that I can even see it without my glasses. Water, granite countertop, receptacle, no back splash or raised breakfast counter, already a receptacle with GFCI in the same island.

Come on folks. Write it up and a few words as to why and even the builders that I know would never argue the fact and the electricians would just say "Dam, I have no idea why my guy just did not hook that receptacle up to the GFCI circuit or if he wired that receptacle first then why did he not just put the GFCI in that box and feed the other one from it."

[Jim Port]

And comments like that are why trades people that know the code have certain opinions of the HI industry.

Considering that it does not take many incidents before something is changed in the code, why do you think that this has not been addressed in the twenty plus years that GFI protection has been required for countertop receptacles? Maybe because it is not an issue.

[James Duffin]

I have been a licensed electrician since 1975 and if I had wired that house that receptacle would have have GFCI protection. I go with 6' from a sink no matter where it is.

[W. Craig McDougald]

Amen Ted; don't you love your competition?

[Ted Menelly]

And comments like that are why trades people that know the code have certain opinions of the HI industry.

Considering that it does not take many incidents before something is changed in the code, why do you think that this has not been addressed in the twenty plus years that GFI protection has been required for countertop receptacles? Maybe because it is not an issue.

Come on Jim. I have great respect for all that you post here but that was another, not saying you are, silly post.

It is not in there because it is not an issue? Nether was the home that first had electricity in it and never had too many upgrades since that day and no one ever died there.

The reason they have not put it in the book with all the upgrades to the GFCI end of things is far beyond me.

It is my belief that if you read between the lines in those pretty little blue books it is in there for protection. The definitions might be explained of what a wet area is in the books but certainly was left open for plenty of interpretation. "required in all wet areas" That about ends it right there. If that is not wet I just don't know what might be considered a wet area.

Maybe because the islands with no back splash that back up to other rooms is relatively new to the kitchen build. Most of the time the island would have a raised breakfast bar on it. It is not in there because not many have had an independent thought. No insult intended even thought it sounds that way.

As far as "why tradesmen have a certain opinions of Home Inspectors". Now that is funny. I am a tradesman and have been all my life ans I am also a professional home inspector and I might add to that I am also a professional tradesman.

On a serious note Jim and forget about all the rest of what is in this post as it was only banter.

As far as my statement from the other post

"and the electricians would just say "Dam, I have no idea why my guy just did not hook that receptacle up to the GFCI circuit or if he wired that receptacle first then why did he not just put the GFCI in that box and feed the other one from it."

I have heard it a thousand times or a plethora of other quotes from those tradesman and myself all my life. There is absolutely nothing in that statement that would lead a "professional" (little more banter) tradesman to have certain opinions of Home Inspectors. And ..... seriously. If you did that job and had an electric feed to that island for the receptacles you would not have included that receptacle in the GFCI circuit for protection? You had to wire them all anyway from the same electric feed.

I will say and I have agreed that technically that receptacle does not need protection other than ARC Fault and even that is open for interpretation. But technically as a wet area (please, just look at the darn picture) it does need GFCI protection.

Just Sayin.

[Jerry Peck]

I was responding to Jim Port's conclusion.

Peck it isn't gobbledygook it is statutory construction.

A "kitchen" is NOT a room as per the NEC and per the IRC. You really should try checking the actual definitions that apply. A kitchen contains "A sink". The projection and partition half-wall, as well as its overhanging projection are NOT kitchen therefore if within a six foot arc of a sink edge and NOT IN the literal ASCRIBED "kitchen" it MUST be GFCI protected, and since not within the ascribed (defined) "kitchen" area it must also be ARC fault protected. It is without a doubt a dining, breakfast, or similar area and must furthermore also be upon a SABC.

More defensive maneuvering trying to defend the indefensible ...

Waston, if you would look at the original post and the photo with it, you would see "A sink" in that countertop, and that THE sink is facing the kitchen, which is on the other side of that countertop and the wall.

You keep trying to turn the conversation away from the discussion so you don't sound as far off base as you are, that IS "a kitchen", and there IS "a different room" on the side of the wall we are looking at the wall from (the original poster was standing in this "room" when he took that photo).

[Jim Port]

I disagree on this being a wet area. First it does not meet the NEC definition, nor would the receptacle be wet if the sink overflowed. The overhang would act as an waterfall not allowing the wall to be effected.

If overflowing sinks was as common as some think I would expect to see more scuba suits hanging in a house. Given the time it would take to fill up to that level on the wall without a fire engine outside would take too long to calculate.

[Bill Kriegh]

I disagree on this being a wet area. First it does not meet the NEC definition, nor would the receptacle be wet if the sink overflowed. The overhang would act as an waterfall not allowing the wall to be effected.

If overflowing sinks was as common as some think I would expect to see more scuba suits hanging in a house. Given the time it would take to fill up to that level on the wall without a fire engine outside would take too long to calculate.

Yep X2

[Roger Frazee]

Yep X3

Ted

In this market the builder would put a gold cover plate on that receptacle if you asked him .... :)

It would be a real challenge to get electrocuted by water being spilled on that counter top whether or not that receptacle is gfci .
I would be more concerned with a child grabbing a power cord and pulling the electric skillet full of hot grease over on himself. So IMO if you really want to play it safe I would probably recommend that it be removed ... :eek: Seriously

I do not think any AHJ would force the issue about removal if the buyer so chose....but they could not require you to gfci that receptacle. I would also want it tamper resistant if I kept it to serve a room/wall receptacle. It does not appear to be TR.

[ken horak]

xxxxxx

[Ted Menelly]

Hey Gentlemen

Basically Ken, Roger, Jim, Bill and any other electrician reading this.

I do agree and most of us do agree that the technical stand points say that this outlet does not need to be GFCI protected.

My response was that this is a wet area as much as a garage, basement or rear roof over patio as well as the kitchen it backs up to.

Kens point of this outlet being the least used in the home I do agree along with a large number of receptacles in a home. I think James mentioned a radio plugged in or what ever and dropped in the sink. I mentioned water rolling off the side or just water on the counter and someone pulling on a cord to unplug a device of what ever kind that someone has plugged into that outlet. There could be a plethora of items plugged into that receptacle that are not technically appliances with a 2 foot cord.

I guess my questions to you electrician type folks is why in the world would everyone of you think along the lines of just the technicalities of weather it serves the counter top appliances or not or if it is in the NEC or IRC. How about that radio? How about someone sitting there and spilling their drink and mom plugged a phone into that outlet that sits on the counter and their hand is wet and they unplug the cord to move the device.

Instead I read the responses such as. Appliances have a 2 foot cord. That outlet is the least used in the home. The likelihood of the radio falling into the sink is nil etc etc etc etc.

How about a serious long list of scenarios for the reason this outlet should be GFCI protected because of not just its location but the fact that there is no raised breakfast bar separating the area .

How about the simple fact that there has to be GFCI protected receptacles for the counter top and this is only one of (what should be three but Charlie I believe said was one) the three receptacles in that island. You had to wire the receptacles. A GFCI is going to already be in one of those receptacles. I am not sure where the train of thought was when wiring them just thinking and only thinking of The IRC or NEC. You would have literally tried not to wire that into the GFCI string, intentionally, giving it some thought not to do so, figuring which box the wire ran into first.

It would have taken more effort not to wire that receptacle into the GFCI string than just to hook it into the protected string.

No one is trying to upset or aggravate or give electricians a reason to think certain ways about home inspectors.

Home inspectors have a different task than electricians or plumbers or framers. When I built I never thought of reasons why I did not have to do something. I always thought of the best practice for what ever I was building at the time. Inspectors think along those same lines. We are leaning on that counter plugging some sort of tester into that receptacle and are not involved in that decision making of trying to figure out how to avoid protecting this receptacle.

We see the water situation and the flat counter with no separation at all from the sink. We see the myriad of items people plug into those receptacles and set on the counter and are still seeing the sink and large granite slab and the likelihood of the what ifs.

When we are inspecting the roof framing we are not engineers but may in many of our cases have a tremendous background in the trades and have to think like an engineer as to "what the hell were they thinking" when we see some of the framing and the what ifs in many situations. When we see cracks through out the home we have to piece it all together to figure just how to write up what we see.

We are the engineers in a sense. We need to have that sixth sense in seeing the entire picture of the entire home. That is why we write suggestion and give reasons why a receptacle in this particular situation should be GFCI protected.Just for that what if.

Again, in this situation it would have been more of a thought on how not to include it instead of including it anyway.

Just a little on the WHY inspectors do the things they do and think as they do.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Guys need to read 2009 IRC 3902.7. The "6' rule" applies to laundry, utility and bar sink receptacles. Kitchen and bath countertops are different and the "6 ft" rule does not apply.

All code references are per the 2008 NEC which is the currently referenced version in New York state.

As pointed out by Bob and a few others, the receptacle in question, BELOW the island, DOES NOT serve the countertop and therefore does NOT require GFCI protection per 210.52(C)(2).

210.52(C) defines a countertop and the required spaces necessary to be protected by a GFCI receptacle.

210.52(C)(5) Exception states that "To comply with the conditions specified in (1) or (2) , receptacle outlets shall be permitted to be mounted not more than 300mm (12") below the countertop."

Don't stop reading there.

It further states that receptacles mounted below a countertop in accordance with this exception shall not be located where the countertop extends more that 150 mm (6") beyond its support base.

Let's not get into camera angles and such. The countertop depicted does appear to meet or exceed the 6" length described above.

That statement is further supported by 210.8(6) which requires receptacles installed to serve countertop SURFACES to be GFCI protected

210.8(7) clearly sates Laundry, utility and wet bar sinks. The sink depicted in the island DOES NOT meet the definition.

I cannot determine that the receptacle then would serve the dining room but if so, it should be: a 20A SABC and Arc-Fault protected.

Not sure where the term "6 foot ARC" appears in the code.

Since the explanation in the exceptionfor 210.52(C) indicates that a receptacle installed below a countertop extending 6" or more could not meet the requirement for a countertop, does that infer a 12" arc or is it a straight line measurement?

Also, for clarity, those receptacles serving appliances, such as a refrigerator or stove, DO NOT require GFCI protection as they are NOT serving the countertop surfaces.

Started composing this in the morning and finished in the afternoon when time afforded such. No intentions of repeating subsequent posts.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The pictured IS "a breakfast bar". The unguarded flat topped "Bar" contains a SINK with sprayer. The area is NOT a cabinet supported breakfast bar - but is a partition wall supported (half wall). The receptacle is installed in said wall. The breakfast "Wet Bar", (that's right - the bar's top communicates directly with a sink edge, and the partition half wall's hosted receptacle is within 6-foot arc of that sink edge) requires due to its presence and proximity to sink edge - GFCI protection.Of course it will get used. Plugging in that lap top, cell phone charger, etc. used by those at the WET BAR. This same circumstance occurs often in homes with a butler's pantry or WET pantry as well - six foot rule.Neither the IRC nor the NEC define a kitchen as a ROOM. It is an area. The pictured view is NOT "kitchen" as has been pointed out repeatedly even by the host of naysayers - the kitchen area is elsewhere. And yes, a kitchen has A (one) sink - other sinks present are auxiliary, utilitity, etc. and not part of the IRC defined "kitchen area" nor are they part of the NEC defined "kitchen" area.A "bar" communicating with a SINK is a WET BAR. Wet bars and the six foot arc rule have been in place as referenced.SABCs have nothing to do with GFCI protection or ARC fault protection. the pictured receptacle is installed in a similar area to a breakfast nook, breakfast room, dining room, (or similar area) and requires SABC. Not in the kitchen requires ARC Fault protection. Six foot arc of sink edge, unguarded or separated (not - as flat topped counter commumicating directly - no demark, no backsplash, no change in elevation) and OUTSIDE the IRC and NEC defined "kitchen" area - requires GFCI protection.

[Roger Frazee]

Ted

I really do not have a problem with what your saying. I hope I did not infer that in my posts. You genuinely are focused on providing a higher degree of safety than the code minimums and that should be respected.

As always we seem to expand our discussions (which is good) above and beyond and to places no man has ever gone before .... :)

On a side note I don't know of any housewife on Thanksgiving or Christmas that won't figure out a way to use that outlet for the counter top. Might be the only time she uses it but I would suspect an vacuum will see it occasionally.

KEN

As for all appliances having 2 foot cords as a reasoning that outlet won't get used for the counter top on occasion ... give me a break as they say.

Still though it would not pose any concern in my opinion but there is that one thing called Murphy's law ...:) So IMO gfci is an improved safety option for the receptacle but not required for reasons already mentioned.

[ken horak]

''''''

[Mike Schulz]

:) Darwin is awaiting

[Roger Frazee]

Ted- I understand where you are coming from,with your comments.( I do have reservations about the wet location arguement.).
We are basically debating both sides of the coin -required / good idea

You as a HI who sees things that could be improved, thus able to insert thoughts/opinions in the report ( hopefully not as incorrect, but items that could be improved )

Me - As an inspector who is restricted to the law ( ie: the adopted code edition) thus can not inject opinions.
My comments were not an opinion as to whether the oulet should be GFCI protected, but if GFCI protection is required.
The original posters question is: Is GFCI protection required and thats what I base my replies on.


Now lets open up another can of worms ;)
Now lets address your comment about there should be 3 outlets serving that Kitchen Island counter top.
We already know it is a kitchen Island. ISLAND being the key word.
NEC article 210.52 ( C ) tells us that IF the area BEHIND the sink is less then 12" then the counter is to be considered 2 seperate counter tops.
It appears that the space behind the sink is 12" or more then it is only one counter top. Thus Only 1 outlet is required for the island according to 210.52 (C)(2)

Ken

That might have been me that posed the two counter top receptacles required. It does appear to be more 12 inches. I will just simply say you are correct only one would be required.
I suppose what I was getting at .. like TED .. I do consider more than code minimums based on the situation and design/convenience. If I wired that island I would likely wire in two gfci countertop receptacles (if the cabinet design allowed) serving the island based on what I can see assuming there is enough counter space to the left of the sink in the picture.

Of course a lot of contractors would require you to wire to minimums if it wasn't your call....;)

[Richard D. Fornataro]

I guess it comes down to whether or not what is depicted is a "wet bar."

Since "wet bar" is not defined specifically.....flip a coin.

I'm not sure how one can determine from the picture posted that such can be considered an island but I could live with it being a breakfast bar, etc.

I'm equally baffled as to how one could comment that such is not part of the kitchen or even adjacent to the kitchen.

"If" it is a wet bar by definition, I would agree that the receptacle in question requires GFCI protection.

I'm just not there yet.

A refrigerator, stove, microwave, dishwasher, etc. all do not require GFCI protection because they don't serve the countertop.

Why should we consider this installation any different?

Beside those observations, the location is terible for a receptacle.

Wouldn't one opine that such a circumstance might have stools to sit on placed under the overhanging counter?

That receptacle will be kicked by every kid who sits there.

Let's hope it's only used for vacuuming.

[Ted Menelly]

Wow, questions abound.

That is why I question as to why there is a question at all. If there can be so many questions, and inspectors have them all so give it a minute, then why would the electrician in the field be looking for a reason to figure out how to avoid having this receptacle GFCI protected? It is not like any money would have to have been spent since one GFCI could protect them all.

The real question is, and I do not know who said it first, is why is there a receptacle there at all because it will forever take abuse and if plugged into will always cause a concern. Maybe a couple receptacles up high just under the slab so if one plugs into it there would not be dangling cord to get constantly caught up in. GFCI protect them and there you go, all the receptacles you could want. Oops, not code compliant.

I have no idea how much counter there is to the left of the sink in the picture but I guess there could be quite a bit of space. If it has the width the code calls for then it needs a receptacle and then one at the other end and then you have well over a foot of counter behind the sink, much more than a foot, I think. With just that visual assuming there is a foot or more on the left of that sink in the picture, how many GFCI protected receptacles do all you say that slab needs where all of it is useful working space as it is a wide open slab. Or, do you just plug in an extension cord :o

I just inspected an upper end home that had an island with a granite slab on it almost 7 feet wide and 12 feet long. They had one receptacle on each side centered on the depth of the island. Now you know and I know that if someone plugs an appliance in they are not going to drag it to the extremes of the depth as in to the edge of the counter so a 2 foot cord would, maybe, probably be enough. No, there was no raised breakfast bar but it did have a little overhang for use as a breakfast/wet bar, what ever one calls it today.

Picture a slab almost 7 feet wide and 12 feet long. Sink in the middle facing the counters opposite and the stove/oven. One outlet is in each of the ends of the cabinet with this 12 foot long slab centered, period. Enough or not enough.

[James Duffin]

If the receptacle in the first picture is not considered to be a counter top receptacle then it has to be a wall receptacle so the 6' rule applies.

[Jerry Peck]

I guess it comes down to whether or not what is depicted is a "wet bar."

Looks like a kitchen island to me, after all the OP said "doesn't this island outlet" and one does not typically refer to a "wet bar" as an island, simply as a wet bar.

Guess Charlie will need to be the one to answer that question.

[Roger Frazee]

Looks like a kitchen island to me, after all the OP said "doesn't this island outlet" and one does not typically refer to a "wet bar" as an island, simply as a wet bar.

Guess Charlie will need to be the one to answer that question.

That's correct Charlie will have to tell us but it sure looks like a island sink to me .. :)

We need to see the other side facing the sink....but ... there is absolutely no way you could call it a wet bar from the picture. Crimeny folks ya all know what a wet bar is surely.
It's to incorporate a sink for the primary purpose of mixing drinks. Like this ...

http://www.jandersenhomes.com/images/portfolio/wetbar_01.jpg

Wet Bars come in all sizes and shapes but you don't see all that many that have island characteristics. I don't care how many sinks the countertop has there had better be a wine cooler or wine storage or cabinet for alcohol that pretty much tells you what your sink is going to be used for .... sheesh.

[Bill Kriegh]

I'd be interested in knowing how this is a wet bar if the sink is the one required to make the adjacent area a kitchen. It would also stand to reason that if this is a wet bar then the counter receptacles in the adjacent area are no longer a kitchen counter top receptacles and therefore wouldn't require GFCI protection.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Again...if it's a wet bar, the code requires that ill-placed receptacle to be GFCI protected.

I can't summarily indicate that this is a "wet bar." For all we know, it is the only sink in the kitchen which is customary in this area.


Roger,
Now THAT is a wet bar. Thank you for illustrating such.

James, only if the sink is a wet bar. GFCI requirements would only be for countertop receptacles. Refrigerator, stove, microwave....no GFCI required.

Ted,
Receptacle is required because under that counter is considered wall space and therefore "no point shall be more that six feet from a receptacle." And....if such was just under the slab it would be possible to come into contact with knees from someone sitting on a stool at the breakfast bar.

To reiterate what has already been said repeatedly, since "wet bar" is not specifically defined, it is up to individual interpretation. I still cannot even remotely call this a wet bar for all the reasons previously stated.

Post is probably out of order but I get to my email when I can and this is a response to one of those.

[James Duffin]

"James, only if the sink is a wet bar. GFCI requirements would only be for countertop receptacles. Refrigerator, stove, microwave....no GFCI required."

Like I said....in my opinion as an electrician and a HI....that receptacle should be GFCI protected. Not too concerned about the code in this instance.

[Roger Frazee]

Those of you who want to gfci that receptacle ..... that's fine. No one has said that you cannot.

The argument seems to have transpired into you should or your an idiot if you do not gfci that outlet. I may have missed it but I think most that have posted have argeed that it is not code required to provide gfci for the receptacle pictured. You can believe it is common sense or whatever you want as far as whether you would install gfci. I'm not sure why when we see a sink that so many think every receptacle in sight needs gfci. You simply will not see very many contractors providing gfci where it isn't required. If a gfci receptacle is being used to protect the island countertop receptacles then it would indeed be a simple matter to incorporate the receptacle on that circuit. But it may also be just as smart .. design wise ..to place that receptacle we are questioning on a different branch circuit. You simply cannot group all receptacles under countertops as needing gfci because a sink happens to be around. You cannot use the 6 foot rule for all sinks. There has to be some regulation and that is the NEC, you want to change it.. then submit a proposal...but you better substantiate it .. :) Good luck with that in this situation.

[Jim Port]

Without knowing the relationship between the panel and the receptacle in question, it might be that the receptacle is closer to the panel and since the GFI is not required there it was installed at the first countertop receptacle. I doubt many would look there for a GFI if it protected the countertop receptacles that may be downstream.

[James Duffin]

Those of you who want to gfci that receptacle ..... that's fine. No one has said that you cannot.

The argument seems to have transpired into you should or your an idiot if you do not gfci that outlet. I may have missed it but I think most that have posted have argeed that it is not code required to provide gfci for the receptacle pictured. You can believe it is common sense or whatever you want as far as whether you would install gfci. I'm not sure why when we see a sink that so many think every receptacle in sight needs gfci. You simply will not see very many contractors providing gfci where it isn't required. If a gfci receptacle is being used to protect the island countertop receptacles then it would indeed be a simple matter to incorporate the receptacle on that circuit. But it may also be just as smart .. design wise ..to place that receptacle we are questioning on a different branch circuit. You simply cannot group all receptacles under countertops as needing gfci because a sink happens to be around. You cannot use the 6 foot rule for all sinks. There has to be some regulation and that is the NEC, you want to change it.. then submit a proposal...but you better substantiate it .. :) Good luck with that in this situation.

Why would you go to the trouble to try and get the code changed when you can do what you want to in this case and not violate the existing code? When I wire a house I wire it like I am going to live in it so I do care about the end result. This is an opinion and if you do not agree you are not an idiot.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

"James, only if the sink is a wet bar. GFCI requirements would only be for countertop receptacles. Refrigerator, stove, microwave....no GFCI required."

Like I said....in my opinion as an electrician and a HI....that receptacle should be GFCI protected. Not too concerned about the code in this instance.

As I reiterate to electricians on a regular basis, "NEC is the minimum standard for electrical installation."

Usually that quote is intended to indicate to an electrician that they should at least be able to comply with the minimum.

Having said that.....if you want to install a GFCI where it is not required...
have at it.

There is nothing stopping you from exceeding the code.

If it were my installation, I agree with your statement, " I wire it as if it I'm going to live in it."

I would GFCI protect that receptacle, however as an inspector, I cannot compel you to do so.

I don't always agree with the code but I do enforce what is written.

If we "idiot proof" everything they will just naturally adapt better idiots!:D

[ken horak]

......

[Roger Frazee]

Have done just that, time will tell what becomes of it.;)

I pretty much expect that the code making panel will kick it out.

Hi Ken

Proposals are very difficult to get accepted. Substantiating the need is the hardest part. I was just sitting here trying to write one that essentially would include all 125 volt receptacles be gfci protected when installed in the supporting cabinet outside the kitchen area but not serving the countertop of an island or peninsula be incorporated into the 6 foot rule.

I just deleted it after realizing some over sites ...it's not easy to write one that covers all the bases....:)

[Ted Menelly]

Those of you who want to gfci that receptacle ..... that's fine. No one has said that you cannot.

The argument seems to have transpired into you should or your an idiot if you do not gfci that outlet. I may have missed it but I think most that have posted have argeed that it is not code required to provide gfci for the receptacle pictured. You can believe it is common sense or whatever you want as far as whether you would install gfci. I'm not sure why when we see a sink that so many think every receptacle in sight needs gfci. You simply will not see very many contractors providing gfci where it isn't required. If a gfci receptacle is being used to protect the island countertop receptacles then it would indeed be a simple matter to incorporate the receptacle on that circuit. But it may also be just as smart .. design wise ..to place that receptacle we are questioning on a different branch circuit. You simply cannot group all receptacles under countertops as needing gfci because a sink happens to be around. You cannot use the 6 foot rule for all sinks. There has to be some regulation and that is the NEC, you want to change it.. then submit a proposal...but you better substantiate it .. :) Good luck with that in this situation.


You are an idiot or you're an idiot

Just funnin with you

I should talk. I don't even proof my spelling or grammar on here.

[Jerry Peck]

As I reiterate to electricians on a regular basis, "NEC is the minimum standard for electrical installation."

Usually that quote is intended to indicate to an electrician that they should at least be able to comply with the minimum.

Richard,

I say something similar, but go a step further too and tell them that the NEC itself admits that it if one installs the electrical in accordance with the NEC, that the electrical system is only essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service.

I get that from the NEC itself:
- (B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

As difficult as they seem to make meeting the NEC ... the NEC is not even "good", it just provides an installation which is "essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service".

Guess the NEC must not be that tough to meet, huh? :)

[Roger Frazee]

You are an idiot or you're an idiot

Just funnin with you

I should talk. I don't even proof my spelling or grammar on here.

TED

I always check my spellin ......

[Jerry Peck]

I always check my spellin ......

Twasn't the spellin', twas the grammar that were ( ;) ) wrong. :D

Okay, it could have been the spellin' in that particular case (upper case or lower case ... see, it was the grammar ... :p ).

[Ted Menelly]

TED

I always check my spellin ......


Jist sayin :)

[Roger Frazee]

If the receptacle in the first picture is not considered to be a counter top receptacle then it has to be a wall receptacle so the 6' rule applies.

James

First one is 2011 second is 2008 ... 210.8 (A)(7) language has changed.

2011 NEC

(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-
ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in
210.8(A)(1) through (8) shall have ground-fault circuit interrupter
protection for personnel.

(7) Sinks — located in areas other than kitchens where
receptacles are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 NEC

(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and
20-ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in
(1) through (8) shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter
protection for personnel.

(7) Laundry, utility, and wet bar sinks — where the receptacles
are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink

[Ken Bates]

I doubt mine will be "the last word" but I am assuming that the volume of input above was nitpicking about the designated purpose of the below countertop receptacle. ( did not read all the back and forths, etc. )

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO RECEPTACLES BELOW THE COUNTERTOP!!

WHY?? I know a woman who might have grown up to be attractive and normal had she not been disfigured because of the hot cooking oil in a 'FRY BABY' FRYOLATOR. It was a small fryolator so it was called 'baby.' (It fried a baby!!) (There were some big ones that were about the same size as the 'crock pots' that were popular at the same time.) So, Karen who was just a crawling toddler pulled the electric cord and doused herself with 375 F oil and in addition to being disfigured she still has unresolved Freudean type issues with her parents who were part of the problem.

Ace Home Inspections (http://www.Aceinspect.com)

[James Duffin]

James

First one is 2011 second is 2008 ... 210.8 (A)(7) language has changed.

2011 NEC

(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-
ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in
210.8(A)(1) through (8) shall have ground-fault circuit interrupter
protection for personnel.

(7) Sinks — located in areas other than kitchens where
receptacles are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 NEC

(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and
20-ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in
(1) through (8) shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter
protection for personnel.

(7) Laundry, utility, and wet bar sinks — where the receptacles
are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink



Wrong 6' rule. Here is the one i was talking about. I think we all agree that the code does not require the rec to GFCI protetced.



(1) Spacing. Receptacles shall be installed such that no
point measured horizontally along the floor line of any wall
space is more than 1.8 m (6 ft) from a receptacle outlet.

(2) Wall Space. As used in this section, a wall space shall
include the following:
(1) Any space 600 mm (2 ft) or more in width (including
space measured around corners) and unbroken along
the floor line by doorways and similar openings, fireplaces,
and fixed cabinets
(2) The space occupied by fixed panels in exterior walls,
excluding sliding panels
(3) The space afforded by fixed room dividers, such as
freestanding bar-type counters or railings

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Richard,

I say something similar, but go a step further too and tell them that the NEC itself admits that it if one installs the electrical in accordance with the NEC, that the electrical system is only essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service.

I get that from the NEC itself:
- (B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

As difficult as they seem to make meeting the NEC ... the NEC is not even "good", it just provides an installation which is "essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service".

Guess the NEC must not be that tough to meet, huh? :)


Jerry,

Thanks for pointing that code section out.....if you don't mind, I will use that in the future.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

James

First one is 2011 second is 2008 ... 210.8 (A)(7) language has changed.

2011 NEC

(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-
ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in
210.8(A)(1) through (8) shall have ground-fault circuit interrupter
protection for personnel.

(7) Sinks — located in areas other than kitchens where
receptacles are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 NEC

(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and
20-ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in
(1) through (8) shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter
protection for personnel.

(7) Laundry, utility, and wet bar sinks — where the receptacles
are installed within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the outside
edge of the sink


Roger,

About time someone got a breath of intelligence about them and stopped using "wet bar sink" and made it much easier on inspectors by simplifying such to "sink."

I do not peruse the 2011 code because it only stands to confuse inspectors. To wit....prior to 29 Dec 2010, NYS code required compliance to 2002 NEC for residential and 2005 NEC for commercial.

I have heard rumors that we will be adopting 2011 soon but I'm not holding my breath on that.

[Roger Frazee]

James

My apologies I thought you had said you must apply the 6' rule to all receptacles in relationship to a sink as far as gfci is concerned.

After reading again I see where you are just making the point in post 39 that you gfci any receptacle within 6 foot of a sink. I see where you also were referencing to the 6' wall spacing guidelines ... sorry if I confused what you were saying.

I didn't post the code language to say you were wrong .. just so you and all here could see how the language changed as it was new to me and I recently just got access to the 2011.

[Roger Frazee]

Roger,

About time someone got a breath of intelligence about them and stopped using "wet bar sink" and made it much easier on inspectors by simplifying such to "sink."

I do not peruse the 2011 code because it only stands to confuse inspectors. To wit....prior to 29 Dec 2010, NYS code required compliance to 2002 NEC for residential and 2005 NEC for commercial.

I have heard rumors that we will be adopting 2011 soon but I'm not holding my breath on that.

We worked under the 1999 NEC till 2008 ... :)

[Jerry Peck]

We worked under the 1999 NEC till 2008 ... :)

A few years ago IAEI did a survey of AHJ across the country, this was between the 2002 and 2005 NEC editions if I recall correctly, only about 27 states had adopted any version of the NEC, most AHJ were working with a version more than 6 years old (two code cycles out of date), with many AHJ still using versions even older, with one AHJ still using the 1984 NEC - approximately 20 years out of date at that time.

Imagine using a code which was 20 years out of date! :eek:

[Rick Cantrell]

A few years ago IAEI did a survey of AHJ across the country, this was between the 2002 and 2005 NEC editions if I recall correctly, only about 27 states had adopted any version of the NEC, most AHJ were working with a version more than 6 years old (two code cycles out of date), with many AHJ still using versions even older, with one AHJ still using the 1984 NEC - approximately 20 years out of date at that time.

Imagine using a code which was 20 years out of date! :eek:

I suppose you have the latest version of every software on your computer, and also drive the newest (newest = safest) automobile.
Your Jag does have front and side air bags?

[Jerry Peck]

I suppose you have the latest version of every software on your computer, and also drive the newest (newest = safest) automobile.
Your Jag does have front and side air bags?

Only when you stand in front of or beside it. :p :)

Trying to compare using an OLD CODE to construct NEW BUILDINGS - to - driving and maintaining OLD CARS is like trying to compare urine to lemons - both are yellow ... but that's where the resemblance stops. :eek: :p

Now, if you had compared using a 20 year old CODE to construct NEW BUILDINGS - to - manufacturing NEW CARS to 20 year old STANDARDS, yes, that would be a fair comparison ... and I am not aware of anyone who manufacturers new cars to out of date standards.

[Roger Frazee]

A few years ago IAEI did a survey of AHJ across the country, this was between the 2002 and 2005 NEC editions if I recall correctly, only about 27 states had adopted any version of the NEC, most AHJ were working with a version more than 6 years old (two code cycles out of date), with many AHJ still using versions even older, with one AHJ still using the 1984 NEC - approximately 20 years out of date at that time.

Imagine using a code which was 20 years out of date! :eek:

Wow ...20 years ... must of been in Oklahoma..:) No I can't imagine that ....jeez that poor guy has got some catching up to do ....:p One minute your.. (that's for you Ted) ... under 1984 then they come along and say .... hey we gotta catch up so effective today we are under 2008. Hope he has a bottle of headache pills....:D

[Don Hester]

Just for a simple answer to all of this discussion. Code is a minimum no problem exceeding the code. I would say that since it s proximity is close to the sink it would be a good idea, do you have to no! I would let the client make that decision.

Still a good idea, the code is the basement not the ceiling.

[bob smit]

Adopted 2008 NEC late last year. Adopted the 2009 MRC (Michigan Residential Code) in March of this year of our King, 2011.
Now can anyone tell me how our fine politicians can establish the 2009 MRC and not adopt their OWN code until 2011?
A rhetorical question but just saying....
And then, the Contractors ask "what" when I quote Michigan Code Part 8.
Again they say "what" when I quote the Michigan Uniform Energy Code.
And then again they say "what" when I mention the MRC.
Moreover, we all have to do our updates/CEU's every three years, yet the State only addresses the NEC changes. arrrrrrgh:eek:

[Lou Romano]

Wow! That's all, just "wow"!

You can lead an HI and an electrician to a code book but you can't make them all agree!

[Richard D. Fornataro]

I wonder what the legalities are as it concerns contractors performing installations to the accepted albeit not the "latest" code.

In other words, "Could a contractor be liable for performing an installation to the code that is being enforced if such code differs from the latest NEC that has not been adopted by a particular state?

Just a thought for Friday.:o

[Lou Romano]

I wonder what the legalities are as it concerns contractors performing installations to the accepted albeit not the "latest" code.

In other words, "Could a contractor be liable for performing an installation to the code that is being enforced if such code differs from the latest NEC that has not been adopted by a particular state?

Just a thought for Friday.:o


No, the code used is the code adopted and in effect on the date the permit was issued!

It would be a nightmare if they didn't do it that way!

Example: What if you are in the middle of building a house for which you bid and the permit was pulled prior to the code change where all the outlets in the house are now required to be AFCI protected and had only AFCI protected the bedroom outlets as per the previous code?

Permit cards here (Miami-Dade County) state on them what version of the applicable codes they are to be inspected to.

[Jim Port]

I wonder what the legalities are as it concerns contractors performing installations to the accepted albeit not the "latest" code.

In other words, "Could a contractor be liable for performing an installation to the code that is being enforced if such code differs from the latest NEC that has not been adopted by a particular state?

Just a thought for Friday.:o

I asked the head electrical inspector if I could install using a later code than that jurisdiction had adopted. He told me absolutely not. He had asked the legal office for an opinion and they said if it was not the adopted edition is did not exist and to install to that cycle would be illegal.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Here, NYS, if a contractor cancels (voids) a permit for a project under construction, the replacement contractor is required to perform installations to the code in force at the time of THEIR application.

Yes....that does cause problems but we are required to enforce to the code in place at time of issuance of permit and any subsequent contractor cannot utilize the previous contractors permit because of Electrical Licensing issues.

You wouldn't want to have someone else working under your license and maintain responsibility for their work.

We just had a rather large and protracted project where they have changed electrical contractors three times.

Unfortunatley, NYS went from 2005 to 2008 NEC between contractors so items like AFCI and T/R receptacles changed and the new contractor had to assume responsibility for such.

Could have been a nightmare if the previous contractor shared neutrals.

Maybe that's why 2011 will eleiminate that practice.

Now that we breached the subject, it'll probably be an episode on Harry's Law next week.:D

[Wayne Carlisle]

I asked the head electrical inspector if I could install using a later code than that jurisdiction had adopted. He told me absolutely not. He had asked the legal office for an opinion and they said if it was not the adopted edition is did not exist and to install to that cycle would be illegal.

Now that is just STUPID!! The adopted code is the minimum! If the newer code is more restrictive and you install to the newer code then you are going above the minimum code that is required!

Now another look at that same scenerio.... If the newer code had changes to it that was "less" than the adopted code then I would say you would have to install to the most restrictive.

Does that make any sense what I said or do I need to get deeper into it?

[Bill Wieczorek]

First, and what I think Rick is alluding to, is that receptacle is not suitable for the required countertop space receptacle for the island. It is, however, suitable for the required wall space outlet for the room in which you were standing.

To your intended question (as interpolated from the above "first" aspect) - yes, the receptacles which are installed to serve the countertop space are required to be GFCI protected.
What if that island didn't have a sink and was at lesat 6 feet from the closest water source.

[Leo Wheeler]

Yes, All kitchen outlets and Island outlets are required to be GFCI rated outlets. The only exception to this rule is the microwave and the fridge. Most building officials will also allow the garbage disposal to be on a non GFCI outlet.

[ken horak]

.......

[ken horak]

......

[bob smit]

Oops, sorry to get thread off subject.... thought it had been throughly discussed:o
I can't resist replying... Unless the code in effect has language that would prohibit installations performed by a newer code, then it would be legal.

For instance; does your code in effect state that bedrooms shall be AFCI protected? Or, does your code state that 'only' the bedrooms shall be AFCI protected? If the former is true, one could install AFCI circuits anywhere that the AHJ would not deem a hazard or cause a conflict with the code in effect.

I have required AFCI circuits in some non bedroom installations that were performed w/o permits and the entire job was finished. After having every device and fixture removed to 'rough electrical' status, the only thing not visible is in the walls. Usually I can verify above or below for draft stopping and small holes can reveal draft/fire stopping for other locations like R/A's.
Adding an AFCI to the circuits in question satisfies my concerns for freak possibilities.
My job is not to punish by having all coverings removed.... life itself punishes enough for all.
I expect arguments in my approach and rightly so.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Oops, sorry to get thread off subject.... thought it had been throughly discussed:o
I can't resist replying... Unless the code in effect has language that would prohibit installations performed by a newer code, then it would be legal.

For instance; does your code in effect state that bedrooms shall be AFCI protected? Or, does your code state that 'only' the bedrooms shall be AFCI protected? If the former is true, one could install AFCI circuits anywhere that the AHJ would not deem a hazard or cause a conflict with the code in effect.

I have required AFCI circuits in some non bedroom installations that were performed w/o permits and the entire job was finished. After having every device and fixture removed to 'rough electrical' status, the only thing not visible is in the walls. Usually I can verify above or below for draft stopping and small holes can reveal draft/fire stopping for other locations like R/A's.
Adding an AFCI to the circuits in question satisfies my concerns for freak possibilities.
My job is not to punish by having all coverings removed.... life itself punishes enough for all.
I expect arguments in my approach and rightly so.

No argument here.

I suggest that "as an alternative" to removing wall finishes, AFCI protection is encouraged. (Where it was not previously required.)

At the end of the day, it's my name going on the inspection certificate.

If I don't feel comfortable, usually based on the quality (or lack thereof) of what I can see, I see no reason why any contractor would object to such a reasonable proposal.

After all.....I'm not making them do anything.

I'm not the one who got caught doing something illegally.

As far as superceding codes... a good example was when we were on 1999 code STILL and 2005 eliminated the 3 story limitation on NM cable, I did agree that, in anticipation of adoption of the newer code (30 days away) we could accept an installation as long as it met the requirements of the newer code which was less restrictive.

[Jim Port]

What if that island didn't have a sink and was at lesat 6 feet from the closest water source.

Would not change a thing in regards to the receptacle in question by the OP and the receptacles to serve the countertop would still need to be GFI on a SABC.

[Jerry Peck]

I can't resist replying... Unless the code in effect has language that would prohibit installations performed by a newer code, then it would be legal.

Only if the installation *also* met the code which is adopted, of course, though, the code which is adopted *allows* anyone to go as much better than "code minimum" as one so desires, so, you would really only be able to enforce the adopted code minimums, but you could also allow, should also allow, anything better.

[Lou Romano]

Here, NYS, if a contractor cancels (voids) a permit for a project under construction, the replacement contractor is required to perform installations to the code in force at the time of THEIR application.

Yes....that does cause problems but we are required to enforce to the code in place at time of issuance of permit and any subsequent contractor cannot utilize the previous contractors permit because of Electrical Licensing issues.

You wouldn't want to have someone else working under your license and maintain responsibility for their work.

We just had a rather large and protracted project where they have changed electrical contractors three times.

Unfortunatley, NYS went from 2005 to 2008 NEC between contractors so items like AFCI and T/R receptacles changed and the new contractor had to assume responsibility for such.

Could have been a nightmare if the previous contractor shared neutrals.

Maybe that's why 2011 will eleiminate that practice.

Now that we breached the subject, it'll probably be an episode on Harry's Law next week.:D

Here in Miami-Dade County Florida they only allow you to cancel a job that has had no inspections. There are exceptions but they are few. A job started by another contractor that has either walked off the job or was booted for whatever reason requires a "change of contractor" which cancels the previous permit holders responsibility and liability and replaces him/her with the new contractor. The new contractor must assume responsibility and liability for the previous contractors work and hold the County harmless in writing.

It has been my experience that the county will allow the job to continue being completed based on the code in effect at the time the original permit was pulled, not the code if any that has been adopted since. However not all municipalities in Miami-Dade County (there are many City's and Villages etc.) agree on this. Most of them do follow the same procedure for change of contractor though. So if you take over somebody elses job here you will be held responsible and liable for their work!

I am looking at a residential job now that is 3 years old and has had 3 electrical contractors since it began. It already has walls finished and painted but not trimmed out. The owner said there was only a few thousand dollars left in the original contract price. After walking the job I found so many things wrong that the cost to complete it is going to be more than the total of the original price. After researching it further the only permit I was able to find for electrical was for the pool! This is a new 5800 sq ft custom home in Coral Gables. Well to make a long story short, since there is no permit and appears that there never was (I find that extremely hard to believe) the code now in effect is the code that will apply and a lot of damage is going to have to be done to complete the job. I will be walking away from this one :rolleyes:

[Darrel Hood]

Wow! 100 posts and we still have not all agreed on the answer to the original question. Are we anal or what?

[Ken Bates]

In my 12-01-2011 6:28 post I entered the comments below. Instead of one-upmanship why don’t you nit-pickers spend the time to petition NEC to forbid installation of receptacles below all kitchen countertops!!! The time you spent cogitating and researching your arguments is much greater than the time it would take to petition the NEC. Almost anything connected to an electric cord can cause injury to a toddler if it pulls on the cord.

I doubt mine will be "the last word" but I am assuming that the volume of input above was nitpicking about the designated purpose of the below countertop receptacle. ( did not read all the back and forths, etc. )

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO RECEPTACLES BELOW THE COUNTERTOP!!

WHY?? I know a woman who might have grown up to be attractive and normal had she not been disfigured because of the hot cooking oil in a 'FRY BABY' FRYOLATOR. It was a small fryolator so it was called 'baby.' (It fried a baby!!) (There were some big ones that were about the same size as the 'crock pots' that were popular at the same time.) So, Karen who was just a crawling toddler pulled the electric cord and doused herself with 375 F oil and in addition to being disfigured she still has unresolved Freudean type issues with her parents who were part of the problem.

Ace Home Inspections

[Rich Goeken]

......Well to make a long story short, since there is no permit and appears that there never was (I find that extremely hard to believe) the code now in effect is the code that will apply and a lot of damage is going to have to be done to complete the job. I will be walking away from this one :rolleyes:

I assume you will be walking VERY FAST!!! :D

[Richard D. Fornataro]

In my 12-01-2011 6:28 post I entered the comments below. Instead of one-upmanship why don’t you nit-pickers spend the time to petition NEC to forbid installation of receptacles below all kitchen countertops!!! The time you spent cogitating and researching your arguments is much greater than the time it would take to petition the NEC. Almost anything connected to an electric cord can cause injury to a toddler if it pulls on the cord.

I doubt mine will be "the last word" but I am assuming that the volume of input above was nitpicking about the designated purpose of the below countertop receptacle. ( did not read all the back and forths, etc. )

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO RECEPTACLES BELOW THE COUNTERTOP!!

WHY?? I know a woman who might have grown up to be attractive and normal had she not been disfigured because of the hot cooking oil in a 'FRY BABY' FRYOLATOR. It was a small fryolator so it was called 'baby.' (It fried a baby!!) (There were some big ones that were about the same size as the 'crock pots' that were popular at the same time.) So, Karen who was just a crawling toddler pulled the electric cord and doused herself with 375 F oil and in addition to being disfigured she still has unresolved Freudean type issues with her parents who were part of the problem.

Ace Home Inspections


Ken,

Shouldn't you follow your own advice? ;)

Especially since you have innate knowledge of a disfiguring accident?

I have enough trouble just trying to enforce that which is already written in such a way that it can cause so many differing opinions as to the interpretation.

Seriously though, I feel bad for such a trajedy.

I was not intending to make light of it.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Wow! 100 posts and we still have not all agreed on the answer to the original question. Are we anal or what?

I think we can all agree that the picture posted did not provide all the information necessary to consider specifically what the answer should be.

Now multiply that by over 2000+ inspections a year.

Every day while coming to work, a little voice inside my head says "turn around, go back."

Some days that little voice is screaming.

Some situations require consideration of many mitigating factors.

It's never as easy as looking something up and getting a succint answer.

Other than that......I love my job.

[Jerry Peck]

II THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO RECEPTACLES BELOW THE COUNTERTOP!!

I DISAGREE!!

THERE SHOULD BE receptacles below the counter top if that area is wall space, such as is shown in the original post.


WHY?? I know a woman who might have grown up to be attractive and normal had she not been disfigured because of the hot cooking oil in a 'FRY BABY' FRYOLATOR. It was a small fryolator so it was called 'baby.' (It fried a baby!!) (There were some big ones that were about the same size as the 'crock pots' that were popular at the same time.) So, Karen who was just a crawling toddler pulled the electric cord and doused herself with 375 F oil and in addition to being disfigured she still has unresolved Freudean type issues with her parents who were part of the problem.

Yeah, and my younger brother pulled an the table cloth and the coffee pot, with boiling hot coffee in it, feel on him, pouring the boiling hot coffee onto his shoulder, upper arm, and down his back, and, yes, he still has the scars from those burns which happened when he was around 6 years old - so, I guess we do away with gas stoves, coffee pots, and table cloths??

Criminey, guys, just because there is a accident it does not mean you have to change the world to protect everyone from something that ONLY HAPPENS IN RARE ACCIDENTS. :eek: :rolleyes:

I guess you, Ken, would rather have an extension cord run across the floor because there was no receptacle there ... but wait, if you tripped on that cord and something bad happened, then I guess you would want to outlaw extension cords??? :eek: :rolleyes:

[Ted Menelly]

The only thing that receptacle would be used for is the breakfast seating or that counter top, or, a vacuum cleaner. A vacuum cleaner cord could reach down the hall, never mind anywhere in the room that small wall butts up to.

I agree whole heatedly. With all the controversy on if, what, when, where, this receptacle should take a long term sleeping pill and go away. Either that or like I said, high placed gfci protected receptacles so there is no hanging cord and in the case of mishap with water and such the gfci protection will be there.

Just being where it is it WILL only serve the counter space and dangerously so. The vacuum can be plugged in anywhere.

This is only logic and logic alone, s***w the code book. Good better, best, building practices.

[Richard D. Fornataro]

Jerry,

I thought that was the purpose of the code....to protect us all from ourselves.:D

Having said that, let me repeat.

"If you idiot proof everything.......there will eventually be a more evolved idiot!

Isn't that how nature works?

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry,

I thought that was the purpose of the code....to protect us all from ourselves.:D

Nah ... :)

The NEC is only there to attain this level of safety and use: :D
- 90.1 Purpose.
- - (B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

[Jerry McCarthy]

I'm late to this party, but that looks like a kitchen RO to me. What really stands out is the danger of mom pluging in her deep fryer, coffe pot or a griddle into that RO and junior coming along and yanking on the cord. It's outright dangerous at best and a stupid location at worst. Reminds me of the Darwin Candidates who have the GD switches on the outside of their kitchen sink cabinets. :(

[Jerry Peck]

Reminds me of the Darwin Candidates who have the GD switches on the outside of their kitchen sink cabinets. :(

Here is the Darwin Award Winner. :D

[Roger Frazee]

Here is the Darwin Award Winner. :D

I feel sorry for the fish he is feeding to the croc, it understands the danger but is helpless in the hands of a fool. The croc isn't stupid either.. it knows it is getting a free meal and can eat the man whenever it wants. From the size of that croc I'd say the man had several stupid family members that preceded him.