Thread: ISLAND OUTLET NON GFCI

......

Originally Posted by ken horak

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....

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Richard D. Fornataro

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?

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

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 ......

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

I always check my spellin ......

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

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

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

TED

I always check my spellin ......

Jist sayin

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

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

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Richard D. Fornataro

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 ...

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

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!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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!

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?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

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!

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 .... 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....

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.

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

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!

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

.......

......

Oops, sorry to get thread off subject.... thought it had been throughly discussed
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.

Originally Posted by bob smit

Oops, sorry to get thread off subject.... thought it had been throughly discussed
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.

Originally Posted by Bill Wieczorek

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.

Originally Posted by bob smit

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

......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

I assume you will be walking VERY FAST!!!

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by Darrel Hood

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.

Originally Posted by Ken Bates

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.

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???

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.

Jerry,

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

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?

Originally Posted by Richard D. Fornataro

Jerry,

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

Nah ...

The NEC is only there to attain this level of safety and use:
- 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Here is the Darwin Award Winner.

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.