# Kitchen peninsula receptacles under 42" bar countertop with 13" overhang



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

You can put as many as you want there. Yes it can be from the SABC.


----------



## RGH (Sep 12, 2011)

I agree no real issue.........but 3" below a 13" overhang.....why not a little lower or are you trying to hide them?.....sounds inconvenient, puzzeled.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

svh19044 said:


> You can put as many as you want there. Yes it can be from the SABC.


IMO it cannot be on the small appliance branch circuit if the receptacles are facing the living room. It will not qualify for the small appliance branch circuit so something has to be done for that but the fact that the overhang is more than 12" makes the receptacles not a small appliance branch circuit but rather a living room circuit


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

I tend to agree with Dennis on this one.

Pete


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> IMO it cannot be on the small appliance branch circuit if the receptacles are facing the living room. It will not qualify for the small appliance branch circuit so something has to be done for that but the fact that the overhang is more than 12" makes the receptacles not a small appliance branch circuit but rather a living room circuit


We are going on the assumption that he already has the required peninsula receptacle. These are in addition to that one.

It has an overhang so we can assume that bar stools are going there. Regardless of being on the living room side, how is that not still part of the kitchen/breakfast bar/peninsula? You can have as many wall outlets as you want on the SABC in the kitchen nook, eat in kitchen, or dining room. The idea that them facing the living room makes them part of the living room simply because they are slightly lower than the peninsula required height/location is absurd.

That's stretching it and only a real prick of an inspector would call someone out on something like that as it isn't explicitly prohibited. In fact, it isn't prohibited at all.

The breakfast bar/peninsula is part of the allowable areas for for SABC's to be shared. Simply not counting as the required SABC receptacle on the peninsula does not automatically exclude it from being on the SABC. See above for examples and obvious proof of that.

Let's go a step farther with the particular placement of these specific receptacles, which are just beneath the kitchen countertop. Aside from them being USB receptacles, common sense might dictate that people might just plug a toaster in to that receptacle while the kids are getting ready for school. While it is not as accessible as the required location, it sure would be conveinent for a small appliance. 

I'd like to hear the logic that has brought you to your conclusion, as I see Donnie's question as a fair one to be asked. Perhaps it is something in the 2014 NEC that I am unaware of, but as you presented your case under previous code cycles, it is a complete fallacy.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

I read my post as coming across as rude and that was not my intention, so my apologies for that. I'm just trying to state my side and opinion on the matter with relevant information while seeking clarification on the contrary.

And yes, I have actually done very similar before and had zero second thoughts about doing so.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

svh19044 said:


> only a real prick of an inspector would call someone out on something like that .





Pete m. said:


> I tend to agree with Dennis on this one


:laughing:


----------



## donniet1977 (Nov 19, 2013)

RGH said:


> I agree no real issue.........but 3" below a 13" overhang.....why not a little lower or are you trying to hide them?.....sounds inconvenient, puzzeled.


These receptacles are almost exclusively for charging cell phones and maybe tablets. I want them as high as possible to avoid contact with the knees. I have 3 receptacles on the kitchen side that meet the code requirement although I am only required to have 2 receptacles on peninsula to cover the two separated counter spaces.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> I read my post as coming across as rude and that was not my intention, so my apologies for that. I'm just trying to state my side and opinion on the matter with relevant information while seeking clarification on the contrary.
> 
> And yes, I have actually done very similar before and had zero second thoughts about doing so.


Ok, you got me... I'm a prick.

If the countertop, on the peninsula, extends more than 6" beyond it's supporting base NO receptacle under said overhang can be counted as serving the countertop.

If said receptacle is not located in the kitchen (and I mean kitchen by definition in article 100) and it is also not located in one of the other areas that the 2 or more small appliance branch circuits are permitted to supply (meaning the living room) how is it OK by code? 

If you feed a receptacle in the living room from a SABC you are obviously not creating a hazard to life or property you are simply creating a code violation.

Pete


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Awg-Dawg said:


> :laughing:


I see what you did there.  :laughing:

Pete


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Pete m. said:


> Ok, you got me... I'm a prick.
> 
> If the countertop, on the peninsula, extends more than 6" beyond it's supporting base NO receptacle under said overhang can be counted as serving the countertop.
> 
> ...


It is on the peninsula, with seats. Seats at a kitchen countertop. Where people eat. You know, serving as part of the kitchen.

Would you also fail an eat in kitchen with a table simply because you don't like it? How about a nook with little table adjacent to the kitchen? And the dining room? Obviously you wouldn't. Well....I take that back.

And I didn't even read your first response, my reply was to Dennis.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> It is on the peninsula, with seats. Seats at a kitchen countertop. Where people eat. You know, serving as part of the kitchen.


I personally wouldn't care if the receptacles were located at a table in the garage that someone is eating a sandwich at. 

The point is... the receptacle is either located to serve a countertop in a *kitchen* (which in the OP it isn't) or it's located in wall space in a *kitchen* (which in the OP it isn't) or it's in an area permitted to be served by the one or more SABC's (which in the OP it isn't).



> Would you also fail an eat in kitchen with a table simply because you don't like it?


No... half the kitchens I inspect I don't like... doesn't mean I fail them. The only reason I point out the _contractors failure_ is if there is a legitimite code infraction.



> And I didn't even read your first response, my reply was to Dennis. But if you fit the description, there you go.


My first response was that I agree with Dennis. And, to quench your curiosity, typically I'm not a prick. There you go.

Pete


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Pete m. said:


> I personally wouldn't care if the receptacles were located at a table in the garage that someone is eating a sandwich at.
> 
> The point is... the receptacle is either located to serve a countertop in a *kitchen* (which in the OP it isn't) or it's located in wall space in a *kitchen* (which in the OP it isn't) or it's in an area permitted to be served by the one or more SABC's (which in the OP it isn't).
> 
> ...


Your theory is that the receptacle is facing the living room, and not part of the one required peninsula receptacle on the SABC, therefor making it a part of the living room.

However, you shorten the countertop to 6", move the outlet up 3", and now all of the sudden facing the living room is irrelevant. Do you fail to see the fallacy?

It is on the peninsula. Serving as part of the eat in kitchen.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> Your theory is that the receptacle is facing the living room, and not part of the one required peninsula receptacle on the SABC, therefor making it a part of the living room.
> 
> However, you shorten the countertop to 6", move the outlet up 3", and now all of the sudden facing the living room is irrelevant. Do you fail to see the fallacy?
> 
> It is on the peninsula. Serving as part of the eat in kitchen.


If you change the dynamics of the question you will assuredly change the answer.

If the receptacle could be considered to be serving the countertop and was intended to, I could buy that all day long.

That wasn't the case in the OP and that's why I said I agreed with Dennis.

Pete


----------



## donniet1977 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pete m. said:


> I personally wouldn't care if the receptacles were located at a table in the garage that someone is eating a sandwich at.
> 
> The point is... the receptacle is either located to serve a countertop in a *kitchen* (which in the OP it isn't) or it's located in wall space in a *kitchen* (which in the OP it isn't) or it's in an area permitted to be served by the one or more SABC's (which in the OP it isn't).
> 
> ...


It actually will serve the countertop. Think cell phone charging on countertop. I guess the overhang is just too big to count as a required receptacle but the majority opinion seems to be that it not counting as a required peninsula receptacle does not mean that it is not allowed to be there.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Regardless, a SABC does not have to serve the countertop anyway. 

Put a small desk in the kitchen, put a couple USB receptacles under the desk at standard wall recep height, and yep, they can be on the SABC. Or have a couple receps along the exterior open perimeter wall. Good to go. Or the entire dining room. But apparently some inspectors are of the opinion that because they face a living room, even though they are located on a peninsula with bar stools, they can't be on the SABC. Somehow that side of the peninsula is no longer part of the kitchen (again, because it faces the living room, forgetting that it is a bar/eat in kitchen).

It's odd reasoning for sure. Hopefully your inspector listens to a rational argument if he initially fails this or states that you simply can't share these receptacles with the SABC.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

donniet1977 said:


> It actually will serve the countertop. Think cell phone charging on countertop. I guess the overhang is just too big to count as a required receptacle but the majority opinion seems to be that it not counting as a required peninsula receptacle does not mean that it is not allowed to be there.


I, nor Dennis, ever said it was not permitted to "be there". But, according to the NEC, and *not* my personal opinion, it could not be counted as serving the countertop and the fact that it is in the living room area it cannot be fed by a SABC.

Pete


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

It is in and on the peninsula/island. Where people are eating. As in an eat in kitchen. It is not serving the living room.

It is not on some random wall inside the living room. According to the *NEC*, a peninsula or island does not need any receptacles to feed the living room.

Actually serving the countertop per NEC is a horrible argument being that you can have standard wall height receptacles on the SABC.

It is your opinion that it is in the living room. It is fact that it is located on the island/peninsula as part of the kitchen.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> Regardless, a SABC does not have to serve the countertop anyway.


If the countertop is in the living room then we agree. If, however, the countertop is in a kitchen we don't.





> Put a small desk in the kitchen, put a couple USB receptacles under the desk at standard wall recep height, and yep, they can be on the SABC.


Yep, they can.. ONLY because they are in the kitchen. 




> Or have a couple receps along the exterior open perimeter wall. Good to go. Or the entire dining room.


Again, we agree.



> But apparently some inspectors are of the opinion that because they face a living room, even though they are located on a peninsula with bar stools, they can't be on the SABC.


The only inspectors that I know which would think like this are ones who actually read and understand the code as written.



> Somehow that side of the peninsula is no longer part of the kitchen (again, because it faces the living room, forgetting that it is a bar/eat in kitchen).


The "somehow" is found right in the NEC... seriously I'm not making this stuff up!



> It's odd reasoning for sure.


I find it odd that you have such heartburn with a completely black and white code section.



> Hopefully your inspector listens to a rational argument if he initially fails this or states that you simply can't share these receptacles with the SABC.


Why would you expect the inspector to listen to what you would call "a rational argument" when you haven't grasped what the NEC requirements are? Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they don't exist. What I have pointed out are not my opinions. They are adopted law, AFAIK, in your jurisdiction.

Pete


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

An opinionated inspector. The worst kind.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> It is in and on the peninsula/island. Where people are eating. As in an eat in kitchen. It is not serving the living room.
> 
> It is not on some random wall inside the living room. According to the *NEC*, a peninsula or island does not need any receptacles to feed the living room.
> 
> ...


Read the OP again.

The receptacles in question cannot and are not serving the peninsula. Whether or not people will sit there and eat a meal is irrelevant.

The receptacles are located in the living room.

Show me the NEC section that allows a SABC to serve the living room. I can certainly show you the section that doesn't allow it.

Do you own a code book? Or, are you gonna keep arguing your point because you think it "makes sense"? 

Hell man, I live daily reading and understanding the book... and all I've learned so far is that most of it don't make sense.

Pete


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> An opinionated inspector. The worst kind.


No, an honest one... the* rarest* kind.

Pete


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

svh19044 said:


> An opinionated inspector. The worst kind.


That was not necessary. Just because someone does not agree with you is not a reason for calling him opinionated.

I tend to agree but I understand the concept of the sitting area perhaps being considered a nook area so to speak. The code is not clear here and IMO If the area is a sitting area then no receptacles should be required there at all. The question is what will be plugged in-- a vacuum perhaps lamps etc-- not something for the small appliance branch circuit. 

Not sure I would make a big deal over it as an inspector but I still think it should not be on a sabc


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

The receptacles are located in part of an eat in kitchen, which happens to be a peninsula/island. Seats. (Permanent) Table. Food. Kitchen.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

svh19044 said:


> The receptacles are located in part of an eat in kitchen, which happens to be a peninsula/island. Seats. (Permanent) Table. Food. Kitchen.


So if I put a table in my living room to snack on does that room now become dining room? I can have built in window seats in the room also. 

I am just saying that it can be looked at two ways. The eat in part of the kitchen is in the living room- I know in the past around here we had to install it on the living room circuit but if the dining room was on that side then the small appliance branch circuit could be used.

It is definitely not clear.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> The receptacles are located in part of an eat in kitchen, which happens to be a peninsula/island. Seats. (Permanent) Table. Food. Kitchen.


Here is the OP:



> I want two 120V/USB receptacles 3" below the 42" high peninsula countertop bar (13"overhang) on the *living room side* to mainly facilitate cell phone/tablet charging. I'd like to add these into one of the two kitchen small appliance branch circuits.


If the receptacles do not qualify to serve the countertop (which they absolutely do not) and they are in the living room area (which they absolutely are) how is it you can justify, per the NEC, that they can be connected to the SABC?

Pete


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

How do you interpret 210.52 (C) (5) ?

Receptacles shall be mounted on or above the countertop.

The exception states that they can be mounted not more that 12" below the countertop and also that they cannot be located where the countertop extends more than 6" beyond it's support base. Isn't it a safety issue? Do you have to put a disclaimer on the receptacle stating that it does not, in fact, serve the countertop?

210.52 (B) (2)


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

wendon said:


> How do you interpret 210.52 (C) (5) ?
> 
> Receptacles shall be mounted on or above the countertop.
> 
> The exception states that they can be mounted not more that 12" below the countertop and also that they cannot be located where the countertop extends more than 6" beyond it's support base. Isn't it a safety issue? Do you have to put a disclaimer on the receptacle stating that it does not, in fact, serve the countertop?


No, the question is simply location.

Pete


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> Here is the OP:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


there location is* in the kitchen*, only 'facing' the living room


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

360max said:


> there location is* in the kitchen*, only 'facing' the living room


Could be... 

I assumed (bad on me) that the peninsula wall where the offending receptacles were located was part of the living room.


If the peninsula wall we have been discussing is actually in the "kitchen" as defined in article 100... I stand corrected and those receptacles could be served from the SABC.

That is not what I got from the OP.

Pete


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Pete m. said:


> Could be...
> 
> I assumed (bad on me) that the peninsula wall where the offending receptacles were located was part of the living room.


 

I think you could do with more training.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I think you could do with more training.


Do you have no mercy?!?!?!:laughing:

Pete


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Pete m. said:


> No, the question is simply location.
> 
> Pete


I think what he was saying since the island is in the kitchen then the back side is also part of the island since chairs are there, etc. In fact it is not in the kitchen proper but could be construed as part of the kitchen. Again this is really an authority having jurisdiction call, imo.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> So if I put a table in my living room to snack on does that room now become dining room? I can have built in window seats in the room also.
> 
> I am just saying that it can be looked at two ways. The eat in part of the kitchen is in the living room- I know in the past around here we had to install it on the living room circuit but if the dining room was on that side then the small appliance branch circuit could be used.
> 
> It is definitely not clear.


An eat in kitchen, a dining room, and a breakfast nook are all allowed to be on the SABC. 

Being that the peninsula countertop is pretty permeant, I think it's obvious what it was designed for. It is part of the kitchen, and quite obviously so being that it is a kitchen peninsula requiring the countertop circuit. Add in the overhang and stools, it's clear exactly what it is. How a part of the peninsula, especially one with the overhang meant to eat at, can somehow be labeled as living room is what I'm not grasping. 

As for your other examples, if this were new construction and the areas were designated as such allowable areas under NEC, I don't see how it could possibly be failed. So yes, if you were remodeling and had built in window seats with a. Table calling it a breakfast nook in an adjacent room to the kitchen, it is exactly word for word covered by code.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I think what he was saying since the island is in the kitchen then the back side is also part of the island since chairs are there, etc. In fact it is not in the kitchen proper but could be construed as part of the kitchen. Again this is really an authority having jurisdiction call, imo.


Think of it this way....

You have an L shaped peninsula, or Z shaped, or H shaped, which juts out in to another "room". The only reason that is another room is because somewhere int he brain, you (not directly you) put up imaginary walls deeming it to be another room. It's just like thinking all rooms are square when they aren't. 

But in this case, the peninsula is actually part of the kitchen. The idea of it being in some made up room isn't even relevant. It faces a room that happens to be a living room. Nothing less, nothing more.

So yes, you are understanding my point and it's much appreciated.


----------



## donniet1977 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pete m. said:


> Could be...
> 
> I assumed (bad on me) that the peninsula wall where the offending receptacles were located was part of the living room.
> 
> ...


I said living room side just as a descriptor so that you would know which side of the peninsula I was talking about. This peninsula bar is commonly called a breakfast bar or breakfast nook. The wording is not exactly these terms but here is the 2011 NEC:

210.52 (B)
(B) Small Appliances.
(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry,
_breakfast room_, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling
unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch
circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and
floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop
outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for
refrigeration equipment.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

svh19044 said:


> An eat in kitchen, a dining room, and a breakfast nook are all allowed to be on the SABC.
> 
> Being that the peninsula countertop is pretty permeant, I think it's obvious what it was designed for. It is part of the kitchen, and quite obviously so being that it is a kitchen peninsula requiring the countertop circuit. Add in the overhang and stools, it's clear exactly what it is. How a part of the peninsula can somehow be labeled as living room is what I'm not grasping.
> 
> As for your other examples, if this were new construction and the areas were designated as such allowable areas under NEC, I don't see how it could possibly be failed. So yes, if you were remodeling and had built in window seats with a. Table calling it a breakfast nook, it is exactly word for word covered by code.


I will concede that if the peninsula is entirely located in the kitchen (again, as defined by the NEC) the receptacles could be on the SABC.

I took it as one wall of the peninsula was actually a wall of the living room. If that is the actual condition then I stand by what I've said.

Still don't mean I'm a prick.. :no::laughing:

Pete


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> I will concede that if the peninsula is entirely located in the kitchen (again, as defined by the NEC) the receptacles could be on the SABC.
> 
> I took it as one wall of the peninsula was actually a wall of the living room. If that is the actual condition then I stand by what I've said.
> 
> ...


This has been an interesting discussion. I can see different inspectors I have failing it either way, kind of no win there. And Pete, of course you're a prick, you're an inspector! Ha Ha Ha!!!!


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

It's early so forgive me, but I think we are overlooking some requirements here.

For this, imagine one big room. Half of the room is carpeted, half tiled. The kitchen is in the tiled area. The areas are split by a peninsula that extends 6' from the wall.

I will contend that the living room side of the peninsula is in the living room and will/should be subject to standard 6'/12', and installing receptacles, fed from the SABC, on the living room side is against code. Furthermore, a receptacle is required to be installed on that peninsula fed from a general receptacle circuit.

From 2011...

*210.52 A 2
*
(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

My argument would not be accurate if the peninsula is surrounded by tile, however, if the carpet runs directly into the peninsula, I believe I'm correct.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

So flooring type now determines a peninsula and/or islands use and location according to the NEC? 

This is just getting ridiculous. This particular peninsula has island seating serving as part of the kitchen. It's not a wall blocking off the kitchen and dividing the kitchen with another room, but rather a pure extension and part of the kitchen (again, quite obviously so).

If there were no overhang and there was seating on the other/opposite side, and this was a wall, this would not be a discussion. That is not what is going on in this situation.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Meh, just call the coffee table your dining room table, and your couch you dining chairs. Now he room mystically transforms into a dining room, which can be loaded with receptacles on the SABCs. 

I wouldn't have any qualms about putting said USB receptacle on the sabc, since it will be I. Essence serving the countertop and not the room that it faces. I think in this case intent should matter more than physical orientation.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Many time a flooring change is the only change that would dictate a rooms definition.

How do you explain away the code I cited. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Deep Cover said:


> Many time a flooring change is the only change that would dictate a rooms definition.
> 
> How do you explain away the code I cited. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


Read the last paragraph in my previous post.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

svh19044 said:


> Read the last paragraph in my previous post.


The code I cited makes no mention of overhang so your argument isn't valid.

You are using your opinion. The code is pretty black and white.


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Deep Cover said:


> The code I cited makes no mention of overhang so your argument isn't valid.
> 
> You are using your opinion. The code is pretty black and white.


You're right, it is black and white.

*room dividers*

The countertop shared with the kitchen and the peninsula where seats are sitting at said countertop is not in another room. It is PART of the kitchen. It is not DIVIDING the rooms. That area is seating for the KITCHEN COUNTERTOP as I have stated numerous times. I have no clue of how that can be argued.

Make the overhang on the kitchen side, no seating on the living room side for said countertop, and you have a valid argument.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Please show me where room definitions depend on where seating is located.

What if there was no seating? Think of an appetizer bar. Would that change your opinion?


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Deep Cover said:


> Please show me where room definitions depend on where seating is located.
> 
> What if there was no seating? Think of an appetizer bar. Would that change your opinion?


a buffet table? A serving table? It sounds like you just defined a dining room. or an extension of the kitchen. your statement is the exact reason why dining rooms are required to be on the small appliance branch circuit. Even at standard wall receptacle Height.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

So we went from living room to dining room because there was no seating at the peninsula.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

210.52 (B)
(B) Small Appliances.
(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry,
_breakfast room_, dining room, *or similar area of a dwelling
unit,* the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch
circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and
floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop
outlets covered by 210.52(C), and receptacle outlets for
refrigeration equipment.

The "or similar area of a dwelling unit" is your answer. Seating at a peninsula IS a "similar area." As another poster alluded to, the livingroom does not "begin" where the peninsula ends. Which way the receptacles face is irrelevant. No, these receptacle(s) do not satisfy the requirement for peninsula receptacles, they're _in addition to, _therefore going above and beyond the code's natural _minimum standards._ What is the danger here if the OP plugged a vacuum in? I plug a vacuum in the kitchen to touch up the entry stairs all the time. It's more convenient than bending over. What is this talk about plugging something, _anything_ in "not intended for the SABC?" Is there some code it has to be a cooking device? No.


----------



## ablyss (Feb 8, 2014)

donniet1977 said:


> I realize that a receptacle on a peninsula less than 12" below the countertop but under an overhang greater than 6" will not count as the required peninsula receptacle, but can it still be there? I have read this over and over in the 2011 NEC and I do not see that I can't put one there. I only see that it won't meet the peninsula receptacle requirement.
> 
> To make it even more grey, can it be on one of the small branch appliance circuits?
> 
> ...


I'd like to comment on this but I hope I don't sound like a broken record as I have not taken the time to read everyone's comments. But the simple answer to this excellent question is yes you can, provided the required outlet is also installed.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

ablyss said:


> I'd like to comment on this but I hope I don't sound like a broken record as I have not taken the time to read everyone's comments. But the simple answer to this excellent question is yes you can, provided the required outlet is also installed.


Take the time to read all the posts. Your question will be answered.

Pete


----------



## svh19044 (Jul 1, 2008)

Pete m. said:


> Take the time to read all the posts. Your question will be answered.
> 
> Pete


He didn't ask a question. He made a statement. :thumbsup:


:laughing:


----------



## ablyss (Feb 8, 2014)

Damn, I know I don't speak very good engwish but now I wonder about me's typing skillz:laughing:


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

IslandGuy said:


> 210.52 (B)
> (B) Small Appliances.
> (1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry,
> _breakfast room_, dining room, *or similar area of a dwelling
> ...


I appreciate you citing an actual code, but I don't really see it the same as you. I do think the way the receptacles face matters. 

If this wasn't a peninsula, and there was a half wall behind cabinets I don't think we'd be discussing this at all (with or without an overhang). What about a pass thru with an overhanging counter, is that area under the pass thru/under the overhang, then considered an eating area?

I think it goes back to the first couple posts. It's best to ask your inspector if he'd be OK with it.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Deep Cover said:


> I appreciate you citing an actual code, but I don't really see it the same as you. I do think the way the receptacles face matters.
> 
> If this wasn't a peninsula, and there was a half wall behind cabinets I don't think we'd be discussing this at all (with or without an overhang). What about a pass thru with an overhanging counter, is that area under the pass thru/under the overhang, then considered an eating area?
> 
> I think it goes back to the first couple posts. It's best to ask your inspector if he'd be OK with it.


 I would say a pass through would be in the living room area, if there was no countertop overhang. But with an overhang, kneewall or peninsula, designed for seating at the countertop overhang, it's a "similar area" in my book. If it's a location that you'd naturally place a TV or a hutch or something other than kitchen seating, then it's part of the living room.

I'm looking at this as "what is the lesser of 2 evils?" Would you rather have a receptacle on the SABC used as one would a convenience outlet, or a convenience outlet being utilized for a toaster? I choose the former.

Keep in mind, In my experience in residential over 20 years ago, nothing but SABC got #12 awg wire on 20a circuits. All living rooms, bedrooms, dens, lighting, boiler, got #14 on 15a circuits. My understanding is nowadays it's common for contractors to opt for fewer 20amp circuits and it may well be that the receptacles in question are going to be on a 20a circuit, whether a SABC or the living room circuit. And if that's the case, then AFAIC, I wouldn't care which circuit was used.


----------

