when do I need to use a weatherproof in use cover

[ryandumas28]

when do I need an inuse receptacle cover versus a standard weatherproof receptacle cover. is there any rule with 2 foot or less over requires a in use cover

[76nemo]

Maybe mdshunk can answer this correctly,...................

[mdshunk]

when do I need an inuse receptacle cover versus a standard weatherproof receptacle cover. is there any rule with 2 foot or less over requires a in use coverNo, but I've heard rules of thumb like that. I like to see a pretty substantial porch roof (maybe 8 feet out) before I'm personally okay with just the old-style flipper lid cover. Since I favor the Arlington InBox for everything outside nowadays, I just use them anyhow, even if they're under a porch roof, simply because I think they look really slick. I am kinda curious what the rules of thumb might be in other areas. I've never had a discussion with my inspectors about it.

[mdshunk]

Maybe mdshunk can answer this correctly,...................Yeah, I know. I really should get a hobby.

[peter d]

Yeah, I know. I really should get a hobby.

Why don't you try out Internet Electrical Code Foruming?

[roger]

You will find the correct answer by reading 406.8.

Roger

[76nemo]

Yeah, I know. I really should get a hobby.


Actually, I thought you would pull out the hammer:rolleyes:

[mdshunk]

You will find the correct answer by reading 406.8.
Yeah, but that doesn't address his primary concern. What sort of roof covering does or does not constitute an "unprotected location exposed to weather"? How substantial (distance and height wise, out from the receptacle location) do you need? Almost a question without an answer, and the answer may vary regionally.

[Dennis Alwon]

I see it a bit differently then Marc however it comes down to what is considered wet location.

Here is the art.

406.8(B)(2) Other Receptacles. All other receptacles installed in a wet location shall comply with (B)(2)(a) or (B)(2)(b).
(a) A receptacle installed in a wet location, where the product intended to be plugged into it is not attended while in use, shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof with the attachment plug cap inserted or removed.
(b) A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it will be attended while in use (e.g., portable tools) shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof when the attachment plug is removed.
I find this very interesting-- If I install an outlet in a wet location it does not appear that I need an in use cover unless there is something plugged into it at all times. So why does every jurisdiction make us use in use covers if nothing is plugged into them in a wet location?

[roger]

Yeah, but that doesn't address his primary concern. What sort of roof covering does or does not constitute an "unprotected location exposed to weather"? How substantial (distance and height wise, out from the receptacle location) do you need? Almost a question without an answer, and the answer may vary regionally.

And with any question that is asked on this forum, local rules may and do come into play, so if you live where the OP does or for some reason are privy to his local rules and can answer the question with some substantiation, all we can do is point him to the correct NEC code article and section.

Roger

[mdshunk]

...all we can do is point him to the correct NEC code article and section.As part of my value added replies, I include my stupid opinion too. That's pretty much all I can do. ;)

Surely you have an opinion on what is or is not protection from weather?

[stickboy1375]

why not just use in use covers and not even worry about them old flip top covers... ;) :grin:

[roger]

Surely you have an opinion on what is or is not protection from weather?

Yes I do.

Roger

[mdshunk]

why not just use in use covers and not even worry about them old flip top covers... ;) :grin:That's what I do (due to the slick Arlington piece), but not too long ago all we had was the bubble covers. The customer objection to the looks of them is certainly enough to evaluate whether or not a certain porch roof does or does not provide enough protection from weather to forgo the use of the bubble cover.

[stickboy1375]

The customer objection to the looks of them is certainly enough to evaluate whether or not a certain porch roof does or does not provide enough protection from weather to forgo the use of the bubble cover.


Thats what happens when you give the customer an option... I try and keep it simple... :grin:

[peter d]

why not just use in use covers and not even worry about them old flip top covers... ;) :grin:


I'll admit that I've replaced the bubble covers with the flip-lid covers when the bubble covers broke off. I only did it because I knew they were receptacles where there would never be something left plugged in.

[Dennis Alwon]

That's what I do (due to the slick Arlington piece),

I used the arlington boxes for brick for the first and last time. I installed 4 of them and one is broken. The little plastic nub that the cover attaches to got broken. Now what do I do? Get the brick guy back to fix it? What a PITA--

[tonyou812]

I personally cant think of anything uglier than an FS box mounted on siding with a big ol bubble cover to boot. Your looking at like 8 inches of protursion. and most people look horrified when they see it. I will almost always cut the box in the wall. And I was always led to beileve that if there is a roof over the outlet than it is considered damp location not wet.

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree with Tony on this. Here is the definitions of Locations.

Location, Damp. Locations protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. Examples of such locations include partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold-storage warehouses.
Location, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness or wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction.
Location, Wet. Installations underground or in concrete slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas; and in unprotected locations exposed to weather.

[mdshunk]

And I was always led to beileve that if there is a roof over the outlet than it is considered damp location not wet.See, where my hang-up lies is due to the fact that rain is often associated with wind. Matter of fact, every now and again it will literally "rain sideways". Does a roof that provides substantial protection from weather 364 out of 365 days of the year still qualify as protection from weather?

[Dennis Alwon]

See, where my hang-up lies is due to the fact that rain is often associated with wind. Matter of fact, every now and again it will literally "rain sideways". Does a roof that provides substantial protection from weather 364 out of 365 days of the year still qualify as protection from weather?

Look at the damp location definition. I would think that it fits but I hear you. Shall we plan for hurricanes, etc. Reasonable is up to the ahj on this one. There is no easy answer....

[76nemo]

I personally cant think of anything uglier than an FS box mounted on siding with a big ol bubble cover to boot. Your looking at like 8 inches of protursion. and most people look horrified when they see it. I will almost always cut the box in the wall. And I was always led to beileve that if there is a roof over the outlet than it is considered damp location not wet.


Is that any uglier than a WP box with a regular recep unprotected? I did a house three years ago only to come over and very well compliment the deck work until I saw he tapped off of my GP circuit and have unprotected outside recep's. How's that suit you? After all of the time I spent putting that residence above and beyond, some handyman comes in later and taps off of my work:mad:

[mdshunk]

Look at the damp location definition.Yeah, I know, but "such as" doesn't necessarily qualify the location in every case.

[stickboy1375]

I personally like the 45º angle to determine damp from wet.

[mdshunk]

I personally like the 45º angle to determine damp from wet.I recently learned that's how the DOT guys check to see if your truck needs mud flaps or not. Draw a 45º angle from where the tire contacts the road, toward the rear bumper. If the line hits the bumper first, you're good. If that line comes out beyond the back of the truck, you require mud flaps. (The ticket is 144 dollars :) )

[stickboy1375]

I recently learned that's how the DOT guys check to see if your truck needs mud flaps or not. Draw a 45º angle from where the tire contacts the road, toward the rear bumper. If the line hits the bumper first, you're good. If that line comes out beyond the back of the truck, you require mud flaps. (The ticket is 144 dollars :) )



Every time I follow a truck I dont think it helps... :grin:

[C3PO]

I see it a bit differently then Marc however it comes down to what is considered wet location.

Here is the art.


I find this very interesting-- If I install an outlet in a wet location it does not appear that I need an in use cover unless there is something plugged into it at all times. So why does every jurisdiction make us use in use covers if nothing is plugged into them in a wet location?

Dennis, isn't Section 406.8(B)(2) for "other receptacles" as in receptacles other than 406.8(B)(1) which is for 15 & 20 Ampere receptacles in a wet location. I believe B 1 requires in use covers regardless of intended use. :confused:

[tonyou812]

My other problem with bubble covers is how many times do you see them with the cover broken off? The way I see it the customer plugs into it and while they are using the cord for a weed wacker or blower or something that requires them to move around, inevitably the cord catches the side of the cover and "snap" its gone. Im not saying that bubble covers dont "save" lives but why cant someone make one that wont break off when the wind blows?
In new construction Ill almost always use the sunken in ones, these make the most sense and have a lower failure rate.

[iwire]

I see it a bit differently then Marc however it comes down to what is considered wet location.

Here is the art.

406.8(B)(2) Other Receptacles. All other receptacles installed in a wet location shall comply with (B)(2)(a) or (B)(2)(b).
(a) A receptacle installed in a wet location, where the product intended to be plugged into it is not attended while in use, shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof with the attachment plug cap inserted or removed.
(b) A receptacle installed in a wet location where the product intended to be plugged into it will be attended while in use (e.g., portable tools) shall have an enclosure that is weatherproof when the attachment plug is removed.


I find this very interesting-- If I install an outlet in a wet location it does not appear that I need an in use cover unless there is something plugged into it at all times. So why does every jurisdiction make us use in use covers if nothing is plugged into them in a wet location?

That section only applies to receptacles that are not 125 or 250 Volt 15 or 20 amp.

406.8(B)(1) requires ALL 15 and 20 amp 125 or 240 volt receptacles to have a bubble cover in wet locations regardless of any other circumstances. (Well there is one exception for high pressure wash down areas)


I also believe in the unwritten 45 degree rule. :smile:

[peter d]

Im not saying that bubble covers dont "save" lives but why cant someone make one that wont break off when the wind blows?


The only ones that won't snap off are the die-cast metal ones from Red Dot. I like to use those whenever I can. :)

[jdsmith]

The only ones that won't snap off are the die-cast metal ones from Red Dot. I like to use those whenever I can. :)

Hvae you ever painted them to help with the ugliness factor? I don't see why it wouldn't work, it's just a lot of time.

[LarryFine]

Actually, I thought you would pull out the hammer:rolleyes:
Nah, a megger. ;)