Failed Inspection - Help

[DSamson]

Inspector just failed me because a strip fluorescent is over a junction box. Is he right?

I have 4 foot strip fluorescent fixtures on a residential garage ceiling. The fixtures are fed by NM that lands in a metal box, some 3-0s and some 4" squares with rings. The mud ring is flush with the finished surface and the fixture is surface mounted. The NM conductors, w/o sheath, come through a bushed 1/2" opening in the back of the fixture, and connect to the fixture leads.

The inspector says I need a 3" hole in the sheet metal so the box is accessible without removing the fixture. If that were the case, every ceiling mounted fixture in the house would have to have a 3" hole in the back of it.

He didn't cite a code section, just wouldn't sign the job card. The only thing I can think of that's applicable is 314.29. But I don't think a light fixture is a "part of the building."

This is a residence with over 150 openings, and this is the only thing he didn't like.

 

[raider1]

The inspector is right.

Take a look at 410.24(B) (2008)

410.24 Connection of Electric-Discharge Luminaire.
(B) Access to Boxes. Electric-discharge luminaires surface mounted over concealed outlet, pull, or junction boxes and designed not to be supported solely by the outlet box shall be provided with suitable openings in the back of the luminaire to provide access to the wiring in the box.

A 1/2" KO would not provide access to the wiring in the J-Box.

Chris

 

[DSamson]

Thanks for the help.

 

[raider1]

Your very welcome.

Chris

 

[infinity]

Yes the inspector is correct. I see this freqenutly in high rise building stairwells where the EC runs a riser up to a box with a horizontal mud ring on each landing and then proceeds to install a fixture over the box. For good measure they install a chase nipple in the 1/2" KO in the center of the fixture.

 

[qcroanoke]

The inspector is right.

Take a look at 410.24(B) (2008)



A 1/2" KO would not provide access to the wiring in the J-Box.

Chris

That is a new one on me.
Thanks for helping me keep the egg off my face in the future.

 

[jaylectricity]

I always wondered what that 3" knockout was for.

 

[rexowner]

Take a look at this thread:
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=95799

I often use the snap-in bushings one of the posters mentions
where I make a knockout.

 

[rwreuter]

2 things:

first --- i guess that is why (i think) that when ec's wire for strip lights in garages they don't install a box, they just stub the wire through the sheetrock. i always wondered why that was

second --- my real rant......electrical inspectors that write things up without a code reference. nothing fires me up more than someone in a position of authority to enforce something and then say it is wrong by that very authority and then won't tell you what it violates. don't come to me and tell me i am wrong unless you can support it, if you can't then don't talk to me! at least that is my philosophy when it comes to inspectors.


i will put my bullet proof vest on now....

 

[macmikeman]

Simple macmikefix: Install a box where you are not sure what type of fixture will be the final one picked. Do not strip the sheath off the romex, but coil about a foot of it into the fixture box at rough in. If you end up with a surface mount fluorescent fixture with a 1/2" ko, put a romex connector onto the fixture, bring in your untouched romex into the fixture after securing it with the clamp in the fixture box also. Then terminate the wiring in the fluorescent fixture. Now your romex is secured within 12" of the fixture by the box clamp, secured at the fixture by the romex connector, the sheathed portion is accessable in the fixture, and code is met...... or make a 2" ko in the back of the fixture..... Let it rip fellas

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

He is right but i don't agree with why . We had plenty defending a box behind a mirror. What is the big deal here , if you believe your problem is in that box just pull the fixture down. No damage to building finish. But if he is a by the book guy then yes you must fix . Is is name Shultz ?

 

[A-1Sparky]

I have to agree with Jim W. How is this situation any different than a junction box that is in an extremely-difficult-to-get-to location but is still "accessible." Just another code contradiction I guess. It's definitely more convenient to have access to the junction box without having to remove the fixture, but IMHO should not be code-mandated.

 

[slick 50]

I always wondered what that 3" knockout was for.

after that the light is pretty much cut in half

 

[hardworkingstiff]

......, but IMHO should not be code-mandated.

I have a few of those IMHOs. The inspectors don't seem to think my opinion counts. :grin:

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

It always strikes me as funny that some do not like a code requirement, and do not like to adhere to it, yet on other discussions will vehemently fight for the code issue.

This is a code section in the NEC, we do not have to like it.
I would like to point out 410.24(A) as well.

 

[M. D.]

I found this some time ago.. Just thought I'd throw it out there. I think it is based on 05 so the section number is incorrect the rest of the article remained unchanged .

http://www.ulenvironment.com/global.../regulators/2006ULInspectorsMeetingReport.pdf

Q. Conflict between the NEC? and UL 1598? Section 410.14(B) of the NEC?
requires that if an electric-discharge luminaire is surface-mounted over a
concealed outlet box and designed not to be supported solely by the outlet
box, then is shall be provided with suitable openings in the back of the
luminaire to provide access to the wiring in the box. UL Lists such luminaires
without this required access opening, and has indicated that the UL 1598
Standard permits such Listing if the luminaire weighs less than 10 lb. As this
weight exception does not appear in the Code, there is a conflict between the
NEC? and the UL Standard. What can be done to get the UL Standard
changed to be consistent with the Code?

A. The requirements in UL 1598, the Standard of Safety for Luminaires,
addressing the Code requirement for access to the wiring compartment, have
been in place for many years. In the UL 1570 series of Standards, the
predecessors of the current UL 1598 Standard, the weight limit was 25 pounds
before an access opening was required.

NEC? Section 410.16(B) addresses inspection of splices for all luminaires.
This section requires that the splices be capable of being inspected without
disconnecting any part of the wiring system. The developers of the harmonized
UL 1598 Luminaire Standard recognized the need to have a practical means
to do this, and a maximum weight limit of 10 pounds was the result.

Since these luminaires are not provided with a means to mount them directly
to an outlet or junction box, no access openings are incorporated into the
design. Luminaires of this type are constructed with ?knock out? type entries for
the supply wiring method, they are not intended for use where installed over
an outlet or junction box. The wiring method must be run to the luminaire and
terminations made inside the luminaire itself.

One way to gauge whether there is consensus for requiring access to the
wiring in the box, even with a luminaire weighing 10 pounds or less, is to
submit a proposal to revise UL Standard 1598. Information on how to access
the UL Collaborative Standards Development System (CSDS) and participate
in the UL standards development process can be found on page 383 of the
2006 UL White Book.

 

[M. D.]

It always strikes me as funny that some do not like a code requirement, and do not like to adhere to it, yet on other discussions will vehemently fight for the code issue.

This is a code section in the NEC, we do not have to like it.
I would like to point out 410.24(A) as well.

I find it funny that the inpectors suggested fix is also a code violation :roll:

The inspector says I need a 3" hole in the sheet metal so the box is accessible without removing the fixture.

No ,..you need a listed fixture designed to be supported by an outlet box or wire it per the underlined section of the post above. Field cut holes are, according to the CMP not allowed to accomplish this .

18-65a Log #2921 NEC-P18 Final Action: Reject
(410.14(B))

__________________________________________________ _____________

Submitter: Marcus Sampson, Lysistrata Electric

Recommendation: Revise as follows:
(B) Access to Boxes. Electric-discharge luminaires (fixtures) surface mounted
over concealed, outlet, pull, or junction boxes and designed not to be supported
solely by the outlet box shall be provided with suitable openings in the back of
the luminaire (fixture) to provide access to the wiring in the box. This opening
shall be provided with an approved bushing or shall have smooth, well-rounded
edges which cannot damage the conductors.

Substantiation: Openings in surface mounted luminaires installed over
concealed outlet, pull, or junction boxes are often made in the field with a
knock-out puller or tin snips. These openings are rough at best and often
dangerously sharp.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:The outlet box access opening must be provided as part of
the listed luminaire. Field modification is not intended or permitted by Section
110.3(B).

Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I find it funny that the inpectors suggested fix is also a code violation :roll:

No ,..you need a listed fixture designed to be supported by an outlet box or wire it per the underlined section of the post above. Field cut holes are, according to the CMP not allowed to accomplish this .

Unfortunately, this happens more often than it should, and goes back to the fact that the contractor who is ultimately responsible should be compelled to know what the code in his area requires for whatever type of installation is being performed.
Not an easy answer, but one none the less.
(maybe that is why so many doctors and laywers specialize these days)


My personal opinion is the electrical inspector should be held to the highest standard and know more about the NEC and local codes than the general EC.

 

[A-1Sparky]

So, what if the fixture is designed to be supported solely by the box feeding it? You would then have to take the fixture down to access the box anyway. This design difference makes it acceptable?

 

[marti smith]

Some of the flourescent fixtures come with a larger k/o (maybe 2"?) and if I were to use that to access the box (which I have done) would it then be considered a field-cut hole?