Appliance Cord thru the cabinet panel

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
dnem said:
rather it doesn't meet the specs of the listing because of field modification.

It may not meet the specs, you do not know that it does not meet the specs.

For that matter it may exceed the requirements.

For instance a 6' cord might be a minimum length, longer could be fine.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
iwire said:
It may not meet the specs, you do not know that it does not meet the specs.

For that matter it may exceed the requirements.

For instance a 6' cord might be a minimum length, longer could be fine.

So do you propose a 10,000 page UL Whitebook so that everything is documented in complete detail ?

Of course all of your listed possiblities may or may not be true, but if an inspector is so frozen with the possible what-ifs, he will never do anything. . This web site has proven very helpful to me in working out logic and developing and building points thru reason. . But as was shown clearly in the For Inspectors.... thread, endlessly choosing the most extreme interpretation leads to inability to use common sense.

There must be an attempt to determine what is meant by the words chosen in any particular code section followed by an analysis using common sense with a strong focus on actual safety concerns.

David
 
I agree with the cord through the wall with excep.

I agree with the cord through the wall with excep.

the cord throught the wall of the cab is fine except the fact that the recep and coverplate are behind back of cab I would then make shure that the recep can be serviced w/out removal of cab.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
dnem said:
So do you propose a 10,000 page UL Whitebook so that everything is documented in complete detail ?

No David, what I saying is you can not assume anything.

Just because a cord is replaced does not mean the unit does not meet specs.
 

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
kentriolinda said:
the cord throught the wall of the cab is fine except the fact that the recep and coverplate are behind back of cab I would then make shure that the recep can be serviced w/out removal of cab.


Are you serious? Be tough to plug somthing in if the cabinet was covering the receptacle.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Are all entertaiment centers and computer desks in violation if the power cords travel through a hole in order to be plugged in to a receptacle?

What about office spaces where counter tops are provided with gromets for the power cords to go through so all the receptacles can be below the the work space?

Roger
 

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
#5 seems to say its a wall.If its a hazard to run a cord thru a normall drywall type wall how is this differant ?Today its a micro on this shelf tomorrow its what ? I see this as the inspectors call.What good reason was there to not put receptacle on wall of shelf ?

Fix is easy,remove micro till inspector is gone.No this wont fool him but it takes the liability on his part away.


Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'wo l
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English weall; akin to Middle High German wall; both from Latin vallum rampart, from vallus stake, palisade; perhaps akin to Old Norse volr staff -- more at WALE
1 a : a high thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for defense -- often used in plural b : a masonry fence around a garden, park, or estate c : a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as of water or sliding earth)
2 : one of the sides of a room or building connecting floor and ceiling or foundation and roof
3 : the side of a footpath next to buildings
4 : an extreme or desperate position or a state of defeat, failure, or ruin -- usually used in the phrase to the wall
5 : a material layer enclosing space <the wall of a container> <heart walls>
6 : something resembling a wall (as in appearance, function, or effect) ; especially : something that acts as a barrier or defense <a wall of reserve> <tariff wall>
- walled/'wo ld/ adjective
- wall-like/'wo l-"līk/ adjective
- up the wall slang : into a state of intense agitation, annoyance, or frustration <the noise drove me up the wall>

Pronunciation Key

More Information: Audio
 

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
roger said:
Are all entertaiment centers and computer desks in violation if the power cords travel through a hole in order to be plugged in to a receptacle?

What about office spaces where counter tops are provided with gromets for the power cords to go through so all the receptacles can be below the the work space?

Roger

Actually my own desk may be is a violation as the cords go thru the top but then thats not a wall.Gotta run the nec cop is at the door
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Jim W in Tampa said:
#5 seems to say its a wall.

If by #5 you mean 400.8(5), then that interpretation would cause 422.16(B)(2)(4) to be in conflict with 400.8(5) unless you view 422.16(B)(2)(4) as a "backdoor" exception to 400.8(5). . I don't see it as a "backdoor" exception [altho I agree that "backdoor" exceptions are in the NEC, notice that 400.8(2) does NOT have a listed exception pointing to 410.62(C)(1)(2)(c) and yet 410.62(C)(1)(2)(c) exists].

Jim W in Tampa said:
If its a hazard to run a cord thru a normall drywall type wall how is this differant ?Today its a micro on this shelf tomorrow its what ? I see this as the inspectors call.What good reason was there to not put receptacle on wall of shelf ?

"What good reason was there to not put receptacle on wall of shelf ?"
It was roughed according to standard proceedure. . There has never been a customer before that requested/paid for an additional shelf. . The micro is always hung.

Plus the shelf is quite small, short, and shallow. . A plug behind the micro would not allow the micro to be pushed back into its proper place. . Also the short opening would make access to the receptacle very difficult. . The cabinet space above was spacious and allowed great access.

"I see this as the inspectors call"
I talk to my fellow inspectors and contractors all the time and I've heard literally 1000s of stories about calls that inspectors have made. . Some of them are ridiculous. . But of course, there's 1000s more that are very sound but never get told. . The biggest difference between the 2 extremes is almost always divided between the inspector that "shoots from the hip" and the one that sees studying the NEC as step #1. . Find out what it actually says. . Think thru the application of any possible interpretations. . And then bring in common sense.

An interpretation is an inspectors call but he still has an obligation to make the call according to the most logical [or at times the most liberal] reading of the words written and not according to his own fancy.

Jim W in Tampa said:
Fix is easy,remove micro till inspector is gone.No this wont fool him but it takes the liability on his part away.

The remove-til-inspector-is-gone route happens all the time. . All over the place I drive by strip store tenants that hang signs and things in their windows and run the cord up thru the ceiling tile to a plug above the drop ceiling. . These signs-n-such are never there on the final. . I know contractors are telling these people to hold off putting this stuff in til the inspectors gone. . Sometimes they "jump the gun" and don't wait long enough.

Example: I got a call Friday from a Structural/HVAC inspector doing a strip store tenant final. . He told me there was plug-in signs suction cupped to the front windows and the cord going up thru the drop tile ceiling. . I know it wasn't there on my electrical final. . I also know that place had non-ducted cold air returns [because I busted the Verizon guy for the 2000th time for not running plenum rated once again]. . In my opinion [which is shared by everyone else in my department], we only have NEC authority over cords that are attached to a permanently mounted or dedicated space pieces of equipment. . I told my fellow inspector, ceiling penetration or not, plenum cord or not, I didn't see it as a violation of NEC. . If it had been there at the time of my inspection, I would have written a Referral [which is nothing more than a heads-up for the next inspector] and stapled it to the Structural/HVAC card. . He's going to be writing up the tile penetration because of building code.

Actually that was a rather long example that didn't add much to the point. . But here's my point.

There's stuff on residences that would cut back sharply on the bottom line if handled as remove-til-inspector-is-gone. . What do you do with the micro Romex during the rough ? . Do you set up for it to be buried in the wall and you'll go back after your electrical final and cut open the wall to find it ? . Do you rough in a box in the cabinet and blank it off until after the final ? . What does a return trip to each house do to the profit margin ? . What's the inspectors reaction when he finds out you're normal operating proceedure is to rework things after the final ?

David
 

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
dnem said:
If by #5 you mean 400.8(5), then that interpretation would cause 422.16(B)(2)(4) to be in conflict with 400.8(5) unless you view 422.16(B)(2)(4) as a "backdoor" exception to 400.8(5). . I don't see it as a "backdoor" exception [altho I agree that "backdoor" exceptions are in the NEC, notice that 400.8(2) does NOT have a listed exception pointing to 410.62(C)(1)(2)(c) and yet 410.62(C)(1)(2)(c) exists].



"What good reason was there to not put receptacle on wall of shelf ?"
It was roughed according to standard proceedure. . There has never been a customer before that requested/paid for an additional shelf. . The micro is always hung.

Plus the shelf is quite small, short, and shallow. . A plug behind the micro would not allow the micro to be pushed back into its proper place. . Also the short opening would make access to the receptacle very difficult. . The cabinet space above was spacious and allowed great access.

"I see this as the inspectors call"
I talk to my fellow inspectors and contractors all the time and I've heard literally 1000s of stories about calls that inspectors have made. . Some of them are ridiculous. . But of course, there's 1000s more that are very sound but never get told. . The biggest difference between the 2 extremes is almost always divided between the inspector that "shoots from the hip" and the one that sees studying the NEC as step #1. . Find out what it actually says. . Think thru the application of any possible interpretations. . And then bring in common sense.

An interpretation is an inspectors call but he still has an obligation to make the call according to the most logical [or at times the most liberal] reading of the words written and not according to his own fancy.



The remove-til-inspector-is-gone route happens all the time. . All over the place I drive by strip store tenants that hang signs and things in their windows and run the cord up thru the ceiling tile to a plug above the drop ceiling. . These signs-n-such are never there on the final. . I know contractors are telling these people to hold off putting this stuff in til the inspectors gone. . Sometimes they "jump the gun" and don't wait long enough.

Example: I got a call Friday from a Structural/HVAC inspector doing a strip store tenant final. . He told me there was plug-in signs suction cupped to the front windows and the cord going up thru the drop tile ceiling. . I know it wasn't there on my electrical final. . I also know that place had non-ducted cold air returns [because I busted the Verizon guy for the 2000th time for not running plenum rated once again]. . In my opinion [which is shared by everyone else in my department], we only have NEC authority over cords that are attached to a permanently mounted or dedicated space pieces of equipment. . I told my fellow inspector, ceiling penetration or not, plenum cord or not, I didn't see it as a violation of NEC. . If it had been there at the time of my inspection, I would have written a Referral [which is nothing more than a heads-up for the next inspector] and stapled it to the Structural/HVAC card. . He's going to be writing up the tile penetration because of building code.

Actually that was a rather long example that didn't add much to the point. . But here's my point.

There's stuff on residences that would cut back sharply on the bottom line if handled as remove-til-inspector-is-gone. . What do you do with the micro Romex during the rough ? . Do you set up for it to be buried in the wall and you'll go back after your electrical final and cut open the wall to find it ? . Do you rough in a box in the cabinet and blank it off until after the final ? . What does a return trip to each house do to the profit margin ? . What's the inspectors reaction when he finds out you're normal operating proceedure is to rework things after the final ?

David

The best way is to do it legal to start with.If not sure how then ask inspector on the rough if he is ok with your plan.Poor planning on that micro does not justify the violation.They make many appliances with 90 degree plugs and if you read the book on that micro i bet it stated clearance space around and behind it.If nothing else works then recess the outlet in the wall or use a clock outlet.If i inspected this job i think i would need to tag it.As i said fix is easy and lets the inspector off the hook.Will it likely cause a problem ? No but then if we knowed what would we would not have fires.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Setting aside the fact that the example is about a microwave, 422.16(B)(2)(4) doesn't see a cord thru the cabinet panel [to an "adjacent thereto" space] as being a problem or safety concern for a dishwasher [or compactor].

So I don't see the whole cord-thru-a-cabinet-panel concept as being a safety issue for any other appliance either. . It still might be shown to be against code for non-dishwashers, but doesn't appear to be a safety issue. . And I'm generally inclined to defer to the contractors interpretation on non safety issues.

That leaves the 400.8(2) argument to be resolved. . And 400.8(2) has no exceptions. . The dishwasher cord of 422.16(B)(2)(4) is not listed as an exception. . If the cabinet panel was a "wall", then 400.8(2) would need to list 422.16(B)(2)(4) as being an exception to the prohibition on the 400.8(2) penetrating a "wall". . If a cabinet panel is a "wall" and an exception isn't listed, then 422.16(B)(2)(4) couldn't be used [unless you use the 410.62(C)(1)(2)(c) type "backdoor" exception argument].

When I put these 2 facts together, I think the proper view/interpretation of the word "wall" in 400.8(2) excludes cabinet panels.

David
 

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
dnem said:
The "shorthand" term used in the industry is "violates the listing" but you're right, it doesn't actually violate the listing, rather it doesn't meet the specs of the listing because of field modification.



The applicable article/section would be 110.3(B) because it doesn't meet the specs of the listing because of field modification. . But as I said, I'm not interested in checking the specs of a molded cord unless it looks like it might be causing a problem.

David

David,

The UL website does not say that a field modification automatically means that an item no longer meets specifications. UL acknowledges that there are many possible filed modifications that might not affect the "specs of the listing".

As an AHJ you have the authority to approve or disapprove an installation. A UL listing is only one possible tool to help you make a decision.

As far as copping out by quoting 110.3(B) (unless you have checked with the manufacturer), what do you do when contractors purposly choose not to use the, cheap all plastic, wire nuts specifically provided by the manufacturer for use with their equipment as shown in their printed instructions?
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
jim dungar said:
As far as copping out by quoting 110.3(B) (unless you have checked with the manufacturer) .....

An item isn't excluded if it varies from what the manufacturer gave to UL, but it does lose its exemption from field inspection under 90.7, "It is the intent of this Code that factory installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations ....." . And then 110.3(B) adds that the UL listing approval might include installation instructions. . So if you replace the factory cord and you don't have the full installation instructions available to check compliance with 110.3(B) [which describes 99% of situations], then it throws you back to 90.4

jim dungar said:
As an AHJ you have the authority to approve or disapprove an installation. A UL listing is only one possible tool to help you make a decision.

Actually, in Ohio, by law the AHJ is the CBO [Certified Building Official] who is the head of the building department. . My inspections and any resulting write-ups are required [unless he himself has Ohio recognized electrical certification and does the inspection himself] but they have no legal authority. . If I leave behind a sticker that says, "Not Approved", that doesn't mean your installation is technically officially not approved / failed. . It means that I'm telling you the results of my inspection which will go to the CBO for his official ruling. . In reality the CBO rarely deviates from the inspectors findings unless he has good cause to do so.

jim dungar said:
..... what do you do when contractors purposly choose not to use the, cheap all plastic, wire nuts specifically provided by the manufacturer for use with their equipment as shown in their printed instructions?

Determine if I believe the wire nuts used are UL approved.

When the installer discards the included wirenuts he might be violating 110.3(B). . But determining if he did or did not violate would be a waste of time, in my opinion. . I'm going to go to the concept in 90.4 and take a look at what wire nuts he did choose. . That's a better use of everybodys time and focuses on what matters.

David
 
Last edited:

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
but it does lose its exemption from field inspection under 90.7

Lets say it does.

Are you saying an EI is not capable of determining the suitability of a new cord on a typical appliance?

BTW does an electrical inspector have anything at all with the cord on an appliance?

Is a cord and plug connected appliance part of the premise wiring system?
 
iwire said:
Lets say it does.

Are you saying an EI is not capable of determining the suitability of a new cord on a typical appliance?

BTW does an electrical inspector have anything at all with the cord on an appliance?

Is a cord and plug connected appliance part of the premise wiring system?

In reading Art 400 and Art 422, I would say to some extent yes.
P.S. parts of Chapter 5 as well.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Pierre C Belarge said:
In reading Art 400 and Art 422, I would say to some extent yes.

How about if we read the definition of premises wiring system? :smile:

I can see how the NEC would be in control of the OCP for an appliance, I have a much harder time accepting the control the NEC has past the outlet.

It is a mess. (IMHO) :smile:
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
iwire said:
Are you saying an EI is not capable of determining the suitability of a new cord on a typical appliance?

This is all theoretical. . I don't "lose sleep" over appliance cords. . I rarely notice them at all.

iwire said:
BTW does an electrical inspector have anything at all with the cord on an appliance?

Is a cord and plug connected appliance part of the premise wiring system?

In my opinion [which is shared by everyone else in my department], we only have NEC authority over cords that are attached to permanently mounted or dedicated space pieces of equipment.

In my example in post #29, I talked about a store tenant project with plug-in signs suction cupped to the front windows and the cord going up thru the drop tile ceiling. . I told the structural/HVAC inspector, ceiling penetration or not, plenum cord or not, I didn't see it as a violation of NEC. . It wasn't a permanently mounted or dedicated space piece of equipment.

David
 
There are code requirements for cords scattered throughout the NEC. Another one that comes to mind is the cord attached exit sign.



It may be a mess, but it is there to be dealt with.
I think that the NEC deals with cords for dishwashers very specifically and match that with the UL White Book, and the individual who installs cords for dishwashers knows pretty much what is necessary to comply.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
So I think it comes down to this.......

Some of us choose to ignore 90.2(A) and Article 100

And others choose to ignore the NECs jurisdiction over a UL listed appliance.

You have to ignore one or the other because they do conflict. :smile:

Luckily I have never run into an inspector who would have a problem with replacing a cord on an appliance assuming the new cord was the same or better then the existing cord. :)
 
iwire said:
So I think it comes down to this.......

Some of us choose to ignore 90.2(A) and Article 100

And others choose to ignore the NECs jurisdiction over a UL listed appliance.

You have to ignore one or the other because they do conflict. :smile:

Luckily I have never run into an inspector who would have a problem with replacing a cord on an appliance assuming the new cord was the same or better then the existing cord. :)


Unless witnessing the "event" how would an inspector even know? :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top