Exterior receptacle is it legal

[jxofaltrds]

If I have a floor receptacle outlet installed on a vinyl floor then add a 3/4" wood floor around it is it still flush with the floor? No.

Is it a big deal? No. Is it code compliant? No.

Forget that it may be a trip hazard, building code, does it meet the NEC?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Many have agreed 314.20 is not in violation. That box (we are assuming since we have not seen what is behind the cover) is likely flush or within 1/4 inch of flush with the finished surface. That finished surface just happens to be roughly the same size as the trim plate and is on a different vertical plane than the rest of the wall. You have not come up with a code section that is violated, according to opinion of many that have posted, just because you are an inspector don't expect us to give in to your thoughts without a good enough explanation that we will accept, and especially when it is not our installation that is on the line. some just do give in because they don't want to fight the inspector for whatever reason. This is not my installation making it easier for me to defend it because it is not hanging up any of my jobs, money, etc.

I still believe that it is not flush and not accessible but what if I used:

300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points. At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for splices or the connection of luminaires or devices. Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension, each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.

 

[mjf]

If I have a floor receptacle outlet installed on a vinyl floor then add a 3/4" wood floor around it is it still flush with the floor? No.

Is it a big deal? No. Is it code compliant? No.

Forget that it may be a trip hazard, building code, does it meet the NEC?

If the receptacle is mounted flush with the floor without an extension for the box I would deem it a violation.

I still believe that it is not flush and not accessible but what if I used:

300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points. At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for splices or the connection of luminaires or devices. Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension, each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.

We have no idea how long the conductors are in the OP's picture.

 

[kwired]

If I have a floor receptacle outlet installed on a vinyl floor then add a 3/4" wood floor around it is it still flush with the floor? No.

Is it a big deal? No. Is it code compliant? No.

Forget that it may be a trip hazard, building code, does it meet the NEC?

Same thing, if you box around it in a similar fashion. If you cover the trim flange and only leave a hole large enough to sneak a cord cap through then yes there is a problem.

I still believe that it is not flush and not accessible but what if I used:

300.14 Length of Free Conductors at Outlets, Junctions, and Switch Points. At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor, measured from the point in the box where it emerges from its raceway or cable sheath, shall be left at each outlet, junction, and switch point for splices or the connection of luminaires or devices. Where the opening to an outlet, junction, or switch point is less than 200 mm (8 in.) in any dimension, each conductor shall be long enough to extend at least 75 mm (3 in.) outside the opening.

The opening that the conductors must extend 3 inches beyond starts at the opening of the outlet box which happens to be recessed about 3 inches in the siding trim in the photo. Like I said, PITA to change the receptacle maybe, but IMO no code violation. Think of it as a really small room with one entire wall being the receptacle and trim.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Same thing, if you box around it in a similar fashion. If you cover the trim flange and only leave a hole large enough to sneak a cord cap through then yes there is a problem.

The opening that the conductors must extend 3 inches beyond starts at the opening of the outlet box which happens to be recessed about 3 inches in the siding trim in the photo. Like I said, PITA to change the receptacle maybe, but IMO no code violation. Think of it as a really small room with one entire wall being the receptacle and trim.

6" is from where it enters the "box". 3" is passed the opening.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.

This would be the box + any accessories used. Here is an acceptable application:



You need 3" passed the edge that comes in contact with the cover.

 

[mjf]

6" is from where it enters the "box". 3" is passed the opening.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.

This would be the box + any accessories used. Here is an acceptable application:

View attachment 9635

You need 3" passed the edge that comes in contact with the cover.

Yup, I get that, and you are using that code reference to suggest the OP's "mess" is in violation when none of us have a clue how long the conductors are!!

Believe me, I do NOT like how the install ended up. Just haven't heard a code reference prohibiting it yet.

 

[roger]

View attachment 9542

You need 3" passed the edge that comes in contact with the cover.

Yep, and if you removed that cover the odds are that the conductors would extend 3" past the surface the device yoke and cover are resting against.

Finally, you are getting it.

Roger

 

[kwired]

6" is from where it enters the "box". 3" is passed the opening.

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is
taken to supply utilization equipment.

This would be the box + any accessories used. Here is an acceptable application:

View attachment 9635

You need 3" passed the edge that comes in contact with the cover.

Which cover, the WP cover or the "decora" cover that is set back about 3"? IMO this is somewhat the same thing as in the OP. The true "outlet box" is everything behind the "decora" trim plate. The rest is just a trim piece and is there for appearance more than anything else, and it happens to have a cover over all of it that can be closed - even while a cord is in use to keep the elements out. One should be able to fabricate some similar cover for the OP and I don't see any NEC violations with it. You have made it weatherproof while in use by effectively making it "not outdoors".

 

[jxofaltrds]

We all agree that there must be a box there .

What we are debating is the installation of the receptacle. Correct?

406.5 Receptacle Mounting.
(A) Boxes That Are Set Back. Receptacles mounted in boxes that are set back from the finished surface as permitted in 314.20 shall be installed such that the mounting yoke or strap of the receptacle is held rigidly at the finished surface.

314.20 In Wall or Ceiling. In walls or ceilings with a surface of concrete, tile, gypsum, plaster, or other noncombustible material, boxes employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be installed so that the front edge of the box, plaster ring, extension ring, or listed extender will not be set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.).

Now if you think it is:

(B) Boxes That Are Flush. Receptacles mounted in boxes that are flush with the finished surface or project therefrom
shall be installed such that the mounting yoke or strap of the receptacle is held rigidly against the box or box cover.

Both have to be accessible
See post 15

Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of
being removed or exposed without damaging the building
structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure
or finish of the building.

 

[kwired]

We all agree that there must be a box there .

What we are debating is the installation of the receptacle. Correct?

406.5 Receptacle Mounting.
(A) Boxes That Are Set Back. Receptacles mounted in boxes that are set back from the finished surface as permitted in 314.20 shall be installed such that the mounting yoke or strap of the receptacle is held rigidly at the finished surface.

314.20 In Wall or Ceiling. In walls or ceilings with a surface of concrete, tile, gypsum, plaster, or other noncombustible material, boxes employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be installed so that the front edge of the box, plaster ring, extension ring, or listed extender will not be set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.).

Now if you think it is:

(B) Boxes That Are Flush. Receptacles mounted in boxes that are flush with the finished surface or project therefrom
shall be installed such that the mounting yoke or strap of the receptacle is held rigidly against the box or box cover.

Both have to be accessible
See post 15

Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of
being removed or exposed without damaging the building
structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure
or finish of the building.

The box in question is accessible and that receptacle can be removed without opening the structure or finish of the building. If for some unknown reason to us it can't be removed/accessed, there may have been problems before the siding was installed anyway. I promise you I can change that receptacle as long as the leads allow for extending 3 inches beyond the original outlet box, and the original box is not overfilled or has some other existing violation that we don't know about.

 

[roger]

406.5 Receptacle Mounting.
(A) Boxes That Are Set Back. Receptacles mounted in boxes that are set back from the finished surface as permitted in 314.20 shall be installed such that the mounting yoke or strap of the receptacle is held rigidly at the finished surface.

And in the picture that appears to be the case.

314.20 In Wall or Ceiling. In walls or ceilings with a surface of concrete, tile, gypsum, plaster, or other noncombustible material, boxes employing a flush-type cover or faceplate shall be installed so that the front edge of the box, plaster ring, extension ring, or listed extender will not be set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.).

And it probably isn't

Now if you think it is:

(B) Boxes That Are Flush. Receptacles mounted in boxes that are flush with the finished surface or project therefrom
shall be installed such that the mounting yoke or strap of the receptacle is held rigidly against the box or box cover.

Check, we have that as well as far as we can tell

Both have to be accessible

They are

Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of
being removed or exposed without damaging the building

I don't know about you but I could remove that device without damaging the building.

structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure

Check, it is not permanently closed in by the structure, it is easily accessed.

or finish of the building.

Check again, it is not permanently closed in by the finish of the building.


Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

The box in question is accessible and that receptacle can be removed without opening the structure or finish of the building. If for some unknown reason to us it can't be removed/accessed, there may have been problems before the siding was installed anyway. I promise you I can change that receptacle as long as the leads allow for extending 3 inches beyond the original outlet box, and the original box is not overfilled or has some other existing violation that we don't know about.

The fact that you can work on it is not the point.

It is 'closed in' per the definition that I posted.

" not permanently closed in by the structure
or finish of the building."

 

[roger]

It is 'closed in' per the definition that I posted.

No it's not. Are you looking at the same picture we are?

Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

No it's not. Are you looking at the same picture we are?

Roger

Humor me. What is "closed in"? An example.

 

[kwired]

The fact that you can work on it is not the point.

It is 'closed in' per the definition that I posted.

" not permanently closed in by the structure
or finish of the building."

We still have access to the outlet, what is closed in? We could put a hinged or removable door over the thing and that would still leave us with accessibility.

 

[jim dungar]

It is 'closed in' per the definition that I posted.

Then how far away does the siding have to be before the receptacle is no longer 'closed in' per your definition?

What do we tell the siding company to do? After all, if they caused the violation, shouldn't they be able to undo their mistake?
Or is involving an electrician the only solution?

 

[roger]

Humor me. What is "closed in"? An example.

Sheetrocked over, paneled over, blocked over, building cabinets over it, for just a few examples. IOW's, anything that would "hide" the device and require removing part of the building finish to get to it.

For the definition of "closed in" to fit it would mean we could not access it, and once again, not only could I easily plug something into the receptacle shown, I could remove it for maintenance without damaging the building. Mike I have to ask you, are you trolling?


Roger

 

[kwired]

Mike I have to ask you, are you trolling?

I think he is just standing up for what he believes to be true, even if he is about the only one on his side of the argument that has tried to contribute any information anyway. I've been there myself on a few topics.

 

[mjf]

"Closed in" and "recessed" are completely different configurations.

The NEC is written very carefully. (Although we all still find much to debate about!!)

If the code you referenced meant recessed, it would say recessed.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Sheetrocked over, paneled over, blocked over, building cabinets over it, for just a few examples. IOW's, anything that would "hide" the device and require removing part of the building finish to get to it.

For the definition of "closed in" to fit it would mean we could not access it, and once again, not only could I easily plug something into the receptacle shown, I could remove it for maintenance without damaging the building. Mike I have to ask you, are you trolling?


Roger

Not trolling. If I thought this was an acceptable installation I would put my contractor hat on and try to argue my point.

I think he is just standing up for what he believes to be true, even if he is about the only one on his side of the argument that has tried to contribute any information anyway. I've been there myself on a few topics.

True and TY. I do have one on my side. The AHJ who was there and witnessed this first hand.

"Closed in" and "recessed" are completely different configurations.

The NEC is written very carefully. (Although we all still find much to debate about!!)

If the code you referenced meant recessed, it would say recessed.

"Set back" is what I am using.

Again this is not an electrician's problem it will just take an electrician to remedy it.

My main concern is that the original installation was modified. The kind of stuff we see when they take a light off then screw it though the siding to connect to the box. You all have seen it.