Accessibility

[throttlebody]

Hello everyone, I have a question about Accessible (as applied to wiring methods) NEC 1999, as applied by the locality here.

A residential dwelling kitchen gets partially rewired during the final stages of construction, due to H.O. changes of the kitchen layout. During the final inspection of the house, a Jct box is found behind a wall oven cabinet, from the reverse wall (Garage side drywall patches removed). The back of the wall oven cabinet inside the kitchen is cut out to service the outlet box, upon removal of the wall oven.

Now, the definition of Accessible defines as 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.

Now, let's skip on over to 370-29. It requires the jct box to be Accessible. It shall be installed so that the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible without removing any part of the building.


The definition instructs that it not be permanently closed by the finish, which fasteners are removable, but the article reference instructs without removing any part of the building .

Is the wall oven that is fastened to the cabinet treated as a building finish? or just an accessory?

What I am trying to get here is the true intent behind this article. I have discussed it with several comrades and some even point out that it would be no different than removing an access panel to a whirlpool tub, that the access panel could be considered a finish; same with jct boxes above recessed light housings, since the code does not say Readily Accessible; while others point out that a wall oven could fall under one of the local building code requirements to determine a kitchen, to have a cooking appliance, therefore making it a building finish, even if it is considered accessible.

Some even say for me to not worry about it, but I am very curious to see what the great electrical minds here can put into this.


Thanks for your input, in advance.

 

[LarryFine]

Re: Accessibility

In my opinion, a junction box with no devices is accessible in the scenario you described. After all, the oven's own connection box is in the same place.

 

[throttlebody]

Re: Accessibility

Originally posted by LarryFine:
In my opinion, a junction box with no devices is accessible in the scenario you described. After all, the oven's own connection box is in the same place.

First, thank you for the reply. It seems there wasn't much voluntary discussion for the scenario.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Accessibility

Throttlebody, welcome to the forum.

I don't have access to the '99 NEC, so if there is a change from then to now, forgive me.

Is the wall oven that is fastened to the cabinet treated as a building finish? or just an accessory?

It is utilization equipment fastened in place. As Larry pointed out, the normal connection for the wall oven is usually behind the oven itself, which is accessible only by pulling the oven out. This is perfectly fine, because the only time you should have to access this is when you're pulling the oven out.

With little or no extra effort, the servicing point could easily be relocated to the upper portion of the cabinet, the back side of the wall, or even a lower drawer, if applicable.

With little or no effort, the homeowner could have spec'ed the proper layout at the rough, too.

I do agree with it being a legal splice, but I don't necessarily care for these methods of installations.

Which is why the NEC is more concerned with a safe installation than classiness. What you, I, and 26,000 other people view as a great, good, or poor installation is purely subjective. There's no way to regulate it.

I know see why only one person even wanted to touch on this. Morals are always a sensitive issue.

It's immoral to fail an inspection because "it's not as good as I would do it."

Inspections should fail if there is a code violation, plain and simple. I do not want to be subjected to anyone's whim. It's a road to madness.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Accessibility

I se it as omltelylgl and an conmial wy to address the situation.

That is waht came out when i typed so i am leaving it at that.

What the?

 

[throttlebody]

Re: Accessibility

Thank you for the welcome.
I wasn't trying to nitpick the code, maybe it seems that way. I have a hard time applying that the NEC would call out a "finish" and then leave it to another group to determine what it is, when it doesn't even exist here.

With little or no effort, the homeowner could have spec'ed the proper layout at the rough, too.

I agree, but the H.O. is paying to have the rework done, through the general contractor. My problem with this is the H.O. then has to pay for removal of said appliance, if servicing is needed, even though I shall not say it is an improper method, nor would I fail an inspection due to "local opinion" .


I would like to throw an example out there.

Say I bought an alarm (an accessory)for my vehicle, I drop the vehicle off and go shopping with my wife while the work is being performed. After 2 years the relay goes bad and has to be replaced. The installer mounted the relay above my transmission. I have to pay to drop the transmission for another technician to replace the relay, since the original installer gave up the business and moved to Aruba, should I be penalized for the location of the relay when the installer could have easily put it in another place that required no dismount of of any part of my vehicles "fixed" equipment?

The point was the consumer needs some kind of protection along with the contractor. It is that some laws just don't protect the cunsumer when they are designed. I was then referencing state laws/rules. The NEC has a definition for almost everything, but then they throw the word "finish" out there. LOL!

It's immoral to fail an inspection because "it's not as good as I would do it."

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, as the world is not a perfect place. I have been the victim of such and promised myself that I would not do that if I ever went into the inspections field line of work. There is a line that inspectors follow, I understand that, sometimes they shy away from it, while other times, such as the issue I brought up, they cross it. For instance, years ago, an inspector told that he does a better inspection when someone buys him lunch. I disagree, if someone bought me lunch, I would need a nap, because my appetite swells when someone else is buying.


It wasn't the intent to bring up morals at the time of posting, it was to find an absolute. After further inquiries with the locality here and finding out there is no such definition for "finish", there is no core and becomes a moral issue, which is why I understand not many posts were made.