code violation?

[brother]

You're seriously suggesting to install spark rings, longer 6/32s, and sweep mulch in against the sides of the GFI and use it as a "finished" surface?



110.27 is called "guarding of live parts". That limits it's subsections to "live parts".

How is this much different than mounting a receptacle face up on a ledge?

Like I said, I believe its not just limited that heading, and even then its still in context what we are talking about, the live parts inside the receptacle.[ And it says 'likely' to be exposed to damage. This is a 'judgement call of the AHJ.

I believe like someone else had pointed out, that sweeping mulch (broken wood bits),dust etc. over the top of a receptacle without a cover the live parts inside the receptacle are likely to become damage, a potenial fire hazard.


All the other floor receptacles Ive seen had the floor covers for it, and when it was in use it NEVER had mulch or any other stuff over top of it. Common Sense does come into play for some people.

I know most people want to limit 110.27 to the 'big' gear especially when it mentions vaults, rooms partitions etc.. Or on balconys. But (B) in my opinion gives the AHJ permission to tag this install.

You're seriously suggesting to install spark rings, longer 6/32s, and sweep mulch in against the sides of the GFI and use it as a "finished" surface?

Like I said, the article was a stretch, but I believe common sense should come into play here.

 

[mxslick]

You don't think that combustible material up against, and possibly intruding into electrical devices is not a fire hazard?

Um, we have receptacals mounted into walls made of wood panelling, wood baseboards, drywall with a paper covering, wallpaper..do I need to continue? :roll:

This is really getting into a case of extreme over thinking.

If everyone's really that worried, how about putting an In-Use weatherproof cover on that GFCI? It would protect it from the wood chips. Problem solved. :grin:

 

[Dave58er]

The inch of mulch over the receptacle is going to start composting? There's no water.

I'm sure it wouldn't.

However OP did say 3" on top. I don't know how much there is surrounding the wiring method feeding the recep. (if there is one ). Three inches above the box plus the depth of the box may give you closer to half a foot of decaying crap.
Maybe that cord feeds a fan to cool people from all the heat being generated by this organic hot box. Or an ex. fan to get rid of the smell.

But seriously, just saying heat may be a real issue here.

 

[iwire]

Um, we have receptacals mounted into walls made of wood panelling, wood baseboards, drywall with a paper covering, wallpaper..do I need to continue? :roll:

No you do not as none of those items find there way into the live parts like the wood chip dust will.

I am really having a hard time believing you are on the 'OK' side of this, your usual MO is 'the sky is falling' when anything is the least bit odd.

I would red tag this in a heartbeat and feel that I did the right thing ......... assuming I was the inspector.

 

[iwire]

I know most people want to limit 110.27 to the 'big' gear especially when it mentions vaults, rooms partitions etc.. Or on balconys. But (B) in my opinion gives the AHJ permission to tag this install.

110.27 has to do with exposed live parts. Receptacles do not have exposed live parts.

If 110.27 applied to receptacles all receptacles would be in violation.

 

[mxslick]

No you do not as none of those items find there way into the live parts like the wood chip dust will.

I am really having a hard time believing you are on the 'OK' side of this, your usual MO is 'the sky is falling' when anything is the least bit odd.

I would red tag this in a heartbeat and feel that I did the right thing ......... assuming I was the inspector.

Well that's why I suggested the in-use cover. And in the pic I sure don't see any wood chip "dust" on that GFCI and I'm pretty sure the OP didn't carry a shop vac with him. :grin: Sure, it is possible over a LONG time that enough of that chip dust could build up, but as George pointed out, there is far more serious dust build-up in woodworking facilities that doesn't seem to cause problems. And Brother pointed out floor recepts as another example, and someone else mentioned ledge(shelf?)-mounted recepts.

My experience with wood chips is also that other than when they're poured out of the bag, they don't produce much dust at all. It is when they're outdoors, exposed to weather, and/or used as a walkway, that they break down. None of which is the case here.

However OP did say 3" on top. I don't know how much there is surrounding the wiring method feeding the recep. (if there is one ). Three inches above the box plus the depth of the box may give you closer to half a foot of decaying crap.
Maybe that cord feeds a fan to cool people from all the heat being generated by this organic hot box. Or an ex. fan to get rid of the smell.

But seriously, just saying heat may be a real issue here.

Dave, unless this is outdoors or getting wet on a regular basis, it isn't going to decompose fast enough to generate any heat.

LOL I only do the sky is falling when I run into MWBC's feeding my audio racks. :grin:

Seriously though Bob, if you were an inspector and red-tagged this, what Code Article can you cite that is iron-clad enough to stick? All of the Articles cited in this thread so far have interpretation room that would make a red tag very difficult to enforce. As an inspector, I would suggest the in-use cover as long as there are no water hookups present (Because of the potential of water intrusion and the possibility of the wood chips decomposing when wet) and call it a day.

 

[brother]

110.27 has to do with exposed live parts. Receptacles do not have exposed live parts.

If 110.27 applied to receptacles all receptacles would be in violation.

I fail to see your logic here. were not just talking about 'exposed' live parts, were talking about physical damage to electrical equipment. Thats my understanding of this article.

Looks like we both dont like it and would red tag it, but for different reasons. I wonder would OSHA have anything on this type of install.

 

[George Stolz]

I fail to see your logic here. were not just talking about 'exposed' live parts, were talking about physical damage to electrical equipment. Thats my understanding of this article.

To put it directly, you're dead wrong.

110.27 Guarding of Live Parts.

(A) Live Parts Guarded Against Accidental Contact. Except as elsewhere required or permitted by this Code, live parts of electrical equipment operating at 50 volts or more shall be guarded against accidental contact by approved enclosures or by any of the following means:
(1) By location in a room, vault, or similar enclosure that is accessible only to qualified persons.
(2) By suitable permanent, substantial partitions or screens arranged so that only qualified persons have access to the space within reach of the live parts. Any openings in such partitions or screens shall be sized and located so that persons are not likely to come into accidental contact with the live parts or to bring conducting objects into contact with them.
(3) By location on a suitable balcony, gallery, or platform elevated and arranged so as to exclude unqualified persons.
(4) By elevation of 2.5 m (8 ft) or more above the floor or other working surface.

(B) Prevent Physical Damage. In locations where electrical equipment is likely to be exposed to physical damage, enclosures or guards shall be so arranged and of such strength as to prevent such damage.

(C) Warning Signs. Entrances to rooms and other guarded locations that contain exposed live parts shall be marked with conspicuous warning signs forbidding unqualified persons to enter.

 

[dreamsville]

This is really getting into a case of extreme over thinking.

I may be overthinking but that's the way I do business. I would not install a receptacle like this even if the customer wanted it. I'd refuse the job before I would install something like this.

If you choose to do work like this....well then that's the way you do business, no offense intended. Looks like just a difference in the way we go about doing our work.

 

[mxslick]

I may be overthinking but that's the way I do business. I would not install a receptacle like this even if the customer wanted it. I'd refuse the job before I would install something like this.

If you choose to do work like this....well then that's the way you do business, no offense intended. Looks like just a difference in the way we go about doing our work.

LOL I don't say I would install something like this, I am of the position that all the speculation about what could happen is being over-thought. With the conditions as you have described, I do not see either a Code violation or a danger with it. Is it odd? Yes.

But was the box the recept in secured properly? And did it look like maybe it was originally installed "properly", but then some over-zealous interior designer/mall manager decided to add wood chips later? That to me is the real mystery to this.

It has often been said on this Forum that we cannot foresee how what we install is going to be used by the end user. So the real question is, was this installed properly in the first place? Without more pictures and information we are whistling in the wind. :grin:

I take no offense at your statement at all. In my current line of work (As well as the time I spent working with a few ECs) I have been tasked to do things that could be described as dumb or out of the ordinary. In that case, I will do whatever the customer wants (or my boss ordered) as long as it is Code compliant at the time of the installation. I try to, if it's appropriate for me to speak out, ask a lot of questions and possibly suggest better ways of doing the task if it is possible.

What the customer does with it after I install it and it passes inspection is none of my business. In any event, I NEVER turn down business just because in my opinion it's "not right." It has to be something that is a Code violation, or something that has a potential to become a hazard before I would refuse.

 

[brother]

To put it directly, you're dead wrong.

We agree to disagree. to put it directly!!.

 

[iwire]

We agree to disagree. to put it directly!!.

No, no agreeing to disagree, you are absolutely mistaken in your interpretation of 110.27.

 

[iwire]

Seriously though Bob, if you were an inspector and red-tagged this, what Code Article can you cite that is iron-clad enough to stick?

110.12(C) or (B) depending on the year NEC.

IMO the internal parts are being contaminated by abrasives.

All of the Articles cited in this thread so far have interpretation room that would make a red tag very difficult to enforce.

If I am the inspector it is my interpretation that matters.

As an inspector, I would suggest the in-use cover as long as there are no water hookups present (Because of the potential of water intrusion and the possibility of the wood chips decomposing when wet) and call it a day.

Now that has no basis at all in the NEC, you are suggesting a solution you pulled out of the air.

 

[brother]

No, no agreeing to disagree, you are absolutely mistaken in your interpretation of 110.27.

LOL we could go back and forth on this but we are not. we do agree that we both would tag this install. As for the 'guarding of live parts' , I'm sorry but I see the internals of a receptacle as a 'live part' and should have proper protection from accidental contact (i.e. an enclosure or proper location).

Even though most (not all) of that article I will agree is geared toward the big electrical equipment in vaults etc.. where they run live exposed wires, and is for qualified personnel, you still have to install other 'electrical equipment' (ie receptacles, light switches) to protect their 'live parts' from accidental contact.

 

[iwire]

internals of a receptacle as a 'live part'[/color]

They sure are live parts..

and should have proper protection from accidental contact (i.e. an enclosure or proper location).

They already do, they are already gaurded from accidental contact by the plastic that surrounds them.


Think for a minute....

If your interpretation was correct ALL receptacles would be in violation of 110.27.

 

[LarryFine]

As for the 'guarding of live parts' , I'm sorry but I see the internals of a receptacle as a 'live part' and should have proper protection from accidental contact (i.e. an enclosure or proper location).

Isn't that the function of the front of the receptacle body?

 

[mxslick]

110.12(C) or (B) depending on the year NEC.

IMO the internal parts are being contaminated by abrasives.

And IMO they are not as from the pic there is no evidence of that. :grin:
We (meaning you and I) would have to personally examine this installation and the GFCI to prove/disprove a contamination issue. You up for a road trip? :grin:

If I am the inspector it is my interpretation that matters.

True, but you would need to substantiate your interpretation to make it stick, just as I would have to substantiate my position that it was originally installed / is installed in a Code-Compliant manner to allow it to stay, with the addition of the in-use cover. Checkmate. :grin:

Now that has no basis at all in the NEC, you are suggesting a solution you pulled out of the air.

How does the solution of adding an in-use cover have no basis in the NEC? Aren't those covers required to protect receptacles from moisture and contamination? I do not recall seeing any text in the Code that dictates the specified mounting position of an in-use cover. Unless the manufacturer says it cannot be used in a face-up position, then I think it is an effective fix for this situation.

And what would your solution be to this situation that has basis in the NEC?

The real issue at hand is this from my last post:

But was the box the recept in secured properly? And did it look like maybe it was originally installed "properly", but then some over-zealous interior designer/mall manager decided to add wood chips later? That to me is the real mystery to this.

That is the real answer to the puzzle. If it was originally compliant and then covered up by someone in the interior design of the mall, then it falls under the "customers do stupid things" after the install arena, which is not enforcable by the NEC. (The local fire marshal may have something to say about it though.) If it was not installed originally in a Code-Compliant manner, then yes there is a problem that falls under the NEC. But now it brings up where was the AHJ during the rough and/or final?

My guess is it was originally compliant and the mall decorators created this situation later.

 

[Chamuit]

I was waiting out front of the barber in the mall for my haircut. . . . . . If you choose to do work like this then that is your prerogative, but I surely would not hire you

This'll teach you to go to the mall and tell everyone about it!!

 

[jwjrw]

How I wish the installer would of used an FS box stubbed OUT of the mulch with an inuse cover so I wouldnt of had to read 6 pages of this!

 

[mxslick]

How I wish the installer would of used an FS box stubbed OUT of the mulch with an inuse cover so I wouldnt of had to read 6 pages of this!

But think of all the fun you would have missed out on.. :grin:

Just wait till Bob (iwire) responds to my last post, our discussions are frequently spirited. :grin: