- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Definitely an inspector chosing the 'my way or no way' mentality.
Why, can't the siding be moved away?
Exterior receptacle is it legal
- Thread starter JFLOAT
- Start date
- Status
Definitely an inspector chosing the 'my way or no way' mentality.
Why, can't the siding be moved away?
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
Electrical inspector sees only electrical solution, perhaps?
If you are giving instructions for correction to a hammer, the problem had better be a nail.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Yes! Bad siding contractor. His fix.
But the OP said that they were re-working the wiring.
mjf
Senior Member
"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.
Not trolling. If I thought this was an acceptable installation I would put my contractor hat on and try to argue my point.
True and TY. I do have one on my side. The AHJ who was there and witnessed this first hand.
"Set back" is what I am using.
:slaphead: Yes, "set-back" is what you are using, but unfortunately for your side of the debate, the code you referenced says nothing about "set-back"
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.
It just seems that as each code violation you reference gets shot down you reach for another straw.
I think everyone on the other side of this debate will agree that the result of the addition of the insulation and the siding has made a PITA situation for anyone who will work on it, but that is not enough to make it a code violation.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
No he did not.
The original post was an open ended question.
Then the OP made the comment that he would 'tear off the siding and extend the box, like it should have been in the first place'. There was no mention of what the owner wanted done.
A little later, the OP posted the state inspector said 'no way - extend the box', but still no NEC reference was provided.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
I was never "shot down". One violation was not enough so I listed others.
I don't care about the owner "wants" because that was not mentioned.
I guess the State Inspector, who failed this real life condition, is as much a dunce as I am. :slaphead:
Go back to post 120:
"Well here's an update. State Electrical inspector showed up and said there's no way in hell he will allow them. Says there not accessible and no way to service"
Post 122:
"Wants them flush "
Post 125:
"He's not going to let them splice there going to have to pull new wire. He wants 6" beyond box. He just about popped a vein when he saw them "
3" not 6" - My comment.
Again I'll ask what section of the code allows you to take an installation out of compliance. The AHJ above, not me, has ruled.
Other than calling him ignorant/wrong what is your reason ( a code reference would be nice) to allow this 'condition'?
Mike, you haven't posted a relevant code section yet, you just keep grasping for straws and posting irrelevant code sections that you want (with a stretch of the imagination) to fit your cause and dislike of the situation.
The code sections you have posted have in fact been shot down IMO
Just because you or some other inspector don't like the installation doesn't mean you know more than the electricians you are talking too, and with your "my way or the highway" attitude you simply close the door to seeing things clearly
Roger
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
I have not called him ignorant. But I do not know what reference he is using, you are assuming it is the same as yours.
I have consistently asked you how far you want the siding moved so that you would approve the installation.
I would ask the same question of the 'state inspector'.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
OK let's start with why it failed. Access. I could not hold the cover up with my left hand and insert my tester with my right hand.
As I stated earlier it is the contractors responsibility to address this on the plans. As an Inspector (if I was involved) I cannot (legally, I am not a plans examiner) give you a solution. If this was (OP) approved on the plans then it passes. I would express my thoughts on why it should not have been approved to the AHJ but it is not my call.
I'll play plans examiner. First I would look at:
Accessible, Readily (Readily Accessible). Capable of being
reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections
without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite
to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable
ladders, and so forth.
Passes.
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.
Appears to be closed in. Fails.
110.31
(C) Outdoor Installations.
Does not apply.
110.32 Work Space About Equipment. Sufficient space shall be provided and maintained about electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment. Where energized parts are exposed, the minimum clear work space shall be not less than 2.0 m (61?2 ft) high (measured vertically from the floor or platform) or not less than 914 mm (3 ft) wide (measured parallel to the equipment). The depth shall be as required
in 110.34(A). In all cases, the work space shall permit at least a 90 degree opening of doors or hinged panels.
Does not apply.
If the contractor showed me on the prints a 8" X 8" or 12" X 12" total area for the 'outlet' I would probably approve it. Depending on it's depth. How deep can this outlet be set back?
It is the contractor's responsibility to have this taken care of before an inspector arrives.
I too as an EC could probably change the receptacle but being talented does not make it accessible.
Nope, it is not closed in by any stretch of the imagination.
So now since grasping for other code sections got shot down you want us to believe that the receptacle shown is over 600 volts. Just admit that you can not come up with a code suported reason to fail it and just say you are standing your ground on the "I don't like it" argument.
Roger
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Grasping? Showing you sections that do not apply? Just show what others might use and does not apply.
I didn't get shot down - the Inspector that actually inspected this came to the same conclusion.
I'd say that the AHJ agreeing with me is all that need be said. That's telling a judge he is wrong. Doesn't matter a decision was made.
I played along and gave you measurements. Now show me what allows an installation to be modified to limit it's access!
You continuously show sections that don't apply, your reference to Part III of 110 is just another example. How does over 600 volts come in to play here?
If others tried to use the same article sections they would be just a s wrong.
I think he was using the "I don't Like It" reason as well.
Ahah, so now it comes out, a couple of inspectors on pedastals make an "I don't like it" call and they can not be wrong because they are so far above us. Are you sure you want to stay with that statement in this arena?
Once again, we don't have to cite a code section that allows anything, you as the inspector have to cite a violation, and you haven't done it succesfully in this discussion.
Roger
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Here. How take this to the AHJ and show him why I am wrong.
You want me to take him 110.32 first?
BTW, why can't you answer the questions that you have been asked?
Roger
Can this question be answered?
For this Outlet to be considered accessible and in compliance the NEC , the siding,"Blockout",or surrounding wall covering aound the existing outlet must be kept _______________ inches away from each side, and ____________ inches away from the top and bottom of the existing code compiant outlet, per NEC Code ________________________________.
For this Outlet to be considered accessible and in compliance the NEC , the siding,"Blockout",or surrounding wall covering aound the existing outlet must be kept _______________ inches away from each side, and ____________ inches away from the top and bottom of the existing code compiant outlet, per NEC Code ________________________________.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
NO. Confirmed by AHJ.
For this Outlet to be considered accessible and in compliance the NEC , the siding,"Blockout",or surrounding wall covering aound the existing outlet must be kept _____3__________ inches away from each side, and _____3_______ inches away from the top and bottom of the existing code compiant outlet, per NEC Code ____90.4 Enforcement*____________________________.
*By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction
may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit
alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives
can be achieved by establishing and maintaining
effective safety.
mjf
Senior Member
At what depth of recess (or as you call it - permanently closed in) would this apply? 1/16th", 3/4", 1 1/4", 3" ?
How far can I now recess and be acceptable with the above specified blocked out area? 3", 6", 18"?
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
0". If you use the code 0" is the answer. If you use cedar trim blocks for the 'outlets' then the box must be flush with the cedar. I see no exceptions to 'flush'.
406.5 Receptacle Mounting. Receptacles shall be mounted
in boxes or assemblies designed for the purpose, and such
boxes or assemblies shall be securely fastened in place unless
otherwise permitted elsewhere in this Code.
(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.
(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.
Now does that mean a White Glove Military Inspection? No. Sometimes the Inspector 'just misses' things.
mjf
Senior Member
:?:?:?
Take the OP's picture. The finished surface is recessed (you have been referring to it as permanently closed in). Now apply this to my question - which I asked in all seriousness.
I apologize for not being clearer, but I thought it would be evident that I would be referring to the same type of installation we have been discussing for several days.
Take the OP's picture. The finished surface is recessed (you have been referring to it as permanently closed in). Now apply this to my question - which I asked in all seriousness.
I apologize for not being clearer, but I thought it would be evident that I would be referring to the same type of installation we have been discussing for several days.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
NEC does not really give us a thorough definition of just how easy it must be to access in the definition of accessible. There are junction boxes in crawl spaces (that must be accessible) that maybe 25 years ago I could fit into the space to access, but today I may not be able to get there. Code violation?
Actual degree of accessibility is not equal for everyone, should ADA ever step in here we will be looking at big changes to a lot of what we do:happyyes:
I know you are a better code guru than that, it was even pointed out that those sections apply to over 600 volt and you ignored that in replies that followed.
Not every job in every location goes through plans review. I have never taken part in any such plans review, I have had an informal reviewing with an inspector when encountering something a little out of the ordinary just to make sure we are both on the same page before even commencing work. I think you mentioned in a later post you can not legally give a contractor a solution, I find that a little hard to entirely believe. It probably comes down to how you present it. If you tell them "this is how you are going to do it" that is probably a solution, if you tell them "here is one way that will work" it is only a suggestion. Don't tell me that when you do write up correction notices that a possible solution isn't right there in the violation description sometimes.
We shot down the other inspector also, but at the same time he has not been feeding us input on why he failed it, how do you know he wouldn't have taken information from this thread and changed his mind if he were a participant here?
When a judge is wrong or at least someone thinks he is wrong there is still an appeals process that can be followed. The judge is a human also and can make mistakes.
- Status