Exterior receptacle is it legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let's say we wire a house and it is done perfectly, passes code and all, and a few years later a paint slinger comes in and paints over all the receptacle and switch covers with thick paint. The only way to get the covers off is to dig the screw slots out and cut and pry off the covers which have so much paint on them to do so would damage dry wall and wall paint.

I have seen the above after several painters have done their craft. Some so bad it took, even after scoring the paint (uh, also known as damaging the finish) it still took a hammer and chisel just to break the covers free, which caused damage to the drywall.

Have the painters committed an NEC violation? NO WAY would I consider anything that has to be chiseled off to be accessible.

Would any electrical inspector have the authority to force the home owner to replace all the covers? What about the switches where the 'ON' and 'OFF' were obliterated by the painters? Does an electrical inspector have the authority to require the HO to have those switches replaced?

Is not the above a violation in the same sense the situation the OP is describing?

As an electrician, I really wish it were. BUT.....I have NEVER once seen anyone that painted over a cover and stuck it to the wall get gigged for that. I agree, the siders put the screws to the electricians and the owner, but so do painters and carpenters. The concern seems to only be what the electrician did at the time of installation.

There must be some reason for that.

Once we can figure out that reason and eliminate it, we can get everyone cited for the finishing trades making our work inaccessible. The inspectors could also make the homeowners move the shelves, desks, dryers, etc. from in front of their service panels so we don't have to try to work over them while doing service to the panel.
 
K8MHZ said:
Let's say we wire a house and it is done perfectly, passes code and all, and a few years later a paint slinger comes in and paints over all the receptacle and switch covers with thick paint. The only way to get the covers off is to dig the screw slots out and cut and pry off the covers which have so much paint on them to do so would damage dry wall and wall paint.

I have seen the above after several painters have done their craft. Some so bad it took, even after scoring the paint (uh, also known as damaging the finish) it still took a hammer and chisel just to break the covers free, which caused damage to the drywall.

Have the painters committed an NEC violation? NO WAY would I consider anything that has to be chiseled off to be accessible.

Would any electrical inspector have the authority to force the home owner to replace all the covers? What about the switches where the 'ON' and 'OFF' were obliterated by the painters? Does an electrical inspector have the authority to require the HO to have those switches replaced?

Is not the above a violation in the same sense the situation the OP is describing?

As an electrician, I really wish it were. BUT.....I have NEVER once seen anyone that painted over a cover and stuck it to the wall get gigged for that. I agree, the siders put the screws to the electricians and the owner, but so do painters and carpenters. The concern seems to only be what the electrician did at the time of installation.

There must be some reason for that.

Once we can figure out that reason and eliminate it, we can get everyone cited for the finishing trades making our work inaccessible. The inspectors could also make the homeowners move the shelves, desks, dryers, etc. from in front of their service panels so we don't have to try to work over them while doing service to the panel.
Click to expand...
Amen to all of that.
I see it as just one of those facts of life and things you can't always control.

Is it ok for an inspector or even an electrician to voice his concerns - yes.

Is it a serious enough issue that the EI should be like an overheated pressure cooker ready to blow? I don't think so. I'm sure he can find something much more threatening to life or property to save his anger for and blow up over that:roll:.
 
Since some like what ifs.

What if the EI turned this down because the combustible foam behind the cover plate.

Wait I must be grabbing at straws again!

foam.jpg

"The next item for combination inspectors would be 314.20, which deals with the box mounting details. If you have boxes in non-combustible surfaces such as concrete, tile, gypsum, or plaster, the box must be installed so that the front edge of the box is no more than ? inch back of the surface. This can be quite a challenge, and is often not enforced nearly as well as it should be."

From Wednesday, January 15, 2014:

http://www.iaei.org/blogpost/890108...-314?hhSearchTerms="outside+and+boxes"&terms=

The siding contractor siding around a receptacle outlet is unacceptable and lucky that the code and the Inspector could do something about it!

You can 'what ifs' till we hit 300 posts. The fact is the AHJ turned this down. Stop the what ifs and cite one code section that allows this.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Since some like what ifs.

What if the EI turned this down because the combustible foam behind the cover plate.

Wait I must be grabbing at straws again!
Click to expand...
Yes you are.



jxofaltrds said:
"The next item for combination inspectors would be 314.20, which deals with the box mounting details. If you have boxes in non-combustible surfaces such as concrete, tile, gypsum, or plaster, the box must be installed so that the front edge of the box is no more than ? inch back of the surface. This can be quite a challenge, and is often not enforced nearly as well as it should be."

From Wednesday, January 15, 2014:

http://www.iaei.org/blogpost/890108...-314?hhSearchTerms="outside+and+boxes"&terms=

The siding contractor siding around a receptacle outlet is unacceptable and lucky that the code and the Inspector could do something about it!

You can 'what ifs' till we hit 300 posts. The fact is the AHJ turned this down. Stop the what ifs and cite one code section that allows this.
Click to expand...

Mike nobody is "what ifing" in this thread with the exception of you. What the rest of us have been presenting is facts and at this point one of them is you don't have a leg to stand on, so you do in fact keep grasping for straws. Why not man up and admit you made a statement based on a spontaneous reaction and like a baseball ump, you can't graciously reverse it.



Roger
 
roger said:
Yes you are.





Mike nobody is "what ifing" in this thread with the exception of you. What the rest of us have been presenting is facts and at this point one of them is you don't have a leg to stand on, so you do in fact keep grasping for straws. Why not man up and admit you made a statement based on a spontaneous reaction and like a baseball ump, you can't graciously reverse it.



Roger
Click to expand...

What facts? Name me one code section that you have used!

OK I'm a straw grabber. What is the AHJ that failed this?
 
roger said:
Don't need one Mike, the installation is fine.

Thank you

I don't know, for some reason he hasn't shown up to tell us what he is talking about so I can't make a call on that.


Roger
Click to expand...

You are correct. Here you need no code reference. In real life you would be fixing this just like the OP because you have nothing to rebut the EI.

It's fine doesn't cut it!
 
jxofaltrds said:
In real life you would be fixing this just like the OP because you have nothing to rebut the EI.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't be fixing anything, there is nothing wrong to fix.

jxofaltrds said:
It's fine doesn't cut it!
Click to expand...
Sure it does, it has every bit as much weight as the irrelevant code sections you grasp for. You never did tell us how you are applying "over 600 volts" to this installation did you?

With that said, I will leave you alone now.

Roger
 
jxofaltrds said:
Since some like what ifs.

What if the EI turned this down because the combustible foam behind the cover plate.
Click to expand...

If the foam were behind the wall plate we wouldn't have the 3 inch recessed issue as the wall plate would be much closer to the front of that space.

Likely all that is behind the wall plate that was not behind it before the work was done is a thin piece of trim coil (probably steel or aluminum) that is only a few hundredths of an inch thick. The wall plate, and possibly the receptacle has only been relocated a few hundredths of an inch in this whole process.
 
Last edited:
roger said:
No, I wouldn't be fixing anything, there is nothing wrong to fix.

Sure it does, it has every bit as much weight as the irrelevant code sections you grasp for. You never did tell us how you are applying "over 600 volts" to this installation did you?

With that said, I will leave you alone now.

Roger
Click to expand...

I didn't apply it. Please read the post. Trying to make a point. That nothing else applies.

Bottom line is the AHJ failed the OP question. So in the real world what the OP asked is non compliant.

If you do not like the AHJ's 'call' please cite a code reference that allows this and forget about telling me I have no clue.

You cannot argue against the AHJ because you have no code reference. Leave me out of this.

How would you tell him he was wrong? You can't.

I just said early on in this post that this was a violation then the AHJ confirmed it. So in THIS example I am correct. Sorry that upsets you.

Prove the AHJ wrong and I will gladly admit that I am wrong.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I didn't apply it. Please read the post. Trying to make a point. That nothing else applies.

Bottom line is the AHJ failed the OP question. So in the real world what the OP asked is non compliant.

If you do not like the AHJ's 'call' please cite a code reference that allows this and forget about telling me I have no clue.

You cannot argue against the AHJ because you have no code reference. Leave me out of this.

How would you tell him he was wrong? You can't.

I just said early on in this post that this was a violation then the AHJ confirmed it. So in THIS example I am correct. Sorry that upsets you.

Prove the AHJ wrong and I will gladly admit that I am wrong.
Click to expand...
Dude, calm down.

To my knowledge there's no code reference "allowing" this installation. That's because, in general, the code doesn't allow stuff -- it either requires it or prohibits it (yes, there are exceptions that allow stuff, but I'm talking in generalities). If an installation isn't prohibited, then it is allowed. That's how the code works. That's why an Inspector has to (or is supposed to have to, anyway) cite which code section is being violated when he issues a correction notice. The Inspector can't just look at an installation and say, "I don't like that. If you want to keep it, you have to show me in the code that it's allowed." That's ludicrous. The burden of proof, as they say, is on the Inspector, not the installer.

Am I allowed to install GFCI receptacles in my living room? You bet! But you can't find a code section that "allows" me to do it, because the code doesn't work that way. Since the code doesn't prohibit installing a GFCI receptacle in a living room, it is allowed. Of course, I'd still have to have an AFCI breaker, but that's a separate issue... :D

Still, if I were to install GFCI receptacles in my living room and the Inspector decided he didn't like it, he couldn't just say, "I don't like it. If you want those GFCI's there, you have to show me where the code says they're allowed." Well, he could say that, but if he did he'd be an idiot who ought to be asked to seek other employment very soon.

We don't know exactly what happened with the OP's Inspector (unless you're privy to information that I'm not). But let's assume the Contractor didn't appeal the decision -- Contractors do that all the time when the Inspector is actually in the wrong. Maybe they don't want to wait the 90 days for the appeals process, maybe they're worried that the Inspector will hold a grudge if they go over his head, maybe there's a different reason entirely. Just because a Contractor changes something to make an Inspector happy (or an Engineer changes something to make a Plans Examiner happy, for that matter), doesn't mean the Inspector was in the right. It might just mean that the Inspector has more power to make the Contractor's life miserable than the Contractor has to make the Inspector's life miserable.
 
JDBrown said:
Dude, calm down.

To my knowledge there's no code reference "allowing" this installation. That's because, in general, the code doesn't allow stuff -- it either requires it or prohibits it (yes, there are exceptions that allow stuff, but I'm talking in generalities). If an installation isn't prohibited, then it is allowed. That's how the code works. That's why an Inspector has to (or is supposed to have to, anyway) cite which code section is being violated when he issues a correction notice. The Inspector can't just look at an installation and say, "I don't like that. If you want to keep it, you have to show me in the code that it's allowed." That's ludicrous. The burden of proof, as they say, is on the Inspector, not the installer.

Am I allowed to install GFCI receptacles in my living room? You bet! But you can't find a code section that "allows" me to do it, because the code doesn't work that way. Since the code doesn't prohibit installing a GFCI receptacle in a living room, it is allowed. Of course, I'd still have to have an AFCI breaker, but that's a separate issue... :D

Still, if I were to install GFCI receptacles in my living room and the Inspector decided he didn't like it, he couldn't just say, "I don't like it. If you want those GFCI's there, you have to show me where the code says they're allowed." Well, he could say that, but if he did he'd be an idiot who ought to be asked to seek other employment very soon.

We don't know exactly what happened with the OP's Inspector (unless you're privy to information that I'm not). But let's assume the Contractor didn't appeal the decision -- Contractors do that all the time when the Inspector is actually in the wrong. Maybe they don't want to wait the 90 days for the appeals process, maybe they're worried that the Inspector will hold a grudge if they go over his head, maybe there's a different reason entirely. Just because a Contractor changes something to make an Inspector happy (or an Engineer changes something to make a Plans Examiner happy, for that matter), doesn't mean the Inspector was in the right. It might just mean that the Inspector has more power to make the Contractor's life miserable than the Contractor has to make the Inspector's life miserable.
Click to expand...

Dude?

A code was cited! Instead of talking about this specific case you go off talking about adding things (GFCIs) above the code.

How about debating the facts here rather than your opinions? Nothing you said is germane to the OP.
 
jxofaltrds said:
A code was cited!
Click to expand...

Which code section was actually cited by the 'state inspector'?
I recall, the last code reference you mentioned being violated was Article 100 Definitions.

One fact is: the OP picture does not provide enough detail to pass judgment on the relationship between the surface the yoke and cover are mounted on, or against, versus that of the box behind them.
 
jim dungar said:
Which code section was actually cited by the 'state inspector'?
I recall, the last code reference you mentioned being violated was Article 100 Definitions.

One fact is: the OP picture does not provide enough detail to pass judgment on the relationship between the surface the yoke and cover are mounted on, or against, versus that of the box behind them.
Click to expand...

From what I gathered from the OP's comments was the inspector used 'access' as his violation.

As to the picture we all are guessing on what we see. Or assume.

It is OK to call me incorrect early on.

Forget my opinion. The AHJ failed this. Was I lucky that I was on his side? Maybe?

Point is since it failed how would you defend the installation as it stands?
 
jxofaltrds said:
Dude?

A code was cited! Instead of talking about this specific case you go off talking about adding things (GFCIs) above the code.

How about debating the facts here rather than your opinions? Nothing you said is germane to the OP.
Click to expand...

The GFCI's he mentioned is very much the same kind of thing, it was just an analogy using something else that code doesn't specifically permit or prohibit in a particular situation.

Did the inspector in question cite a code, or maybe I should ask if have we been told what code he cited if he cited one?

You keep citing sections that others keep saying do not apply to the circumstances that you are trying to apply them to. Just because you are an inspector and those others are not doesn't automatically mean you are right.

A few of some of the sharpest minds that participate here have disagreed with you, and you would think you would at least step back and think about what has been said, and if you think you are still right that is fine, but we expect more information to support your claims instead of same thing you already stated along with a declaration of righteousness.:(

Every code you have tried to claim is violated has had a valid response as to why it doesn't apply, if you disagree, prove those responses wrong instead of disregarding them and throwing out other code sections, most of which also have had valid responses as to why they do not apply.
 
jxofaltrds said:
From what I gathered from the OP's comments was the inspector used 'access' as his violation.

As to the picture we all are guessing on what we see. Or assume.

It is OK to call me incorrect early on.

Forget my opinion. The AHJ failed this. Was I lucky that I was on his side? Maybe?

Point is since it failed how would you defend the installation as it stands?
Click to expand...

That inspector is also capable of being wrong.

We all would defend the installation just like we have been for 200+ posts and ask for code that prohibits the installation - and preferably sections that apply to what we have there.

You and the OP's inspector claim there is no access, yet we have asked why you claim there is no access and only replies have been answers that don't apply to the situation, or are have nothing solid to go on and are more less just an opinion.
 
kwired said:
That inspector is also capable of being wrong.

We all would defend the installation just like we have been for 200+ posts and ask for code that prohibits the installation - and preferably sections that apply to what we have there.

You and the OP's inspector claim there is no access, yet we have asked why you claim there is no access and only replies have been answers that don't apply to the situation, or are have nothing solid to go on and are more less just an opinion.
Click to expand...

I stated earlier the my reason was that I could not hold the cover with one hand and install a tester with the other hand.

My biggest beef with this is the fact that it was once code compliant and a modification was made. Do I feel bad for the siding guy? Sure.

I'm sorry that he didn't know better. Things happen.

Just like this guy who used corn cobs to 'sandblast' the paint off some motors. This was inside after disassembly.

Step to the plate fix it and move on.

corn.jpg
 
jxofaltrds said:
From what I gathered from the OP's comments was the inspector used 'access' as his violation.
Click to expand...
So you are allowed to make a judgement call, but the rest of us aren't.

Forget my opinion. The AHJ failed this. Was I lucky that I was on his side?
Click to expand...
We don't know. There is no indication of what the 'state inspector' (I don't know if he is the AHJ) cited as the violation. We have what appears to be hearsay statements of his verbal comments.

I would continue my appeal of an electrical code violation. If anything i believe this should be treated as a building code issue which may have caused an compliant electrical installation to now be unacceptable.

I would have recommend that the siding be moved so that the area around the receptacle is at least as wide as the recess is deep, or that the receptacle be brought to the face of the siding. But, I would not be citing a NEC reference as part of my reasoning.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I stated earlier the my reason was that I could not hold the cover with one hand and install a tester with the other hand.
Click to expand...

Where in the NEC does it mention your talents or abilities? For all we know maybe you only have one hand, then this task does make more sense that it could be more challenging for you. I mentioned more than once that I am too big to access items in some crawl spaces I once was able to access. Doesn't mean they are not accessible, just not so much for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top