Exterior receptacle is it legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting debate. I haven't 'taken sides' because I haven't personally seen the installation. I have noted that the two people, both inspectors, that have actually seen it denied approval, and pretty much the rest in this thread are 'passing' it and are doing so on pictures alone.
 
K8MHZ said:
This is an interesting debate. I haven't 'taken sides' because I haven't personally seen the installation. I have noted that the two people, both inspectors, that have actually seen it denied approval, and pretty much the rest in this thread are 'passing' it and are doing so on pictures alone.
Click to expand...
From what I know only one inspector has actually personally seen it, and that person has only been referred to by the OP and is not a participant of the thread. That leaves the OP as the only participant of the thread that has actually seen it.

That said I have seen hundreds of receptacles trimmed around by siding installations in a similar fashion and am fairly certain of what it is that in the photo. Now most of the time it doesn't involve bringing the new finish 3 inches out from the original but instead only an inch or so at the most, but otherwise is same thing often seen. Plus OP has not provided any evidence that goes against what many of us are pretty certain is the situation.
 
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...

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.

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.
Click to expand...
This made me laugh. Somehow, my analogy about GFCIs is irrelevant, but your analogy about sandblasting a motor with corncobs is totally relevant? Okay...

If the siding is installed in such a way that the cover can't be opened or can't be removed, then I totally agree that it's non-compliant. I'll go out on a limb here and assert that we all agree on that.

It seems to me that we have a difference of opinion on what is and is not accessible. Some of us believe that you must be able to get both hands in there to manipulate things, while others believe that it's accessible as long as you can open and remove the cover.

If you take a second look at my earlier post, you'll see that I never said that I thought the installation in the OP was compliant. I don't have enough information to make that call. All I did was take issue with two assertions that had been made earlier in the thread: (1) the idea that the Code has to specifically allow an installation in order for it to be code-compliant; and (2) the idea that the installation MUST be non-compliant because the Inspector objected to it.

Actually, my personal opinion is that this installation is very possibly NOT compliant, but I can't tell for sure without being there in person. My reasoning is this: The wires in that box need to be long enough that the receptacle can be replaced without removing the siding. If the original installation met the code-required 3" past the edge of the box for the conductors, then it might be possible to replace the receptacle without removing the siding. If, however, the original installation was like a lot I've seen (in older homes), and the wires were too short to begin with, then there's no way you'll be able to replace that receptacle without removing/damaging the building finish. But if that's the case, then the installation wasn't really compliant to begin with.

Here's a question, though: Would it be acceptable to put a 3" extension ring on the front of that box and then use long pigtails to connect the receptacle to the existing wiring that's way in the back of the box? It might be difficult to install the wirenuts, but it could probably be done, and it would almost certainly be a whole lot cheaper and easier than re-doing the siding. Or would that create a new violation, because now the wires entering the box don't protrude 3" from the front of the extension ring? Just throwing out ideas...
 
SSSSHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! what your talking about above, makes entirely too much sense.
We should have stopped this at post #25 when we go the "Thumbs Up, Ok You Pass".:)
 
Although the outlet in question may not be efficient or convienient,,,,,,,, well,,, you know.......
 
JDBrown said:
This made me laugh. Somehow, my analogy about GFCIs is irrelevant, but your analogy about sandblasting a motor with corncobs is totally relevant? Okay...

If the siding is installed in such a way that the cover can't be opened or can't be removed, then I totally agree that it's non-compliant. I'll go out on a limb here and assert that we all agree on that.

It seems to me that we have a difference of opinion on what is and is not accessible. Some of us believe that you must be able to get both hands in there to manipulate things, while others believe that it's accessible as long as you can open and remove the cover.

If you take a second look at my earlier post, you'll see that I never said that I thought the installation in the OP was compliant. I don't have enough information to make that call. All I did was take issue with two assertions that had been made earlier in the thread: (1) the idea that the Code has to specifically allow an installation in order for it to be code-compliant; and (2) the idea that the installation MUST be non-compliant because the Inspector objected to it.

Actually, my personal opinion is that this installation is very possibly NOT compliant, but I can't tell for sure without being there in person. My reasoning is this: The wires in that box need to be long enough that the receptacle can be replaced without removing the siding. If the original installation met the code-required 3" past the edge of the box for the conductors, then it might be possible to replace the receptacle without removing the siding. If, however, the original installation was like a lot I've seen (in older homes), and the wires were too short to begin with, then there's no way you'll be able to replace that receptacle without removing/damaging the building finish. But if that's the case, then the installation wasn't really compliant to begin with.

Here's a question, though: Would it be acceptable to put a 3" extension ring on the front of that box and then use long pigtails to connect the receptacle to the existing wiring that's way in the back of the box? It might be difficult to install the wirenuts, but it could probably be done, and it would almost certainly be a whole lot cheaper and easier than re-doing the siding. Or would that create a new violation, because now the wires entering the box don't protrude 3" from the front of the extension ring? Just throwing out ideas...
Click to expand...

Simple solution for future use when encountering wiring so short that it makes you ask, "how did they possibly wire this in the first place?", ....Break receptacle into pieces. Then one is able to turn receptacle sideways (somewhat) into box and loosen screw to remove wiring, reverse and repeat. Pigtail longer wires. Install new receptacle.
 
mjf said:
Simple solution for future use when encountering wiring so short that it makes you ask, "how did they possibly wire this in the first place?", ....Break receptacle into pieces. Then one is able to turn receptacle sideways (somewhat) into box and loosen screw to remove wiring, reverse and repeat. Pigtail longer wires. Install new receptacle.
Click to expand...

I heard rumors of EC's in the past pulling the slack out from the basement of receptacles mounted above in on the main floor after the receptacles were fully installed. That would have to be true for some of the ones I have seen.
 
JDBrown said:
Here's a question, though: Would it be acceptable to put a 3" extension ring on the front of that box and then use long pigtails to connect the receptacle to the existing wiring that's way in the back of the box? It might be difficult to install the wirenuts, but it could probably be done, and it would almost certainly be a whole lot cheaper and easier than re-doing the siding. Or would that create a new violation, because now the wires entering the box don't protrude 3" from the front of the extension ring? Just throwing out ideas...
Click to expand...

IMO, if you extend the box and the conductors are too short you have created a violation. If you leave it as is (and if it was compliant to begin with), no new violations were created. The hard thing for some to see here is that the 3 inch recess is not a box or even part of the box. The finished surface the box is presumably installed in a compliant manner in relation to, just happens to be 3 inches deeper into the surrounding finished surface, but no access to this box and the contained receptacle has been blocked, more difficult to get to, possibly but is still accessible.

mjf said:
Simple solution for future use when encountering wiring so short that it makes you ask, "how did they possibly wire this in the first place?", ....Break receptacle into pieces. Then one is able to turn receptacle sideways (somewhat) into box and loosen screw to remove wiring, reverse and repeat. Pigtail longer wires. Install new receptacle.
Click to expand...

A good way to get the job done, still doesn't change the fact the conductors are too short to meet code requirements though, splicing on to them does not make them code compliant, just makes it easier for you to do what you have to do.
 
kwired said:
A good way to get the job done, still doesn't change the fact the conductors are too short to meet code requirements though, splicing on to them does not make them code compliant, just makes it easier for you to do what you have to do.
Click to expand...

Just what would make splicing the wires in the original box a code violation, if they were long enough to start with before the siding was added?
 
jim dungar said:
So you are allowed to make a judgement call, but the rest of us aren't.


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.
Click to expand...

Jim never said your opinion didn't matter just that I disagreed with you. We strongly disagree with each other.

Now to moving the siding we agree. If you didn't use the NEC as a reference then what would be the reason? Like it or not (and I don't like doing so) inspectors have to make interpretations of the rules (90.4).

kwired said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seeing if two hands are able too be placed in this space is not unreasonable.

K8MHZ said:
This is an interesting debate. I haven't 'taken sides' because I haven't personally seen the installation. I have noted that the two people, both inspectors, that have actually seen it denied approval, and pretty much the rest in this thread are 'passing' it and are doing so on pictures alone.
Click to expand...

If you thought I personally saw this - I did not. I made a call (opinion) before we heard from the OP telling us what the AHJ said. All I did is stick with my opinion. I added some reference, and I stated that they did not apply, to make a point. We can talk about 10 different things or examples but we need to get back to the OP.

Yes we get heated from time to time but can anyone honestly say that they believe that this alteration is acceptable?

110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment
shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.

This does not apply because no electrical work was performed.

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.

Is the most logical violation.
 
mjf said:
Simple solution for future use when encountering wiring so short that it makes you ask, "how did they possibly wire this in the first place?", ....Break receptacle into pieces. Then one is able to turn receptacle sideways (somewhat) into box and loosen screw to remove wiring, reverse and repeat. Pigtail longer wires. Install new receptacle.
Click to expand...


Originally posted by Kwired:

A good way to get the job done, still doesn't change the fact the conductors are too short to meet code requirements though, splicing on to them does not make them code compliant, just makes it easier for you to do what you have to do.[/QUOTE]



Makes me wonder what code cycle (if not right from the get-go) length of conductors past the front of a box became a requirement.
 
Last edited:
grizwald said:
The cover is not installed correctly: that cover is for a vertically mounted GFI. The one pictured is mounted horizontal. Aside from is being a bitch to access...:D
Click to expand...

The OP said the receptacles were oriented correctly, it is just the photo that isn't.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Now to moving the siding we agree. If you didn't use the NEC as a reference then what would be the reason? Like it or not (and I don't like doing so) inspectors have to make interpretations of the rules (90.4).
Click to expand...
I do not need to make a NEC reference, as I am not saying there is a violation.

As an design engineer making a professional assessment, I can make any recommendation I want.

Inspectors need to cite the code reference they are interpreting.
It appears you have finally settled on this installation being non-compliant with a definition only.

Sure wish we knew what the 'state inspector' referenced.
 
Little Bill said:
Just what would make splicing the wires in the original box a code violation, if they were long enough to start with before the siding was added?
Click to expand...
I was't referring to the installation in the OP with that response, I was referring to conductors that were too short to begin with can not be spliced and then be called long enough to meet code, though I have seen it done many times and have done it myself - usually to an existing installation and not to one of my new installations, does not make it code compliant, is just how I chose to deal with it in that instance.

jxofaltrds said:
Jim never said your opinion didn't matter just that I disagreed with you. We strongly disagree with each other.

Now to moving the siding we agree. If you didn't use the NEC as a reference then what would be the reason? Like it or not (and I don't like doing so) inspectors have to make interpretations of the rules (90.4).
Click to expand...
Inspectors can make mistakes and installers have the right to some method of appealing a decision. If all you have is 90.4 you better have some good explanation to back up why, "I don't like it" is not going to cut it with some of us.



jxofaltrds said:
Seeing if two hands are able too be placed in this space is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...
What code tells us the size of these hands? Where is the word "hand" even located in the definitions involving "accessible"?
Some people have big hands, some people have small hands. You may not be able to perform a particular task, someone else may be able to. Someone missing fingers may have a disadvantage - or maybe an advantage in some cases.





jxofaltrds said:
If you thought I personally saw this - I did not. I made a call (opinion) before we heard from the OP telling us what the AHJ said. All I did is stick with my opinion. I added some reference, and I stated that they did not apply, to make a point. We can talk about 10 different things or examples but we need to get back to the OP.

Yes we get heated from time to time but can anyone honestly say that they believe that this alteration is acceptable?

110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment
shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.

This does not apply because no electrical work was performed.
Click to expand...
The installation in question here sure looks fairly neat and workmanlike to me? But neat and workmanlike are not really standards so much as they are judgements, and that argument has been beat to death here before, 110.12 is a poor choice of a code citation in almost any situation.

jxofaltrds said:
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.

Is the most logical violation.
Click to expand...
Has been mentioned more than once, that the receptacle in question likely can be removed or exposed without damaging the building finish or structure, and also been mentioned with examples of why, that it is not "closed in".
 
grizwald said:
The cover is not installed correctly: that cover is for a vertically mounted GFI. The one pictured is mounted horizontal. Aside from is being a bitch to access...:D
Click to expand...

jim dungar said:
The OP said the receptacles were oriented correctly, it is just the photo that isn't.
Click to expand...

I made that same mistake.

jim dungar said:
I do not need to make a NEC reference, as I am not saying there is a violation.

As an design engineer making a professional assessment, I can make any recommendation I want.

Inspectors need to cite the code reference they are interpreting.
It appears you have finally settled on this installation being non-compliant with a definition only.

Sure wish we knew what the 'state inspector' referenced.
Click to expand...

Glad you clarified how you arrived at your opinion.

Know that exact violation would be nice. I have been assuming that him just looking at it and immediately saying no way - access could be the only choice.

Deciding flush or finished surface should require more thought.

The veins pooping out of his head I guess is not from this one outlet but all the other ones being effected too.
 
jxofaltrds said:
The veins pooping out of his head I guess is not from this one outlet but all the other ones being effected too.
Click to expand...

I figured (even before your misspelling) that it was just because he is a poop-head:)

Seriously, is this installation such a danger it is worth getting that upset about? The guy has got to have anger issues if this makes him that mad.
 
Last edited:
:slaphead:
kwired said:
I figured (even before your misspelling) that it was just because he is a poop-head:)

Seriously, is this installation such a danger it is worth getting that upset about? The guy has got to have anger issues if this makes him that mad.
Click to expand...

If you take a deep breath I can be good entertainment. :cool:

Only danger, and not covered by the NEC, is a cord rubbing on the siding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top