Exterior receptacle is it legal

Status
Not open for further replies.
And you think that this has been met?

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use
of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations
such as the following shall be evaluated:
(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with
the provisions of this Code

What if this was a switch indoors? I can just stick it in a hole and be code compliant?

Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices, appliances,
luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like used as a
part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access (new) and
working space shall be provided and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and
maintenance of such equipment.
 
We just had the question raised in another thread about whether the code required working space in front of flush mounted receptacles. Typical countertop receptacles clearly violate those provisions.
1. No place to stand; you have to lean over.
2.Totally insufficient clearance above
:angel:
So this is more than just a slippery slope.
The 110.3 reference seems worth thinking about if you are the inspector looking at this after the siding work. Buy there was probably no need for an electrical inspection at that time.
But was the plumbing all low flow??

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
GoldDigger said:
We just had the question raised in another thread about whether the code required working space in front of flush mounted receptacles. Typical countertop receptacles clearly violate those provisions.
1. No place to stand; you have to lean over.
2.Totally insufficient clearance above
:angel:
So this is more than just a slippery slope.
The 110.3 reference seems worth thinking about if you are the inspector looking at this after the siding work. Buy there was probably no need for an electrical inspection at that time.
But was the plumbing all low flow??

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No depth does not apply.

(1) Depth of Working Space. The depth of the working
space in the direction of live parts shall not be less than that
specified in Table 110.26(A)(1) unless the requirements of
110.26(A)(1)(a), (A)(1)(b), or (A)(1)(c) are met. Distances
shall be measured from the exposed live parts or from the
enclosure or opening if the live parts are enclosed.
 
JFLOAT said:
I'm going with 314.20 Heck there's only 31 of them to fix and the temperature should climb into the -20s this week
Click to expand...

Little Bill said:
What are you going to do to correct these "sunken" boxes?
Click to expand...

kwired said:
What code section prohibits that "sunken" condition?

Though it may be a PITA to change a receptacle I see nothing wrong with it.

WP while in use cover is a different issue, and may be a problem should you decide to try to use one.

If the cover was a non WP while in use before siding work was done, it may very well have been compliant at time of original installation. If local rules require upgrading it to WP while in use then fine, but otherwise I don't see why it needs upgraded.
Click to expand...

I only ask about fixing them because the OP indicated he was going to.
No where did I say they needed correcting!:happyno:
 
GoldDigger said:
But in a cubbyhole, stage pocket or floor receptacle it is still possible to remove the device and access the interior of the box without removing wall finish! I consider the fabricated sheet metal to be wall finish. I can't see how that is attached to the new siding and how easy it would be to remove it.
To me a good analogy would be the difference between adding an additional thickness of rock to an existing wall and cutting out a large opening around the existing box, without adding an extender (maybe OK) and just cutting out a hole large enough to fit a plug into the receptacle and having the new wallboard on top of the cover plate (not OK IMHO.)
In the illustration I assume that either the device yoke and cover will be flush with the finish surface (1/4 inch above the box) or the device and cover will both be recessed into a hole in the finish surface.
Click to expand...
That cubbyhole whether brick, stone, sheet metal, or whatever is nothing more than a smaller wall surface within another wall. Unless you apply working clearance rules to condemn the installation it still remains accessible. Like I mentioned before (I think in this thread) if a junction box is in a crawlspace with little clearance, it is maybe accessible to a small person but not to a large person. Is it non compliant if a 300 pound man can not get to it? I don't think so. Maybe a 300 pound man can get to it but someone in a wheelchair can't, still not accessible? Now take same analogies to the receptacle in question here. Just because it is a PITA to change out the receptacle doesn't mean it can not be done. If it can be done then it must be accessible. If the conductors on the device are long enough to extend the required three inches from the box it can probably be done, just not as easily as if it were not in a hole, now make the hole itself a larger dimension and it gets a little easier, make it a large enough hole and you don't even think of it as being in a hole.

jxofaltrds said:
And you think that this has been met?

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use
of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations
such as the following shall be evaluated:
(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with
the provisions of this Code

What if this was a switch indoors? I can just stick it in a hole and be code compliant?

Equipment. A general term, including fittings, devices, appliances,
luminaires, apparatus, machinery, and the like used as a
part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.

110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment. Access (new) and
working space shall be provided and maintained about all
electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and
maintenance of such equipment.
Click to expand...
If you want to start throwing 110.26 out there there are a lot of things considered acceptable installs by many that do not entirely comply with 110.26. 110.3 being used by an inspector is grasping at straws unless he has some pretty convincing documentation to back his position up.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. I don't really like the installation myself, but at same time don't think it is wrong - based on what we can see or do know about it.
 
kwired said:
That cubbyhole whether brick, stone, sheet metal, or whatever is nothing more than a smaller wall surface within another wall. Unless you apply working clearance rules to condemn the installation it still remains accessible. Like I mentioned before (I think in this thread) if a junction box is in a crawlspace with little clearance, it is maybe accessible to a small person but not to a large person. Is it non compliant if a 300 pound man can not get to it? I don't think so. Maybe a 300 pound man can get to it but someone in a wheelchair can't, still not accessible? Now take same analogies to the receptacle in question here. Just because it is a PITA to change out the receptacle doesn't mean it can not be done. If it can be done then it must be accessible. If the conductors on the device are long enough to extend the required three inches from the box it can probably be done, just not as easily as if it were not in a hole, now make the hole itself a larger dimension and it gets a little easier, make it a large enough hole and you don't even think of it as being in a hole.

If you want to start throwing 110.26 out there there are a lot of things considered acceptable installs by many that do not entirely comply with 110.26. 110.3 being used by an inspector is grasping at straws unless he has some pretty convincing documentation to back his position up.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong. I don't really like the installation myself, but at same time don't think it is wrong - based on what we can see or do know about it.
Click to expand...

I'm not grasping. I already would fail it under 314. "will not be
set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.)."

I just wanted to know who thinks it is OK to take a once compliant installation and rendering it almost impossible to work on.

I do not believe that the intent of the code is to have any equipment out of sight when performing work, testing, etc. on it.

You could troubleshoot this with a wiggy?
 
jxofaltrds said:
I'm not grasping. I already would fail it under 314. "will not be
set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.)."

I just wanted to know who thinks it is OK to take a once compliant installation and rendering it almost impossible to work on.

I do not believe that the intent of the code is to have any equipment out of sight when performing work, testing, etc. on it.

You could troubleshoot this with a wiggy?
Click to expand...

I have not tried to remove the receptacle in the picture posted, so I can not answer for certain. I will not condemn it for what I do know at this point about it, outside of potentially needing a "WP while in use cover".
 
jxofaltrds said:
I'm not grasping. I already would fail it under 314. "will not be
set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.)."

I just wanted to know who thinks it is OK to take a once compliant installation and rendering it almost impossible to work on.

I do not believe that the intent of the code is to have any equipment out of sight when performing work, testing, etc. on it.

You could troubleshoot this with a wiggy?
Click to expand...

Mike you are letting your wishes get in the way. IMO you'd be incorrect to fail it, especially using 314 as the reason.

And as far as 110.3(A)(1), the NFPA itself admitts that "Suitable" is possibly unenforcble and vague so that doesn't fly IMO either.

Do you really think every piece of electrical equiupment has to have a zero degree of difficulty to service?

Roger
 
roger said:
Do you really think every piece of electrical equiupment has to have a zero degree of difficulty to service?
Click to expand...

That one is likely not that difficult either, IMO. You need to add more challenge by putting it 100' up in the air, and then work on it on cold days like we have had recently, or in a nasty crawlspace, or maybe better yet - in a hog confinement, yes I need to go to one yet today and am looking very forward to it:happyno:.
 
406.5 Receptacle Mounting.
(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.

314.20 In Wall or Ceiling. In walls or ceilings with a
surface of concrete, tile, gypsum, plaster, or other noncombustible
material, boxes employing a flush-type cover or
faceplate shall be installed so that the front edge of the box,
plaster ring, extension ring, or listed extender will not be
set back of the finished surface more than 6 mm (1?4 in.).

In walls and ceilings constructed of wood or other combustible
surface material, boxes, plaster rings, extension
rings, or listed extenders shall be flush with the finished
surface or project therefrom.
 
Mike,

You need to explain how the surface the receptacle is mounted to is not a finished surface per 314.20.
How do you know the electrical box is not flush with the flashing and the receptacle yoke is not mounted tight to the flashing as required by 406.5?

I see the 314.20 compliant finished surface (the flashing around the electrical box) as being set back from a separate surface (the face of the siding). How far away would the siding need to be moved before you would allow this installation?
 
jim dungar said:
Mike,

You need to explain how the surface the receptacle is mounted to is not a finished surface per 314.20.
How do you know the electrical box is not flush with the flashing and the receptacle yoke is not mounted tight to the flashing as required by 406.5?

I see the 314.20 compliant finished surface (the flashing around the electrical box) as being set back from a separate surface (the face of the siding). How far away would the siding need to be moved before you would allow this installation?
Click to expand...

I agree that some judgment is used in this example. Please remember that the original installation has been altered by making the wall 'deeper'. This is the reason for my firm stance.

They changed the finish.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I agree that some judgment is used in this example. Please remember that the original installation has been altered by making the wall 'deeper'. This is the reason for my firm stance.

They changed the finish.
Click to expand...

They did not change the finish where receptacle is mounted though. Other than they may have added the flashing material that is likely non combustible and well under 1/4 inch thick. If they did the whole wall with a thin sheet of tin, would you reject it? The wall is still pretty much the same for an area roughly the size of the wall plate.

What do you say if they made a similar flashing and trimmed out an area no less than 30" wide and no less than 6.5' tall and had this receptacle anywhere within that space?
 
Last edited:
jxofaltrds said:
Please remember that the original installation has been altered by making the wall 'deeper'. This is the reason for my firm stance.

They changed the finish.
Click to expand...

Then answer my question, how far away would the siding need to be moved, in order for you to accept this installation?

What building code reference are you using to define the finished surface?
 
jim dungar said:
Then answer my question, how far away would the siding need to be moved, in order for you to accept this installation?

What building code reference are you using to define the finished surface?
Click to expand...

This would be determined by the plans examiner.

If I were the electrical plans examiner (separate cert required in Ohio)(cannot be changed by the electrical inspector on site) I would probably approve the spec on the plans that the contractor submitted.

I am assuming that the contractor would present the specs in such a way that I had something to hang my hat on.
 
jxofaltrds said:
This would be determined by the plans examiner.
Click to expand...
If I was the plan examiner, I would have no problem with it, as I see no NEC violation, based on the evidence provided.

However, you said you would fail it based on 314.20.
What would you require be done in order for you to approve it?
 
jxofaltrds said:
This would be determined by the plans examiner.

If I were the electrical plans examiner (separate cert required in Ohio)(cannot be changed by the electrical inspector on site) I would probably approve the spec on the plans that the contractor submitted.

I am assuming that the contractor would present the specs in such a way that I had something to hang my hat on.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in my shoes (at least 99.9% of the time) and you may ask: What is a plans examiner?

I am the designer, examiner, installer at least 90% of what I do, and for a lot of farm work, or minor residential work I am also the AHJ so to speak.

A lot of jobs where I am the designer, plans examiner, installer and inspector, all of those hats are sometimes worn in just a few hours.

I sure would hate to have to comply with some rules I keep hearing about at other places. Sounds like a lot of red tape needs dispensed just to add a single receptacle circuit within a few feet of a panel in some cases. I often can be there and gone in less time than it takes just to get the process started in some places, and maybe have it done for $50 -$100 instead of $1000 or more.:(
 
jim dungar said:
If I was the plan examiner, I would have no problem with it, as I see no NEC violation, based on the evidence provided.

However, you said you would fail it based on 314.20.
What would you require be done in order for you to approve it?
Click to expand...

You are correct. It is unfair of me to require that two hands and/or being able to see it be required to perform any work to this 'outlet'.
 
Last violation I'll list:

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
(3) Wire-bending and connection space


I have not yet read a code reference, from others, that allows this installation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top