Exterior receptacle is it legal

[jim dungar]

110.3 (A)(3) Wire-bending and connection space...

The simple photos posted do not allow me to make a judgment on this citation.
I do not see an NEC issue, if the existing 'outlet box' was correctly applied there would be enough space for wire bending and connections given the new flashing and siding allow the WP cover to be operated and removed, and the length of the conductors to the device allow it to be removed.

 

[jxofaltrds]

The simple photos posted do not allow me to make a judgment on this citation.
I do not see an NEC issue, if the existing 'outlet box' was correctly applied there would be enough space for wire bending and connections given the new flashing and siding allow the WP cover to be operated and removed, and the length of the conductors to the device allow it to be removed.

Jim

I hate 'judgment' calls. You would let me do it - I would not let you do it.*

*From the information provide via pictures.

 

[jumper]

I have not yet read a code reference, from others, that allows this installation.

And you have not provided a code reference that truely disallows it.

Sorry Mike, but every argument you have tried has been shot to pieces.

 

[jap]

forget the receptactle for a miniute.
Can you take a picture of this from a little further back so we can get a better concept of what this looks like?
I'm trying to figure out what kind of mammoth siding job this is with it being 3 1/4" deep and a 1" lip on the bottom with what seems to be a factory bend and no seam.

 

[kwired]

forget the receptactle for a miniute.
Can you take a picture of this from a little further back so we can get a better concept of what this looks like?
I'm trying to figure out what kind of mammoth siding job this is with it being 3 1/4" deep and a 1" lip on the bottom with what seems to be a factory bend and no seam.

Can't speak for the OP but I see this kind of thing a lot, but not typically quite so deep. Any good siding guy can bend trim coil nice and neat like that to any customized dimensions. All they did was add apparently close to 3 inches of rigid foam insulation then put siding or sheet metal over the top of it. This is just a custom on site made "J trim" to go around the receptacle. They probably did something similar to trim around doors, windows, and other items.

 

[jap]

Can't speak for the OP but I see this kind of thing a lot, but not typically quite so deep. Any good siding guy can bend trim coil nice and neat like that to any customized dimensions. All they did was add apparently close to 3 inches of rigid foam insulation then put siding or sheet metal over the top of it. This is just a custom on site made "J trim" to go around the receptacle. They probably did something similar to trim around doors, windows, and other items.

You seem to always need to have the last word kwired. I'd still like to see it.for all we know this could be mounted in the side of a dumpster.

 

[mjf]

Looks like the siding is vertically run steel panels.

 

[kwired]

You seem to always need to have the last word kwired. I'd still like to see it.for all we know this could be mounted in the side of a dumpster.

Sorry about that, but would it really change the OP's question if it were mounted on the side of a dumpster?

 

[jap]

Sorry about that, but would it really change the OP's question if it were mounted on the side of a dumpster?

If it was, at least maybe we could jump inside of it and see if we could find enough slack in the wire somewhere to get the receptacle up out of that hole that its buried in so we could work on it.

 

[jap]

If you look at the uppper right hand side of the blockout you can see another horizontal bead running into it.
I'd just like to see the whole picture.
Doesnt look like your typical siding job to me.

 

[kwired]

If you look at the uppper right hand side of the blockout you can see another horizontal bead running into it.
I'd just like to see the whole picture.
Doesnt look like your typical siding job to me.

I guess it depends on what you call "siding". If I were to guess from what I can see, and someone else mentioned it also, it is likely corrugated sheet metal finish materials and not your typical "house siding". But flashing around obstructions is done similar for either. The reason they have rivets in each corner of that trim piece is you can not slip sheet goods over a one piece trim, they had to assemble the trim into the hole in the sheet.

 

[jxofaltrds]

And you have not provided a code reference that truely disallows it.

Sorry Mike, but every argument you have tried has been shot to pieces.

Saying that I am wrong does not make you win.

You have to look at our argument as real life. I as the Inspector fail you and as required by law cite the code as to my reason. Now if you what to appeal that you need a code section or an exception that allows you to do that not just 'your wrong'.

 

[kwired]

Saying that I am wrong does not make you win.

You have to look at our argument as real life. I as the Inspector fail you and as required by law cite the code as to my reason. Now if you what to appeal that you need a code section or an exception that allows you to do that not just 'your wrong'.

And many of us have appealed to what you have said and with the suggestion that your cited sections do not apply to the situation, but you refuse to see it that way, and will not give us any reason why your cited section does apply.

How can an appeal work if one side is also the judge and doesn't want to see it any way other than his way?

A true appeal needs a third party which there are many third parties on this forum.

 

[jap]

I guess it depends on what you call "siding". If I were to guess from what I can see, and someone else mentioned it also, it is likely corrugated sheet metal finish materials and not your typical "house siding". But flashing around obstructions is done similar for either. The reason they have rivets in each corner of that trim piece is you can not slip sheet goods over a one piece trim, they had to assemble the trim into the hole in the sheet.

I agree it looks like corrugated sheet metal but if the picture is actually sideways then that puts the corrugation running horizontally.
Even if this is at the lowest part of the wall that's odd and thats why I'd like to see the whole picture.

 

[jxofaltrds]

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.).

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.

Looks "closed in" by "finish of the building" to me.

OK you pass!

90.1
(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.

Then why do we talk about accessibility?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

And many of us have appealed to what you have said and with the suggestion that your cited sections do not apply to the situation, but you refuse to see it that way, and will not give us any reason why your cited section does apply.

How can an appeal work if one side is also the judge and doesn't want to see it any way other than his way?

A true appeal needs a third party which there are many third parties on this forum.

I am very open. Please show me where the code allows you to 'box in' an outlet?

The building was altered! It is not the electricians problem it is the contractor who performed the works problem. He should have read the code or consulted with the AHJ.

Building code:

SECTION 3404 ALTERATIONS

3404.1 General.

Except as provided by Section 3401.4 or this section, alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction to the extent of the alteration. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration.

 

[jap]

If I were contacted for my opinion,before the sheetmetal was installed, I probably would have suggested installing an extension or some other means to bring the front of the box out to the face of the sheetmetal.
If I got called after it was installed to troubleshoot something wrong witht the Outlet, I'd advise them of their options and with their permission, if need be, I'd remove or destroy whatever was necessary to repair if for them if they wanted me to.

 

[roger]

Building code:

SECTION 3404 ALTERATIONS

3404.1 General.

Except as provided by Section 3401.4 or this section, alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction to the extent of the alteration. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is no less complying with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration.

Mike, since you really can not point out an NEC violation the only chance you would have to do anything at all would be in your reference to the Building Code you referenced above and shame on whoever for letting a licensed company (the siding outfit) get away with doing what they did. IOW's, you would need to have them come back and simply make the opening bigger, there is nothing that needs to be done to the existing electrical installation because there is nothing wrong with it.

BTW, it's not neccessary to quote the whole thread, nothing has been changed.

Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike, since you really can not point out an NEC violation the only chance you would have to do anything at all would be in your reference to the Building Code you referenced above and shame on whoever for letting a licensed company (the siding outfit) get away with doing what they did. IOW's, you would need to have them come back and simply make the opening bigger, there is nothing that needs to be done to the existing electrical installation because there is nothing wrong with it.

BTW, it's not neccessary to quote the whole thread, nothing has been changed.

Roger

If the NEC violations I listed do not apply then the building reference does not apply!

So if a plumber adds a pipe in front of your panel it is ok because it was compliant when installed? Not a code violation unless it is at the time of construction?

 

[roger]

If the NEC violations I listed do not apply then the building reference does not apply!

I agree and I still haven't see you list a real violation, I only see items you are stretching to fit what you would like for them to mean.

So if a plumber adds a pipe in front of your panel it is ok because it was compliant when installed? Not a code violation unless it is at the time of construction?

Not that the topic at hand has a problem but, if another party creates a problem they must fix it why is that so hard to understand? If say we build a 3000 amp service and along comes the roll back with a dumpster and drops it in front of the service are you telling us you would have the service moved?

Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

I agree and I still haven't see you list a real violation, I only see items you are stretching to fit what you would like for them to mean.

Not that the topic at hand has a problem but, if another party creates a problem they must fix it why is that so hard to understand? If say we build a 3000 amp service and along comes the roll back with a dumpster and drops it in front of the service are you telling us you would have the service moved?

Roger

What do you mean that what I listed is not "a real violation"?

"Not that the topic at hand has a problem but, if another party creates a problem they must fix it why is that so hard to understand?"

If you see no problem in the OP picture then discussing this with you is futile.

Your dumpster example makes no sense.

May I suggest some of you watch Mike Holt and the panel discuss Article 90 in his 2011 Edition. He describes how to deal with the responses that I have received here.