Exterior receptacle is it legal

[kwired]

Everything about this post is assumptions since we never got a picture far enough back to get the whole picture.
and the State Inspector thing doesnt add up either. is this on some kind of federal building?
if so we're all going to be paying for it.

I feel I've seen enough, I have seen many similar installs just usually not quite as much of a recess in most cases.

If I were on that job while the siding was being done, I probably would have installed Arlington "In Boxes" in most cases anyway, still leaving the receptacle recessed about 3 inches but with a WP in use cover.

 

[jxofaltrds]

So wouldn't it make since to have whoever installed the DWV pipe come back and fix it?

Roger

Absolutely - we agree here.

Everything about this post is assumptions since we never got a picture far enough back to get the whole picture.
and the State Inspector thing doesnt add up either. is this on some kind of federal building?
if so we're all going to be paying for it.

There are no assumptions here. The OP picture is pretty clear. The AHJ's decision is pretty clear.

I have not seen one code section to justify allowing this. So if the Inspectors disagrees with you he is an idiot? Wrong? Doesn't know the code? Should be working at a big box store? The Inspector cited the code. No one else here has!

What code section allows this?

 

[jim dungar]

I have not seen one code section to justify allowing this.

And you have yet to tell us how far away the siding needs to be, before you would not considered it a problem.

 

[jxofaltrds]

And you have yet to tell us how far away the siding needs to be, before you would not considered it a problem.

That is like asking me to explain:

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

What does accessible mean? One out of a hundred can get to it? 75 out of 100?

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.

Could you at the site, in the OP picture, look me in the face and say "yes that is accessible"?

Could you stand up at a meeting of 20 Electricians and say "this is acceptable"?

This was and is a judgment call. I say fail but instead of showing me that I am wrong you quiz me on what ifs.

 

[jim dungar]

I say fail but instead of showing me that I am wrong you quiz me on what ifs.

No, I am asking you to tell us how far away the siding needs to be before you would consider it being accessible.

I have said the OP's picture was not enough to cause me to fail the installation - a judgement call you do not agree with.
The state inspector shows up and says it fails - somewhere along the line I have missed the post giving the inspector's code reference. Evidently the only viable solution to him is to modify the wiring rather the the offending siding.

Should the violation be written up by the electrical inspector or the building inspector?

 

[mjf]

That is like asking me to explain:

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

What does accessible mean? One out of a hundred can get to it? 75 out of 100?

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.

Could you at the site, in the OP picture, look me in the face and say "yes that is accessible"?

Could you stand up at a meeting of 20 Electricians and say "this is acceptable"?

This was and is a judgment call. I say fail but instead of showing me that I am wrong you quiz me on what ifs.

Just curious, would you also fail every jobsite that has new construction style 4" recessed cans installed where the only access is by dropping the can and trying to work in the JB with one hand through that 4" hole?

 

[jap]

I feel I've seen enough, I have seen many similar installs just usually not quite as much of a recess in most cases.

If I were on that job while the siding was being done, I probably would have installed Arlington "In Boxes" in most cases anyway, still leaving the receptacle recessed about 3 inches but with a WP in use cover.

If you dont see anything wrong with installation as it is, why would you change the box?

 

[roger]

I say fail but instead of showing me that I am wrong you quiz me on what ifs.

No, we are not quizzing you on what ifs, we are asking you a direct question that you can not answer because there is no violation, just a bad situation.

See MJF's post #146, I have blindly changed a good number of ballasts one handed in these types of installations

Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

No, I am asking you to tell us how far away the siding needs to be before you would consider it being accessible.

I have said the OP's picture was not enough to cause me to fail the installation - a judgement call you do not agree with.
The state inspector shows up and says it fails - somewhere along the line I have missed the post giving the inspector's code reference. Evidently the only viable solution to him is to modify the wiring rather the the offending siding.

Should the violation be written up by the electrical inspector or the building inspector?

Electrical Inspector in Ohio

Just curious, would you also fail every jobsite that has new construction style 4" recessed cans installed where the only access is by dropping the can and trying to work in the JB with one hand through that 4" hole?

No, we are not quizzing you on what ifs, we are asking you a direct question that you can not answer because there is no violation, just a bad situation.

I cited code on more than once.

See MJF's post #146, I have blindly changed a good number of ballasts one handed in these types of installations

Roger

If it is listed who am I to question it.

This is such a textbook example of what is not allowed it should be used to teach what accessible means.

 

[roger]

If it is listed who am I to question it.

I would say it is a safe bet that the box, receptacle, and cover are listed and as shown in the picture, they were installed per industry standards as well, so why are you questioning the OP's install?

Once again, if in your opinion it is not accessible why can't you as the party failing it give us an answer to how much room makes it accessible? I can show you attic access doors as small as 8" x 8" with electrical items above them.


Roger

 

[jim dungar]

This is such a textbook example of what is not allowed it should be used to teach what accessible means.

If this is a textbook case, there must be an answer.
Tell us how far away does the siding need to be so that accessibility is achieved.

You failed it. Now what must be done for it to pass?
What do we tell the violator, the siding contractor about what should be done on the next project so it doesn't require a rewire as well?

Give us the answer that you keep saying exists or is easy to determine.

 

[kwired]

If you dont see anything wrong with installation as it is, why would you change the box?

Well I don't see anything wrong as far as it being recessed like it is, however it still needs WP in use cover - but only if you do make any modifications. If the old cover was compliant at it's time of install then IMO they have not made any changes to the electrical components and OP situation is just fine as is. They did not "close it in" Many other examples have been given of items that are not necessarily easy to get to yet are still deemed accessible.

Electrical Inspector in Ohio

If no electrical permit was involved because no electrical work was being done, why would the EI be involved in the first place?

If the matter came to an EI's attention, then who is responsible - assuming there is a violation?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Here is where we are.

Given: The installation was determined to be in violation of the code.

Some object to the AHJ's section cited.

Now we (I have been) are arguing this at an appeals level.

What is your section of the code to prove the Inspector wrong? You have none.

Show me one section that allows a compliant installation to be made non-compliant.

How this happened is moot.

 

[roger]

What is your section of the code to prove the Inspector wrong? You have none.

I think you have it backwards, you would have to prove there is a violation which you haven't done, you simply have a situation you don't like and neither do we but, that is not a violation of a code section.

BTW, are you saying the way it's done in Ohio is the installer has to lead the inspector?


Roger

 

[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.).

I think you have it backwards, you would have to prove there is a violation which you haven't done, you simply have a situation you don't like and neither do we but, that is not a violation of a code section.

BTW, are you saying the way it's done in Ohio is the installer has to lead the inspector?


Roger

I quoted post #12 for you.

I did 'assume' that the siding material is "noncombustible".

Now that I have again proven that a code section was cited give me your counter.

 

[roger]

Now that I have again proven that a code section was cited give me your counter.

Sorry, but you haven't proved it once, see post #34, the box device and plate are installed properly and someone decided to make a cubby hole around it. Why can't you answer the questions that you have been asked?

Roger

 

[jxofaltrds]

Sorry, but you haven't proved it once, see post #34, the box device and plate are installed properly and someone decided to make a cubby hole around it. Why can't you answer the questions that you have been asked?

Roger

YES they 'were' properly installed. Now they are in violation.

They are NOW not properly installed.

No fault of the EC but of another 'Contractor".

You are asking me what is a little violation or a big violation. It's a violation period.

 

[mjf]

Originally Posted by 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.).

I quoted post #12 for you.

I did 'assume' that the siding material is "noncombustible".

Now that I have again proven that a code section was cited give me your counter.

Where do you see the front edge of the box,(etc) set back more than 1/4" of the finished surface?

In the OP's picture, you must be (erroneously) thinking the finished surface is flat and the front edge of the box is recessed by more than 3".

 

[kwired]

I quoted post #12 for you.

I did 'assume' that the siding material is "noncombustible".

Now that I have again proven that a code section was cited give me your counter.

Many have agreed 314.20 is not in violation. That box (we are assuming since we have not seen what is behind the cover) is likely flush or within 1/4 inch of flush with the finished surface. That finished surface just happens to be roughly the same size as the trim plate and is on a different vertical plane than the rest of the wall. You have not come up with a code section that is violated, according to opinion of many that have posted, just because you are an inspector don't expect us to give in to your thoughts without a good enough explanation that we will accept, and especially when it is not our installation that is on the line. some just do give in because they don't want to fight the inspector for whatever reason. This is not my installation making it easier for me to defend it because it is not hanging up any of my jobs, money, etc.

 

[jap]

YES they 'were' properly installed. Now they are in violation.

They are NOW not properly installed.

Let's see,,,,,, they were properly installed and I'd assume the box was within 1/4" of the surface it was mounted to at the time, then someone came along and put something around it, but it is stille within 1/4" of the surface its mounted to,and now they're not properly installed?

I'll have to think about that one for a while, since no one ever modified the existing installation and there seems to be no requirement for how much room should be left around the outlet other than a personal opinion.

Granted I dont like the recessed outlet, but, like the others,you have to prove that there's a violation, not prove its acceptable and there seems to be not a requirement of a distance to prove its a violation.