Face-Up Receptacle Under Kitchen Sink

Status
Not open for further replies.
mdshunk said:
The installer used a mud ring and handy box receptacle cover on that 4-square. Yuck! A proper RS cover would have been more appropriate. The switch looks like it's in a welded corner 2-1/8" deep handy box. I like those.

I wonder if the feed for this mess got stubbed up out of the middle of the cabinet floor, and this is why it ended up this way? I thought the flex at the 1 o'clock position on the 4 square might be the feed, but maybe that goes over to the dishwasher and the feed is through the floor? Just a guess, just for fun.
Click to expand...

I agree this is a yuck install. I see three runs of flex in the 4 square. One for the dishwasher? One for the switch leg? And one for the feed? No reason the box couldn't have been mounted to a cabinet side or back. I would have tried to talk the customer into letting me move it and removing the "yuck" factor.
 
electricmanscott said:
And you guys are all perfect? :confused: :smile:
Click to expand...

Perfect?? far from it but ,,come on man, that is one UGLY way to wire for a garbage disposal . I can't imagine any customer that I have worked for being happy with that ,.. including me:smile:

Is that a cherry cabinet ??does not look a creepy cheapy type of setting to me
 
Last edited:
jrclen said:
I agree this is a yuck install. I see three runs of flex in the 4 square. One for the dishwasher? One for the switch leg? And one for the feed? .....
Click to expand...

I believe that is correct. The dishwasher was to the right. This was actually my inspection. Besides being face up and the possibility of collecting debris from stuff tossed into this cabinet, my biggest concern was that the box was directly under the sink trap. Any leak at a slip joint would drip onto the box, and any attempt to remove the trap to retrieve a lost object (ring, etc) would also likely spill water onto the box.

So...I strongly recommended an electrician move the whole thing to a sidewall. Common sense would dictate that, even if it otherwise "conforms".
 
andinator said:
So did you fail the install on "neat and workmanlike manner"?
Click to expand...
I'm just one of those pesky home inspectors, so I don't really get to "fail" things. We can only make "recommendations for repairs". Also, this was a two year old re-sale, not new construction.
 
I have recently wired a commercial kitchen installed weatherproof boxes, with g.f.i. and weatherproof covers for floor recepticles. The covers was the flap covers. This is what was required by the AHJ beyond the code.
The install of the recept face-up under the sink is not only sloppy but dangerous. Pipes are known to leak or break, sinks are known to flood over.
First violation I see is the plaster ring. I don't see any plaster to verify it's use. Handy box covers are for --------,not plaster rings. Need an N.E.C. article ? 110-3(b) 110-12 .
 
chicar said:
I
First violation I see is the plaster ring. I don't see any plaster to verify it's use. Handy box covers are for --------,not plaster rings. Need an N.E.C. article ? 110-3(b) 110-12 .
Click to expand...
Like how you guys always try and pull 110-3(B). I'd say you can use the the so called "Mud Ring" the way he has. Your gonna tell me that you have to use it in a wall and then the wall has to have plaster or sheetrock? If you are gonna say that then what if the wall was covered with plywood or another building material? All that ring is for is to be able to mount a device to a box. Ok, let the argument begin. :)
 
chicar said:
First violation I see is the plaster ring. I don't see any plaster to verify it's use. Handy box covers are for --------,not plaster rings. Need an N.E.C. article ? 110-3(b) 110-12 .
Click to expand...
I disagree with that entirely. It's ugly, and not the preferred material, but I think it's a gigantic stretch to call it a violation.
 
chicar said:
First violation I see is the plaster ring. I don't see any plaster to verify it's use. 110-3(b) 110-12 .
Click to expand...


As long as you aren't an inspector you can have this view, as wrong as it may be.

I don't disagree that it is an ugly setup but lets be honest, most electrical work is ugly anyway.
 
I consider myself a "Master Electrician with skills". I love my work and will sign my name to any of my work. In my younger years I installed pull chain fixtures on a basement ceiling with 4" square j-boxes and square to round plaster rings. The inspector wanted octogon boxes. He stated plaster rings are made for under surface application. He let me slide because the rest of the wiring was picture perfect. I shape my wires to "flow" into the boxes like an conduit offset, wires are flat and strieght, staples are even< very good pipe runner.
" I love my job"
 
chicar said:
He let me slide because the rest of the wiring was picture perfect.
Click to expand...

I love it when an inspector says "I'll let you slide" when there is actually no violation to begin with. :rolleyes:
 
jrclen said:
Heck no. Sometimes something looks just fine until later. If I'm lucky, no one takes a picture of it.;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, no kidding. I sometimes run into my own work many years later. I think to myself, "Gee, I can't believe I did it that way". You constantly improve your skills and methods as time passes by. In fairness, for small jobs, the material you choose to use is often determined by what happens to be on the truck. Not that this is an excuse for ugly work, but that's reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top