In-use covers

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dad

New member
Let's not get into local issues, just the NEC. On a new single family dwelling, are in-use covers required on all exterior receptacles? If so Code article numbers would be great. Thanks have a great day.
 
dad said:
Let's not get into local issues, just the NEC. On a new single family dwelling, are in-use covers required on all exterior receptacles? If so Code article numbers would be great. Thanks have a great day.
Click to expand...


They are only required on a receptacle in wet locations. A hinged type cover can be used in damp locations.
 
Due to varied interpretations of "protected from the weather", I have taken to installing in-use covers in all locations outside. Just my preference. :)
 
georgestolz said:
Due to varied interpretations of "protected from the weather", I have taken to installing in-use covers in all locations outside. Just my preference. :)
Click to expand...


Would your customers be happy with a big bubble cover hanging on the underside of their outdoor soffits? Mine would scream if they had to look at those ugly covers hanging there.
 
We typically use a 45-degree angle for wind-blown rain in determining the wet/damp issue. In other words, if the receptacle is 7' below the roof edge, it needs to be at least 7' under the protecting roof/eave, etc. to avoid the bubble.
 
infinity said:
Would your customers be happy with a big bubble cover hanging on the underside of their outdoor soffits? Mine would scream if they had to look at those ugly covers hanging there.
Click to expand...

And herein lies the problem !!! Your AHJ and the NEC may require you to install those bubble covers but I can guarantee you that those will quickly change to the flip cover after the inspection process (either by an electrician or by the homeowner). Manufacturers (like Intermatic) are touting slogans on their products that indicate "It's the Code" but I'd be willing to bet that none of them live in a mega-mansion that took a $million or so to build.

My opinion, either re-write the code to include only those receptacles that have a definite use and have a cord plugged in at all times or compel the manufacturers to come up with a product that isn't so obtrusive and that can be easily attached to an outdoor receptacle by a homeowner.

Just my opinion. Not looking to become part of the CMP !!!
 
Phil I doubt this is what you meant but it sounds like your saying there should be a separate set of rules for folks who have mega-mansions that took a $million or so to build.

How about this, they pay a little more for the carpenters to build a cubby hole in the wall to hide the outlet or have the electrician use a recessed box like the one Arlington sells?

http://www.aifittings.com/whnew74.htm

rigid.jpg
 
infinity said:
Would your customers be happy with a big bubble cover hanging on the underside of their outdoor soffits? Mine would scream if they had to look at those ugly covers hanging there.
Click to expand...
No, that is an exception. I use damp covers for the soffits. :)
 
georgestolz said:
No, that is an exception. I use damp covers for the soffits. :)
Click to expand...


We do also. I was saying that in response to the OP question that all exterior receptacles do not require so called in-use covers.
 
Just wait until the receptacles themselves are required to be "weather-resistant" when installed in wet locations. This will further this discussion well into 2011...
 
Bob,

I didn't mean to get up on the soap box again on this subject but you are correct. I didn't mean to imply that there should be a separate set of code rules for those people who have mega mansions built but, we're not talking about trailer park housing here. People are paying a great deal of money, not only to have these houses built but also to have them designed by high paid architects. What I did mean to imply is that most of the bubble cover manufacturers flood the market with products that meet the code but look as though someone took 5 minutes out of their morning to make it up in their garage. Arlington, at least, has taken the steps to make a product the is more unabtrusive than their counterparts' products. In addition, they don't slap slogans like "It's the Code" all over their products. We know it's the code. We don't have to be reminded of this ridiculous code section. It's bad enough the NEC and inspectors stuff this down our throat. We don't need manufacturers with garbage products stuffing this down our throats just because the NEC is forcing us to make an outdoor receptacle weatherproof whether or not a cord is plugged in or not.

Again, this is just my opinion. But maybe if the CMP's get more compliaints about this they'll re-write that code section. We, as electricians, are going to provide installations that are code compliant no matter what. But I am sure of one thing, if I had the where-with-all to invested my hard earned $$$ into a beautiful mega-mansion, those ugly bubble covers would be coming off as the inspector was pulling out of the driveway, code or no code.

Regards,

Phil
Gold Star Electric
New Jersey
 
I just had my front porch rebuilt/rebricked....I cringed at the thought of putting a bubble cover on it for all to see from a block away. I researched the Arlington "In-Box" and was pleasently surprised to see that it's cost was only slightly higher than a bubble cover.

While there shouldn't be a seperate code for McMansions and trailer parks - there can be EC's who are willing to try something new.
 
Phil
There are a lot of Architects who need to be more aware of the electrical codes. Then they can incorporate in the design process some legal means of design to work around issues that they just seem to ignore. Don't get mad at code or manufacturers, educate the "expensive" architects to information they should know anyway.

And if you advocate removing code installed items (whether the in-use cover or whatever) I think that is just as ridiculous/absurd/bad as architects not learning how to do their job.
 
Does anyone use these? http://www.aifittings.com/j_2.htm

I like to hide them in the planting beds instead of seeing cords hanging from house for holiday lighting, water feature pumps, etc. Also use them for mounting receptacles when we do above ground pools. Finally got to installing them in my own yard last fall after a few years of procrastination.

Using them might solve the problem of seeing the ugly bubble covers. While they are still not attractive, they can be "hidden" in the landscaping plantings.
 
The manufacturers are using a blanket statement to sell more product.

They're not quite telling the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth.

This goes on with just about everything.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
And if you advocate removing code installed items (whether the in-use cover or whatever) I think that is just as ridiculous/absurd/bad as architects not learning how to do their job.
Click to expand...

Pierre, I mis-spoke. I didn't mean to speak from the standpoint of a licensed electrician when I made the comment about removing bubble covers but rather as a homeowner. You know as well as I that homeowners (in general) do some wierd things to their houses that aren't code compliant (either NEC or building code for that matter). What I meant to imply was that if those ugly bubble covers end up in an area that is openly visible by the average new MacMansion homeowner you can be rest assured that they're coming off either by them or by an unscrupulous electrican that is willing to do the work as long as he's getting paid.

With respect to the NEC, it is always my intentioin to be compliant whenever I do electrical work but that does't mean that I have to like what is written. The CMP made a decision on this issue and the general consensus of this forum is that their intent was to require some type of "in use" cover where a receptacle is subject to driving rain whether a cord is plugged in or not. Arlington has, at least, made some progressive strides in their product developments while other manufacturers have not. In other threads on this issue, and in this forum, I respectfully disagreed with this interpretation citing that the intent was that all outdoor receptacles shall be weatherproof first and foremost. We, as electricians, know that already but the code wasn't written only for us. Homeowners do their own electrical work and you already know that someone, somewhere down the line is going to install a std. duplex receptacle outdoors without any weatherproofing of any kind. So my interpretation was that the words "whether or not a cord is inserted" was secondary to the mainstream of that section.

Needless to say, I was shot down and I thought that topic was put to bed. All of a sudden it pops up again and here we are still talking about it. If it comes up so often isn't there a remote possibility that maybe the code section is not as clear as the majority would like to believe it is ?
 
Last edited:
One comment about the megamansions

I think the code panel realizes that owners of the megamansions have continuing projects and long term workers on site. After the final inspection, I have no doubt that there is a walkthru with an electrical contractor that specifies what stuff is aesthetically displeasing.

I have no doubt at all that some of the inuse bubbles are removed.

David
 
dnem said:
I have no doubt at all that some of the inuse bubbles are removed.
Click to expand...

Again I suggest these people pay these tradesmen to find a code compliant solution.

The code does not require a 'bubble cover' that is a design decision typically made by the electrician.

The code only requires an enclosure that is weatherproof if the receptacle is installed in a wet location.

A bubble cover is not the only answer.

You can go recessed like the Arlington product or they could get creative and have the carpenters build an ascetically pleasing hide away for the outlet so it is only in a damp location.

You should see the metal 'bubble covers' I have had to install to cover 30 amp twist locks. Huge and still did not shut to well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top