Inspector cited this?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
How does that effect bonding the wall plate?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I mis-read the correct answer. I thought it was interfering with the ground of a a plug getting installed into the bottom receptacle. All that education and I still can't read :slaphead:
 
kwired said:
Well we have to start with 406.6(B) but it is questionable if bonding is secure enough in this instance so that may send us elsewhere - which I am guessing is what you had there.

110.3(B) is a way out for an inspector that doesn't want to come up with something specific or other logical explanation

I will let you know if I find anything else if it has not been revealed yet.



ETA: maybe something from 250.4 though nothing in there specifically applies to a metal faceplate. I'm guessing you are looking for something fairly general in nature and not specific to the application.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was 250.4 (A) (2) and (3). He explained, something can be grounded, but is it an effective ground fault path. Key word, effective enough to open the OCP ;) I guess that's why he did not cite 406.6(B) . He actually used a volt meter to prove his point and it did show there wasn't a good fault path for the metal faceplate. Half the time it gave a voltage reading, other times not.

250.4 does specifically apply to the metal faceplate, its basically the part that says " normally non-current carrying conductive materials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment." The metal faceplate encloses the electrical conductors.

He did admit he does see some areas do that a with the wall transformers alot, but it is a code violation to do so, a simple volt meter would prove the point. I like it when inspectors are good teachers as well.
 
electricg said:
Actually, it was 250.4 (A) (2) and (3). He explained, something can be grounded, but is it an effective ground fault path. Key word, effective enough to open the OCP ;) I guess that's why he did not cite 406.6(B) . He actually used a volt meter to prove his point and it did show there wasn't a good fault path for the metal faceplate. Half the time it gave a voltage reading, other times not.

250.4 does specifically apply to the metal faceplate, its basically the part that says " normally non-current carrying conductive materials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment." The metal faceplate encloses the electrical conductors.

He did admit he does see some areas do that a with the wall transformers alot, but it is a code violation to do so, a simple volt meter would prove the point. I like it when inspectors are good teachers as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can prove an "effective ground fault current path" with a basic volt meter.

But I do agree with his citation and bonding the plate is a must.
 
edward said:
I don't think you can prove an "effective ground fault current path" with a basic volt meter.

But I do agree with his citation and bonding the plate is a must.
Click to expand...
Same here. Even if the meter reads voltage, what happens when the path in question is called upon to carry current? Having a voltage reading only tells us part of the situation there.
 
You can bond the plate or use a plastic plate. I doubt he will go for removing the wall wart and tie the wart to the box to hold it in place-- ugly too.


Many years ago we were getting cited for using a metal blank plate to cover a round plastic box where the light fixture would go. The plates were not grounded-- They finally started making the plastic round blanks so problem solved.
 
kwired said:
Same here. Even if the meter reads voltage, what happens when the path in question is called upon to carry current? Having a voltage reading only tells us part of the situation there.
Click to expand...

It was when it was not showing voltage that revealed the problem. It was showing intermidiate, which would mean a loose or shakey connection. That in itself would be enough to show there are some bonding issues.

The fix would be to use a plastic plate, but apparently on this job it was spec out to have all metal plates and ground pins up when receptacles are installed. Have to let the engineer know what the inspector said and let him decide on cosmetics, since this will be the only receptacle at this location with a plastic faceplate.
 
If you can't replace the metal plates with plastic, would it be acceptable to install # 6/32 nuts on the screws behind the xfmr and then tighten it down with a needle nose pliers after it's plugged in ? I understand the EI's reasoning for citing this but it seems rather drastic to fail an entire job for this section of the Code. Not that it's right but I can't begin to guess how many times I've seen this done. To be honest, we stopped using metal plates with plug-in xfmrs years ago because if the screw should happen to loosen up the plate could drop down across the hot & neurtal blades and cause an arc.
 
Is that an isolated ground receptacle?

You can always use one of these to bond the plate. Screen Shot 2014-06-08 at 2.22.15 PM.jpg
 
goldstar said:
If you can't replace the metal plates with plastic, would it be acceptable to install # 6/32 nuts on the screws behind the xfmr and then tighten it down with a needle nose pliers after it's plugged in ? I understand the EI's reasoning for citing this but it seems rather drastic to fail an entire job for this section of the Code. Not that it's right but I can't begin to guess how many times I've seen this done. To be honest, we stopped using metal plates with plug-in xfmrs years ago because if the screw should happen to loosen up the plate could drop down across the hot & neurtal blades and cause an arc.
Click to expand...

OP said the specs called for the ground pin to be installed up. My guess is for just what you stated, in case the metal plate slipped down it would contact the ground pin first.
 
ASG said:
If it is not an isolated ground receptacle, why is it orange?
Click to expand...
I can't really tell if it is orange or red, but doesn't matter orange is not a requirement to be IG. If it is IG it must have the triangular shaped IG symbol on the face - and I don't see that.

But an IG receptacle still has to have the yoke (which is what the plate screw will connect to) grounded as it is insulated from the receptacle grounding pins. This usually needs to be done by mounting it to a grounded metallic box.
 
I have some old Slater receptacles in my 'museum'. They are all plastic, even the yoke. The entire front is plastic. The only thing that would bond the cover would be a metal screw in direct contact with the cover. A transformer with a screw, like in the pic, would render a once bonded cover un-bonded.
 
xformer said:
Would the AHJ have accepted a nut in constant contact with the face plate under the transformer connection as being acceptable?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. How are you supposed to tighten the nut before you tighten the screw? The only way to assure contact would be to use a threaded stud with one nut securing the cover and a second securing the transformer. Which would look more hacky-tacky than a nut and a screw but would actually work better.

Why all the 'what if's' just to circumvent using a plastic cover?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top