Is this a bogus tag?

[crtemp]

I had a receptacle in a built in cabinet where all of the components will go (blu ray player, receiver, etc) that got put in the wrong spot. It landed half in the cabinet and half in a divider that separates two cabinets. I was able to get a handy plate on the box and metal flex out of it to a four square box so I could install a plug still. The inspector tagged me saying that the original plug is not accessible because the entire box is not in the cabinet, even though it is cut out enough that I easily was able to get a blank plate (handy plate) and relocate a new plug. He is writing up 314.29 in the 2008 code

Is this a legitimate tag? I just assumed that accessible meant can I get the plate on off.

There is a stud to the right of the plug so moving it will require me cutting open the wall behind the cabinets and doing some pretty bad sheetrock damage. Seems pretty petty to move the box 1''

 

[infinity]

To me if you could actually work on the box as it's installed in your graphic then it's code complaint.

 

[GoldDigger]

If 314.29 [2008] is the same as [2011], then I do not see his objection.
You do not have to move/remove any part of the building finish (assuming the cabinets are not built-in) to get at the box and the wires in it. That is assuming that you did your extension wiring in the first place without removing the cabinet.
There is nothing that states that if any part of the box is in one cabinet it must be entirely in that same cabinet.

Now there is a potential (but IMHO specious) argument that the original receptacle box was equipment that therefore required dedicated working space in front of it. If you accept that, almost every receptacle (or other) outlet in a residence is non-compliant.

 

[crtemp]

If 314.29 [2008] is the same as [2011], then I do not see his objection.
You do not have to move/remove any part of the building finish (assuming the cabinets are not built-in) to get at the box and the wires in it. That is assuming that you did your extension wiring in the first place without removing the cabinet.
There is nothing that states that if any part of the box is in one cabinet it must be entirely in that same cabinet.

Now there is a potential (but IMHO specious) argument that the original receptacle box was equipment that therefore required dedicated working space in front of it. If you accept that, almost every receptacle (or other) outlet in a residence is non-compliant.

the cabinets are built ins but I did all the altered wiring after the cabinets were installed. I explained to him it must have been accessible if I wired new stuff off of it.
He then threatened to go to the job, take pictures of the installation and send it to the state and basically said they would take my license away because I don't know codes. I think I might take pictures of my own and ask his supervisor if he thinks it is good or not. I'll take a picture of it with the blank plate on and one of it off.

 

[ActionDave]

the cabinets are built ins but I did all the altered wiring after the cabinets were installed. I explained to him it must have been accessible if I wired new stuff off of it.
He then threatened to go to the job, take pictures of the installation and send it to the state and basically said they would take my license away because I don't know codes. I think I might take pictures of my own and ask his supervisor if he thinks it is good or not. I'll take a picture of it with the blank plate on and one of it off.

Go for it. That is what I would do. It is a bogus call; and you put it in the more polite terms I would have.

 

[crtemp]

Go for it. That is what I would do. It is a bogus call; and you put it in the more polite terms I would have.

Believe me I had more colorful language after I got off the phone with him today.

 

[infinity]

He then threatened to go to the job, take pictures of the installation and send it to the state and basically said they would take my license away because I don't know codes. I think I might take pictures of my own and ask his supervisor if he thinks it is good or not. I'll take a picture of it with the blank plate on and one of it off.

IMO that's pretty unprofessional behavior on his part. I would go over his head at this point. Simply arguing about something that you feel is compliant doesn't make you a bad electrician.

 

[John120/240]

I had a receptacle in a built in cabinet where all of the components will go (blu ray player, receiver, etc) that got put in the wrong spot. It landed half in the cabinet and half in a divider that separates two cabinets. I was able to get a handy plate on the box and metal flex out of it to a four square box so I could install a plug still. The inspector tagged me saying that the original plug is not accessible because the entire box is not in the cabinet, even though it is cut out enough that I easily was able to get a blank plate (handy plate) and relocate a new plug. He is writing up 314.29 in the 2008 code

Is this a legitimate tag? I just assumed that accessible meant can I get the plate on off.

There is a stud to the right of the plug so moving it will require me cutting open the wall behind the cabinets and doing some pretty bad sheetrock damage. Seems pretty petty to move the box 1''

I agree BOGUS. I have performed your method too many times. Microwave or Appliance garage. Under the sink for DW/Disp you almost had to be a contortionist to get it done.....If it was inaccessible...How in the world did you perform your fix ?

 

[Sierrasparky]

the cabinets are built ins but I did all the altered wiring after the cabinets were installed. I explained to him it must have been accessible if I wired new stuff off of it.
He then threatened to go to the job, take pictures of the installation and send it to the state and basically said they would take my license away because I don't know codes. I think I might take pictures of my own and ask his supervisor if he thinks it is good or not. I'll take a picture of it with the blank plate on and one of it off.

What did you do to piss this guy off?
He's gonna contact the license board to take away your license because of a petty disagreement.
Wholly crap Batman!:rant:

 

[crtemp]

What did you do to piss this guy off?
He's gonna contact the license board to take away your license because of a petty disagreement.
Wholly crap Batman!:rant:

I wish I knew. I've never had him tag any of my previous jobs. I think he is just the type that thinks he is smarter than everyone else and likes to try and prove it.

 

[kwired]

the cabinets are built ins but I did all the altered wiring after the cabinets were installed. I explained to him it must have been accessible if I wired new stuff off of it.
He then threatened to go to the job, take pictures of the installation and send it to the state and basically said they would take my license away because I don't know codes. I think I might take pictures of my own and ask his supervisor if he thinks it is good or not. I'll take a picture of it with the blank plate on and one of it off.

Did you ask him what happens if he sends pictures to the state and they come back telling him to back off because there is nothing wrong with the install?

Sometimes you get someone that just plain doesn't like something though it is code compliant, and they will try to find anything possible to call it not acceptable, sometimes overlooking obvious things in the process.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I wish I knew. I've never had him tag any of my previous jobs. I think he is just the type that thinks he is smarter than everyone else and likes to try and prove it.

I think I would talk to him after he cooled off. If a calm conversation would not work I would talk to his superior. I would also let him know that his frivilous actions to the board are slanderous and that you would not put up with someone attacking your good name as you have the right to protect it!

 

[crtemp]

I think I would talk to him after he cooled off. If a calm conversation would not work I would talk to his superior. I would also let him know that his frivilous actions to the board are slanderous and that you would not put up with someone attacking your good name as you have the right to protect it!

Does he have the power to overlook the code and enforce whatever he wants? Would it be "I'm the authority having jurisdiction and what I say goes" type of thing? It really makes me made that I'm gonna have to cut open walls and do damage to homeowners house when there is clearly no violation or safety hazard. I can't imagine I would get any referrals from someone who thinks I don't know what I'm doing and had to destroy their house in the process. Damn, I'm getting pissed again and I had just calmed down from last night (LOL).

 

[kwired]

Does he have the power to overlook the code and enforce whatever he wants? Would it be "I'm the authority having jurisdiction and what I say goes" type of thing? It really makes me made that I'm gonna have to cut open walls and do damage to homeowners house when there is clearly no violation or safety hazard. I can't imagine I would get any referrals from someone who thinks I don't know what I'm doing and had to destroy their house in the process. Damn, I'm getting pissed again and I had just calmed down from last night (LOL).

Very seldom is an EI the true "AHJ". The true AHJ is the agency he works for and he is just a representative tasked with enforcing the rules of the AHJ. He is human and can and does make mistakes. If an unusual circumstance comes up he often only has limited ability in making a decision on his own on how to find a solution to a problem. When such unusual circumstances come up he either will have information from his employer that dictates how to proceed - maybe some past similar circumstances on records and how they handled those as a base to go from, or at very least a team of people that possibly examine the situation and come to a consensus instead of just one person being responsible for that decision.

So unless you have a situation where you have a one man AHJ team, in which case you are probably helpless, take it above him and at same time get his ego to come down a level or two.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I seriously doub't any Inspector or AHJ can make things up as they go. Without a code cite they have nothig to say but to pass.
Now with that said are you compliant with the rest of the project. If you are and you are up against removing cabinets and wallboard then plant your feet. Be nice yet firm, diplomatic demostrate you know the code and apply it properly.

One thing that could be of issue with your installation is that you are makeing an extension from a blank cover.

 

[kwired]

One thing that could be of issue with your installation is that you are makeing an extension from a blank cover.

What is the problem with that if it is done with a flexible method to allow accessibility to the original enclosure - which OP said it was?

 

[crtemp]

What is the problem with that if it is done with a flexible method to allow accessibility to the original enclosure - which OP said it was?

Yep. Just put on about a 8" piece of flexible metal conduit. The box in question has a metal handy plate with a 1/2" flex 90 coming out of it. You can still take the handy plate off without removing anything else.

 

[K8MHZ]

What is the problem with that if it is done with a flexible method to allow accessibility to the original enclosure - which OP said it was?

314.22 prohibits it, with the exception that it shall be permitted if the cover is unlikely to fall off or be removed if it's securing means are removed.

I really don't know exactly what that means, but I would imagine something like a hinged cover would be compliant.

Also, grounding continuity must be independent of the connection between the box and cover.

314.22 does allow (actually requires) a surface extension using an extension ring.

Could the OP do a little more carving and use an extension ring?

 

[crtemp]

314.22 prohibits it, with the exception that it shall be permitted if the cover is unlikely to fall off or be removed if it's securing means are removed.

I really don't know exactly what that means, but I would imagine something like a hinged cover would be compliant.

Also, grounding continuity must be independent of the connection between the box and cover.

314.22 does allow (actually requires) a surface extension using an extension ring.

Could the OP do a little more carving and use an extension ring?

The back of the cabinet is cut out several inches around the box. It's only Sheetrock behind the cabinet and the box is flush with the Sheetrock. No need for box extension.

 

[kwired]

314.22 prohibits it, with the exception that it shall be permitted if the cover is unlikely to fall off or be removed if it's securing means are removed.

I really don't know exactly what that means.

Also, grounding continuity must be independent of the connection between the box and cover.

314.22 does allow (actually requires) a surface extension using an extension ring.

Could the OP do a little more carving and use an extension ring?

Understood, I also think most of us don't know what that first part you mentioned means. If the cover is likely to fall off isn't there some problem here even without the extension? (Picking on the content there and not you.) I honestly don't see the need for the exception there, they need to make that language used in the exception into something that is suitable to go into the main context it follows and do away with the exception. Maybe make it into a subsection A and B instead of a section and an exception. I have seen this done so many times it seems to be more of a rule then an exception - JMO.

Grounding has to be independent from almost anything that is in an easily interrupted path in almost all cases, not a big deal, we are used to that in other applications as well.

Plus OP said he has 8 feet of FMC - which is beyond the 6 feet permitted to use the raceway only as the EGC, so he is going to have a EGC inside the flex anyway.