Long Post: Seeing Shades of Gray through Red

[iwire]

Why would you "stick" a box in limbo /between surfaces.

It does not matter why.

It only matters as far as this thread goes that it is not prohibited.

 

[sandsnow]

It is stupid to intentionally make a box stick out beyond finish surface, especially where visible.

It is NOT a code violation to do so.

Trimming a faceplate would be a violation of 110.3(B). It was not evaluated with an inch shaved off the bottom. Wait, are faceplates listed??? Hmmmm, I gotta check that.

 

[LarryFine]

It is stupid to intentionally make a box stick out beyond finish surface, especially where visible.

If one knows the thickness of a cabinet back, and the size of any space behind it, one can mount a nail-on (or box w/ring) that will end up flush with a cabinet interior.

For microwaves and the like, my preference is to poke the NM out of the wall, located to suit the cabinet height, and use the grey Carlon PVC handy-box w/ matching duplex cover.

 

[jeff43222]

Around here receptacles mounted within cabinets always get a surface mounted wiremold box. We simply leave the cable sticking out of the wall and the cabinet guys cut out a hole leaving the cable in the cabinet. At the trim out a surface mounted box, receptacle and cover plate are installed. Done. No height problems or holes being cut too big or too small in the cabinet. Eliminates a lot of potential problems, especially the one that George mentioned.

I often do it this way myself, but sometimes this type of installation gets vetoed by the homeowner. And sometimes the cabinet backs are made of thin, flimsy material and not flush with the wall behind it, making it all but impossible to mount a Wiremold box there. If I'm lucky, I can I get a cooperative cabinet guy to put in a mounting block behind the cabinet.

One way I deal with the drywall guys burying my boxes is to use the adjustable ones Carlon makes. They do cost more, but they are soooo worth it. Using them makes it just about impossible for the drywall guys to upset my apple cart.

 

[George Stolz]

Wait, are faceplates listed??? Hmmmm, I gotta check that.

Yes, the ones I use are. The part numbers are at this link.

If you click here, then you find the general requirements for these things.

If you click here, you find the requirements for equipment used in ordinary locations. Each of these links is basically from most specific to most general; I am just following links on their website and posting them as I go.


It contains the following statement:

.................................FIELD MODIFICATIONS

The UL Mark applies to the product as it is originally manufactured when shipped from the factory. Authorized use of the UL Mark is the manufacturer's declaration that the product was originally manufactured in accordance with the applicable requirements. UL does not know what the effect of a modification may have on the safety of the product or the continued validity of the UL certification mark unless the field modifications have been specifically investigated by UL. Unless UL investigates a modified product, UL cannot indicate that the product continues to meet UL's safety requirements.

The only exception for a field modification authorized by UL is when the product has specific replacement markings. For example, a switchboard may have specific grounding kits added in the field. The switchboard is marked with a list of specific kit numbers that have been investigated for use in that particular switchboard. Only grounding kits that are included on the product have been investigated for use in that product.

I don't see this as prohibiting, but as washing the UL of responsibility of field modifications. They can't underwrite modifications they didn't witness. That's not the same as forbidding modifications, IMO. It would then be up to the AHJ to approve/disapprove of the modifications, IMO. But this is something I need more info on too.

I still haven't heard back from Cooper on this, but I sent the e-mail Friday morning, so I don't expect to hear back for a while.

Another question I have is: coverplates are not required to be listed. If I use a coverplate outside of it's listing, is that a violation of 110.3(B), or can I simply claim I invented this coverplate, so to speak?

 

[George Stolz]

One way I deal with the drywall guys burying my boxes is to use the adjustable ones Carlon makes.

Do they use expanding spray foam insulation around boxes up there, Jeff? The only way I could use them is if they were set to 5/8" thickness, and then shifted them out at the trim - I wouldn't be able to wind them back in at the trim, because there would be expanda-foam behind them.

So, my awesome drywallers/cabinet bozos would still bury them.

I did think of doing just that for all the receptacles in the kitchen. I generally find out if they're getting tile when I show up to trim; it would be nice to just adjust the box as opposed to getting spark rings and long 6/32's every time.

 

[sandsnow]

George
from regulatory support area of the website:

What happens to the Listing if a UL-Listed product is modified in the field?

An authorized use of the UL Mark is the manufacturer's declaration that the product was originally manufactured in accordance with the applicable requirements when it was shipped from the factory. When a UL-Listed product is modified after it leaves the factory, UL has no way to determine if the product continues to comply with the safety requirements used to certify the product without investigating the modified product. UL can neither indicate that such modifications "void" the UL Mark, nor that the product continues to meet UL's safety requirements, unless the field modifications have been specifically investigated by UL. It is the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to determine the acceptability of the modification or if the modifications are significant enough to require one of UL's Field Engineering Services staff members to evaluate the modified product. UL can assist the AHJ in making this determination.

So it's up to the AHJ to bless your trimming of the wallplate. IF your field inspector does not like it, you can always go up to the true AHJ (Chief Building Official)
Also 110.3(B) requires you follow any instructions in the listing or labeling. Lack of instructions does allow you carte blanche(IMO).

It is my belief and I may be wrong here, that a faceplate is to contain any sparks that may happen inside the box and not let them escape along with keeping foreign objects (including fingers) from contacting enrgized surfaces.
Your right they are not required to be listed in the NEC.
They are required to "seat against the mounting surface." 406.5
Faceplates being a little recessed, when you cut the bottom off, it no longer seats against the mounting surface.
So that is how I look at trimmed faceplates. If it still continues past the edge of the box, then OK.
Maybe I'm being too generous.??? Maybe I'm being too picky???

Same for any listed product. We may not agree, but we could discuss it. I've been known to change my mind.

 

[George Stolz]

Maybe I'm being too generous.??? Maybe I'm being too picky???

Maybe, that's why I haven't decided yet.

 

[JohnE]

George, for my microwave and disposal receptacles, I set box to protrude a strong 1" from stud. This allows for 1/2" wallboard and 1/2" cabinet back. (Usually 1/4" back and 1/4" "void"). If my strong is a little too strong, I leave it protruding, as you barely notice it with empty cabinet, and certainly do not full. I won't chime in too loudly, but it's legal IMO.

For vanity fixture, I'd pass with big open hole against drywall. Many of these fixtures come with no back as do many sconce type fixtures. As long as big hole is completely blocked by drywall.

 

[George Stolz]

Generally that's how mine work out too.

I was thinking about the light fixture bit today, and realized something. Every mushroom I've ever installed as been bigger than the box behind it - so having drywall behind a bathroom wall vanity is hardly any different.

 

[Gmack]

Why would you "stick" a box in limbo /between surfaces.

It does not matter why.

It only matters as far as this thread goes that it is not prohibited.

Mike Holt is quoted in several articles as saying that a box or extender must be flush.

Just one example from Mike Holt, EC&M.

http://ecmweb.com/mag/electric_article_receptacles/

Carlon, has elaborated in language that adresses "projecting therefrom"

http://www.carlon.com/Documents/IntroGlobalChanges2005NEC.pdf#search='face%20covers%20to%20be%20flush%20with%20combustible%20surface'

Gmack:

A box or extender "projecting" from a combustible surface would
violate code for "obvious" possible ignition reasons, more so if there were draft gaps around the cut opening.

"projecting therefrom" beyond the combustible surface is not the intention of 314 and to "reverse" and describe it as permissable is /was premature and not supportable.

 

[roger]

Gmack,

Mike Holt is quoted in several articles as saying that a box or extender must be flush.

I think you may be misunderstanding or taking it out of context.

You need to move forward to 314.22.

This is also from Mike Holt.

Surface extensions from a flush-mounted box must be made by mounting and mechanically securing an extension ring over the flush box. Figure 314?1

Exception: A surface extension can be made from the cover of a flush-mounted box if the cover is designed so it is unlikely to fall off or be removed if the mounting screws become loose. The wiring method must be flexible for a length sufficient to permit removal of the cover and provide access to the box interior, and it must ensure that bonding or grounding continuity is independent of the connection between the box and cover. Figure 314?2
Intent: Editorial change was intended to clarify the requirements for exposed surface extensions.

Note there is no distinction from a noncombustible or combustible surface for this article section, nor is there any wording that would prevent this from happening in a cabinet with a receptacle and raised cover.

A box or extender "projecting" from a combustible surface would
violate code for "obvious" possible ignition reasons, more so if there were draft gaps around the cut opening.

As shown in the graphic above, your statement is not true, nor is the one below.

"projecting therefrom" beyond the combustible surface is not the intention of 314 and to "reverse" and describe it as permissable is /was premature and not supportable.

Intent: Editorial change was intended to clarify the requirements for exposed surface extensions.


Roger

 

[cowboyjwc]

I've read most of this post and I hope that I caught the jest of the question.

This isn't so much about what the corrections were as I think you are upset that "you have never been called on this before" and your pride is hurt because you got a correction notice.

As an inspector I have a rule. One correction I tell you verbally. Two or more I write, if I have to write I might as well write everything. Things that I may have let go now go down on paper. Just because it doesn't seem like it's a big deal doesn't mean it's not a code violation.

If he could justify the four corrections he wrote then you should just fix them and move one. You should also be there for your inspections as is required by law here in CA, that way you will better understand what he wants and not fix what you think he wants.

Now in his defense. I saw a code section some one quoted and I could tell right away that it's a change. I still have projects in the 1999 code, we are still on the 2002 code and I am trying to learn the 2005 code so that I can teach my inspectors when the time comes. He may have called something that he thought he remembered or something he read or something he imagined it said.

My final guess is that he is a combo inspector. Right?

 

[sandsnow]

Things that I may have let go now go down on paper.

Please explain this. If you don't write it, you don't call it???? :?

You should also be there for your inspections as is required by law here in CA, ......

That is not required as far as I know. Please quote where this comes from. All that is required is permit card, approved plans, and work to be left uncovered for inspection.
Of course it is advantageous for the EC to be there.

 

[cowboyjwc]

You're short an outlet in the bedroom at rough. Not going to write it down because it's going to be there at final. You trimmed an outlet plate, it's the only correction, do I really want to have to drive all the way back out there for that? You've done both things at the same inspection, down on paper they go and like I said since I'm writting I might as well get my inks worth. You get the idea.

Section 305.3 of the UAC "...It shall be the duty of the person requestiong any inspections required, either by thei Code or the Technical Codes, to provide access to and means for inspection of the work." Though the section may have changed, that's the one I have written down.

Sorry I said state law. It's hard for them to provide access and means for inspection (ladders, tools, etc.) if they are not there also nothing worse than hearing "I don't know" over and over from whomever the EC left to walk with the inspector. Also it makes it easier for them to fix any simple corrections they may have and save us both a trip back.

 

[sandsnow]

You're short an outlet in the bedroom at rough. Not going to write it down because it's going to be there at final. You trimmed an outlet plate, it's the only correction, do I really want to have to drive all the way back out there for that? You've done both things at the same inspection, down on paper they go and like I said since I'm writting I might as well get my inks worth. You get the idea.

OK, it still a correction.

Section 305.3 of the UAC "...It shall be the duty of the person requestiong any inspections required, either by thei Code or the Technical Codes, to provide access to and means for inspection of the work." Though the section may have changed, that's the one I have written down.

So, they don't have to be there. Leave ladders all over, covers off etc. We went through this and concluded no one has to be there.

Sorry I said state law. It's hard for them to provide access and means for inspection (ladders, tools, etc.) if they are not there also nothing worse than hearing "I don't know" over and over from whomever the EC left to walk with the inspector. Also it makes it easier for them to fix any simple corrections they may have and save us both a trip back.

True enough and convenient for both parties, but not a reason in itself to turn someone down.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Wouldn't turn you down for not being there unless of course no ladder, etc. Now remember that if I'm being a real jerk, a cover off is a code violation (314.25) and yes a correction is a correction, common sense and experiance should tell you which ones you need to really worry about.

But, like I said, simple correction you have one of your guys work on it while you and I are walking, we come back it's all done, we shake hands and I leave. Now I will say that you probably couldn't have fixed a couple of those in that time, but you get the point.

I had one occasion where I went back 3 times for the same correction because of what I call the phone game. And that's what it sounded like happened.

It got fixed, but not to the inspectors liking, went back fixed it again now we're ok but we're also out how many man hours?

Sooner or later we're going to sign the job card. How hard either one of us want's to make it is up to us. I'm a contractor also and I've player "big cock in the henhouse" with inspectors before. If we work together, the inspector gets what he (and this is a bad term) wants, you get paid and the customer gets a safe product.

As a coutresy to the inspector don't you think that it's a complete waste of his time to walk around with the Asst. Super. on a houseing tract and try to explain to him what the electrician needs to fix?

I'm not trying to beat this to death. I get paid the same whether I write a correction notice or I sign the job card. You on the other hand get paid the same whether I write a correction notice or sign the job card or you go back 3 times. Been in the trades almost 30 years and been a Chief Electrical Inspector or 17 of those. Just trying to pass on my experiance.

 

[George Stolz]

This isn't so much about what the corrections were as I think you are upset that "you have never been called on this before" and your pride is hurt because you got a correction notice.

My pride was hurt when he cited 110.12. I felt that was a cheap shot. I've seen much worse things pass (rough or trim). So, yes, on the second tag I was taken aback by that.

You should also be there for your inspections..., that way you will better understand what he wants and not fix what you think he wants.

I just don't have time for it. I seldom even know an inspection's in progress. Generally, there are fifteen other people with violations, and I'm a footnote on the list (if there at all.) This is the first time I've ever been the guy without a chair when the music stops - the only violations in the house were mine.

Now in his defense. I saw a code section...change...

I don't understand this part. Can you elaborate?

My final guess is that he is a combo inspector. Right?

Yes. I thought he was an electrician before, but I'm not sure.

 

[George Stolz]

You're short an outlet in the bedroom at rough. Not going to write it down because it's going to be there at final.

I think you're saying that since you're walking with the electrician at the rough, and he's saying he'll install it when you leave, you're signing off and shaking hands. Very cool of you. 8)

As a coutresy to the inspector don't you think that it's a complete waste of his time to walk around with the Asst. Super. on a houseing tract and try to explain to him what the electrician needs to fix?

Generally, if there's a problem, then the super's on the phone and I'm there in about a minute. The super is big on talking to get the inspector to visit instead of inspect. I want no part of it. I have work to do, so does the inspector. If he finds something, fine: write it up. If it's a quick fix I can do it on the spot.

In his place, I would be offended at the super thinking I were so stupid as to not realize his game. I know he's smarter than that. He knows I know he doesn't like me anyway, so there's no point being awkward about it. I'll be on this side of the project if he needs anything.

I'm not trying to say that the dude's a jerk and needs to be fired, or nothing like that.

Been in the trades almost 30 years and been a Chief Electrical Inspector or 17 of those. Just trying to pass on my experiance.

I truly appreciate it. I wanted to hear from everybody, otherwise I'd be telling my dog.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Don't waste your time. I found out dogs don't know a darn thing about electrical. :lol: