NEC Violation ??

[K8MHZ]

its not a "cabinet" as defined by art 100.

so, what it is, a quad that is covered buy readily accessible, which is fine, until the cover/box itself serves as a public trash can/bin/bucket/place/depository/whatever.

Why would the receptacle have to be readily accessible?

 

[FionaZuppa]

Why would the receptacle have to be readily accessible?

i was stating it as-installed, not stating as must-be.
in this case, it is both accessible and readily-accessible, per art 100 defs.
the cover is itself a complete door, like a panelboard door, but in this case it is not in a cabinet/enclosure.

 

[K8MHZ]

i was stating it as-installed, not stating as must-be.
in this case, it is both accessible and readily-accessible, per art 100 defs.
the cover is itself a complete door, like a panelboard door, but in this case it is not in a cabinet/enclosure.

I know the definition. What NEC article prevents one from installing a receptacle in a place that's not readily accessible? Only required receptacles have to be readily accessible. Unless specifically forbidden, one can put a receptacle pretty much anywhere.

 

[FionaZuppa]

I know the definition. What NEC article prevents one from installing a receptacle in a place that's not readily accessible? Only required receptacles have to be readily accessible. Unless specifically forbidden, one can put a receptacle pretty much anywhere.

was this info answering someone's question? and "anywhere" will not likely fly with most AHJ's, especially in places that are open to lots of uncontrolled public use.

 

[K8MHZ]

was this info answering someone's question? and "anywhere" will not likely fly with most AHJ's, especially in places that are open to lots of uncontrolled public use.

Code reference please.

 

[iwire]

was this info answering someone's question? and "anywhere" will not likely fly with most AHJ's, especially in places that are open to lots of uncontrolled public use.

Luckily most AHJs enforce only the code and not what someone on the internet thinks they should do.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Luckily most AHJs enforce only the code and not what someone on the internet thinks they should do.

how about this iwire. call up any AHJ you may know, ask an inspector if s/he would pass the pic i posted, given that it is live. try that 1st, lets see what their answer is.

wild to think you know exactly what AHJ's across the US will say.

 

[mwm1752]

how about this iwire. call up any AHJ you may know, ask an inspector if s/he would pass the pic i posted, given that it is live. try that 1st, lets see what their answer is.

wild to think you know exactly what AHJ's across the US will say.

1st it a picture & only so much can be assumed -- NEC definition makes it a cabinet (swinging doors are not required) -- This could easily be a point of sales counter that has a register needing power & communications -- It appears to be indoor -- There may be possibility of problems with liquid splashing as it is shown but where is the danger( throw water on a receptacle from 3' away) plug may corrode & not function -- Code violation to reject at final? Please be specific cause I do not use the because I said so rule

 

[K8MHZ]

I think what FZ need to realize is what the NEC is not.

It is not a book of good design.

It is not a book of common sense.

The NEC is a bare minimum set of standards. Period. It allows for crappy design and a lack of common sense. Even if it didn't, history has shown that you can't regulate stupid.

 

[FionaZuppa]

1st it a picture & only so much can be assumed -- NEC definition makes it a cabinet (swinging doors are not required) -- This could easily be a point of sales counter that has a register needing power & communications -- It appears to be indoor -- There may be possibility of problems with liquid splashing as it is shown but where is the danger( throw water on a receptacle from 3' away) plug may corrode & not function -- Code violation to reject at final? Please be specific cause I do not use the because I said so rule

interestingly enough, the AHJ doesnt need the NEC to make a decision. if the AHJ feels there is a danger/hazard and has justification, the NEC book means nothing. the simple idea of "electrical recepts inside a trash bin and in close proximity to and subject to public trash, is a hazard, thus final inspection is a fail". <-- i guarantee you this would hold up in any court with any judge on any given day. a judge doesnt need NEC citation (or lack of) to apply common sense. the simple fact that since the NEC doesnt cover all hazards and that the AHJ has final say-so, NEC means nothing in the end, the AHJ has say-so.

and by NEC def for cabinet, it is not a cabinet. if i were to remove its door (in pic) i am not left with an enclosure. you need the enclosure box before a door is attached.

so to recap - the NEC does not cover this scenario (perhaps it should), and, the pic as shown should not have passed final inspection, but this is on the AHJ.

 

[iwire]

Yak yak bla bla

Still not an NEC violation and you have heard from an AHJ asking what code section you would cite

Give up, you made a mistake.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Give up, you made a mistake.

what mistake? the title has "??" at the end of it.

no NEC verbiage to clearly say "ok" or "not ok", gray area, should not pass inspection.

 

[ActionDave]

interestingly enough, the AHJ doesnt need the NEC to make a decision. if the AHJ feels there is a danger/hazard and has justification, the NEC book means nothing. the simple idea of "electrical recepts inside a trash bin and in close proximity to and subject to public trash, is a hazard, thus final inspection is a fail". <-- i guarantee you this would hold up in any court with any judge on any given day. a judge doesnt need NEC citation (or lack of) to apply common sense..

A judge does in fact need a piece of law to render a decision on, media hyped stories to the contrary, and anyone acting as an agent of the AHJ has no more right to make a decision outside of the NEC than a cop has a right to issue a traffic ticket without a violation of the traffic code.

 

[petersonra]

interestingly enough, the AHJ doesnt need the NEC to make a decision. if the AHJ feels there is a danger/hazard and has justification, the NEC book means nothing. the simple idea of "electrical recepts inside a trash bin and in close proximity to and subject to public trash, is a hazard, thus final inspection is a fail". <-- i guarantee you this would hold up in any court with any judge on any given day. a judge doesnt need NEC citation (or lack of) to apply common sense. the simple fact that since the NEC doesnt cover all hazards and that the AHJ has final say-so, NEC means nothing in the end, the AHJ has say-so.

and by NEC def for cabinet, it is not a cabinet. if i were to remove its door (in pic) i am not left with an enclosure. you need the enclosure box before a door is attached.

so to recap - the NEC does not cover this scenario (perhaps it should), and, the pic as shown should not have passed final inspection, but this is on the AHJ.

First off the inspector is NOT the AHJ. He has a grand total of no authority to decide something is unsafe. All he is allowed to do by law is to insure the installation does not violate whatever codes have been enacted by statute. And his word is not final. there is a thing called due process which in most cases means that there is a required means of administrative appeal and judicial review.

My guess would be if he failed this install and it was appealed his boss would slap him upside the head, as he should.

 

[mwm1752]

and by NEC def for cabinet, it is not a cabinet. if i were to remove its door (in pic) i am not left with an enclosure. you need the enclosure box before a door is attached.

so to recap - the NEC does not cover this scenario (perhaps it should), and, the pic as shown should not have passed final inspection, but this is on the AHJ.

If - but - maybe are not as picture NEC defines the structure you photographed -- & if the NEC doesn't cover this scenario how could it fail an electrical inspection -- Guess I wouldn't have to worry about you installing like this so you'd pass

 

[user 100]

as for liquids in a trash bin/can............., is exactly the hazard, even more so that its a public trash bin/can !

Not if some kind if a liner or can w/ liner is put in there- like Mc'ds does. You could also cover the rec w/ plastic sheeting- problem solved.

interestingly enough, the AHJ doesnt need the NEC to make a decision. if the AHJ feels there is a danger/hazard and has justification, the NEC book means nothing.

And if you believe your own opinion, its like the others have said this isn't an NEC issue- its all about adoption of the code and which portions get gutted or fattened up by AHJs. If some AHJ had adopted the latest edition in its entirety, unless they specifically singled out this scenario in their amendments to the code, this install should pass.

not that i can find. its a scenario the NEC does not cover. at least now i know i can mount recepts in trash bins :blink:

Neat the things you pick up here, huh?

Look at it this way- cleaning crew needs to vacuum out trash bin, they have a rec literally Right There- eliminating the need for running an extension cord, which could be a trip hazard for customers.