Partially Covered Junction Box 314.29

Status
Not open for further replies.
That would be like citing a violation on a sheetrocker before he took the time to go back and router out the openings he covered up before going to lunch.

JAP>
 
Seriously, that is where you want to go with this.... Of course, it is a violation if it was left like that.. and of course, if it was fixed then it wouldn't be a violation. :? Not sure why you even made that statement. And if the job was done then it is a violation because there is no cover on it-- so what.. that is not what the op was asking about.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Seriously, that is where you want to go with this.... Of course, it is a violation if it was left like that.. and of course, if it was fixed then it wouldn't be a violation. :? Not sure why you even made that statement. And if the job was done then it is a violation because there is no cover on it-- so what.. that is not what the op was asking about.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a violation if it was left like that.
Of course it would be a violation if the box was more than a 1/4" back from the surface and something was mounted to it like you said earlier.

And probably a few more if one wanted to dig some up, but, that's not what the OP stated as the violation.

He stated a violation of the wires not being accessible.

That would be a tough one to enforce seeing as how there's probably more access to this than there would be had a single gang box was roughed in.

JAP>
 
Site the correct violation, let them fix it, and move on.

As it sits now, it's simply an unfinished project.


JAP>
 
Left as it is now,and, the tile layer is in the wrong for covering 1/2 the box the way he did, and, the electrician is wrong for not covering the unused opening.

JAP>
 
jap said:
That would be a tough one to enforce seeing as how there's probably more access to this than there would be had a single gang box was roughed in.

JAP>
Click to expand...

I stated there would be a violation because the box is probably recessed too far back if it remained partially covered.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I stated there would be a violation because the box is probably recessed too far back if it remained partially covered.
Click to expand...

So you can say "IF" its left this way and I can't?

Don't think so.

There's too many "Ifs" to call this a violation at this point just by looking at the picture because this is surely not the finished product.

I'd bet they already got this worked out an moved on.

JAP>
 
jap said:
This is not a violation at all because there's nothing mounted on the box and the project is not finished yet.


JAP>
Click to expand...
I can agree with that.

Kind of hard for an inspector to demand fixing something that isn't done yet. Now if he notices that and asks you what you are going to do with it, he is simply getting a bit of a head start on the final inspection. If this is supposed to be for an emergency light, it either isn't done or they have pretty inconspicuous emergency light installed there.
 
kwired said:
I can agree with that.

Kind of hard for an inspector to demand fixing something that isn't done yet. Now if he notices that and asks you what you are going to do with it, he is simply getting a bit of a head start on the final inspection. If this is supposed to be for an emergency light, it either isn't done or they have pretty inconspicuous emergency light installed there.
Click to expand...

It seems clear the OP had an issue with this, told the installer, who said it was fine, the OP said it can't stay like that, the installer pushed back again saying it doesn't break any rules, and the OP said it violated the article he cited. The gist of what he wrote leads me to think the installer had no intention of changing tile that covers half of a 4x4 box. So what if only one screw is available?
 
Craigv said:
Try this at your next rough-in inspection, let us know how that goes...
Click to expand...

Is this a thing that is critical for a rough in inspection?

Like I said before this must not be a final inspection or else the emergency light should be in place, but is something that inspector happened to notice. Not the kind of thing you ordinarily would make a correction notice for, but maybe something you do bring up just because you saw it, then maybe even make a note to check on it when you are back for final inspection to make sure they didn't try to cover it up and hope you miss it.

There is still time for tile guy to cut it out, lay another course of tile, install an extension ring etc. and inspect again when things are finished.
 
kwired said:
Is this a thing that is critical for a rough in inspection?

Like I said before this must not be a final inspection or else the emergency light should be in place, but is something that inspector happened to notice. Not the kind of thing you ordinarily would make a correction notice for, but maybe something you do bring up just because you saw it, then maybe even make a note to check on it when you are back for final inspection to make sure they didn't try to cover it up and hope you miss it.

There is still time for tile guy to cut it out, lay another course of tile, install an extension ring etc. and inspect again when things are finished.
Click to expand...

Jap said it isn't a violation because the job isn't finished. So basically any violations seen at rough aren't violations...the job isn't done. Makes no sense.
I'm simply saying that if an inspector cites a code violation at any point, it's a violation as it stands at the time he sees it. To say anything to the effect of, "that's not a violation because the job isn't finished" has no logic and is irrelevant to the question of whether the work as pictured is code compliant. It wasn't: even if the OP's cited article is arguable or wrong, the box (a 4x4, not a 1g as some have surmised) could not mount a cover, extension or device with only one screw, so 110.3(B) and was obviously set back more than 1/4" (it's set back from both layers of tile...look closely), so 314.20.
 
Craigv said:
Jap said it isn't a violation because the job isn't finished. So basically any violations seen at rough aren't violations...the job isn't done. Makes no sense.
I'm simply saying that if an inspector cites a code violation at any point, it's a violation as it stands at the time he sees it. To say anything to the effect of, "that's not a violation because the job isn't finished" has no logic and is irrelevant to the question of whether the work as pictured is code compliant. It wasn't: even if the OP's cited article is arguable or wrong, the box (a 4x4, not a 1g as some have surmised) could not mount a cover, extension or device with only one screw, so 110.3(B) and was obviously set back more than 1/4" (it's set back from both layers of tile...look closely), so 314.20.
Click to expand...

Which is the same thing that was said in post #52 but you just don't want to accept it.

The job is not finished so they still can fix the "issue" without jumping into calling it a code violation before the job is even completed.

There is a difference.

Jap>
 
And if you look closely, from the angle the picture is taken the tile could be installed on a framed wall standing 6" away from the 4sq box in the wall behind it for all we know.

Oh well, the only reason it's fun to debate this is because there hasn't been very many interesting posts lately.

Don't take it too seriously.

I'm sure you,like myself, would have already worked it out with he tile guy, or would have fixed it ourselves.

It's not that big a deal.

Jap>
 
Craigv said:
..., the box (a 4x4, not a 1g as some have surmised) could not mount a cover, extension or device with only one screw, so 110.3(B) and was obviously set back more than 1/4" (it's set back from both layers of tile...look closely), so 314.20.
Click to expand...

I missed any description of what we were seeing and with the fuzzy pic, I thought I was seeing a sideways single-gang ring coming through and then partially covered. I thought the only issue was the partial covering of the access and the crooked and gapped mounting of anything being installed.
 
MAC702 said:
I missed any description of what we were seeing and with the fuzzy pic, I thought I was seeing a sideways single-gang ring coming through and then partially covered. I thought the only issue was the partial covering of the access and the crooked and gapped mounting of anything being installed.
Click to expand...

OP's first sentence says it's a 4x4 box.
 
jap said:
Which is the same thing that was said in post #52 but you just don't want to accept it.

The job is not finished so they still can fix the "issue" without jumping into calling it a code violation before the job is even completed.

There is a difference.

Jap>
Click to expand...

How did this become a debate over the semantics of *when* a condition is a violation? It's like the electrician's version of the physics problem of Schroedinger's cat.:lol:
 
Craigv said:
How did this become a debate over the semantics of *when* a condition is a violation? It's like the electrician's version of the physics problem of Schroedinger's cat.:lol:
Click to expand...

Because the inspector called it too soon that's why.

Everything about an electrical installation actually being a code violation is in refererence to "when" it is inspected.

A loose box is a violation until you fasten it to something.
Tile covering a box may be a violation until its cut out.
Not having a cover on a box is a violation until you put one on.
A pipe stubbed up the wall without straps on it is a violation until they are installed.

You have to give the installer time to finish what he's doing before calling it a code violation.

And,the issue in the 1st post is not a violation as it sits.

The job is simply not done yet because the fixture is not installed.

"When" it actually is,,,, let me know then if the violations you seem to see now still exist.

Jap>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top