raised cover on 1900 box

Status
Not open for further replies.
al hildenbrand said:
I don't think you read Sierra's question right. I read his words to describe a coverplate, whether metallic or nonmetallic, that one commonly sees as the flush coverplate on drywall (or plaster) inside occupancies.

You seem to equate a "plate" and a "raised cover" as identical, but they are not.
Click to expand...


I think they're asking if using a plaster ring and coverplate (wheter metal or plastic) on a surface mount metal 4 square box, is a code violation (like some goofballs who are too cheap to go and get an industrial raised cover for it an put it on like it should be ).


JAP>
 
jap said:
I think they're asking if using a plaster ring and coverplate (wheter metal or plastic) on a surface mount metal 4 square box, is a code violation (like some goofballs who are too cheap to go and get an industrial raised cover for it an put it on like it should be ).


JAP>
Click to expand...

Looks more like the issue is the 1900 box
 
jap said:
I think they're asking if using a plaster ring and coverplate (wheter metal or plastic) on a surface mount metal 4 square box, is a code violation (like some goofballs who are too cheap to go and get an industrial raised cover for it an put it on like it should be ).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The question, as you phrase it, is a thread highjack, but, at the moment, the OP seems to be busy elsewhere.

So, Sierra's highjack question being answered by a statement that, "...to the letter of the code its a violation, and hack work at that." begs the question "which Code?". 110.3(B) just isn't enough, in my opinion.
 
I agree that the box is the issue not the covers since the inspector wants FS Boxes not 4" sq. (1900) boxes. The only thing I can think of is that the area where they are placed is subject to damage????
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I agree that the box is the issue not the covers since the inspector wants FS Boxes not 4" sq. (1900) boxes. The only thing I can think of is that the area where they are placed is subject to damage????
Click to expand...
Yes, Dennis. With respect to the OP's stated question, you are correct. However, the OP hasn't come back.

Sierrasparky asked a "highjack" question in Post #14, and Jusme123 responded in Post #16, and, while we're waiting for the OP to return, I'm personally a little interested to hear something more than a 110.3(B) citation, if there is one.

I've seen the 4" square metal J-box / 1/2" rise plaster ring / plastic device cover plate assembly out in the wild, and, I agree that it is aesthetically unsavory to my workman like nature. . . however, Sierrasparky's question is a good one. . . in my opinion. Is the 4" square metal J-box / 1/2" rise plaster ring / plastic device cover plate assembly a Code violation?
 
al hildenbrand said:
Yes, Dennis. With respect to the OP's stated question, you are correct. However, the OP hasn't come back.

Sierrasparky asked a "highjack" question in Post #14, and Jusme123 responded in Post #16, and, while we're waiting for the OP to return, I'm personally a little interested to hear something more than a 110.3(B) citation, if there is one.

I've seen the 4" square metal J-box / 1/2" rise plaster ring / plastic device cover plate assembly out in the wild, and, I agree that it is aesthetically unsavory to my workman like nature. . . however, Sierrasparky's question is a good one. . . in my opinion. Is the 4" square metal J-box / 1/2" rise plaster ring / plastic device cover plate assembly a Code violation?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any code article or section that would make that install a violation. I have done it in a pinch once before many years ago...
 
al hildenbrand said:
Agreed.

The question, as you phrase it, is a thread highjack, but, at the moment, the OP seems to be busy elsewhere.

So, Sierra's highjack question being answered by a statement that, "...to the letter of the code its a violation, and hack work at that." begs the question "which Code?". 110.3(B) just isn't enough, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Al ,

Hijack question? This is what the OP's post is all about. A raised cover on a 1900 box.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Al ,

Hijack question? This is what the OP's post is all about. A raised cover on a 1900 box.
Click to expand...
Not really.. The authority having jurisdiction turned down the box not the cover specifically. But it was definitely mentioned

There is no issue with a hijack-- I wouldn't really call it that-- more of a side trip but worth the adventure :D
 
jusme123 said:
110.3(B), a metal receptacle/switch cover is not designed to be used with a surface mounted mud ring
Click to expand...


Why not?

I would say that most all receptacle or switch covers regardless of whether they are metal, plastic, aluminum, stainless steel or whatever, mount to the device,,,,not the mud ring or the box.

Generally only blank covers acutally mount to the box or a mudring itself.

What does the cover care if the device its mounted to is on the surface or encapsulated by the sheetrock?

JAP>
 
How could the inspector tun down a 4" sq. with a raised cover? They are made for that purpose. Now as mentioned, if the receptacle is only installed with one screw then that is an issue not the box or the cover
 
aleuns said:
I received a call this morning from a customer that just went through an OSHA audit. The OSHA inspector has told them that it is a violation to install a raised receptacle cover on a 1900 box. She informed them it was a "listed" violation in the NEC but would not elaborate further and that all of the receptacles would have to be installed in a bell box or FS box.

Anyone else ever heard of this?
Click to expand...

Dennis Alwon said:
Not really.. The authority having jurisdiction turned down the box not the cover specifically. But it was definitely mentioned

There is no issue with a hijack-- I wouldn't really call it that-- more of a side trip but worth the adventure :D
Click to expand...

Dennis I respect you all quite a bit. but "not really"
 
jap said:
Why not?

I would say that most all receptacle or switch covers regardless of whether they are metal, plastic, aluminum, stainless steel or whatever, mount to the device,,,,not the mud ring or the box.

Generally only blank covers acutally mount to the box or a mudring itself.

What does the cover care if the device its mounted to is on the surface or encapsulated by the sheetrock?

JAP>
Click to expand...

...because the raised cover is designed for surface mount, as opposed to the mud ring, which is designed for flush mount.
 
jusme123 said:
...because the raised cover is designed for surface mount, as opposed to the mud ring, which is designed for flush mount.
Click to expand...


So your saying if you mount a 4 square box to a block wall,,,install an industrial raised cover with a receptacle in it,,,, and someone comes along and installs a 2" thick finish on the block so that it comes out "Flush" with the front of the raised cover,,, its a code violation?

I doubt it.


JAP>
 
jusme123 said:
...because the raised cover is designed for surface mount, as opposed to the mud ring, which is designed for flush mount.
Click to expand...
Just where is that in writing? Is it in the White Book? Where is it written that a "mud ring" can't be exposed in a "surface mount" assembly.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
How could the inspector tun down a 4" sq. with a raised cover? They are made for that purpose. Now as mentioned, if the receptacle is only installed with one screw then that is an issue not the box or the cover
Click to expand...
But one-screw raised cover plates were compliant many years ago... so that would depend on when they were installed. Tell tale sign is whether the covers have three screw holes per duplex.


I have the impression it is more about the box and unused KO's. I know we electricians consider unused KO's as closed, but I would not be surprised if an OSHA inspector were to interpret 110.12 as requiring "substantially" closed. I know I've seen many a surface mount 4sq after years of service that have one or more of the unused KO's pushed into the box and anyone can stick their finger into the box through the otherwise open KO.
 
Smart $ said:
But one-screw raised cover plates were compliant many years ago... so that would depend on when they were installed. Tell tale sign is whether the covers have three screw holes per duplex.


I have the impression it is more about the box and unused KO's. I know we electricians consider unused KO's as closed, but I would not be surprised if an OSHA inspector were to interpret 110.12 as requiring "substantially" closed. I know I've seen many a surface mount 4sq after years of service that have one or more of the unused KO's pushed into the box and anyone can stick their finger into the box through the otherwise open KO.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would be a valid "What if " IMHO
 
Sierrasparky said:
I don't think that would be a valid "What if " IMHO
Click to expand...
While NEC-based inspections should not use "what if" scenarios for most evaluations, OSHA is not limited in that respect. In fact, their audits are actually based entirely on "what if" scenarios. However, they do have to back up their findings with CFR text and/or official interpretations.
 
I could see a mudring and coverplate on a surface mount box being a safety violation from the standpoint of catching one's hand, clothing, hair, etc on the backside edges of the plate, but a raised box cover has no edges like that. My other guess is that a receptacle is mounted to the cover with a raised cover and 190 box vs being mounted the the box with a bell or fs, and that's the rub in this application. or the inspector is just wrong.

If the OP ever replies again, I'd like to know the outcome of this and what type of facility it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top