screened in porch receptacle

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jcole

Senior Member
Location
Lawrenceburg, Kentucky
Hello guys. I put non in use covers on receptacles for a screened in porch with roof. They were installed about 3 to 4 inches from the screen. Per 406.8A, I didnt think they were subject to a beating rain or water runoff.

Inspector failed because they did not have a 36" overhang protecting them so I needed in use covers. He didnt have a code reference for this.

Any ideas where he came up with this. This jurisdictioin does not have amendments just strictly NEC and IBC requirements. Ive tried to find but cant. Appreciate replies.
 
This is a decision really up to the inspector. If he feels that the rain can drive through the screen and hit the receptacle then this is considered a wet location and an in-use cover is required. IMO since you're 3-4 inches from the screen the inspector is correct.
 
I didnt think they were subject to a beating rain or water runoff.
Click to expand...

Apparently the inspector thinks differently.;)

I put non in use covers on receptacles for a screened in porch with roof. They were installed about 3 to 4 inches from the screen.
Click to expand...

The key to this section is the statement "and will not be subjected to a beating rain or water runoff." This is very subjective.

It appears that the inspector only considers receptacles that are under at least 3' of roof overhang to not be subject to beating rain or water runoff.

Chris
 
If this receptacle was facing into the screen porch and attached to a 4x4 post-- that's what I am envisioning, then I think the inspector is out of line on this one.

Many contractors use the bubble covers everywhere to avoid trouble and because many think you have to.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
If this receptacle was facing into the screen porch and attached to a 4x4 post-- that's what I am envisioning, then I think the inspector is out of line on this one.
Click to expand...


A photo would help.:rolleyes:
 
infinity said:
This is a decision really up to the inspector. If he feels that the rain can drive through the screen and hit the receptacle then this is considered a wet location and an in-use cover is required. IMO since you're 3-4 inches from the screen the inspector is correct.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of Trevor's points, it's up to the inspector and it sounds like a good call.
 
I guess its how you interpert beating rain. I felt the screen protected it enough. I was wrong. But 36" is what is baffling me. I have to see it (in code writing) to believe it. Oh well just another $47.50 for reinspection.
 
I've heard of this mysterious 36" overhang rule as well, and have never been able to find it. Three feet is a relative number. Three feet of overhang that is 60" above a receptacle is going to protect better than three feet of overhang that's 25 feet up. Simply geometry.

The only Code reference I can find that's even remotely close is 225.19 (A), but that's overhead spans over a roof, not inside a porch.

If the inspector is flat-out wrong, I'd ask for a waiving of another isnpection fee.
 
Since a specific dimension rule is not written, it's highly subjective and entirely up to the inspectors discretion. IMO either way he can't be wrong.
 
Around here, they use 45 degrees as the determining factor. Thus, the horizontal distance from the eave edge must exceed the vertical dis6tance, or else you need the in-use cover.
 
LarryFine said:
Around here, they use 45 degrees as the determining factor. Thus, the horizontal distance from the eave edge must exceed the vertical dis6tance, or else you need the in-use cover.
Click to expand...

Many inspectors have posted here that they use 45 degrees as well. :)
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Many contractors use the bubble covers everywhere to avoid trouble and because many think you have to.
Click to expand...

Speaking of bubble covers, I noticed this the other day on instructions for a T&B CodeKeeper bubble:

WARNING: Equipment cord engaged and locked within the cover must have a separate power disconnect (switch/plug).
Click to expand...

The device doesn't have a means to lock it with a padlock, so I can only surmise that "locked" means closed and latched. This seems like an odd requirement and one that is likely to be violated routinely. I suppose it is in the instructions as a pro forma for UL?? :confused:
 
tallguy said:
Speaking of bubble covers, I noticed this the other day on instructions for a T&B CodeKeeper bubble:

The device doesn't have a means to lock it with a padlock, so I can only surmise that "locked" means closed and latched.
Click to expand...
You might want to look again. I use that same bubble cover normally, and it absolutely has locking provisions. If yours indeed doesn't, I might guess that you got a part number variant without the padlock loops, and they use the same packaging for everything.
 
mdshunk said:
You might want to look again. I use that same bubble cover normally, and it absolutely has locking provisions. If yours indeed doesn't, I might guess that you got a part number variant without the padlock loops, and they use the same packaging for everything.
Click to expand...

Can't look now as it is with the HO... It was the vertical version.

Just went out back at my place to look at my horizontal one. No locking provision that I could see -- those instructions are long gone. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled on the next one I install.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top