The problem with 406.8(A) & (B)

[goldstar]

Many inspectors in my area seem to have differing opinions on what is "attended" and "unattended". If you look in Mike Holt's Illustrated Changes for 2002 NEC his interpretation shows the need for a bubble cover where a receptacle is subject to beating rain or water runoff. His illustration shows a receptacle under an eave being considered a "damp" location as per(406.8(A), while the receptacle on the face of the house under a window to be considered a "wet" location as per 406.8(B)(2)(a). Yet 406.8(B)(2)(b)indicates that if an attachment cord is not plugged in the cover can be weatherproof. Go figure !

Some inspectors are requiring bubble covers on any receptacle outdoors. My vision of this is that electrical contractors will be stocking bubble covers to be installed in order to pass inspections. After the green sticker goes on the breaker panel these covers will be changed to the W/P type. The reason ? Anyone putting up a million dollar home is not going to want the ugly bubble covers on the front of their house.

Although my opinion doesn't count for much with respect to the NEC I think the panel should consider removing the words "beating rain or water runoff" from 406.8(A) and just leave the intent of the code as "attended" or "unattended". That way, if the attachment plug is going to remain inserted for an undetermined amount of time then a bubble cover should be used.

 

[rick5280]

Re: The problem with 406.8(A) & (B)

Goldstar, this is a subject that has been debated over and over. I would like to make 2 points.
First, if you want to go through the effort, you can submit a code change proposal, using the form in the back of the code book. Be advised that it is to late to change the 2002 code, so you will have to wait until the 2005 code is out, then submit the proposal. Also be advised that unless you can show just cause, the panel will most likely reject your proposal. How something looks is not just cause.

Point 2, is just a story similar to your, but this time it concerns gfci outlets. When they first were required by code, I know of at least one electrician who would install it, then remove it right after the final inspection. His feeling was that because of the contant tripping that the gfci would do, he was justified in replacing it with the type that he had been installing for years.

Put that story together with the following, and you can see that sometimes electricians overlook the obvious. Back east, somewhere, an electrician did this same thing. The lady of the house used this outlet (now not gfci'd) to plug in her extension cord for her weed wacker. Either not knowing of the danger, or thinking that the outlet was protected, she hefted the extension cord, which was looped, onto her shoulder, and started to cross the lawn. She was barefooted at this time. She got about halfway across the wet lawn, when the cord shorted out, and electocuted her. She lived, but lost the arm.

Do you think that she cared that the gfci had nusience tripping? Do you think the electrician thought that that something like this would happen? Can you see the same thing happening with bubble covers?

Install the bubble covers, and leave them there. Try to change the code, but don't bypass it.

Rick Miell

[ April 30, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: rick5280 ]

 

[goldstar]

Re: The problem with 406.8(A) & (B)

Rick,

Point well taken. However, there is a difference between replacing a GFCI receptacle with a standard duplex receptacle and replacing a bubble cover with an approved wet location cover. The outdoor circuit should be GFI protected no matter what. We electricians usually use GFI receptacles because the reset feature is local with respect to the cord plugged into it as opposed to having to go all the way back to a breaker panel to reset a fault condition. In addition, they're a lot less expensive than GFI breakers.

I believe the intent of the code, with respect to the bubble cover, was to prevent corrosion due to driving rain and water run-off and offer weather protection above and beyond the level of protection that a standard weatherproof cover would offer. Having said that, I still believe that installing a GFI receptacle with a bubble cover on a residential wall that is partially protected by an overhang is unnecessary. If you are not getting a proper gasket seal with a standard weatherproof cover you probably won't get one with a bubble cover either.

Bubble covers are often referred to as "in use" covers. If you have a cord plugged into an outdoor GFI receptacle for an indefinite period of time that receptacle and cord connection should be weatherproof "while in use" at that receptacle. Just my opinion.