# Receptacle location



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

Lol. Gfi it


----------



## Mshea (Jan 17, 2011)

No
face up??? even if it is not a violation I would not accept it. Strictly speaking there are permitted uses for face up outlets but under a sink? Invitation to fill the outlet with chemicals and garbage. Maybe a floor plug.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Mshea said:


> even if it is not a violation I would not accept it.


 
What would you tell him you are failing him for then?


----------



## btharmy (Jan 17, 2009)

It is accessable as far as I can tell. Face up on countertops is expressly prohibited. Face up inside a cabinet is not mentioned as a violation as far as I can find. It is stupid but not against the NEC.


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

It looks like they ran the cord through a bowl maybe so nothing gets in there. I think that alone makes it ok.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Mshea said:


> No
> face up??? even if it is not a violation I would not accept it.


If it is not a violation you have to accept it right?


----------



## newbi (Dec 17, 2011)

It looks like the previous electrician did a hack job. The receptacle is off center with the drain.


----------



## RICK BOYD (Mar 10, 2008)

*???????*

you should submit this to EC&M magazine illustrated catastrophes ,
you may get a prize

http://ecmweb.com/nec/illustrated-catastrophes


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

RICK BOYD said:


> you should submit this to EC&M magazine illustrated catastrophes ,
> you may get a prize
> 
> http://ecmweb.com/nec/illustrated-catastrophes


Why? There isn't anything wrong with it...code wise.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Next72969 said:


> Lol. Gfi it


Shouldn't it already be gfci protected? Its a commercial kitchen. 210.8?


----------



## FlyingSparks (Dec 10, 2012)

Deep Cover said:


> Why? There isn't anything wrong with it...code wise.


110.12 all the way. No professional would do this ****, well....


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

FlyingSparks said:


> 110.12 all the way. No professional would do this ****, well....


Not Approved! (See Definition) And .... "Receptacles mounted to and supported by a cover shall be held rigidly against the cover by more than one screw or shall be a device assembly or box cover listed and identified for securing by a single screw."


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

newbi said:


> It looks like the previous electrician did a hack job. The receptacle is off center with the drain.


And your avatar is a little to the left.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

FlyingSparks said:


> 110.12 all the way. No professional would do this ****, well....


From the NFPAs manual of style.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*New in 2014 NEC*

*New in Article 406 in the 2014 NEC*

*"Receptacles in Countertops and Similar Work Surfaces.*

Receptacles, unless listed as receptacle assemblies for countertop applications, shall not be installed in a face-up position in countertops or similar work surfaces. Where receptacle assemblies for countertop applications are required to provide ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel in accordance with 210.8, such assemblies shall be permitted to be listed as GFCI receptacle assemblies for countertop applications."

PS: I just got a copy of the new 2014 NEC handbook as a PDF file; works great searching and copy are allowed.:thumbup:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> *New in Article 406 in the 2014 NEC*
> 
> *"Receptacles in Countertops and Similar Work Surfaces.*
> 
> Receptacles, unless listed as receptacle assemblies for countertop applications, shall not be installed in a face-up position in countertops or similar work surfaces. Where receptacle assemblies for countertop applications are required to provide ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel in accordance with 210.8, such assemblies shall be permitted to be listed as GFCI receptacle assemblies for countertop applications."


The bottom of a cabinet is not a work surface.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

True. I will ask the Massachusetts Electrical Inspectors if they would accept the installation shown in the picture at our meeting tonight in Malden. In either case this issue is a good candidate for a 2017 proposal.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

As the install may be pre-406, perhaps the answer is rating/listing of the raised 4 sq cvr being installed in the position it is....i.e.- a floor rated cover would be required.......~CS~


----------



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

I get them on a workmanlike manner. The more ambiguous the better.
Lol


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*Red Tag!*

I sent this question and picture to my colleagues all over the country. I am sure many will red tag this type of installation.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> True. I will ask the Massachuserts Electrical Inspectors if they would accept the installation shown in the picture at our meeting tonight in Malden.


And at that meeting they will all beat their chest and say no. Then half them will go ahead and do it themselves on a side job. :laughing:




> In either case this issue is a good candidate for a 2017 proposal.


It is ridiculous to worry about it as it would be perfectly code acceptable to install a floor box receptacle right outside this sink cabinet.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> As the install may be pre-406, perhaps the answer is rating/listing of the raised 4 sq cvr being installed in the position it is....i.e.- a floor rated cover would be required.......~CS~


A 'floor rated cover' is not required nor would it prevent crap from getting in the receptacle. 

You could put an in use cover on it.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> A 'floor rated cover' is not required nor would it prevent crap from getting in the receptacle.
> 
> .


So where would one be _required_ to install floor rated covers BBQ?

on ceiling receptacles....? :laughing:

~CS~


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

We are talking about the picture and the question, and in my opinion it is unacceptable and should have never been installed in this manner. Outside on the floor in the kitchen? 

A Licensed Electrician is a Qualified Person knows better!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Perhaps T406.3 may be helpful, depending on what sort of location this is considered

~CS~


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Take your receptacle/cover mounting issue out of the question because you don't know when that was installed. It could have been perfectly legal at the time...what code would you cite?

If you cite 110.12 you are saying that it's against code because I don't like it.

Assuming it is GFI protected, like it should be in a commercial kitchen, I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> We are talking about the picture and the question, and in my opinion it is unacceptable and should have never been installed in this manner. Outside on the floor in the kitchen?
> 
> A Licensed Electrician is a Qualified Person knows better!


And a qualified inspector knows better to let their opinion take them beyond code requirements.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Very true Deepone. 


~CS~


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

1997 install. There is no gfci protection for the circuit.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

and there was no 406 either.....

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> So where would one be _required_ to install floor rated covers BBQ?
> 
> on ceiling receptacles....? :laughing:
> 
> ~CS~


Perhaps locations where receptacles are installed *in* the floor. 




> 314.27(C) Floor Boxes. Boxes listed specifically for this application shall be used for receptacles located in the floor.
> 
> Exception: Where the authority having jurisdiction judges them free from likely exposure to physical damage, mois-ture, and dirt, boxes located in elevated floors of show windows and similar locations shall be permitted to be other than those listed for floor applications. Receptacles and covers shall be listed as an assembly for this type of location.



The receptacle in the picture is not instaled in the floor.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

A couple years before my time...was GFI protection required in a commercial kitchen in '97?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> A couple years before my time...was GFI protection required in a commercial kitchen in '97?


No..


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

jlmran said:


> 1997 install. There is no gfci protection for the circuit.


See.. I told u


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

So it was legal at the time, although a little more problem-atic by today's standards.

After studying the picture, it appears that the cover is legal as well. Those are the same covers we use today. The receptacle is secured with nuts and 6-32 screws thru the yolk.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Perhaps locations where receptacles are installed *in* the floor.
> 
> The receptacle in the picture is not instaled in the floor.



correct me if i'm wrong BBQ, but face up installs fall under one or the other definitive areas, _floor_ or _work surface_

so which would this be _interpreted_ as is the Q


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> So it was legal at the time, although a little more problem-atic by today's standards.
> 
> After studying the picture, it appears that the cover is legal as well. Those are the same covers we use today. The receptacle is secured with nuts and 6-32 screws thru the yolk.


More than likely seems the case Deepone

If so, about the only 'update' that might be imposed are life safety concerns, which we get with our state walkthroughs here, usually gfci's being required where they were not in prior code cycles


~CS~


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

Joe Tedesco said:


> I sent this question and picture to my colleagues all over the country. I am sure many will red tag this type of installation.


Based on what? "I'm the inspector....you're not...so you WILL fix that or I won't pass your final." ....??


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Mshea said:


> No
> face up??? even if it is not a violation I would not accept it.


Thank you for showing our newest members why electrical inspectors should be shot on site.



Joe Tedesco said:


> We are talking about the picture and the question, and in my opinion it is unacceptable and should have never been installed in this manner. Outside on the floor in the kitchen?
> 
> A Licensed Electrician is a Qualified Person knows better!


Your opinion doesn't count. Saying someone "should know better" is meaningless. Show us the code that it violates.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

:thumbsup:


Mshea said:


> No
> face up??? even if it is not a violation I would not accept it. Strictly speaking there are permitted uses for face up outlets but under a sink? Invitation to fill the outlet with chemicals and garbage. Maybe a floor plug.


Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!


No one is putting down inspectors that enforce the adopted codes, but when an inspector starts trying to enforce his wants and wishes they are no longer professional.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Joe Tedesco said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!


That's a good retort, as usual, Joe.


It's like saying "_You shouldn't criticize crooked cops until you walk in their shoes for a while and see how it really is_". 


The fact of the matter is that inspectors are bound by the law and when inspectors openly admit to failing installations that are code compliant they show themselves to be the corrupt assholes that most of us believe inspectors truly are.


----------



## owl (Oct 31, 2012)

My boss would kick my ass if I put a recep there.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> :thumbsup: Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!


Are you really asking for sympathy from guys in the field? Yeah, I really feel bad for inspectors.


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> :thumbsup: Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!


Wait, being an inspector is so hard that we should agree when you fail a job because u dont like it?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

owl said:


> My boss would kick my ass if I put a recep there.


And that is fine, bosses are allowed to require their wishes be followed.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Anyone who fails an install on 110.12 citing "workmanship" is a hack inspector.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

BBQ said:


> The bottom of a cabinet is not a work surface.


usually I see it BBQ's way but it says "or similar" and it's located directly underneith and clearly below the flood level room of the fixture and the P trap that will eventually be replaced so I think most plumbers would definitely consider that a work surface.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

markore said:


> usually I see it BBQ's way but it says "or similar" and it's located directly underneith and clearly below the flood level room of the fixture and the P trap that will eventually be replaced so I think most plumbers would definitely consider that a work surface.


Is the inside bottom of an electrical panel considered a work surface because I put my tools and breakers there when working in the panel? :blink:


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Haxwoper said:


> Thank you for showing our newest members why electrical inspectors should be shot on site.
> 
> Your opinion doesn't count. Saying someone "should know better" is meaningless. Show us the code that it violates.


If it was a legitimate floor box with sealing plugs or a waterproof in use cover then it would not be a listing issue however this is an unprotected location when the plumbing system is being serviced.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Haxwoper said:


> Is the inside bottom of an electrical panel considered a work surface because I put my tools and breakers there when working in the panel? :blink:


 do you install face up receptacles there without covers where they can fill with metal shavings?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

markore said:


> ...And the P trap that will eventually be replaced so I think most plumbers would definitely consider that a work surface.


 By this logic, every horizontal surface accessible to man is a "work surface." Someone might put tools literally anywhere. Floor receptacles should be illegal because 90% of my tools end up on the floor. :laughing:


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

markore said:


> If it was a legitimate floor box with sealing plugs or a waterproof in use cover then it would not be a listing issue however


 Is a floor box listed for use in a cabinet (not a floor)?



> this is an unprotected location when the plumbing system is being serviced.


So is the back wall of that cabinet.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Big John said:


> Anyone who fails an install on 110.12 citing "workmanship" is a hack inspector.


I actually agree with you guys on this. I don't see the location itself as worthy of a red ticket however the materials that were chosen would not be approved for that application.

Inspectors can approve materials and devices based on listing, local conditions, or engineering reports. in either case there is shared liability and recourse.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Big John said:


> By this logic, every horizontal surface accessible to man is a "work surface." Someone might put tools literally anywhere. Floor receptacles should be illegal because 90% of my tools end up on the floor. :laughing:


Sorry that was supposed to be a joke. I'm not one for pulling for the fuzzy logic out. if anybody has a stronger definition for work suface from the UL white book I'm all ears.


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

markore said:


> Sorry that was supposed to be a joke. I'm not one for pulling for the fuzzy logic out.


 ive noticed a simple " :laughing: " helps with jokes around here


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

markore said:


> I actually agree with you guys on this. I don't see the location itself as worthy of a red ticket however the materials that were chosen would not be approved for that application.


 Why not?


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> Yeah, I really feel bad for inspectors.


I really feel bad for guys that are still in the field.

Pete


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

markore said:


> Sorry that was supposed to be a joke. I'm not one for pulling for the fuzzy logic out. if anybody has a stronger definition for work suface from the UL white book I'm all ears.


UL has nothing to do with it.

When the NEC uses a term that is not defined in the NEC we are supposed to look to the other codes and if that fails a particular dictionary. 

If you can find a building code that tells us that the inside bottem of a cabinet is a work surface, or a floor I will say you were right.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Joe Tedesco, I see you have been back to this thread since you Thanked new posts, but you avoided answering some questions.

Why not explain what code it violates?


The bottom of the cabinet is no different than the side. And altho, in my opinion, that is a bad place to put the receptacle, the fact remains that opinions are meaningless.

Show us the code or admit that you are corrupt.

The problem with inspectors making bad calls is that it costs the contractor and customer money. It's wrong and it should be punishable. If you make a call that you know you can't substantiate with code, I say you should be prosecuted.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

The location under the drain is where I would be concerned and Section 90.4 covers Enforcement where the AHJ has the responsibility for interpreting the rules, approval of equipment and materials. Imagine a 400 unit building where this situation was found in each unit and where problems with the drain caused the drain water to leak onto the device! See 90.7, 110.2, and 110.3.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Haxwoper said:


> If you make a call that you know you can't substantiate with code, I say you should be prosecuted.


 I get your point but this seems kinda extreme.

Do you think if an electrician _knowingly_ violates the NEC they should be prosecuted instead of given a notice of correction? 

Pete


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

If I was an inspector I would not red tag that but I would let them know I didn't think it was a decent install.
Then I would nit pick the fu ck out of the rest of the job because if they did that I can only imagine what other crap they did.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Joe Tedesco said:


> The location under the drain is where I would be concerned and Section 90.4 covers Enforcement where the AHJ has the responsibility for interpreting the rules, approval of equipment and materials. Imagine a 400 unit building where this situation was found in each unit and where problems with the drain caused the drain water to leak onto the device! See 90.7, 110.2, and 110.3.


You haven't cited a code that this installation violates.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> The location under the drain is where I would be concerned and Section 90.4 covers Enforcement where the AHJ has the responsibility for interpreting the rules, approval of equipment and materials. Imagine a 400 unit building where this situation was found in each unit and where problems with the drain caused the drain water to leak onto the device! See 90.7, 110.2, and 110.3.


 Exactly the reason you'd need more substantive code violations than what you listed there: You'd be putting the contractor out of a whole lot of money to change receptacles in 400 units because of a perceived problem that you can't even directly identify with a code article.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Pete m. said:


> I get your point but this seems kinda extreme.
> 
> Do you think if an electrician _knowingly_ violates the NEC they should be prosecuted instead of given a notice of correction?
> 
> Pete


An electrician is not an arm of the government. Inspectors should be held to higher standards just like police.

There is a world of difference between an electrician not making a 100% code compliant installation and a corrupt inspector failing an installation that he knows doesn't break any code. *That's the same as a cop arresting someone who hasn't broken the law, just because they did something he didn't like.*


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

See Section 110.3(A)(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come into contact with the equipment.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> See Section 110.3(A)(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come into contact with the equipment.


 What is the hazard present with that face-up receptacle that's substantially different from a face-up receptacle in _any other surface_ where they are permitted by code?


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Big John said:


> What is the hazard present with that face-up receptacle that's substantially different from a face-up receptacle in any other surface where they are permitted by code?


Give it up bud. Look at those titles in his sig line. He's not going to admit to a thing


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> Give it up bud. Look at those titles in his sig line. He's not going to admit to a thing


 My signature beats his signature.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Haxwoper said:


> An electrician is not an arm of the government. Inspectors should be held to higher standards just like police.
> 
> There is a world of difference between an electrician not making a 100% code compliant installation and a corrupt inspector failing an installation that he knows doesn't break any code. *That's the same as a cop arresting someone who hasn't broken the law, just because they did something he didn't like.*


Not every inspector is an employee of a government entity but that really has nothing to do with the point. I just think instant prosecution is a little dramatic.

I agree 100% with you that if you have a corrupt (and my thinking of corrupt would be one that attempts to extort money from a contractor to pass their job) inspector he/she should be fired and then prosecuted.

Pete


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*First Code Used*

Question: What was the year of the first electrical code you used? Mine was the 1965 New York City Code. :thumbsup:


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Question: What was the year of the first electrical code you used? Mine was the 1965 New York City Code. :thumbsup:


Mine was the 1964 NYC code. Sucka


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Question: What was the year of the first electrical code you used? Mine was the 1965 New York City Code. :thumbsup:


Do you have a point?


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

drspec said:


> Do you have a point?


 hes been doing this so long , we should feel bad because we havent walked in his shoes so he should be allowed to make violations based off feelings. We established this earlier in the thread


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

No just wanted to change the subject.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Question: What was the year of the first electrical code you used? Mine was the 1965 New York City Code. :thumbsup:


What have you ever actually done other than sit in seminars, collect certifications, and tell other people how much you know?


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

I get the feeling that JT has this sense that we need his experience here and he's doing us a favor


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

Haxwoper said:


> What have you ever actually done other than sit in seminars, collect certifications, and tell other people how much you know?


I'm not positive of this, but I heard a dirty rumor about a forum being deleted :whistling:


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

ponyboy said:


> I get the feeling that JT has this sense that we need his experience here and he's doing us a favor


What experience? I don't think he's ever touched a tool.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

Been in the trade since I was 13, I received my first Limited Journeyman E4 License in CT in 1967, and was part owner of Cato Electric Company. :thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> See Section 110.3(A)(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come into contact with the equipment.


Those code passages are vagarieties installed for discretionary use Joe

Unfortunately, this is confrontable , as well as easily _'rippable of a new one'_ for even the most fledgling of council

You may also find you've less than the sovereign immunity you think , should such litigation fall on your doorstep

As such, i would highly suggest you research some of your older code books for that which what may be seen as more substantiated and solid

In closing, i don't like the _d*mn_ thing anymore than you do, but i wouldn't call it out just because of that

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!


You really don't know that some of us_ have_ or _have not_ Joe

But i digress, it is best described as a symbiant relationship. 

I say this because it's rather evident there are far more pseudo inspectors and electricians that those of viable credentials 

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Question: What was the year of the first electrical code you used? Mine was the 1965 New York City Code. :thumbsup:


Joe, who cares what year code someone started with?

Does the fact you are old change today's code rules?

Does the fact that some of the posters here are young change the fact there is no real violation or hazard in the OPs picture?


----------



## Hippie (May 12, 2011)

The most asinine threads seem to constantly be the most popular on this forum.. every receptacle in a rusty box is not a world ending code violation.. 

Another thing I'd bet on is a lot of you on here are guilty of a lot more hack work than you admit to. Talk is cheap on line.. time is money in the real world


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Well if your point is, we're one_ anal_ trade, your right Hippie.....going tooth/nail over minutia while rome burns is rather indicative of that ....~CS~


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Some places to start:

ARTICLE 90 Introduction
90.1 Purpose

(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

Article 100-I, Definitions; 110.11, Deteriorating Agents; Table 110.20; 110.22, Identification of Disconnecting Means; 110.26, Working Space; 110.27(B), Prevent Physical Damage; 404.4 Damp or Wet Locations; 314.15; 
404.14(A), Alternating-Current General-Use Snap Switch; 
404.14 (B), Alternating-Current or Direct-Current General-Use Snap Switch; 312.2; 314.15; 314.27(C) and Exception, Floor Boxes; 314.28; 404.8(A), Switches Accessibility and Grouping, Location; 404.9, Provisions for General-Use Snap Switches; 422 Appliances; 422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances, Receptacles, 210.52 (not in cabinet or cupboard - no door); 406.4(E), Receptacles in Counter tops and Similar Work Surfaces in Dwelling Units;

I'm not putting a position forward here just providing the most relevant article titles I've found so far...


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Before I wade into any minutiae or vagaries of code, I'd like the question in post 69 answered.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Big John said:


> Before I wade into any minutiae or vagaries of code, I'd like the question in post 69 answered.


Which is the same point I was making by pointing out a floor receptacle could be installed right outside this cabinet subject to water splashing from the sink.


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

Code or not its up to the AHJ so boo ya.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

90.4 Enforcement!


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

sparky402 said:


> Code or not its up to the AHJ so boo ya.


 And a whole lot of inspectors are not the AHJ, and the electrician can go over the inspector's head, so boo-ya.


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

Big John said:


> And a whole lot of inspectors are not the AHJ, and the electrician can go over the inspector's head, so boo-ya.


Not here they cant. Our inspectors have the only call on what passes and what doesnt.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> 90.4 Enforcement!


All that says is that you should leave this installation alone because you know it's inherently safe regardless of whatever code violations you'd like to trump up


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

Either way he didnt do it and its existing so thats that.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Lol.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

sparky402 said:


> Not here they cant. Our inspectors have the only call on what passes and what doesnt.


Everyone has a boss, you just don't know where to look.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Jlarson said:


> Lol.


You find electrical hazards funny?












:laughing:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Yes.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Jlarson said:


> Yes.


You just made Joes list. :laughing:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

sparky402 said:


> Not here they cant. Our inspectors have the only call on what passes and what doesnt.


 Just an FYI for you, because it might be useful if you ever get a bogus call: It looks to me like the AHJ in Nebraska is the electrical board, and not the inspectors themselves. Check out 81-2104 in the State Electrical Act.


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

Big John said:


> Just an FYI for you, because it might be useful if you ever get a bogus call: It looks to me like the AHJ in Nebraska is the electrical board, and not the inspectors themselves. Check out 81-2104 in the State Electrical Act.


I will have to check that out when i get on the computer. I know omaha has its own city inspectors and i rarely do anything outside of the city.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

What's odd about this, is that in my experience, it's been the younger inspectors who feel they have something to prove that create the most grief. My older inspectors simply don't give a chit.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

sparky402 said:


> I will have to check that out when i get on the computer. I know omaha has its own city inspectors and i rarely do anything outside of the city.


Each municipality has it's own inspectors here, but we can go to the state to get clarification/resolution of disputes.


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

Deep Cover said:


> Each municipality has it's own inspectors here, but we can go to the state to get clarification/resolution of disputes.


Do you guys have just a state license or do you have to get one for each town. We have to have a state license and one for each city we work in that requires it.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

As of now, each municipality requires it's own license. That is supposed to be changing soon. I expect minimum permit fees to rise.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

This has been fun, but I believe I'll wait a while before I post again to the NEC Forum of ET. For your info, I'm relocating the receptacle, simply and only for pride, image, self-respect, etc.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Speaking of Joe's list, with respect, impressive as it is, if you're a Master isn't it a little redundant to list that you are a Journeyman as well? I mean, can't you get that thing on one line instead of wrapping down? The state jurisdiction hanging off the end kind of waters down your other more impressive stuff in my mind...

and there are three ands where one would do and thats kinda silly

and we already know your name so why list it again?


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

jlmran said:


> This has been fun, but I believe I'll wait a while before I post again to the NEC Forum of ET. For your info, I'm relocating the receptacle, simply and only for pride, image, self-respect, etc.


Be sure to send an After picture !


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

markore said:


> Speaking of Joe's list, with respect, impressive as it is, if you're a Master isn't it a little redundant to list that you are a Journeyman as well? I mean, can't you get that thing on one line instead of wrapping down? The state jurisdiction hanging off the end kind of waters down your other more impressive stuff in my mind...
> 
> and there are three ands where one would do and thats kinda silly
> @
> and we already know your name so why list it again?


Thanks, I edited it. In Massachusetts you must first get a Journeyman license before getting a Master's license. :thumbsup:


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Looks really good! Congratulations on your accomplishments. :thumbup:


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

jlmran said:


> Is the location of the receptacle acceptable? Located in a (commercial) public building.
> 
> View attachment 32330


Gave a copy of this to Leo, Jr last night at the IAEI Paul Revere meeting and he agrees with me, same for the MECA President! BBQ knows Leo, Jr maybe he will call him today so he can verify my comments here! :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Gave a copy of this to Leo, Jr last night at the IAEI Paul Revere meeting and he agrees with me, same for the MECA President! BBQ knows Leo, Jr maybe he will call him today so he can verify my comments here! :icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:


I don't care what Leo Jr thinks. 

You know the code as well or better than him and you could not come up with a legitimate code citation. :thumbsup:

Ugly is not a safety hazard.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

markore said:


> Speaking of Joe's list, with respect, impressive as it is, if you're a Master isn't it a little redundant to list that you are a Journeyman as well?


For what it is worth here in MA if you want to run a business with more than yourself and an apprentice you need a masters license. 

But if you still want to work with the tools you must maintain your journeyman license as well.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Big John said:


> Just an FYI for you, because it might be useful if you ever get a bogus call: It looks to me like the AHJ in Nebraska is the electrical board, and not the inspectors themselves. Check out 81-2104 in the State Electrical Act.


There's an appeals directive. Most states usually have some recourse available to forward a formal complaint. 

~CS~


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*While you are at it.*



jlmran said:


> This has been fun, but I believe I'll wait a while before I post again to the NEC Forum of ET. For your info, I'm relocating the receptacle, simply and only for pride, image, self-respect, etc.


While you are at it please let us see what it looks like inside of the box. I will bet there is no EBJ installed! *See Section 406.11 Connecting Receptacle Grounding Terminal to Box.* 

*2014 NECH Commentary: *"Cover-mounted wiring devices, such as on 4-inch-square covers, are not considered grounded. Section 250.146(A) does not apply to cover-mounted receptacles, such as the one illustrated in Exhibit 250.51. Box-cover and device combinations listed as providing grounding continuity are permitted. The mounting holes for the cover must be located on a flat, non-raised portion of the cover to provide the best possible surface-to-surface contact, and the receptacle must be secured to the cover using not less than two rivets or locking means for threaded attachment means."

Please take more pictures and post them here.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> While you are at it please let us see what it looks like inside of the box. I will bet there is no EBJ installed! Please take more pictures and post them here.


There may be no need for one.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Citing the NECH is useless as it isn't enforceable. The last sentence of 250.146 A references your standard raised surface cover. I suspect what your commentary is referencing is the entirely flat covers for devices.

Secondly, the 2014 code wasn't in effect in 1997.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Please post a new reply instead of editing your post to address a response.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

Deep Cover said:


> Please post a new reply instead of editing your post to address a response.


See Section 406.11 Connecting Receptacle Grounding Terminal to Box. 

2014 NECH Commentary: "Cover-mounted wiring devices, such as on 4-inch-square covers, are not considered grounded. Section 250.146(A) does not apply to cover-mounted receptacles, such as the one illustrated in Exhibit 250.51. Box-cover and device combinations listed as providing grounding continuity are permitted. The mounting holes for the cover must be located on a flat, non-raised portion of the cover to provide the best possible surface-to-surface contact, and the receptacle must be secured to the cover using not less than two rivets or locking means for threaded attachment means." :laughing:

Please take more pictures and post them here.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> While you are at it please let us see what it looks like inside of the box. I will bet there is no EBJ installed! *See Section 406.11 Connecting Receptacle Grounding Terminal to Box.*
> 
> *2014 NECH Commentary: *"Cover-mounted wiring devices, such as on 4-inch-square covers, are not considered grounded. Section 250.146(A) does not apply to cover-mounted receptacles, such as the one illustrated in Exhibit 250.51. Box-cover and device combinations listed as providing grounding continuity are permitted. The mounting holes for the cover must be located on a flat, non-raised portion of the cover to provide the best possible surface-to-surface contact, and the receptacle must be secured to the cover using not less than two rivets or locking means for threaded attachment means."


Wow, Joe just opened a whole new can of beans!
Without posting *2014 NECH Commentary:* Exhibit 250.51 this loses value / isn't definitive.

It says 4 inch square so pressed rounded edge back box with rounded surface cover may still qualify if holes are in flat portion... or are they really trying to say only device combinations permitted must be those with manufacturer listing and marked as providing continuity?

That sounds hard to prove unless there is an easy way to look up the specific listing I'm not aware of, unless it is similar the concentric knockouts on metal boxes where gradually all makers of metal boxes have added the listing for 277+ grounding...


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> Citing the NECH is useless as it isn't enforceable.


Thank you. :thumbsup:


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*250.51*



markore said:


> Wow, Joe just opened a whole new can of beans!
> Without posting *2014 NECH Commentary:* Exhibit 250.51 this loses value / isn't definitive.
> 
> It says 4 inch square so pressed rounded edge back box with rounded surface cover may still qualify if holes are in flat portion... or are they really trying to say only device combinations permitted must be those with manufacturer listing and marked as providing continuity?
> ...


Here it is.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

*2008 250.146(a) 2008 250.146(b)*

250.146 Connecting Receptacle Grounding Terminal to
Box. An equipment bonding jumper shall be used to connect
the grounding terminal of a grounding-type receptacle
to a grounded box unless grounded as in 250.146(A)
through (D). The equipment bonding jumper shall be sized
in accordance with Table 250.122 based on the rating of the
overcurrent device protecting the circuit conductors.

(A) Surface-Mounted Box. Where the box is mounted on
the surface, direct metal-to-metal contact between the device
yoke and the box or a contact yoke or device that
complies with 250.146(B) shall be permitted to ground the
receptacle to the box. At least one of the insulating washers
shall be removed from receptacles that do not have a contact
yoke or device that complies with 250.146(B) to ensure
direct metal-to-metal contact. This provision shall not apply
to cover-mounted receptacles unless the box and cover
combination are listed as providing satisfactory ground
continuity between the box and the receptacle. *A listed
exposed work cover shall be permitted to be the grounding
and bonding means when (1) the device is attached to the
cover with at least two fasteners that are permanent (such
as a rivet) or have a thread locking or screw locking means
and (2) when the cover mounting holes are located on a flat
non-raised portion of the cover.*

(B) Contact Devices or Yokes. Contact devices or yokes
designed and listed as self-grounding shall be permitted
in conjunction with the supporting screws to establish
the grounding circuit between the device yoke and flushtype
boxes.

(C) is floor boxes
(D) is for isolated grounds

Is there a distinction being made here between cover-mounted on a box mounted on the surface and listed exposed work covers?

The OP's pic is actually recessed for extra controversy.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

I don't know what Joe is trying to say. The exhibit says that that cover is legal without an EGC to the device. It is the same cover that is shown in the OP. But he implies that the cover in the OP needs an EGC.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

I was discussing the equipment bonding jumper from the receptacle to the box.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> I was discussing the equipment bonding jumper from the receptacle to the box.


Joe...you really need to learn how to communicate.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Gave a copy of this to Leo, Jr last night at the IAEI Paul Revere meeting and he agrees with me, same for the MECA President!


They agreed there was a violation?

And what violation did they cite?

The same ones you did?


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> Joe...you really need to learn how to communicate.


Haha, I don't know how, but somehow this thread has switched from one of those epic angsty creature under the sink undead threads that goes on forever to an awkward modern dance ensemble at the community theater that nobody wants to admit going to see, let alone having part of.

The 3rd act will feature Bill Clinton debating the meaning of the word* is*.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Awg-Dawg said:


> They agreed there was a violation?
> 
> And what violation did they cite?
> 
> The same ones you did?


 I sure hope not. It'd be really depressing that multiple people responsible for code enforcement can't tell the difference between "code violation" and "things that make me unhappy."


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

markore said:


> ...creature under the sink...


Pun intended?


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

jlmran said:


> Creature under the sink - Pun intended?


It's kinda a shoutout to the "patient in the basement" (HVAC)
and to long plumbing threads... swung this over this way, rolled that over that way, etc... the highlights being usually undersink or a combined mechanical room with a furnace and electrical service directly under a steam pipe...

A lot of island sinks these days get those air admittance valves, that will eventually fail/leak.
Few plumbers anymore take the time to do a double vented island stack U vent and cleanout.

An AAV is like the plumbing equivalent of SE, except it usually only lasts for 5-10 years. :thumbup:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

jlmran said:


> Is the location of the receptacle acceptable? Located in a (commercial) public building.
> 
> View attachment 32330


There is "Acceptable"..."PROPER"...Legally "CORRECT"...and what is "COMMON SENSE". Guess what side I am on.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Big John said:


> I sure hope not. It'd be really depressing that multiple people responsible for code enforcement can't tell the difference between "code violation" and "things that make me unhappy."


Whether you're an enforcer or an installer, both categories should contribute to general continuous improvement. The real tragedy is that the installer of this receptacle did something so stupid it might result in additional code requirements, which makes a thicker book. This type installation should be regulated by intelligence and pride in workmanship, not by a safety code.

If an installer absolutely requires a code to NOT place that recept beneath the trap,, well...maybe survival of the intelligent will eliminate those genes some day.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

jlmran said:


> This type installation should be regulated by intelligence and pride in workmanship, not by a safety code.


What do you think could possibly go wrong by this installation?

Outside receptacles see water all the time with little to no consequence.


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

Ive installed receptacles face up like that countless times in the base of a sink or island for a cooktop and will continue to do it when it works for me.

Never would consider it hack.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Awg-Dawg said:


> Outside receptacles see water all the time with little to no consequence.


Face up, with no drainage?


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

markore said:


> Face up, with no drainage?


Youre familier with gravity aren't you?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

All face-up receptacles are subject to being filled with dirt and water. Ever changed out any old floor receptacles? How is this different? 

Is it ideal? No. Would I prefer to do it? No. Would I do it if the guy signing my paychecks told me to? You bet.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

drspec said:


> Ive installed receptacles face up like that countless times in the base of a sink or island for a cooktop and will continue to do it when it works for me.
> 
> Never would consider it hack.


If the receptacle were of to the side of the drain and elevated slightly above the floor surface I might say OKAY. The way it looks in the post I'd say that someone took a shortcut. Whoever did it either took a shortcut...on purpose or is a HACK, IMO.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Big John said:


> Is it ideal? No. Would I prefer to do it? No. Would I do it if the guy signing my paychecks told me to? You bet.


 
Im probably getting away from the original topic.

I don't know if I would have installed that way or not, but the question is should it be failed, I say not.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Awg-Dawg said:


> What do you think could possibly go wrong by this installation?
> 
> Outside receptacles see water all the time with little to no consequence.


Nothing could go wrong, or everything could go wrong. It should be about reducing risks, without total reliance on the code. You know as I do that if it were mounted on the side, as far away from the water supply lines as is reasonable, the chances of water-born problems are greatly REDUCED.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Big John said:


> Would I do it if the guy signing my paychecks told me to? You bet.


In this scenario you wouldn't have the liberty or authority to contribute to continuous improvement. You wouldn't be the hack, your boss would be the hack.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

jlmran said:


> Whether you're an enforcer or an installer, both categories should contribute to general continuous improvement. The real tragedy is that the installer of this receptacle did something so stupid it might result in additional code requirements, which makes a thicker book. This type installation should be regulated by intelligence and pride in workmanship, not by a safety code.
> 
> If an installer absolutely requires a code to NOT place that recept beneath the trap,, well...maybe survival of the intelligent will eliminate those genes some day.





jlmran said:


> Nothing could go wrong, or everything could go wrong. It should be about reducing risks, without total reliance on the code. You know as I do that if it were mounted on the side, as far away from the water supply lines as is reasonable, the chances of water-born problems are greatly REDUCED.


It has to be totally reliant on code. If all inspectors start going around citing things on their whim, we will all be screwed.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

jlmran said:


> everything could go wrong.


Exactly what would that be?

Meaning, what is the worst that can happen?


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

jproffer said:


> It has to be totally reliant on code. If all inspectors start going around citing things on their whim, we will all be screwed.


I'm not talking about inspectors, I'm talking about installers relying on more than the code.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

So, it's safe to assume that you GFI/AFCI everything in a home?


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Awg-Dawg said:


> Exactly what would that be?
> 
> Meaning, what is the worst that can happen?


If the drain pipe leaks (and they will): Corrosion, failed receptacle, tripped breaker, water getting under the cabinet because there is a hole in the base.

If it doesn't leak: ugliness, access for rodents and other pests, time wasted talking about it because it looks so goofy.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> So, it's safe to assume that you GFI/AFCI everything in a home?


Do these devices alone improve safety?


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

jlmran said:


> Do these devices alone improve safety?


Ummm.....yes :blink:


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

jlmran said:


> If the drain pipe leaks (and they will): Corrosion, failed receptacle, tripped breaker, water getting under the cabinet because there is a hole in the base.
> 
> If it doesn't leak: ugliness, access for rodents and other pests, time wasted talking about it because it looks so goofy.


 
I cant argue with that logic.

So if I turn the receptacle 90 degrees all problems are solved.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Deep Cover said:


> So, it's safe to assume that you GFI/AFCI everything in a home?


They...GFCIs, AFCIs, have been proven to save lives. If you want to wait until the government/NEC tells you that you need to protect your babies...then wait. There is not a possibility in my mind that anyone who is against installing these devices is not a "sidejobber". Be honest with us.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> They...GFCIs, AFCIs, have been proven to save lives. If you want to wait until the government/NEC tells you that you need to protect your babies...then wait. There is not a possibility in my mind that anyone who is against installing these devices is not a "sidejobber". Be honest with us.


So you go to every job insisting on changing every breaker to AFCI at $35-40 each, and GFI protecting every circuit?

You must not get many...or I'm sorry, ANY jobs.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

jproffer said:


> So you go to every job insisting on changing every breaker to AFCI at $35-40 each, and GFI protecting every circuit?
> 
> You must not get many...or I'm sorry, ANY jobs.


I think you may have missed the sarcasm.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

jproffer said:


> So you go to every job insisting on changing every breaker to AFCI at $35-40 each, and GFI protecting every circuit?
> 
> You must not get many...or I'm sorry, ANY jobs.


No. But as always, if you are adding something to the system you must incorporate the latest code requirements. All new innovations come at a cost. If you save a customer money it is coming out of your own pocket.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

jproffer said:


> Ummm.....yes :blink:


Didn't 480sparky have a post once (with video) demonstrating a hair dryer continuing to run while submersed in water and plugged into a gfci recept? I'll have to go look..

Found it - holy moly - it's almost as long as this one. 

http://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/gfcis-hair-dryers-sinks-full-water-21274/


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

jlmran said:


> Didn't 480sparky have a post once (with video) demonstrating a hair dryer continuing to run while submersed in water and plugged into a gfci recept? I'll have to go look..


Yes he did. But I suspect if you put your finger or (more safe) a tester into the water and grounded the other probe, it would have tripped. It didn't trip because there was no imbalance.


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> No. But as always, if you are adding something to the system you must incorporate the latest code requirements. All new innovations come at a cost. If you save a customer money it is coming out of your own pocket.


If you come to my house to add one circuit, and then inform me that I'm required to change all my breakers to AFCI breakers because of it, you'll be invited to leave. So I guess that would take money out of your pocket too.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

jproffer said:


> If you come to my house to add one circuit, and then inform me that I'm required to change all my breakers to AFCI breakers because of it, you'll be invited to leave. So I guess that would take money out of your pocket too.


How long have you been in the trade?


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

LOL, long enough to know that if you try to turn a $300 job into a $1500 job, you'll be kicked out of most places. Not that it's any of your business or relevant to what we're talking about.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*110.2 Approval*

Finally, I would use the following rule to prohibit this installation because of the concerns I, and others have expressed.

"110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

Informational Note: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed." :thumbup:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

jlmran said:


> Whether you're an enforcer or an installer, both categories should contribute to general continuous improvement. The real tragedy is that the installer of this receptacle did something so stupid it might result in additional code requirements, which makes a thicker book. This type installation should be regulated by intelligence and pride in workmanship, not by a safety code.
> 
> If an installer absolutely requires a code to NOT place that recept beneath the trap,, well...maybe survival of the intelligent will eliminate those genes some day.


There is nothing unsafe about the installation that it requires more code rules. 

Again, floor outlets are common and collect more crap than this ever would. 

As far as workmanship that is between the customer and the contractor. The NEC is supposed to be a safety standard not a workmanship standard.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Finally, I would use the following rule to prohibit this installation because of the concerns I, and others have expressed.
> 
> "110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.
> 
> Informational Note: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed." :thumbup:


Of course you would because you can't cite a solid code reason.

To go that route is more unprofessional than the person who installed this receptacle.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm not a big advocate of face up devicing

But i do know they've had a long history of being addressed by cmp, through code process, with the manufacturers following suit

Because Vermont is the _'land time forgot'_ in many respects, we see them all the time here. This is where the term _'existing'_ is probably more relevant than many localities.

If in fact the install was in some 60's or 70's code cycle , then it simply needs to have met that code cycle, *period*. _(my oldest nfpa 70 being a '53 btw)_:thumbsup:

The ONLY cause for action would be life safety issues, typically where an AHJ or sometimes Fire Marshal will require updating to gfci protection

We have facing up receptacle outlets , many with no covers and obvious wear tear in our schools, town halls, inns, bars , and cha cha shops, see 'em all the time & _hate 'em all too!_

But for the state and or private HI's to insist on anything _more_ than this would essentially be requiring to rip the better 1/2 of Vermont's antiquated wiring back to the substations _(and even they are vintage)_

In short, there is _'due process'_ vs. _'i just don't like that'_, one has been proven to work (albeit slower than the 2nd coming) ,the other proven to being the epitome of arrogance falling on it's face time & again

Now if you doubt me, there exists in many states a formal complaint procedure. It makes few friends, but the public is also privy to and allowed a voice in such matters

TRust me, it's taken the wind outta many a art 90 sail here

~CS~


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Finally, I would use the following rule to prohibit this installation because of the concerns I, and others have expressed. "110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved. Informational Note: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed." :thumbup:


That is horse hockey and you know it. It is chicken sh*t to try and pick those random code articles to cite something that isn't directly against the code. At least One NH electrical inspector gets it that "neat and un-workmanlike" is an unenforceable code. Just because the AHJ doesn't like something, if it isn't violating a direct code article, then it should NOT be red tagged. Anything else is an abuse to power, and an inspector probably looking for a brown envelope slid their way.


----------



## sparky402 (Oct 15, 2013)

How many different inspectors do you guys deal with. Our inspectors all work the same locations so we might deal with 5-7 total. And we kind of know what they will look for because they all are harder on certain items. One is grounding/bonding one is strapping one is non sense stuff one is breaker locks/appliances one is arc faults.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Finally, I would use the following rule to prohibit this installation because of the concerns I, and others have expressed.
> 
> "110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.
> 
> Informational Note: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed." :thumbup:


Translation...It's not legal because I said so.


----------



## Jim Port (Oct 1, 2007)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Not Approved! (See Definition) And .... "Receptacles mounted to and supported by a cover shall be held rigidly against the cover by more than one screw or shall be a device assembly or box cover listed and identified for securing by a single screw."


Sorry Joe, you even missed on this point. The cover has 3 screws holding the receptacle to the cover. And no EGC to the receptacle is required either.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Easy guys. Lets entertain this for what can be learned from it.

"110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

If we look at this article it is clear this particular article does not give power to forbid this receptacle location, only to approve conductors and equipment.

If an inspector told me that in this location they would only approve a weather resistant gfci, a waterproof cover, or a sealing type floor box, that is what I would install. 

I don't give inspectors carte blanch in layout that is different from the NEC but find that it does save time and money to work with them on materials, occasionally they have approved less expensive methods/materials that what I would have installed if I wanted to make sure there would be no second visit. 

You can fabricate your own panelboxes and waterproof covers, rubber gaskets, etc but they must meet the dimensional requirements listed in the NEC. Using listed parts just saves time getting materials approved for the locations you are installing. There are some places where the ridgid definitions of "wet, damp, dry" blur and break down, like the 1/4 airspace behind the siding and the backplane of a outdoor enclosure.

In these cases where there are gray areas all site conditions, soil conditions, POCO practices and regional climate can only be considered thoroughly by the electrical inspector on site and the AHJ facilitating the permit.

Yes the oversight is onerous but we also benefit from the clarity of approved work billable and collectible in court.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

Become Certified as an Electrical Inspector!

http://joetedesco.org/PDFILES/NCPCCICIB_20130905.pdf

IAEI’s National Certification Program Construction Code Inspectors (NCPCCI)
Professional Development»Certification Programs» NCPCCI Program

The construction code inspectors certification examinations (NCPCCI) have been developed by national code enforcement organizations in collaboration with Prometric. These code enforcement organizations have joined together to establish a testing program that will provide nationally recognized evidence of competence and professionalism in construction code knowledge.

Information About The Exam

Knowledge of the Code is one of the most powerful aspects and strengths anyone involved in the electrical trade can possess. The purpose of these examinations is to provide a basis for assessing competency in technical code knowledge of a Construction Code Inspector or Plan Reviewer.

Information Requests — Direct all information requests about examinations to:
Prometric
NCPCCI Program
1260 Energy Lane
St. Paul, MN 55108
800.864.5309
http://www.prometric.com/

How to Register
You may file your examination registration by phone, fax, or mail, using the form found in the NCPCCI Candidate Information Bulletin. An NCPCCI Candidate Information Bulletin and a Registration Form can be downloaded online at the Prometric Website.

You can also request a bulletin via email.

Candidate Information Bulletin Form Request
Mail Registration

Complete and mail the exam registration form found in the Candidate Applicant Handbook. Mail the form to:

Prometric
NCPCCI Program
1260 Energy Lane
St. Paul, MN 55108
800.864.5309

If the registration form is incorrect, it cannot be accepted and will be returned. Payment must be made by cashier’s check, company check, money order, Visa or MasterCard. Cash or personal checks are not accepted. The registration form will be processed within 48 hours from the time it is received. Please allow four to eight days for mail delivery. You must then call to schedule your examination appointment.

Express Phone Registration

You may register for and schedule your examination with one phone call. This is an expedited process that requires an additional fee of $5. Please have your examination registration form and your MasterCard or Visa available before you call 800.864.5309 between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. (Central time).

Express Fax Registration

You may also fax your completed examination registration form to Thomson Prometric at 800.347.9242 and it will be processed within 24 hours. This is an expedited process that requires an additional fee of $5. You must include the MasterCard or Visa number and the cardholder’s signature on the fax. You may then schedule your examination by calling 800.864.5309.

Exam Registration Expiration

Your examination registration remains valid for one year after it has been processed and will expire without further notice at that time.

Fees and Refunds.

All registration and express fees are nonrefundable and nontransferable.

Renewal Information
The renewal requirement for the NCPCCI (for 2A, 2B, and/or 2C) is 2.4 CEU’s (24 Contact hours).

Of these, .08 CEU (8 contact hours) of the total 2.4 must be on NEC update/changes. These can be either the 2011, 2008, or earlier editions of the Code as mandated by your local jurisdiction. The hours must be specifically NEC electrically related.

The renewal requirements are the same for all three certifications (2A, 2B, and/or 2C).

Meet Your CEU Requirements Online

You can meet your CEU requirements through the IAEI UL University online training website or through the IAEI/Pace web site.

Go there now, and get your hours quickly and easily.
Links

Prometric NCPCCI Information
Prometric Web site for the Test Center Locator
List of NCPCCI-Certified Inspectors

One- and Two-Family Electrical Dwellings (2A)
Electrical General (2B)
Plan Review (2C)


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

Sample question from IAEI 2B study guide.

Question 3. The disconnecting means for a torque motor shall have an ampere rating of at least what percentage of the motor nameplate current?

A. 115 percent
B. 125 percent
C. 140 percent
D. 155 Percent

Answer?

The question is about motor disconnecting means.
􏰀1. In Contents, under “Chapter 4, Equipment for General Use” ind “Article 430, Motors, Motor Circuits, and Controllers” under which ind “Part IX. Disconnecting Means.”
􏰀2. Scan Article 430–Part IX and ind 430.110, Ampere Rating and Interrupting Capacity.
􏰀3. Section 430.110(B) requires the disconnecting means for a torque motor to have an ampere rating of at least 115 percent of the motor nameplate current.
􏰀4. The correct answer is A.

Want more samples? :thumbsup:


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

markore said:


> Easy guys. Lets entertain this for what can be learned from it.
> 
> "110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.
> 
> ...


Why hello everyone. I just now stumbled on this gem of a thread.
I am just curious. Joe would you agree with marklores assessment or would you consider a receptacle in this location a violation under any circumstances?

If the materials must be indivualy approved for each location then why did the cmp go through the trouble of requiring wp receptacles for outdoors?


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*Not true*

*"110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved."

If we look at this article it is clear this particular article does not give power to forbid this receptacle location, only to approve conductors and equipment.

NOT TRUE! See Definitions of Equipment and Conductors.

Also, never refer to a section as an article or simply identify it by its number such as 110.3. Please stay focused on the question.* :thumbsup:


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Now that we've come full circle, has anyone switched over to my idea of shooting inspectors like this in the face?


----------



## jproffer (Mar 24, 2007)

So like Deep Cover said, "It's illegal because I say so".

That's the best you can come up with? 

I have to tell ya Joe, your name precedes you in most electrical circles/forums...being a code guru of sorts, but so far I'm not impressed.

If you can't come up with a better reason to fail an installation...any installation...than "I've look through every article I can think of...I've really racked my brain here, and I couldn't come up with anything. But I REALLY don't like the way that looks, so I'm going to write it up under 110.2" ....:no:

For the record, I believe you know the code. But I think your judgment has become clouded, as far as what you can and cannot do and as far as the power you do and do not have.

Naturally, that's JMHO, and I'm sure you couldn't care less what one of us peons thinks...but that's what I think.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Haxwoper said:


> Now that we've come full circle, has anyone switched over to my idea of shooting inspectors like this in the face?


No, it must be a NJ thing.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> *"110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved."
> 
> If we look at this article it is clear this particular article does not give power to forbid this receptacle location, only to approve conductors and equipment.
> 
> ...


The post is in bold font, that settles it. :jester:


So based on your post and cite I can only assume you would also fail all the floor outlets at your local Stop & Shops. They get filled with water, wax stripper, dirt etc. all the time requiring them to be repaired. Sometimes they smoke and steam nicely. 

You can see examples of them in the floral section and other locations throughout the stores.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*No*



BBQ said:


> The post is in bold font, that settles it. :jester:
> 
> 
> So based on your post and cite I can only assume you would also fail all the floor outlets at your local Stop & Shops. They get filled with water, wax stripper, dirt etc. all the time requiring them to be repaired. Sometimes they smoke and steam nicely.
> ...


No I would not. I would verify that the following rule was considered.

"314.27(B)Floor Boxes. Boxes listed specifically for this application shall be used for receptacles located in the floor.

Exception: Where the authority having jurisdiction judges them free from likely exposure to physical damage, moisture, and dirt, boxes located in elevated floors of show windows and similar locations shall be permitted to be other than those listed for floor applications. Receptacles and covers shall be listed as an assembly for this type of location." :thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Become Certified as an Electrical Inspector!


I've had my IAEI _'Electrical Inspector General' _, signed by Phil Cox cert now for almost 2 decades Joe.

It was easier to pass than my masters btw...

I was also an IAEI member for a similar amount of time. About the _only_ good thing they do is act as sidearm to the state(s) apprenticeship.

Other than that, it's just another place to eat, drink & make merry ,and stroke each others monumental egos.

Their mag is just as biased as every other boot licking trade mag, and having a cert has amounted to absolutely zero for my personal biz.

That said, certs are nice, yet are not the _end all _of a *public servant*. having been a public servant for over 1/4 century i can attest to that personally as well.

As i advance in age, and am subjected to the states younger stuffed shirt AHJ's struggling to impart safety doctrine, it occurs to me that it may be a far more effective tax dollar invested into them a Dale Carnegie course dealing with people 

As EC's we have to validate our installs quite frequently, playing the my way or the highway card gets us the door. The state is no less responsible toward the overall public good in their service toward public safety. 

Given the hack installs that _by far and large_ outnumber the amount of available oversight , terms like _liaison , emissary , representative or spokesman _ should be more the job description of *'Inspector'*

just my morning coffee opinion from the land of K&T , HI's and farmboy wiring...

~CS~


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> I've had my IAEI _'Electrical Inspector General' _, signed by Phil Cox cert now for almost 2 decades Joe.
> 
> It was easier to pass than my masters btw...
> 
> ...


Phil Cox was the IAEI Director and we presented NEC seminars around the USA. My Certifications were signed by Bill Summers, he too was the IAEI Director before Phil. Talk more about K&T, HI's, and Farm boy wiring, I am familiar with the first two the third may fall under Article 347.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> No I would not. I would verify that the following rule was considered.
> 
> "314.27(B)Floor Boxes. Boxes listed specifically for this application shall be used for receptacles located in the floor.
> 
> Exception: Where the authority having jurisdiction judges them free from likely exposure to physical damage, moisture, and dirt, boxes located in elevated floors of show windows and similar locations shall be permitted to be other than those listed for floor applications. Receptacles and covers shall be listed as an assembly for this type of location." :thumbup:


And yet even though they are in a listed box / cover assembly they are much more subject to damage.

You are not being the least bit logical, it is obvious you just don't like how it looks.

Lucky for the world you are not an inspector.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Phil Cox was the IAEI Director and we presented NEC seminars around the USA. My Certifications were signed by Bill Summers, he too was the IAEI Director before Phil. Talk more about K&T, HI's, and Farm boy wiring, I am familiar with the first two the third may fall under Article 347.


Art 547 Joe.....
which has about as much chance of being _universally enforced_ as Obama does getting hit by a meteor

but hey, there's always _hope_ , right? :whistling2:

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr Tedesco is a prominent trade figure of tenure Ponydude

Unfortunately this is a brass knuckle take no prisoners venue, where one's opinion _is and can_ be confronted

Most of the old IAEI bb members copped out when this started happening years ago, mentions of liability and disclaimer concerns

You'll also find most trade writers , who essentially work for their manufacturing pimps, won't reply here, albeit they will post their emails at the ends of their offerings.

call Joe what you will, but at least he's not afraid to dance with the devil @ ET


~CS~


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

BBQ said:


> And yet even though they are in a listed box / cover assembly they are much more subject to damage.
> 
> You are not being the least bit logical, it is obvious you just don't like how it looks.
> 
> Lucky for the world you are not an inspector.


I believe you are confused; see this picture that covers the equipment in the rule! :laughing:

PS: I will look at the installations you describe in the market in Somerville, MA you mentioned since we shop there all of the time. :thumbup:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> I believe you are confused; see this picture that covers the equipment in the rule! :laughing:


:lol::lol::lol:

I think the guy that has only worked with a keyboard for better part of three or four (?) decades is confused and out of touch.


Those flaps last about as long as a plastic in use cover and do nothing in the real world to prevent the types of damage you seem to feel a plug under a particle board cabinet is subject too.

Even if the flap is not broken off few people will fasten the latch.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

BBQ said:


> And yet even though they are in a listed box / cover assembly they are much more subject to damage.
> 
> You are not being the least bit logical, it is obvious you just don't like how it looks.
> 
> Lucky for the world you are not an inspector.


Please post an image of this listed box/cover assembly so we can see what you are talking about. :thumbsup:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Please post an image of this listed box/cover assembly so we can see what you are talking about. :thumbsup:


For what?

You posted one, they will be that type or the round box type. 

With a cord plugged in, when water hits the floor, like it does every night when they clean the floors, where do you think the water goes?


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

BBQ said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> I think the guy that has only worked with a keyboard for better part of three or four (?) decades is confused and out of touch.
> 
> ...


I agree and have pictures of them broken and or removed. Your comments about me are probably true, I quit working and became an inspector and instructor for New Haven, CT, Branford, CT, Glendale, CA, and Pasadena, CA when I was around 30 years old. 

...........

When are you at your desk during the week?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> ..........
> 
> When are you at your desk during the week?


I am not, I did not like being the man 24/7 and basically started assigning myself out in the field more and more until they got used to me being back in the field. :thumbsup:


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

O*h* vey Joe here I am as one of the only contributors trying to back up your position with actual code citations and instead of thanks you give me a spanking....

Why don't you make one post including the definitions and full text citations of all sections relevant to your position instead of bouncing around from ethos to pathos to logos in every third post?

Here is an example of pathos:
I like this floor box. Those rubber seals, recessed back box and drainage holes make me feel warm and fuzzy and safe, and it's shiny and pretty!









ethos: Aristotle's theory of character and how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable.
This could be any position in which the speaker—whether an acknowledged expert on the subject, or an acquaintance of a person who experienced the matter in question—knows about the topic.
There are three qualities that contribute to a credible ethos and they include perceived intelligence, virtuous character, and goodwill.
Audience is more likely to be persuaded by a credible source because they are more reliable.

pathos: the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment.
This can be done through metaphor, amplification, storytelling, or presenting the topic in a way that evokes strong emotions in the audience.

logos: the use of reasoning, either inductive or deductive, to construct an argument.
Logos appeals include appeals to statistics, mathematics, logic, and objectivity. For instance, when advertisements claim that their product is 37% more effective than the competition, they are making a logical appeal.
Inductive reasoning uses examples (historical, mythical, or hypothetical) to draw conclusions.
Deductive reasoning, or "enthymematic" reasoning, uses generally accepted propositions to derive specific conclusions. The term logic evolved from logos. Aristotle emphasized enthymematic reasoning as central to the process of rhetorical invention, though later rhetorical theorists placed much less emphasis on it. An "enthymeme" would follow today's form of a syllogism; however it would exclude either the major or minor premise. An enthymeme is persuasive because the audience is providing the missing premise. Because the audience is able to provide the missing premise, they are more likely to be persuaded by the message.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

You know an interesting thing about a listed floor box installed per its listing?

Most of the time they hold water, so any water that does get in .... stays in.

You know what is interesting about the OPs picture? Any water that might get in will drain out. 

But what do I know, I just service this kind of stuff. :jester:


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

BBQ said:


> You know an interesting thing about a listed floor box installed per its listing?
> Most of the time they hold water, so any water that does get in .... stays in.
> You know what is interesting about the OPs picture? Any water that might get in will drain out.


*Thank you for sharing your experience.* I have not serviced them. 

*Are you also saying there are receptacles where the actual plug prong inlets are vented * through the bottom of the device?

Some off the shelf floor boxes have a back box which is basically a metal gem box or NM box of the same size with the usual threaded holes or perforation for cable clamps in the back; *I take it you are talking about those cast one piece concrete-tight boxes... good point.*

If anyone has ever seen a vented draining *receptacle* please post.


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

markore said:


> If anyone has ever seen a vented draining receptacle please post.


Do you know the difference between a receptacle, and the box which holds a receptacle? I believe he's talking about the box.


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

I would not place a recpt. at the Bottom , base of a Cabinet .

The wall always makes a more practical install .






Pete


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

markore said:


> If anyone has ever seen a vented draining *receptacle* please post.


I have not seen a receptacle yet that would 'fill' with water, if mounted face up the water would drain out around the terminals.

I am not saying we want water in receptacles, just pointing out how things work in the real world away from the UL testing labs.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

pete87 said:


> I would not place a recpt. at the Bottom , base of a Cabinet .


Good to know, now what does the NEC say about it?


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

BBQ said:


> You know an interesting thing about a listed floor box installed per its listing?
> 
> Most of the time they hold water, so any water that does get in .... stays in.
> 
> ...


Exactly. A floor box poured into a concrete slab is going to fill with water, and soak the electrical connections, and not drain. A 4-square mounted in the bottom of the cabinet will get wet, water with drain out if there is ever a problem, and everything will work fine. Obviously the 4 square is WRONG because Joe doesn't like it since it isn't a conventional install, but isn't even a code violation!


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Become Certified as an Electrical Inspector!
> 
> http://joetedesco.org/PDFILES/NCPCCICIB_20130905.pdf
> 
> ...


You mean if I get this certificate, I can make up my own rules and tell people that they will bend to my will or they can't get their work to pass inspection? Awesome! Power trip here I come! :laughing:


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

jlmran said:


> Do you know the difference between a receptacle, and the box which holds a receptacle? I believe he's talking about the box.


Yes I do that's why I separated my commentary on the box and the receptacle into different paragraphs. I acknowledged his point about concrete tight cast floor boxes.

I'm also interested in the devices since I've never seen discussion or testing on them face up. If liquid drains out around the terminals that's a good thing, and it definitely changes the color of this discussion since a cover would be way less beneficial if the box is going to drain anyway.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

pete87 said:


> I would not place a recpt. at the Bottom , base of a Cabinet .
> The wall *always* makes a more practical install .
> Pete


Not if we are talking about a new homerun to a panel in an unfinished basement and the cabinets are already leveled and screwed to the wall.

Coming from the attic, maybe?

Personally I would rather drill a 7/8 hole all the way through the bottom of the cabinet through the subfloor, pop a connector in the back of a $3 nm surface mount box, and skip the jigsaw-fu.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Become Certified as an Electrical Inspector!
> 
> http://joetedesco.org/PDFILES/NCPCCICIB_20130905.pdf
> 
> ...


What is the point of this? What benefit will it give me other than as a line item to put into my signature on internet message boards (where everyone already knows I'm the awesomest)?

Again, what will it do for me? It certainly won't help me become an electrical inspector.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Haxwoper said:


> (where everyone already knows I'm the awesomest)?


A tenth level black belt. :thumbsup:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

BBQ said:


> Good to know, now what does the NEC say about it?


You ought to know that the NEC has been completely irrelevant in this discussion. :jester:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

MTW said:


> You ought to know that the NEC has been completely irrelevant in this discussion. :jester:


Just like on the job. :laughing:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Joe Tedesco said:


> True. I will ask the Massachusetts Electrical Inspectors if they would accept the installation shown in the picture at our meeting tonight in Malden. In either case this issue is a good candidate for a 2017 proposal.


In my extensive experience "Massachusetts Electrical Inspector" directly correlates to failure in the field. 



Joe Tedesco said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> Agreed! Those who disagree and put down inspectors should try being an inspector for a while then they may change their mind!



I agree that it must suck to be an inspector with so many hacks out there, BUT for as many field hacks as there are there's no shortage of terrible inspectors. 

Just failed a final because I have a 1/2" of exposed romex going from the wall into the back of one undercabinet light.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Lucky for the world you are not an inspector.


Thank god


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Haxwoper said:


> Now that we've come full circle, has anyone switched over to my idea of shooting inspectors like this in the face?


I'm on board, no need for me to switch over. 

Guys like Joe are one of the many things that make this business frustrating to say the least.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

electricmanscott said:


> In my extensive experience "Massachusetts Electrical Inspector" directly correlates to failure in the field.


I absolutely agree. I've experienced it many times. I would also add that the retired electricians turned inspector are also just as bad since they usually haven't touched a code book in ages. 

Now on the other end of the spectrum I've dealt with working electricians who are also inspectors, and they are usually the best to deal with because they have to deal with it themselves.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

electricmanscott said:


> Just failed a final because I have a 1/2" of exposed romex going from the wall into the back of one undercabinet light.


Are you serious? :blink:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

MTW said:


> Are you serious? :blink:


Unfortunately I have no problem believing he is.

I had a Mass inspector require GFCI on glass door refrigerators because he claimed it was a vending machine. I showed him the definition of vending machine. He and his boss said that the definition was a mistake.

Oh well, customer charged for added GFCIs


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

MTW said:


> Are you serious? :blink:


Unfortunately you can't argue with the inspector with this one. The "subject to physical damage" thing is up to his opinion.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

MTW said:


> Are you serious? :blink:


Sadly yes. It's the worst possible job to happen on too. Fighting with lunatic woman over $1500 and the failed inspection hasn't helped matters.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

You should be able to cover it with a 1 hole strap. 

You could use anything you want, right? It's just blocking it for protection.


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

So you can run SE on the exterior of a home, but a small section of NM on the underside of a cabinet is a no-no? :blink:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> So you can run SE on the exterior of a home, but a small section of NM on the underside of a cabinet is a no-no? :blink:


You can mount recessed lights below a tub or sink on the floor below Vs. an outlet under a sink trap

We can install a motor disco 3' away behind a glass window, and call it within sight

We can install every gen use receptacle in a dwelling on ONE circuit , until a fixed appliance is brought into the mix

the list goes on , but i'm sure the point of _perspective_ doesn't escape you (et all) of defining an installs relative safety


~CS~


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Haxwoper said:


> You should be able to cover it with a 1 hole strap.
> 
> You could use anything you want, right? It's just blocking it for protection.


 I've even used balsa wood or aluminum flashing, but it was always done before the inspector showed up for the first time.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Haxwoper said:


> You should be able to cover it with a 1 hole strap.
> 
> You could use anything you want, right? It's just blocking it for protection.


That'd probably work if I could get into the house. Apparently I'm "hostile" "insulting" and "potentially dangerous".


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I think that is putting it mildly :laughing:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Dealing with inspectors is the #1 or #2 reason why I hated electrical contracting. It's just about tied with paperwork/administration.


----------



## Haxwoper (Dec 13, 2013)

electricmanscott said:


> That'd probably work if I could get into the house. Apparently I'm "hostile" "insulting" and "potentially dangerous".


If so, I wouldn't pay you your $1,500 either  





:laughing:


----------



## Shock-Therapy (Oct 4, 2013)

newbi said:


> It looks like the previous electrician did a hack job. The receptacle is off center with the drain.



*Sure blame the electrician. Everyone always does. How do you know the plumber didnt install that p trap right over an outlet? Hmm? :laughing:*


----------



## Shock-Therapy (Oct 4, 2013)

Looks like the cabinet man set it over an existing outlet too. hahahaa


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

electricmanscott said:


> Just failed a final because I have a 1/2" of exposed romex going from the wall into the back of one undercabinet light.





electricmanscott said:


> That'd probably work if I could get into the house. Apparently I'm "hostile" "insulting" and "potentially dangerous".


And this is why we don't wait until after inspection to collect.


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

What is the violation on the exposed romex?


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Ultrafault said:


> What is the violation on the exposed romex?


I'm guessing either above the 3rd story in type 2 construction or subject to physical damage, a la the iron chef in the kitchen... contrived I know... 

... but I've seen it pulled so that's why I always hide it even if it's just HVAC foil tape or flashing or balsa wood... just easier not to take the chance of losing respect by needing a second inspection. Haxwoper's one hole strap idea is really great, like it a lot... too bad you can't get back in...

Since most customers never lay on their counters and look up, I try not to give them a reason to start. Once a customer starts paying attention to what it looks like under there you can open up a whole new realm of fussyness.

I really abhor under-cabinet lighting, actually. Such a time sink. If you ever let the customer pick out the fixtures consider running home runs in flex from one or two junction boxs behind the fridge just in case they end up needing transformers or dimmers or changed switching layout or more switches or any other last minute crap. You can still get them on a change order but at least you can keep the drywall and tile guys out of it.

Keep those little metal 3/8 locknut to 3/8 nm clamps that come with a lot of UC lights. They work great with 3/8 flex.


----------



## markore (Dec 7, 2011)

Shock-Therapy said:


> Looks like the cabinet man set it over an existing outlet too. hahahaa


That's what it looks like to me since an electrician could have been done in 1/4 the time by just drilling a 7/8 hole and using a $3 leviton plastic surface mount box, seriously, that hole is HUGE. 

It really does look like the cabinet was dropped on top of the box. Even if all that was in the truck was a 4 square, I *still* would have drilled the 7/8 hole, surface mounted that 4 square, and gotten the heck outta there...


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Deep Cover said:


> And this is why we don't wait until after inspection to collect.


Actually the kitchen part of the job s paid in full. The 1500 is some "while you're here" extras.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Deep Cover said:


> And this is why we don't wait until after inspection to collect.



I would imagine this could work in the reverse as well DeepOne. 

There are volatile situations, for instance when the state _fines_ someone and/or forwards a _repair deadline_ to them 

In such a scenario, why can't we ask the state to wait until_ we've_ received payment for _them _to grant a final ?


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> Actually the kitchen part of the job s paid in full. The 1500 is some "while you're here" extras.


which became _what_? part of the original job description? ~CS~


----------



## Deep Cover (Dec 8, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> I would imagine this could work in the reverse as well DeepOne.
> 
> There are volatile situations, for instance when the state _fines_ someone and/or forwards a _repair deadline_ to them
> 
> ...


Even with the way we have to collect final payment...liens, collection, court, closing permits without inspection, the customer has the upper had because of the stereotypes created of crooked contractors.

Being that "EMS" has not received payments for "extras", unless they were signed for, they could be very difficult to collect on.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Become Certified as an Electrical Inspector!
> 
> http://joetedesco.org/PDFILES/NCPCCICIB_20130905.pdf
> 
> ...


Sorry Joe Having those NCPCCI certifications DOES NOT make you an IAEI Certified Inspector.
It makes you a person with certifications. The difference ?
Look at the IAEI certification program. There are 2. The NCPCCI which gives you a certification and the CERTIFIED INSPECTOR program which is another program completely. I do not see your name on the list of "Certified Inspectors" Having those 3 certs and claiming to be an IAEI "certified Inspector" is misleading.
Yes I understand the 2 programs. Yes I am a member of IAEI. Yes I have the 3 certifications they offer. NO I do not claim to be a IAEI Certified Inspector.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*Not True*

Not true! Look here CS

IAEI's The Construction Code Inspectors Certification Examinations (2A, 2B, and 2C) have been developed by national code enforcement organizations in collaboration with Prometric. These code enforcement organizations have joined together to establish a testing program that will provide nationally recognized evidence of competence and professionalism in construction code knowledge.

The other program is run by NFPA. I have been IAEI Certified since 1979. Besides, IAEI requires proof of an update and they provide pocket cards identifying that certification requirements have been met costs $15.00 for each 3 year cycle.

List of NCPCCI-Certified Inspectors

One- and Two-Family Electrical Dwellings (2A)
Electrical General (2B)
Plan Review (2C)


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

This thread couldve ended with the second post, now im in an abyss of useless information.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Joe Tedesco said:


> Not true!


well you have to consider _who's_ view of bona fide is accepted and where Joe

that said, the IAEI had it's chance to become another ASE in the publics eyes , but blew it imho

some of us who actually advertised _'IAEI certified'_ found this out first hand

i actually fielded calls > _"AEIOwho?"_ before i gave up on it and realized the lions share of dues were going to those national gala meets where the trades holy rollers rub elbows with top shelf vs. any level of public awareness....


~CS~


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*Look here*

Look here CS


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Next72969 said:


> This thread couldve ended with the second post, now im in an abyss of useless information.


That's just JT dropping links and trying to educate us


----------



## jlmran (Feb 25, 2011)

Next72969 said:


> This thread couldve ended with the second post, now im in an abyss of useless information.


Did I do this?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

No, not at all, we just like to take it to the nith degree Jl.....

~CS~


----------

