Junction box

[ldapkus]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

Yeah, it would be nice for you guys if you had an SOP that had the rule of law. It makes me wonder why anyone would want to be a home inspector? Is there any money in it? I don't think I've ever seen any palacial homes occupied by home inspectors. I guess it's a calling?

There are some inspectors here that do 60 per month @ $300 each. Some are multiple inspector companies that do way more than that. Go figure.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

Yeah, it would be nice for you guys if you had an SOP that had the rule of law. It makes me wonder why anyone would want to be a home inspector? Is there any money in it? I don't think I've ever seen any palacial homes occupied by home inspectors. I guess it's a calling?

There is municipal law (common, and changes very easily, just by crossing a street), criminal law and common, litigation law. What do you mean by 'force of law'.

Of these, I can only get in trouble through civil litigation law (unless I strangle the client).

I work in 92 different municipal code AHJs with 92 different 'standards of practice", (which is NOT the same thing as different 'codes') and none of them comply, completely, with the NEC, which is an assocaition 'recommendation' and does not have the 'rule of law', and most of them are in direct contradition oe each other. Go figure.

In any case, electricians are not policemen and have no authority. At least, in Illinois, electricians do not have state licenses, and, in many cases, only need to have a local business license, which requires no testing or rules of compitence. This is because the electricians union wants it that way.

So, every week, I see crappy work, with electrical systems that are dangerous and could get people killed.

Case in point:

New construction, in The City of Chicago. 3 x 3 condo building.

Called out that 4 neutrals, in the unit's (3rd floor, with the service equipment in the basement) distribution panel, were connected to the bonded ground bus, and not the floating neutral bus. Easy to fix.

The code inspectors missed this. Big friggin' help they are. Most of them never even remove thd dead front during the inspection. Takes too long.

Went back, for the pre-closing walk through. The project's 'electrician' (a 20 year old hispanic kid, speaking broken English,)had no idea what I was talking about. He had a license.

I took 45 minutes explaining to him about serivce equipment and distribution equipment and grounding and bonding and why there where 2 double tapped breakers in the unit's panel (NEW CONSTRUCTION, with 8 open spaces on the panel, fer gosh sakes!!!) thay weren't right. He was very thankful that I explained to him the 'right way' to do things.

This is in the freakin' City of Chicago!!!

I serve my client and their safety and really don't give a care about what 'has the force of law'.

It's about safety and keeping the client safe.

Home inspectors, at least in Illinois, have a legal fiduciary responsibility.

Electricians don't.

That pretty much says it all.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

Yeah, it would be nice for you guys if you had an SOP that had the rule of law.

BTW: In Illinois, the Home Inspector law DOES have the force of law. State law.

Local codes are just local and the NEC has no force of law.

Not that I like that, but that is the fact.

[Greg Fretwell]

60 a month? 3 a day? You must not be looking at much.

[Pierre Belarge]

If concern of installing electrical installations under "leaky" locations was/is a safety issue, more would be done to prevent leaks, as we see many leaks in dwellings. Some of the leaks will travel more than just under a sink, and can create damage 2 stories below. That is the "what if" scenario, of which no one can account for. I hope that HIs are not responsible for those types of situations, otherwise I would think it would be a horrible profession to work in.

In case many have not noticed, there are more and more electrical appliances being installed under sinks today than ever before. This certainly does not make it a "hazardous" location as some here have mentioned. As the installation is properly installed, there should not be much of a safety hazard from water...the CB will open if the water creates much of a hazard.

I have been in construction for more than 30 years and have seen many situations, one should not be overwhelmed by the topic above.

[jvogan]

Originally Posted by Pierre Belarge

As the installation is properly installed, there should not be much of a safety hazard from water...the CB will open if the water creates much of a hazard.

I have been in construction for more than 30 years and have seen many situations, one should not be overwhelmed by the topic above.

You are kidding, right? Why put in GFCI within 6 feet of a water source at all? If there is a problem, the CB will open, right?

We get nailed with the "what if" situations every day....

[Greg Fretwell]

The "GFCI within 6' of water" is another myth we should dispel. It really only applies to receptacles, usually ones serving a countertop. In the case of outdoor receptacles it refers to dirt, wet or not. In the garage or unfinished basement it refers to concrete. There are still places where you can have water without a GFCI. A laundry without a sink (using standpipe drain for the washer) is a good example. You also do NOT need a GFCI for the receptacles serving dishwashers and disposals under a sink.
The same is true of a J box. As long as the cover is still on there you have no particular hazard. If the pipes are leaking you should fix that before you worry about the electrical and you shouldn't be working on that panel while it is energized anyway. Equipment "likely to be worked on while energized" needs full working space.
In a few months they will be accepting proposals to the 2011 so you have a place to vent.

[jvogan]

Greg, just be careful when you are under that sink fixing that leak...That could be the new disclamer on the plumbing section of our reports..."be sure to turn off all electrical power to the house at the main disconnect before attempting any plumbing repairs"!!!!!!!!

[jvogan]

BTW:

Section 210.8 (A) (7) reads as follows:

"Since this section now covers laundry sinks and utility sinks, as well as wet bar sinks, the reference to countertops has been deleted. This means any 15- and 20-ampere, 125-volt, single-phase receptacle within six feet of these sinks must be GFCI protected. This would apply to receptacles located from the floor level up to six feet above the sink, including receptacles mounted in the ceiling but still located within the six-foot dimension from the edge of a counter-mounted laundry, utility or wet bar sink."

[Greg Fretwell]

Why would a closed junction box be a hazard to someone working under the sink, wet or not. The box is bonded to ground and with the cover on you can't come in contact with any energized conductors.

BTW 210.(A)(7) only refers to "laundry", "utility" and "wet bar" "sinks". The "serve the countertop" language is still in 210.8(A)(6) referring to "kitchens". We are talking about a kitchen aren't we?
You have to be careful hijacking language from one rule and trying to apply it to another rule.

[pdickerson]

I am with Greg and Marc. I don't see any hazard in having a junction box located under the kitchen sink.

I don't consider a recep under the sink a hazard, and a j-box is the same thing, minus the recep and plus a cover. One could argue that the j-box is actually safer than the recep.