# Recessed Receptacles?



## Coder (Sep 14, 2012)

I have a homeowner that needs to add two+ inches of insulation thickness to the interior walls of a garage to living space remodel in order to meet the energy code. It is a pretty crappy detail to attach 2 inches of blue board to the existing drywall and then veneer/laminate paneling over that but it will then meet the energy code. The question is; Does he need to move the outlets out so that they are flush with the new wall thickness or can he leave them intact with the faceplates ending up being 2 inches in from the new finished wall surface? I cannot find anything in the 2008 NEC that says no. Any input would be appreciated.


----------



## Coder (Sep 14, 2012)

Just to add to the post. The new panelling will also have to meet the thermal barrier requirements for foam plastic.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 14, 2012)

What code section are you using to require the additional insulation?

What is existing in the walls?


----------



## Durant (Sep 14, 2012)

Mr. Inspector,

See 2008 NEC 406.5  Receptacle face plates shall be installed so as to completely cover the opening and seat against the mounting surface.

or, 2009 IRC, E4002.5  Postion of receptacle faces.  Also see E4002.6 as permitted by E3906.5 for resessed boxes and "approved" extentions.

Too much to write it all out; I'm at work.

Hope this helps


----------



## georgia plans exam (Sep 14, 2012)

The outlet boxes would have to be flush with the finished surface of the wall per 314.20 (2011 NEC).

GPE


----------



## chris kennedy (Sep 14, 2012)

Its pretty easy to comply with 314.20 in the OP's situation, but 300.14 may be an issue.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 14, 2012)

I agree, those were exactly my thoughts also Chris.


----------



## Coder (Sep 14, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> What code section are you using to require the additional insulation?What is existing in the walls?


Thanks for those replies gents. It is a crappy deal all together but, the homeowner did all the work w/o a permit and was caught. So now his 2x4 framed exterior garage walls only have R-11 and the 2009 IECC climate zone 7 requires R-21. He was not willing to rip all the drywall out and spray foam or build a thicker wall or tear off the exterior siding and insulate the wall so I came up with plan for him off the back of his napkin that will meet the code. Will it work? Probably. Will it look like ****? Probably. Sounds like outlet extensions are in order.


----------



## chris kennedy (Sep 14, 2012)

Mr.Inspector said:
			
		

> the homeowner did all the work w/o a permit and was caught.  He was not willing to rip all the drywall out and spray foam


OK, have him rip it down for rough electrical inspection, then suggest spray foam.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 14, 2012)

Are you sure he needs to meet todays R-21 requirements. I thought there where exceptions if the sheet rock was not being removed?

He might be able to use a design method and meet code.

No cade books at home, will look on Monday


----------



## steveray (Sep 15, 2012)

MT...from the OP it sounds like a garage converted into living space....new habitable space= new energy code around here.......As an aside....how is he accomplishing/ verifying the required slab insulation?  Ohhhh and watch the garage door infill for PT everything for clearance to grade...


----------



## Coder (Sep 16, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> MT...from the OP it sounds like a garage converted into living space....new habitable space= new energy code around here.......As an aside....how is he accomplishing/ verifying the required slab insulation?  Ohhhh and watch the garage door infill for PT everything for clearance to grade...


I have not even mentioned the lack of perimeter insulation yet. It was done to provide another bedroom for college students and more income for the owner. Never should have been done in the first place. The HOA is going to win in the end and it will be a garage again. However, I will be making him do something right about the insulation. (cold as **** here in the winter!) The fact that the whole thing was done under the cuff with the garage door still in place ****es me off so I am going to play hardball with the guy and he will not like the consequences. perimeter isulation is unrealistic at this point when I know it will be an unheated garage again someday.


----------



## ICE (Sep 16, 2012)

Compliance with 300.4(A)(1) is important.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 17, 2012)

Exceptions 3 & 4 is what I was thinking would be applicable and not negate what you are wanting them to do.

101.4.3 Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs.

Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs to an existing building, building system or portion thereof shall conform to the provisions of this code as they relate to new construction without requiring the unaltered portion(s) of the existing building or building system to comply with this code. Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs shall not create an unsafe or hazardous condition or overload existing building systems. An addition shall be deemed to comply with this code if the addition alone complies or if the existing building and addition comply with this code as a single building.

Exception: The following need not comply provided the energy use of the building is not increased:

1. Storm windows installed over existing fenestration.

2. Glass only replacements in an existing sash and frame.

3. Existing ceiling, wall or floor cavities exposed during construction provided that these cavities are filled with insulation.

4. Construction where the existing roof, wall or floor cavity is not exposed.

5. Reroofing for roofs where neither the sheathing nor the insulation is exposed. Roofs without insulation in the cavity and where the sheathing or insulation is exposed during reroofing shall be insulated either above or below the sheathing.

6. Replacement of existing doors that separate conditioned space from the exterior shall not require the installation of a vestibule or revolving door, provided, however, that an existing vestibule that separates a conditioned space from the exterior shall not be removed,

7. Alterations that replace less than 50 percent of the luminaires in a space, provided that such alterations do not increase the installed interior lighting power.

8. Alterations that replace only the bulb and ballast within the existing luminaires in a space provided that the alteration does not increase the installed interior lighting power.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 17, 2012)

Exceptions 3 & 4 is what I was thinking would be applicable and negate what you are wanting them to do.

correction to above post


----------



## steveray (Sep 17, 2012)

"Exception: The following need not comply provided the energy use of the building is not increased:"

I do not think this would be the case when converting a garage to heated living space....IMHO


----------



## Coder (Sep 17, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Exceptions 3 & 4 is what I was thinking would be applicable and negate what you are wanting them to do.correction to above post


I wish it were that easy



			
				steveray said:
			
		

> "Exception: The following need not comply provided the energy use of the building is not increased:"I do not think this would be the case when converting a garage to heated living space....IMHO


You are correct sir. The only thing he might be able to do  (if he knew how) would be to prove that it meets the code through the performance methods of the IECC (heat loss calculations.) But due to his heritage, I am having a hard time even explaining the difference between R-11 and R-21 Anyhow back to electrical stuff. It looks like he can install outlet box extenders and meet code so that is what I will be requiring of him. Thanks for the feedback. It is helpful to hear other code official's opinions.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 17, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> "Exception: The following need not comply provided the energy use of the building is not increased:"I do not think this would be the case when converting a garage to heated living space....IMHO


I agree it may not be the case, but the owner should have the option to submit documentation it will. We all know that an increase in attic insulation may offset what a wall is lacking. There are many ways to skin this cat and make this room conversion energy efficient.

The prescriptive method is never the way to go when converting unheated space to hated.

The building department should direct the owner to Section 405 and require a performance alternative since they know it will never comply with all of the prescriptive requirements of the IECC.


----------



## steveray (Sep 17, 2012)

Correct....if they can Rescheck it......they are good....


----------



## Coder (Sep 17, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> Correct....if they can Rescheck it......they are good....


So I ran a rescheck on the garage conversion. both the UA tradeoff and performance alternative methods of compliance failed. The performance alternative showed 3.8% worse than code with the required R-10 @ 4 ft perimeter slab insulation and 101.6% worse than code with out it! It would have been nice to see it comply with no major changes to the current set up but alas, it did not.  He may achieve compliance by insulating the ceiling, exterior, and or slab. Bottom line is. Time to insulate somewhere. :beatdhrs


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Sep 17, 2012)

Technically when converting a garage (U) into a living space (R-3); the Change in use would be the path for compliance IMO.

Since this thread went off electrical requirements and I'm curious; does your AHJ determine whether or not IECC administrative provision applies where it is not reference in the applicable sections of the code that are less restrictive?

If this is a bedroom addition do you include the entire residence with REScheck?  If you require a blower door test since there was not a visual inspection will it help with the prescriptive R-value?  This was one of the arguments spray foam manufacturers had for less R-value but air leakage was mandatory though not well enforced.

*3401.3 Compliance.* Alterations, repairs, additions and changes of occupancy to existing buildings and structures shall comply with the provisions for alterations, repairs, buildings and additions and changes of occupancy in the _International Fire Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code, International Property Maintenance Code, International Private Sewage Disposal Code_, _International Residential Code_ and NFPA 70.

Francis


----------



## Coder (Sep 18, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> Technically when converting a garage (U) into a living space (R-3); the Change in use would be the path for compliance IMO.Since this thread went off electrical requirements and I'm curious; does your AHJ determine whether or not IECC administrative provision applies where it is not reference in the applicable sections of the code that are less restrictive?
> 
> If this is a bedroom addition do you include the entire residence with REScheck?  If you require a blower door test since there was not a visual inspection will it help with the prescriptive R-value?  This was one of the arguments spray foam manufacturers had for less R-value but air leakage was mandatory though not well enforced.
> 
> ...


Francis,

We *are* way off topic here. The site admin could move it if need be.

Not sure if I understand what it is you are asking here? One thing to note; Because the IECC allows existing construction to stay as is if it is not part of the remodel then why would it be included in Rescheck? Maybe I don't know what I am doing (highly possible) when it comes to Rescheck. I appreciate the feedback on this. It has given me some new perspectives on how to address the situation.

I can tell you one thing. That is in this climate zone, a slab on grade living space with R-11 in the walls and no slab perimeter insulation isn't going to pass any energy codes, prescriptive, performance, or otherwise.


----------



## steveray (Sep 18, 2012)

Did you get the answer you were looking for Mr. Inspector?.....If you did and still want to discuss the Energy Code aspects of the situation or any other aspects of this type of job we could start a new thread,,,


----------



## Coder (Sep 18, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> Did you get the answer you were looking for Mr. Inspector?.....If you did and still want to discuss the Energy Code aspects of the situation or any other aspects of this type of job we could start a new thread,,,


I am good at this point. Thanks, Eric


----------

