This is not right...

[Pierre Coulombe]

So, who's wrong? This is from a 50 year old home with some kitchen upgrades including repiping of the hot water line. The disposal had been removed and not replaced.

[david shapiro]

Where's the trap?

[Pierre Coulombe]

The trap is made of black plastic pipe, connected to the white plastic. The issue is the copper water line installed over the under-sink receptacle. Why would a plumber intentionally do that? Of coarse, why would the electrician install the receptacle within a couple inches of the cabinet base? Two wrongs don't make it right.

[david shapiro]

I'll certainly take your word that it's a copper water line in front of the receptacle, rather than something flexible and easily shiftable. Doctrine on receptacles under sources of moisture has changed regularly over the past few Code cycles, but until recently having a receptacle there without a "GFCI/AFCI-protected" sticker and maybe a TR marking on it was legal--still is, in most jurisdictions. Access blocked? 110.12, maybe: not workmanlike. The parent language of 110.26, but probably not the clauses, as receptacles are generally not treating as requiring examination etc. Unless you can show that the water line is likely to leak. Now if rather than being grandfathered, or protected by an electronic CB, you tried to replace it with with a GFCI receptacle, IMO it would violate the "readily accessible" requirement as presently blocked: 406.4(D).

I agree, BTW, that two wrongs usually don't make a right; furthermore, three rights don't always make a left.

[Jack Feldmann]

Is the outlet active?

- - - Updated - - -

Is the outlet active?

[Pierre Coulombe]

Yes, Jack, the receptacle was active/energized.