• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Architect Approves Junction Box Buried in the Wall

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,723
Location
Not where I really want to be
The architect was on the job site when this was discovered. The owners were also home. After the electrician is told he has to fix this issue and there are ways to make it compliant, the architect tells the inspector there is nothing wrong with that and tells the owners you can bury metal junction boxes in the wall. The owners, of course, believe him because they think there will be extra fees to correct it. It sucks being the bad guy when you are outranked by the licensed design professional of record. OK that last sentence is obviously in jest.

Do you have similar experiences like this?

IMG_1228.JPG
 
An unfortunately large number of architects are drunk on their own kool-aid. In an attempt to keep that in check we do regular lunch-and-learns with our insurance carrier who, among other things, reminds us to stay in our lane and to never be afraid to say I don't know. Chances are there is a term (or two) in this guy's policy that, if this went really sideways, his carrier would say; sorry champ you're on your own with this one.
 
brokenkeys said:
An unfortunately large number of architects are drunk on their own kool-aid. In an attempt to keep that in check we do regular lunch-and-learns with our insurance carrier who, among other things, reminds us to stay in our lane and to never be afraid to say I don't know. Chances are there is a term (or two) in this guy's policy that, if this went really sideways, his carrier would say; sorry champ you're on your own with this one.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately a lot of professions do stuff like this
 
Could that existing light blue box be switched out if additional space is needed for running the 12/2 (yellow wires) behind the presumed receptacle? May not have enough wire length to reach the existing box but was curious if the box can be used for a junction.
 
I have been witness to very poor practice by various registered professionals. I was involved in an engineer having his license revoked. I may be reporting an architect to their association in the near future if the particular job does not improve.

The professionals are just like inspectors- unfortunately human
 
wwhitney said:
There are listed solutions for burying an NM cable splice, e.g. the product below. NEC 334.40(B) permits their use on exposed wiring and for the repair of concealed wiring in existing buildings.


Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong - there are some restrictions, which became less permissive in the 2014 NEC. In that picture above, if 2014 or later, my quick read says they can't conceal it after installing the device. It can be concealed if the wall is never opened or, I think but not sure, if it remains exposed. Definitely for repair. Sounds dubious.
 
bill1952 said:
I believe - please correct me if I'm wrong - there are some restrictions, which became less permissive in the 2014 NEC.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the timeline, but NY State is using the 2017 NEC per up.codes, and the first sentence of 334.40(B) is:

"Self-contained switches, self-contained receptacles, and nonmetallic-sheathed cable interconnector devices of insulating material that are listed shall be permitted to be used without boxes in exposed cable wiring and for repair wiring in existing buildings where the cable is concealed."

That says it is fine to conceal them when used to repair wiring in existing buildings. Which is certainly what the picture in the OP looks like.


Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Not sure about the timeline, but NY State is using the 2017 NEC per up.codes, and the first sentence of 334.40(B) is:

"Self-contained switches, self-contained receptacles, and nonmetallic-sheathed cable interconnector devices of insulating material that are listed shall be permitted to be used without boxes in exposed cable wiring and for repair wiring in existing buildings where the cable is concealed."

That says it is fine to conceal them when used to repair wiring in existing buildings. Which is certainly what the picture in the OP looks like.


Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
The cable is not concealed. It may be concealed if they put drywall on, but it's not concealed when device is instalked. That's my take. I've read several articles and they all support this concept. You can use it so you don't have to disturb finish (gwb, etc.)
 
bill1952 said:
The cable is not concealed. It may be concealed if they put drywall on, but it's not concealed when device is instalked. That's my take.
Click to expand...
That makes zero sense to me. It's never going to be concealed when you install it, unless you reach around behind the drywall and do the installation inside the stud cavity.

Just reading the sentence, it gives two permissions where you can use them:

(1) in exposed cable wiring
(2) for repair wiring in existing buildings where the cable is concealed

If drywall never gets installed, it complies with (1). If drywall does get installed, and it's for a repair in an existing building, it complies with (2).

I'm really having trouble seeing how someone can read the permissions in any more limited way. If the intention was to only allow them to be concealed if fished behind existing drywall, then the language would be something like 334.30(B)(1). That section allows unsupported NM cable when the cable is "
fished between access points through concealed spaces in finished buildings or structures . . ." But there's no language resembling that in 334.40(B), it doesn't comment on the installation method, just that it is concealed.

Cheers, Wayne
 
All I can say is what my electrical told me and what many articles said when I googled "NEC 334.40(B)". Do or permit or plan what you will.

I may try to find technical committee reports, but no promise on that.
 
BTW if concealed, it can only be used for repair. You can repair a cable between two existing devices, not use this to extend or relocate a device. The photo suggests new work or addition, not repairing an existing piece of cable that's been damaged.
 
bill1952 said:
BTW if concealed, it can only be used for repair. You can repair a cable between two existing devices, not use this to extend or relocate a device. The photo suggests new work or addition, not repairing an existing piece of cable that's been damaged.
Click to expand...
Which is the dumbest thing ever....If it is approved to be a "buried" splice, it is approved to be a buried splice....It's not safe "sometimes"....
 
steveray said:
Which is the dumbest thing ever....If it is approved to be a "buried" splice, it is approved to be a buried splice....It's not safe "sometimes"....
Click to expand...
If you're disagreeing with my interpretation, I wish you would explain the words and in particular the change from 2011 to 2014.

I'm on neither side, probably would never use one*, but it seems something for repair of an existing building which is not as good as for a new building is often permitted.

Curious that it seems most everything for residential wiring is rated for 600 volts, but this device is only rated for 300 volts.

*I looked into using one to relocate a cable between floor joists - open in basement - but the cost was way more than a box, cover, 2-screws, and wire nuts.
 
I'm being told that if the light blue box is being used as a receptacle box on the other side that the yellow NM can be spliced in the back of that box as a pass trough if the box can handle the additional wires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top