Architect Approves Junction Box Buried in the Wall

[mark handler]

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 on

Unfortunately a large number of Architects Do Not Have a Clue when it comes to the technicalities of the code.

(nor do many Contractors)​

Unfortunately a large number of Architects Do Not Have Errors and Omissions Insurance.

 

[ICE]

Compare the Raychem splice with a metal j-box. Is one better than the other? The Raychem is basically a fancy wire nut.

 

[bill1952]

Compare the Raychem splice with a metal j-box. Is one better than the other? The Raychem is basically a fancy wire nut.


View attachment 10158

If you're suggesting this seems like not so great of an idea we agree.

 

[Jay Smith]

Architects can be in an uncomfortable position of being expected to know more than is their scope. I had a client contact who sometimes called me Mr. Maybe for a while when I was about 8 years into my career. I was managing the architectural services for a large project that was over my head at the time. He wanted answers on the spot at the job site and sometimes I had to get back to the office and research it. I wouldn't contradict an inspector on an electrical issue, but we all make mistakes. The real error here was apparently judgment rather than the fact of the incorrect code interpretation.

 

[bill1952]

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.

I would agree. Cubic inches. Worst case, change box to one that is big enough.

 

[mark handler]

The NEC generally requires newer wiring to be spliced in a junction box and the wiring in the box to be accessible without the need to remove part of the building or structure (see 300.15 and 314.29). Section 300.15(H) refers to Section 334.40(B) when splicing nonmetallic sheathed cable (NM, NMC, NMS) and allows a special insulated device to be used instead of a splice box.

 

[steveray]

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.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I would be a whole lot more giving on "repair" than you I think......Again, it is approved and listed as a buried splice...Why can't i use them everywhere? Allow them or don't.....

 

[bill1952]

The NEC generally requires newer wiring to be spliced in a junction box and the wiring in the box to be accessible without the need to remove part of the building or structure (see 300.15 and 314.29). Section 300.15(H) refers to Section 334.40(B) when splicing nonmetallic sheathed cable (NM, NMC, NMS) and allows a special insulated device to be used instead of a splice box.

View attachment 10160 View attachment 10161

What edition Mark? Not 2023 which deletes the "repair" condition. I wish I had the means to track the changes in this section since I think 2005?

2023 clip:

 

[Paul Sweet]

I think those splices are often used in modular buildings where sections join.

 

[mark handler]

What edition Mark? Not 2023 which deletes the "repair" condition. I wish I had the means to track the changes in this section since I think 2005?

2023 clip:

2020 NEC

NFPA LiNK®

The leading information and knowledge resource on fire, electrical and related hazards.

link.nfpa.org

 

[wwhitney]

What edition Mark? Not 2023 which deletes the "repair" condition. I wish I had the means to track the changes in this section since I think 2005?

Nice find, I should have checked the 2023. The various versions of the NEC are available for free viewing at nfpa.org, if you make a free account, but you have to view them one at a time, so it's hard to track the evolution of a single section. I think they intentionally make it difficult to encourage you to buy the premium access; not sure if that has a way to track a section across code years.

I checked the 2023 PI that resulted in the change, the committee's statement is not so informative but makes the intent clear (although the new wording is clear enough):

"The existing language already permits repairs in one-and-two family dwellings as it simply refers to “buildings.” The change would now allow for use of these listed devices in both existing and new buildings and is not limited to repair wiring."

I imagine very few states have adopted the 2023 NEC yet. So if you are under the 2017 or 2020 NEC, you're out of luck as far as using the product concealed for other than repair wiring. Unless you can convince the AHJ to grant 90.4 permission on the basis that the allowance in the 2023 NEC should be enough to be "assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[bill1952]

Well steveray, the code making panel must have read your mind - at last. Here are the first and second drafts of the changes to the 2020 edition for 2023 edition. Looks like - under 2023 - you can use them in new and existing, exposed, concealed, or to be concealed.
1st draft:

2nd draft (as should be published in 2023 edition):

 

[Sifu]

I think those splices are often used in modular buildings where sections join.

I used to see them in modulars all the time, and when I asked why/how I was told they were permitted for the marriage walls for the factory wiring connections between the modules. I always wondered why they would be approved for use in a modular, but not in the NEC. (This was prior to the current limited allowances I think).

For me the concern is that 1) nobody knows they are there, and they can never be troubleshooted and 2) they could be pulled apart leading to broken connections and exposed conductors and an inability to troubleshoot because nobody knows they are there.

Not long ago I had to make a repair and remembered the modular connections I had seen many years ago I did some research and found them and found that they were now in the code, but I was still uncomfortable as they go against a wiring method basic (basic is about as good as I can get). So in order to make myself feel better I took pictures of it alongside a tape measure to provide a location that will be included when I sell my house, AND I bought two, and did my best to pull one apart on some spare cable. I didn't like doing it, but the only alternative was putting multiple junctions with blank plates in a very conspicuous location. After trying my best to damage it I decided to go with it. I can say that if I were to pull that hard on a standard junction box I would definitely have pulled staples out, damaged the conductors and pulled the conductors out of a wire nut. I would not have used it if I didn't find it in the code. I was also curious about steveray's point. If it is ok in one place why not another? I surmised that the code restricted them to avoid what would inevitably happen if they weren't restricted....that they would be used every time a cable got pulled half-way to an outlet and came up short or damaged, or some other expedient reason to not follow "normal" wiring methods. JMHO.

In any case, the AHJ makes the call, not the architect in my opinion.

 

[bill1952]

For the real code nerds, here is a summary of the CMP work leading to the changes to 334.40.B in the 2023 edition. I think I agree with the member that voted negative on both first and second revision. As he points out, these are no allowed anywhere NM is allowed - a far cry from the original intent of connections in modular buildings. But, for those that adopt 2023, it is at least clear and simple.

 

[bill1952]

Surprised myself - the negative ballot is from the representative of IBEW. Reminiscent of my experience with the Chicago codes, except no matchbook.