Old Work Boxes

[Inspectorsixx]

Some interesting email traffic with local electrical inspector.

Thoughts?



I recently requested an electrical rough inspection on one of my residential jobs. This job contained approximately eight (8) locations of where a wall light, ceiling light or outlet would be required, yet the specific location was to be determined at a later date. Of these eight locations four are bathroom vanity light walls. In these instances it is common work practices to loop an NM cable in the walls or ceiling with enough cable to allow for more than one option in actual fixture or outlet final placement.
This is common in these large custom homes due to many factors beyond my control as the licensed electrical contractor. In these instances, we come back to job after the finished surface has been installed and cut holes for specified light or outlet boxes. These boxes are installed and used in accordance with NEC and the instructions included in the listing and labeling.

I received a Violation Correction Notice that had one violation listed that I would like to review with you concerning the above described conditions.

1.Cannot use cut in boxes (old work) on open walls.

I met with the inspector on site to review the two violations in person. I asked the inspector how could a rough in inspection fail for using old work boxes on open walls, when there are not any old work boxes currently installed. He stated that I would not be allowed to use an old work box anywhere in this project, as it is a new construction project. He then stated that old work boxes are to be used in remodel projects only.
I then asked for an NEC reference. I was given 110.3(B) and 314.23.

110.3(B)- Installation and use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling. (NEC 2011)

I have studied the instructions and spec sheets for the old work boxes. I do not see any indication or direction in the instructions in regards to new construction or remodel use specifically.

I also have done some research in regards to the UL listing. I have located a letter from a UL engineer on the subject. Please take a moment to review.

(http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.p... fixtures used in new construction? (8-10-2K)



I also contacted the manufacturer for some clarification. I have attached the instructions and the email from the manufacturer. The manufacturer stated ? it is quite common for old work boxes to be used in new construction (many applications where there may not be a stud to attach to,etc.)?


314.23- Enclosures within the scope of this article shall be supported in accordance with one or more of the provisions in 314.23(A) through (H)(NEC 2011)
314.23(C)- Mounting in finished surfaces. An enclosure mounted in a finished surface shall be rigidly secured thereto by clamps, anchors, or fittings identified for the application.(NEC 2011)

I asked the inspector to clarify how I would not meet this requirement by installing the box during the trim out stage of the project. I would be mounting the box in a ?finished surface?. I also pointed out to the inspector a wall on this projected was open on one side and still had drywall on the other side. I had installed an old work box for an added light switch in the closet on the ?finished surface? side. He stated that was non-compliant installation of the box. I asked him to clarify to me how he felt that the existing finished surface side did not meet 314.23(C). He stated that it was only 50% finished and the open wall on the other side meant that I would be required to use a structure mounted plastic box.
It was explained to me that the position and interpretation of this requirement was that the term ?finished surface? is to be defined as after the city has issued a CO and all work was completed on the project. He stated that if I used an old work box during the trim he would have us remove drywall and mount the light, outlet boxes to the structure and make repairs to finished surfaces.

This interpretation basically removes the use of an old work box from my arsenal of tools to earn a living as well as satisfy my customer?s needs.

I would respectfully request that you review the interpretation and enforcement of this issue.

Sincerely,












Inspector?s response:

Sir,
I am sorry that you disagree with our decision however the code is clear on the support requirements for boxes installed in new construction and by definition this is an ?old work? box one can only assume it pertains to existing conditions. Therefore if the walls are open and the new boxes can be supported then they should be according to article 314.
Thank You

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe, or at least I remember, that at one time there was something in the code about rigidly supporting when installed in new work however whether I am right about that or not makes no difference as the NEC does not state new work anywhere. 314.23(c) allows the install and it's done all the time. Of course the authority having jurisdiction can interpret that as he sees fit. Personally I would rather put a box in at rough in however the sinks never end up where you put the box even when the cabinet guys lay it out.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Now if you read the manufacturers info on sheetrock you may find that their instructions state that you cannot support anything from the rock.

 

[iggy2]

I would argue that by the time you get there to install the old work box, the wall will be existing - and then the wall will be 'old work' .

Ask for NFPA definitions of 'old work' and 'new work'. This seems to be a case where the AHJ is looking for violations to create.

 

[mkgrady]

In this situation I would complete the job without the fixture or box installation, and then get an inspection. Later on I would apply for a permit to do old work and then do what you are trying to do now.

This issue drives me crazy. We as electricians would prefer to use a new work box but because the gc and or the owner want to make the necessary design decisions long after rough wiring we get the kind of mess you are in now. I believe you are making the problem you own by not requiring a box location during the rough wiring. Next time it happens just tell the customer you need a box location to be code compliant. Even if you wind up tearing up the wall to relocate the box at least you won't be in the same bind next time.

 

[iggy2]

In this situation I would complete the job without the fixture or box installation, and then get an inspection. Later on I would apply for a permit to do old work and then do what you are trying to do now.

But then depending on the installation, you may not have a switched lighting outlet as required by code at the final.

And, if you come back in a week to do the 'old work' is it 'old' by then? It's only a week. IMO anything a week old is not old, except for leftovers. So the HO has to have a bathroom w/o lights for at least......6 months. Then I might consider the work old.

Just trying to point out how silly and arbitrary 'old work' vs. 'new work' is.

 

[texie]

IMO, the inspector is being petty. This is a common practice in custom home work. It's things like this that are just arbitrary and lack all common sense and reasoning that make some AHJs so despised.
Back in the day I would not have rolled over for this and taken them on just for sport.

 

[1793]

I'm in the middle of a remodel where the walls in the bathroom and bedroom have been stripped down to the studs. In the bathroom there will be a built-in vanity. The lights and receptacles will have to be mounted to the vanity unit after the drywall goes up, so I'll have to have a rough-in inspection with no boxes as well.

I have not had any problems with this in the past. I sure hope my inspector does not have a chance to chat with the OP's inspector.

 

[Smart $]

All such metal boxes are listed under UL category QCIT, which has no sub-classification for "old work" box. "Old work box" is trade slang. Where you usually see "old work" mentioned is marketing labels and descriptions. Of the manufacturers I looked at, they do not even state "old work" in their products' title or description. I didn't look real hard, but I didn't run across any instructions on the 'net.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with this method of installation, but the inspector is correct regarding the 'loops to be completed later'... but not for the stated reason(s). Under the 334.30 securing and supporting requirements, only fished cable in concealed locations is permitted to be unsupported. The loop is not fished, even though it will amount to the same as if it were after concealed and the luminaires are installed.

 

[sparkyrick]

Where has common sense gone Clearly this inspector has none.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Don't let him hold you up. IMHO Finish the job and take your argument to the state panel. You will win this discussion.
Good luck!

 

[tsaltz]

It sounds like you have just another inspector that is interpreting it wrong. Yes it's his interpretation, but it's still wrong none-the-less. Something like this leaves a few things that need definitions. I wouldn't consider drywall on one side a finished surface. Painted...perhaps. I think all you can do is just go along with what he says for now and just like someone else mentioned, require the owner to make a decision on where the box is going to be in order to meet code. If they want to change it later they'll have to pay. It may be helpful to also explain that it's an unusual circumstance dictated because of the inspector.

 

[Inspectorsixx]

I have the cables installed in accordance with 334.30. I will gree that they would not be secured within 12 inches of the proposed old work box.

All such metal boxes are listed under UL category QCIT, which has no sub-classification for "old work" box. "Old work box" is trade slang. Where you usually see "old work" mentioned is marketing labels and descriptions. Of the manufacturers I looked at, they do not even state "old work" in their products' title or description. I didn't look real hard, but I didn't run across any instructions on the 'net.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with this method of installation, but the inspector is correct regarding the 'loops to be completed later'... but not for the stated reason(s). Under the 334.30 securing and supporting requirements, only fished cable in concealed locations is permitted to be unsupported. The loop is not fished, even though it will amount to the same as if it were after concealed and the luminaires are installed.

 

[Inspectorsixx]

Same inspector....

Grounded conductor at switchboxes.

Lol, I will post that email tomorrow.

 

[Smart $]

I have the cables installed in accordance with 334.30. I will gree that they would not be secured within 12 inches of the proposed old work box.

If you didn't fish the 'loops', you cannot say you have the cables installed in accordance with 334.30.

334.30 does not distinguish between supporting and securing. 334.30(A) exemplifies this. Yet 334.30(B) does not use the term secure or variations thereof.

 

[GerryB]

Nail up a box for inspection, take it down for sheet rock, see if he makes you remove fixture at finish to check

 

[K8MHZ]

Same inspector....

Grounded conductor at switchboxes.

Lol, I will post that email tomorrow.

Depending on which code cycle you are on, there needs to be a grounded conductor at switch boxes now, with some exceptions.

 

[Ponchik]

...... I was given 110.3(B)................Thank You

It seems like it 11.3(B) is a way out for inspectors.

They can't find a code section they use 110.3
They don't like your install they use 110.3

and the list goes on.

From my understanding, the AHJ can use 110.3 but he/she has to have UL or manufacturer documentation or another code section to back up his concern.

 

[Inspectorsixx]

Some traffic on grounded conductors at switch boxes:


My email

I have recently been turned down for an electrical rough in inspection for not having a grounded conductor at all switch boxes.
I wanted to clarify the interpretation of 404.2(C) exception 2.

?Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, OR through a wall, floor or ceiling that is unfinished on one side.? ( 2011 NEC)

In the particular job I was turned down for there is attic access for all the second floor switches and open crawl-space/ unfinished basement access for all of the first floor switches.

I have also attached a Mike Holt video on the article requirements and the new changes for 2014 that are coming. We use the Mike Holt stuff for training purposes and haven?t had any problems in the past.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=101IQAWIvqk#t=0


I was told, by my inspector, that because there was a bottom or top plate that would have to be drilled to add the grounded conductor, that it would not meet exception number 2.
This is where I am not following the interpretation.

Jumping ahead to the revised 2014 code cycle, it states that

?(2)- Where the box enclosing the switch is accessible for the installation of an additional or replacement cable without removing finish materials.?

I read this as, if it can be added later without damage (easily fished) it is not required.

I would like to ensure that my technicians are properly trained in the requirements of the NEC and stay updated with all changes, as they occur.

Your insight would be beneficial for us.

Thank you for your time.


His response:

Good Morning,
Currently we still use the 2011 NEC and it still says it must be an open cavity above therefore the inspectors interpretation is correct and You will need to put the grounded conductor in the switch as required. I have copied the plan reviewer Mr. Thompson in case he has a different opinion however I don?t believe he will
Thanks



Ummm, ok......


My second email, which led into the "Old Work" box issue:

I am using the 2011 code book as well.
I am reading the second exception as :

?Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, OR through a wall, floor or ceiling that is unfinished on one side.? ( 2011 NEC)

I am referring to the OR through a wall, floor or ceiling that is unfinished on one side.
In my understanding, the attic and unfinished basement or crawl space meets that language.

While I have you, I would like to ask one more question.

It is common practice for us to rough in for bathroom lights with a loop of wire through the wall and have the sheetrock installed. We then use a hole saw on the trim to cut the light-box hole to the exact location required by the customer. (most of the time, the fixtures have not been speced at the time of rough in).

We also do this method for kitchen island lights as well as wall sconces. Once again, this is done to ensure we get the light placements exactly to the customer specifications.

Once the hole is cut, we then typically go in with the properly rated type of box for the installation. Could be a pancake box on stud, cut- in box or a fan brace type box.

We have been turned down on some of our jobs, yet passed on others.
We always have the correct box installed for the fixture at the trim.

Could I get some clarification on what we should be doing to meet the city of --------- requirements?

If we end up having to place boxes for rough in inspection, our only option would be to install a ?placeholder box?, and more than likely remove ?placeholder box? and permanently install light boxes for installation at the time of the trim.
For example: The kitchen island ends up being shifted a few inches from what the plans show. We would then have to relocate a box and repair drywall.


Thank you for your time.

His response:

Unfortunately we don?t see the interpretation that way at this time the back of the wall is not open therefore the grounded conductor will be required, as far as the box question art. 314 requires that the box be supported to the structural framing and the ?old work box? is exactly that made for old work not new just because we call them cut ins doesn?t mean new work



Amazing stuff.
I would like to add that I typically pay around $1200 for the electrical permits in this municipality for a single family home. I typically pay (for the same project) about $100 to $300 anywhere else.

Fun, Fun.

 

[GerryB]

Unfortunately it doesn't sound like you are going to get anywhere with this inspector. As one poster suggested you can go to the state inspector if you have one. I did that once here in Ct. and he told me on the phone I was correct on an issue and then called the town inspector for me. I also float those wires all the time because no one ever knows center line or fixture height. I have had fastidious contractors make me float kitchen wires so they could be cut in the center of tiles. (the smart boxes are good for kitchens to avoid that scenario) I was going to suggest that sometimes the home owner can put a little pressure on the inspector for being unreasonable (which this certainly is, is the light going to fall off the wall because of the box?) They can cite extra cost and work to an already expensive job, taxes they pay to the town, etc. That won't help much with the other issue of the neutrals at the switch boxes though, I can see the inspector not moving on tha tone. Good luck (that was a pricey permit, would be about a $60,000.00 electrical job around here.)