314.29 History and Alternatives

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bubbablues

Member
I have several junction boxes throughout my garage and basement ceilings which I would like to sheet rock. I am being told that code 314.29 requires all boxes to be accessible.
What is the history and purpose of this code regarding accessibility?
Why can I not sheet rock over them?
Do I have any other alternatives to bring the appearance of my ceilings to a more finished grade living room look?
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

I can't speak to the specifics of the history of why the code disallows this but if you think about the logic of why you can't I believe it becomes obvious. If one of those splices goes bad and it's above the sheetrock ceiling you'll end up having to cut a hole to find it. That can happen as a result of corrosion or a line to ground or neutral fault. I can't think of too many alternatives to your situation but here are some off the top of my head : a) rewire to the point that the junction boxes are located to the walls instead of the ceiling if possible; b) install mud rings on the existing boxes and install blank covers on the ceiling; c) install a trap door where the junction boxes are; d) install a suspended ceiling instead of a sheetrock ceiling. Personally speaking, I wouldn't bury the splices. You'll end up regreting it at some point in the future not to mention that if you sell your house, the people to whom you sell it to will have no idea that you've committed this code violation and potentially dangerous situation.

Hope this helps.
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Considering that the most likely place to have a failure is in a junction box, why would you want to cover them with anything to make them inaccessible?

This NEC? Forum is for those in the electrical and related industries. What is a physical Design Consultant? :D
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

You might end up turning a 1 hour job to fix a bad splice into a major rewire.Best to just go with suspended ceiling and some of them look better than sheetrock
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

I understand the logic and extra expense in having to locate a buried splice if there is a failure. In my opinion, codes should be enforced for safety reasons and not to save time, money or headaches. What potential dangers may there be if fire rated sheetrock is used to cover the junction boxes? Due to Murphy?s Law alone, I would never break or advocate breaking code. But, does anyone have any past history or knowledge of safety issues that may have helped create code 314.29?
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

bubba,good morning sir,this post for some reason looks famillar. One that was locked, by the moderators maybe?Your not looking for some one to give "testimony" are you?
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Originally posted by dillon3c:
bubba,good morning sir,this post for some reason looks famillar. One that was locked, by the moderators maybe?Your not looking for some one to give "testimony" are you?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. ;)

Roger
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Originally posted by bubbablues:
I understand the logic and extra expense in having to locate a buried splice if there is a failure.
In my opinion, codes should be enforced for safety reasons and not to save time, money or headaches.
What potential dangers may there be if fire rated sheetrock is used to cover the junction boxes? Due to Murphy?s Law alone, I would never break or advocate breaking code. But, does anyone have any past history or knowledge of safety issues that may have helped create code 314.29?
Click to expand...
Your post contradicts itself.

You say that you understand the logic if there is a failure?? Well, that's a safety issue!

Code does not care about your money, time, or headache. Period.
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

bubba,in all due respect....

"It's going to take more that "dropping two pennies in a jellyjar next to the phone" Mr. Farmer.... :D (chevy chase flick)
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

apologize if there were similar discussions. I did not see any in my quick post search. Please point them out to me if possible. I just joined this site today after web searching. I am a General Contractor with a Bell Labs Physical/Mechanical background. My experience is really on the fit, form, function and style side.

My engineer/anal thinking have me playing devils advocate in questioning and challenging my electrical contractors and local inspectors. They just keep pointing to code 314.29 without really knowing the reason why or history.

A failed circuit does not always have a safety issue associated to it, so I do not think I am contradicting myself. I recently removed a kitchen wall and found a buried junction box where a thermostat previously existed. Who ever did this broke code. Did this put the homeowner in danger?

Knowledge is power and I am just looking for broader educated opinions, comments and debates. And, NO I am not looking for any kind of testimony nor breaching any other rules of this forum.
Is this a sensitive issue?
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

We have had lawyers join the forum from time to time. Generally, they are looking for information to help them in a law suit. What they don?t understand is that a simply question and answer exchange in this type of forum cannot fairly represent truth in a legal dispute. So, yes, it is a sensitive issue.

I don?t know the history of the article in which you have an interest. I can say, however, that the oldest code book in my office is the 1984 version. The same requirement existed in 1984, but it was in a different location (article 370.19). So the requirement is not new.
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

The inspectors and electrical contractors are correct on their position. Covering up the box (proper box and cover plate) does not create a fire or shock hazard. But it does create an issue is something goes wrong with one of the splices. How do you access it? How do you even find the box? Usually I see this type of work when a DYI does the job or some contractor doing a remodel does a little electrical work without calling in the EC. Unless you can make a good solid splice, it's your own home, and your willing to take the future risks, DON'T DO IT.

Here is a quick example of a recent issue I saw on this. A buddy of mine had a company change a bedroom window to a sliding glass door. The contractor that did the work had to move a receptacle under the window old window to make room for a door. They didn't have an EC come out, they just did it themselves. When they did it they placed a J-Box in the wall, made some splices and covered it with drywall. They painted the wall, finished the job and left. A few days later my friend calls me and said he didn't have power on two receptacles in the next room. I came out and spent an hour trouble shooting this. After getting my circuit tracer out I traced the problem to his bedroom where the new sliding door was put in. I showed him the area where the problem was and he then remembered a J-Box being put in the wall and covered up. He called the contractor back, they had to come out, bust up the wall and fix their screw up. I also went ahead and gave my buddy a bill for a service call and one hour labor to give to them! They were not happy about the bill, but my friend explained to them that he had no clue why he lost power in another room and didn't think that it was related to their work so he just called an EC. Bottom line I got my money from them.
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Thank you all,

It always seems to amaze me how many contractors and inspectors perform daily tasks, without really knowing the purpose, history or importance of their actions. Sometimes just knowing this information, especially when safety and customer satisfaction is involved, can make your occupation seem so much more meaningful. Hopefully others will benefit from this posting.
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Originally posted by bubbablues:
It always seems to amaze me how many contractors and inspectors perform daily tasks, without really knowing the purpose, history or importance of their actions.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the size of the NEC?

To expect the typical EC to know the origin of each section they use on a daily basis is extreme. :p

edit spelling

[ January 24, 2005, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

"Code is Code
We don't like the rules we don't agree with.
They are OK for someone else,
But not if they cost us time and money."
Mike Holt
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Section 3717 of the 1947 NEC is nearly identical to the current wording in 314.29. This just seems to be one of those common sense issues that really doesn't need an explanation.
 
Re: 314.29 History and Alternatives

Section 512-i of the 1933 NEC is identical to 1947 Section 3717:
Junction boxes shall be so installed that the wiring contained in them may be rendered accessible without removing any part of the building.
Click to expand...
bubba, you quote Murphy. . .a sub variant of Murphy's Prime Postulate is, in effect, out of the splices contained in any one Premises Wiring (System), the splice that will fail is the one that will cause the most damage.

Why invite higher impact by burying the splice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top