Filling in holes vs. embedding romex

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mojosmantra

Member
Location
Miami, FL
Failed inspection. Residential addition in South Florida. I'm the owner/builder and architect (it's ok if you hate me :)) Concrete block walls with 3/4" furing strips. Boxes are fastened to furing and set into Knock-outs in the block. Electrician mortared the boxes in after install, which is typical here, but is the root of my question. Problem is he also mortared in the Romex. Inspector instructed him to "protect" the romex with duct tape.

I understand 334.12 (b) doesn't allow the embedment of romex. Is it a reasonable solution that duct tape will cause the romex to no longer be "embedded"? Doesn't seem right to me. And What Is the purpose of mortaring in the boxes even though they are securely fastened to the furing. I read 314.21, but does it apply in this situation - or does in really apply to the finished drywall surface?

As of now, the boxes have been removed and the romex duct taped on the ends - and re fastened. However, in lieu of sealing the boxes over the romex, I sealed the holes behind the boxes with mortar (yes, a lot of work). I do not want to re mortar the boxes - just seems sloppy and contrary to the NEC embedment provision.

Wondering what the inspector will have to say...Any opinion or advice? Thanks.
 
Just curious what code article did the inspector cite as the violation?

Welcome to the Forum. :)
 
Florida Statute 553.79?Permits; applications; issuance; inspections.?
(1)?After the effective date of the Florida Building Code adopted as herein provided, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or governmental entity to construct, erect, alter, modify, repair, or demolish any building within this state without first obtaining a permit therefor from the appropriate enforcing agency or from such persons as may, by appropriate resolution or regulation of the authorized state or local enforcing agency, be delegated authority to issue such permits, upon the payment of such reasonable fees adopted by the enforcing agency. The enforcing agency is empowered to revoke any such permit upon a determination by the agency that the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of the building for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of the Florida Building Code. Whenever a permit required under this section is denied or revoked because the plan, or the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of a building, is found by the local enforcing agency to be not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local enforcing agency shall identify the specific plan or project features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the permit applicant.
 
bphgravity said:
Florida Statute 553.79?Permits; applications; issuance; inspections.?
(1)?After the effective date of the Florida Building Code adopted as herein provided, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or governmental entity to construct, erect, alter, modify, repair, or demolish any building within this state without first obtaining a permit therefor from the appropriate enforcing agency or from such persons as may, by appropriate resolution or regulation of the authorized state or local enforcing agency, be delegated authority to issue such permits, upon the payment of such reasonable fees adopted by the enforcing agency. The enforcing agency is empowered to revoke any such permit upon a determination by the agency that the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of the building for which the permit was issued is in violation of, or not in conformity with, the provisions of the Florida Building Code. Whenever a permit required under this section is denied or revoked because the plan, or the construction, erection, alteration, modification, repair, or demolition of a building, is found by the local enforcing agency to be not in compliance with the Florida Building Code, the local enforcing agency shall identify the specific plan or project features that do not comply with the applicable codes, identify the specific code chapters and sections upon which the finding is based, and provide this information to the permit applicant.
Click to expand...

thanks for that. I was aware of that but did not have the specific reference. Much appreciated. I agree that the process should be more professional, but I'm guessing playing that card doesn't make any friends at the building department.
 
Mojosmantra said:
Electrician mortared the boxes in after install, which is typical here, but is the root of my question. Problem is he also mortared in the Romex. Inspector instructed him to "protect" the romex with duct tape.

.Any opinion or advice? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hire a smarter electrician (EC) and let him/her worry about passing inspections.
 
Mojosmantra said:
Failed inspection. Residential addition in South Florida. I'm the owner/builder and architect (it's ok if you hate me :)) Concrete block walls with 3/4" furing strips. Boxes are fastened to furing and set into Knock-outs in the block. Electrician mortared the boxes in after install, which is typical here, but is the root of my question. Problem is he also mortared in the Romex. Inspector instructed him to "protect" the romex with duct tape.

I understand 334.12 (b) doesn't allow the embedment of romex. Is it a reasonable solution that duct tape will cause the romex to no longer be "embedded"? Doesn't seem right to me. And What Is the purpose of mortaring in the boxes even though they are securely fastened to the furing. I read 314.21, but does it apply in this situation - or does in really apply to the finished drywall surface?

As of now, the boxes have been removed and the romex duct taped on the ends - and re fastened. However, in lieu of sealing the boxes over the romex, I sealed the holes behind the boxes with mortar (yes, a lot of work). I do not want to re mortar the boxes - just seems sloppy and contrary to the NEC embedment provision.

Wondering what the inspector will have to say...Any opinion or advice? Thanks.
Click to expand...

*Duct tape has many useful applications but this doesn't, from my New England view, seem to be one of them. What good would it do? That said, is that a common practice in your locale?

*314.21 applies to finish surfaces, not what's behind them.


What kind of boxes are you using? I can't picture doing what you describe without using 4-sq metal boxes with brackets and plaster rings.
 
growler said:
Hire a smarter electrician (EC) and let him/her worry about passing inspections.
Click to expand...

Growler...hindsight is 20/20. I wish I had no worries about inspections but I've found I have to watch like a hawk. I also have some electrical holes drilled within 2" of the bottom of my rafters and I will have to deal with that during the framing inspection.
 
edlee said:
*Duct tape has many useful applications but this doesn't, from my New England view, seem to be one of them. What good would it do? That said, is that a common practice in your locale?

*314.21 applies to finish surfaces, not what's behind them.


What kind of boxes are you using? I can't picture doing what you describe without using 4-sq metal boxes with brackets and plaster rings.
Click to expand...

edlee...apparently common practice and I agree that it doesn't seem to be a useful application. Nor does it alleviate the fact that, if mortared in, the romex is still embedded. South Florida is a funny place and building methods are somewhat unique here I would guess so folks have just convinced themselves that duct tape protect sufficiently. I wonder how long duct tape lasts when embedded in mortar.

All outlet boxes are what you describe - 4" metal w/ plaster rings. These do not present the issue. However, the switch boxes are (forgive my lack of technical jargon) plastic with the romex inlets in the back. So the romex travels along the wall, dips into the knock-out, and enters the box from the back. It is therefore impossible to "mortar in" a box without also embedding the romex. Hence my desire to not do that.
 
A smarter design would be to have 1-1/2" deep furring on the CMU to allow for a box and plaster ring.
I have always hated that we have to bust out the CMU to install boxes for receptacles or switches.
By not breaking out the CMU, the fire rating is not compromised.
 
Mojosmantra said:
Great thought, but the Florida Building Code doesn't require a fire rating in my particular situation.
Click to expand...
May not be required but can still be the reason why it is done.

There is also an NEC requirement IIRC for far-side box support... and embedding the box in mortar would meet that requirement.
 
Inspection passed. I asked the inspector about the mortaring of the boxes and he responded that it wasn't his "trade" - so that was a great clue as to the purpose of the mortar. Researched the Energy Code and I'm fairly confident now that it has to do with sealing the thermal envelope. Therefore my solution of mortaring in (and sealing) behind the boxes - and avoiding embedment of the Romex - should suffice. I suppose I'll find out during the framing/insulation inspection.

Thanks for all the input.
 
I'm pretty familiar with this peculiar Floridian wiring method as my parents are buying a new house in southwest Florida (Charlotte county) and I was able to see several new homes in their development in the rough stage. Anyway, the EC filled all the voids behind the boxes with spray foam, not mortar.

To the Florida guys, how do you make all the holes behind the boxes? It looked like a concrete saw or angle grinder was used, but I couldn't be certain.
 
peter d said:
I'm pretty familiar with this peculiar Floridian wiring method as my parents are buying a new house in southwest Florida (Charlotte county) and I was able to see several new homes in their development in the rough stage. Anyway, the EC filled all the voids behind the boxes with spray foam, not mortar.

To the Florida guys, how do you make all the holes behind the boxes? It looked like a concrete saw or angle grinder was used, but I couldn't be certain.
Click to expand...

My inspector made it clear that, in his opinion, the holes could not be filled with spray foam - stating "that stuff burns". My electrician also said he used spray foam once and the AHJ forced him to remove it.

As to cutting the holes, my electrician uses a "power" chisel - much to my displeasure. I asked why he didn't use a saw/grinder with diamond blade and his answer included dust, holes to precise (?) & time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top