junction box in attic-inspector question

Status
Not open for further replies.
So a box is buried under insulation. You can remove the insulation, work on the box, then, get this...... it's gonna blow your mind...................... you can put the insulation back where it was. What a concept! Whooda thunk it.

NOWHERE does any code state you are prohibited from putting the insulation back where it originally was.

This is the same as opening the door to a mechanical room, accessing a box, then closing the door when you're done.
 
I think this is more of being too lazy to climb in an attic and look for a box then anything else.

I agree it can be fun to find a box in the attic, but that is why I invested in wire finders (circuit tracers), makes the job so much easier, you can follow your affected circuit right to the juntion box everytime.

Would I put boxes in an attic on new construction most cases probley not, but its allowed, rewires and work on existing buildings, in most cases, it would be hard to avoid, and is done all across the US, and has been for many years.
 
One-eyed Jack said:
As I stated this is MY opinion. The general public seems to think
Code Enforcement includes everything from the neighbors Magnolia leaves falling in their yard to the color of paint on your house.

The Admin section of the North Carolina Electrical Code,2008 edition. ( 10.3 Purpose) States in part that all regulations contained in this code have a reasonable and substantial connection with the public health,"SAFETY",morals,or general welfare,and their provisions shall be construed "Liberally" to those ends.
You can say that this is my Liberal interpretation of Safety regards J-boxes hidden within attic insulation.

Regards your man lift scenario: by necessity there are some locations that are dangerous and require electrical devices and or equipment to be placed there. This can NOT be changed and is generally accepted as a part of life. We change the things we can and live with those we can not. By any and all means go get that squirrel damage fixed.:D
Click to expand...

So if your trying to use this as the reason to back your requirement, then in you jurisdiction no on is allowed to do work in a attic after it is insulated? you know doing this it has to apply to all situations not just looking for box's, you can not chose when you can apply or not apply something, trust me, you would never make it in court, laws can not be discriminating.
Something else, laws have to have a reason, they can not be made just because you think its a good idea, there are to many reasons that we have to go into attics, additions, repairs, and hundreds of others, but to say no because it hard to find a box, and it be ok for all the other reasons would be discriminating, it can't be ok for one thing and not another, and I really don't think you are ready to tell all your contractors they cant be doing any more work in an attic. or you will find yourself in court real fast, or your superiors would not put up with it.
 
hurk27 said:
So if your trying to use this as the reason to back your requirement, then in you jurisdiction no on is allowed to do work in a attic after it is insulated? you know doing this it has to apply to all situations not just looking for box's, you can not chose when you can apply or not apply something, trust me, you would never make it in court, laws can not be discriminating.
Something else, laws have to have a reason, they can not be made just because you think its a good idea, there are to many reasons that we have to go into attics, additions, repairs, and hundreds of others, but to say no because it hard to find a box, and it be ok for all the other reasons would be discriminating, it can't be ok for one thing and not another, and I really don't think you are ready to tell all your contractors they cant be doing any more work in an attic. or you will find yourself in court real fast, or your superiors would not put up with it.
Click to expand...

First of all you and iwire are implying that I have somehow conjured up the laws/rules or guidelines. They come from the collective codes that have been adopted by this state. Just because you don't agree with my interpretation or I don't agree with yours doesn't mean they don't exist. In no way have I implied that you can not work in attics. No amount of preparation or safeguards will prevent all accidents. Walkways to and work platforms are required for air handlers in attics. This is not an NEC requirement but EC's,MC's, and homeowners all benefit from it. This platform and placing j-boxes in visible and accessible locations are smart solutions for work hazard reduction. If you and iwire object to me and other inspectors providing a little extra security in your work environment by using a somewhat obscure code requirement so be it. I can live with that . So can you ,the public,and your employees. When you start signing off and accepting the accountability for code compliance it becomes quite a bit different from throwing out dissenting opinions when they have no consequence for you.
 
Wayne thanks, by mike's standard it would be all but impossible to merely enter many attics ,. the slightest movement of air will "remove" small amounts of many types of insulation .
 
<<<If you and iwire object to me and other inspectors providing a little extra security in your work environment by using a somewhat obscure code requirement so be it.>>>

In my jurisdiction, inspectors aren't tasked with providing a "little extra security" as they only are supposed to provide the security required by the code. If the code seems obscure even to you, that is because even somebody who really wants to provide extra security realizes that it isn't spelled out in the code. I respect your knowledge, but you really are stretching the code to fit what is no doubt a good practice, but not required by the code.
 
Last edited:
One-eyed Jack said:
When you start signing off and accepting the accountability for code compliance it becomes quite a bit different from throwing out dissenting opinions when they have no consequence for you.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting, as a building inspector, that you somehow are accountable, responsible, liable for non-code compliant installations? i.e. if you somehow miss an item you become accountable?

I too am an inspector - there is no such liability unless it can be proven there was fraud involved. The codes specifically address this situation and hold you harmless for such errors/omissions...see section 105.4 of the Intl Bldg Code...this section basically says if you erroneously sign off on a permit where there are violations the permit is not valid. The codes [and the courts] know that it is impossible for an inspector to catch all items during an inspection and thus shield you from such. I know anybody can sue for for anything, but when it comes to liability that falls on the contractor.
 
480sparky said:
So a box is buried under insulation. You can remove the insulation, work on the box, then, get this...... it's gonna blow your mind...................... you can put the insulation back where it was. What a concept! Whooda thunk it.

NOWHERE does any code state you are prohibited from putting the insulation back where it originally was.

This is the same as opening the door to a mechanical room, accessing a box, then closing the door when you're done.
Click to expand...


Wow who would have thought that all one has to do is cut a hole in the sheet rock open the box and do what needs doing and then replace the sheetrock. What a concept!!!! Nowhere in the NEC does it say that sheetrock can not be repaired. This is just like opening a door and then closing it back when you leave. I bet this concept would work on brick as well. Let's all just start making joints behind any thing that we can cut or chisel out.

So in you brilliance you are saying this concept is acceptable with the NEC?
 
dana1028 said:
Are you suggesting, as a building inspector, that you somehow are accountable, responsible, liable for non-code compliant installations? i.e. if you somehow miss an item you become accountable?

I too am an inspector - there is no such liability unless it can be proven there was fraud involved. The codes specifically address this situation and hold you harmless for such errors/omissions...see section 105.4 of the Intl Bldg Code...this section basically says if you erroneously sign off on a permit where there are violations the permit is not valid. The codes [and the courts] know that it is impossible for an inspector to catch all items during an inspection and thus shield you from such. I know anybody can sue for for anything, but when it comes to liability that falls on the contractor.
Click to expand...

My employer holds me accountable.
The law also allows for but does not require you employer to provide for your defense. Yes anyone can bring frivolous suit. It does not mean they will win but you can have it hanging over your head until it is resolved. Some goverment bodies are Stand by your man,others are not.
 
drive1968 said:
<<<If you and iwire object to me and other inspectors providing a little extra security in your work environment by using a somewhat obscure code requirement so be it.>>>

In my jurisdiction, inspectors aren't tasked with providing a "little extra security" as they only are supposed to provide the security required by the code. If the code seems obscure even to you, that is because even somebody who really wants to provide extra security realizes that it isn't spelled out in the code. I respect your knowledge, but you really are stretching the code to fit what is no doubt a good practice, but not required by the code.
Click to expand...

Some MUST have it spelled out for them. The provision for that has been provided for us. I used the term obscure not because it is not clear,just not widely known. When something does not work properly in these parts the first thing we hear is WELL IT WAS INSPECTED WHY DON"T IT WORK. Call the contractor that did the work never enters their mind. My dryer vent stopped up.Wasn't inspected right.
 
cowboyjwc said:
While I agree that it may not be a violation. If I was doing a service call and I crawled up in the attic and shined my flashlight around and didn't see a j-box you can sure bet I'm not going to climb up there and walk every joist until I found one.

I say that it's a very poor install.
Click to expand...



A toner or wire tracer will make quick work of it
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
If it is marked i have no issue but if unmarked just how do you plan on finding the box ? Take a shovel and rake with you ? You all know it never goes back as nice as it was before.
I would call it concealed.
Click to expand...



It would not hamper, slow down or stop a qualified electrican of finding a problem in a junction box any more than going up there and find loads of christas decorations and years of acumulated stuff on top of a junction box. Would you consider them to be a building finish?
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Got to agree with you on this ,yes concealed is legal. But would you want to plow thru hundreds of square feet of insulation trying to find a junction box ? As an inspector i would want it flaged in some manner.
Click to expand...





flagged in "some manner".............even if that said manner were dreampt up right then in there?
 
jwelectric said:
Wow who would have thought that all one has to do is cut a hole in the sheet rock open the box and do what needs doing and then replace the sheetrock. What a concept!!!! Nowhere in the NEC does it say that sheetrock can not be repaired. This is just like opening a door and then closing it back when you leave. I bet this concept would work on brick as well. Let's all just start making joints behind any thing that we can cut or chisel out.

So in you brilliance you are saying this concept is acceptable with the NEC?
Click to expand...



All of your examples are damaging or removing a buildings finish, which is a NEC violation. Brushing blown in insulation out of your way is obviously no comparison.
 
Read all these posts and I don't think everyone is going to be in agreement.

In my opinion, having insulation covering a jbox does not make the jbox concealed.

/Thread closed.
 
I realize this has been beat to death by now, not going to debate "is it code or not", but will say that I would voluntarily tag the box, or hang a plastic tag on the rafter above it saying "j-box below insulation", just so the next guy doesn't spend any more time in a 140* attic than need be. it *might* also keep the HO from planking over the box with walkboards, which are a bit harder to remove than insulation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top