junction box in attic-inspector question

Status
Not open for further replies.
kbrandt said:
Is it illegal to put a 4 square j-box in the attic on rafters and then cover the j-box with insulation?
I am going to play a little I-Wire word game here.
Since you stated on the rafter and it was covered it with insulation you must have been at the very outer edge for the rafter to be low enough to be covered in insulation that is 12 inches thick. Can you get your body into a triangular space with a maximum height of 12 inches? I can not so this box is inaccessible once the drywall is in place. Violation!!!!

That was an I-Wire word game.

Thanks for any input.
Click to expand...

480sparky said:
I see no problem with it. Poor design, but legal IMPO.

The issue, however, would be subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
You agree it is subject to interpretation yet you reject all but your own.
 
electricmanscott said:
With Mike, this is the way it has always been and this is the way it will always be.
Click to expand...

And I thank you for reminding me of that early on so I did not get sucked into the blackhole that these threads become.:grin:

Shall we bring up the fixture bar counting as box fill incident.
Click to expand...

Or the cord and plug connected under cabinet lighting supplied from the SABC?

No lets forget about those.:grin:
 
jwelectric said:
Panel Statement:
The panel continues to reject the proposal because the NEC
does not allow boxes to be installed in an area hidden by structural features.
Wall and ceiling finishes should not be required to be removed if boxes are accessible, as required by 314.29 as presently worded. The present language in the exception to 314.29 does permit concealment of boxes..

In 314.29 it does not give a limit on what effort that has to be taken to expose the junction box in simply says that no part of the building can be removed in order to access the box. It wouldn’t matter if it was a jack hammer to remove a brick, a saws-all to remove wood, a utility knife to remove plastic, or one’s hand to remove insulation the NEC is clear that no part of the building can cover the box.

Now we have those who are hung up on the word “finish” which is not mentioned in 314.29.
What it does say is NO part of the building can be removed in order to access the junction box. There is no difference between removing a brick and replacing it, cutting a hole in sheetrock and patching it back and pushing insulation off the top of an electrical box and replacing the insulation. Each and all of these are removing the building material in order to access the electrical box.
Click to expand...
You're the one making the leap from "structural features" and "wall and ceiling finishes" to "any part of the building."

What part of a building is not part of that building? What part of a building is allowed to visually obscure a J-box?
 
480sparky said:
outlets_insulation_covers.jpg


Again, I will ask you to LOOK CLOSELY at it. It is NOT a cover plate.​
Click to expand...
Nope. It's a gasket. :cool:
 
iwire said:
I am calling you out on this as IMO it is simply a fantasy in your mind and if they are enforcing it as you describe they are entirely wrong as you are here.

Sometimes it truly bothers me that you are a teacher training future electricians.:mad:
Click to expand...

And I will be glad to send you through PM the answer to the email I just sent to Raleigh.

What I would like for you to do is explain just what part of 314.29 that is not in violation when the insulation is covering the box. Help me understand why my state officials as well as the comments in the code panel are so wrong.

Some of these people I expect their comparison to remodel work and ceiling tiles to this question but you sir I expect a civil discussion.
Rest assured that if there is anything I have doubts about I clear up those doubts before discussing it in the classroom.
 
jwelectric said:
And I will be glad to send you through PM the answer to the email I just sent to Raleigh.

What I would like for you to do is explain just what part of 314.29 that is not in violation when the insulation is covering the box. Help me understand why my state officials as well as the comments in the code panel are so wrong.

Some of these people I expect their comparison to remodel work and ceiling tiles to this question but you sir I expect a civil discussion.
Rest assured that if there is anything I have doubts about I clear up those doubts before discussing it in the classroom.
Click to expand...

Rest assured, this is something you should be seriously doubting
 
LarryFine said:
You're the one making the leap from "structural features" and "wall and ceiling finishes" to "any part of the building."

What part of a building is not part of that building? What part of a building is allowed to visually obscure a J-box?
Click to expand...

No brother Larry it is not me making any type of leap it is the NEC that already made the leap

314.29 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, and Handhole Enclosures to Be Accessible.
Boxes, conduit bodies, and handhole enclosures shall be installed so that the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible without removing any part of the building or, in underground circuits, without excavating sidewalks, paving, earth, or other substance that is to be used to establish the finished grade.

Exception: Listed boxes and handhole enclosures shall be permitted where covered by gravel, light aggregate, or noncohesive granulated soil if their location is effectively identified and accessible for excavation.
 
jwelectric said:
And I will be glad to send you through PM the answer to the email I just sent to Raleigh.

What I would like for you to do is explain just what part of 314.29 that is not in violation when the insulation is covering the box. Help me understand why my state officials as well as the comments in the code panel are so wrong.

Some of these people I expect their comparison to remodel work and ceiling tiles to this question but you sir I expect a civil discussion.
Rest assured that if there is anything I have doubts about I clear up those doubts before discussing it in the classroom.
Click to expand...

Post your proof or don't.

I refuse to get sucked into your fantasy world.
 
jwelectric said:
And I do fully understand how YOU can confuse this with blown insulation in an attic.

I feel sure that most of us do understand the difference
Click to expand...



That's where your logic falls apart

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO MANHANDLE OR MOVE INSULATION. IT IS JUST AS EFFECTIVE UPON (RE)PLACEMENT


No different than picking up a bat of insulation,,,,,and then laying it back down. It's only blown in because on high production. It most certainly can be "hand-placed"
 
iwire said:
Post your proof or don't.

I refuse to get sucked into your fantasy world.
Click to expand...


So it is left up to me to simply assume that you cannot prove your stance using the NEC.
Copied from post 145
Panel Statement:
The panel continues to reject the proposal because the NEC
does not allow boxes to be installed in an area hidden by structural features.

The panel makes the statement that no box can be hidden by the building features.
Blown insulation in the attic is one of the buildings features plain and simple. This is and has been the stance of the code panel for more years that we are old.
 
Then I guess all the builders can quit making access panels into attics since it's illegal to go up into any attic any more. Electricians cannot run new circuits. Tinners cannot change ducts. Plumbers cannot fix pipes. Framers cannot repair trusses. Roofers cannot search for leaks. Home inspectors cannot verify the presence of the insulation itself, nor can they use a tape measure to find out how much is there. The building inspector had better not poke his head up there and breath on it.... it might get disturbed.
 
mcclary's electrical said:
That's where your logic falls apart

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO MANHANDLE OR MOVE INSULATION. IT IS JUST AS EFFECTIVE UPON (RE)PLACEMENT


No different than picking up a bat of insulation,,,,,and then laying it back down. It's only blown in because on high production. It most certainly can be "hand-placed"
Click to expand...


It is not illgeal to remove a brick and replace it either but you wouldn't debate a box couldn't be hid behind the brick veneer would you?
The question is would the box be code compliant if covered by insulation and the answer would be the same if ask would it be compliant if covered by brick veneering
 
480sparky said:
Then I guess all the builders can quit making access panels into attics since it's illegal to go up into any attic any more.
Click to expand...

Please explain what an access panel and an electrical box have in common.
Stay with the subject matter and what is outlined in the NEC to wit the access door is not covered by the electrical code. Of course I can understand how you confuse the two.
 
jwelectric said:
Please explain what an access panel and an electrical box have in common.
Stay with the subject matter and what is outlined in the NEC to wit the access door is not covered by the electrical code. Of course I can understand how you confuse the two.
Click to expand...

You keep insisting that blown-in insulation just cannot be disturbed. Suppose the building inspector wants to measure it? How do you propose he does that? X-ray vision? Wiggle his nose like Samantha Stevens? Read tea leaves?

Oh, and you can quit telling me how I keep getting things confused.
 
jwelectric said:
Exception: Listed boxes and handhole enclosures shall be permitted where covered by gravel, light aggregate, or noncohesive granulated soil if their location is effectively identified and accessible for excavation.
Click to expand...

I think the solution is to replace the attic insulation with gravel, light aggregate, or noncohesive granulated soil as stated above. Apparently it can be disturbed. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top