Need some opinions

[infinity]

Much smaller I can almost fit my whole hand in a 2 gang mudring

I'm pretty sure that most of us can that's not really the point now is it?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

You don't necessarily need to get your hand in the hole as long as the wiring (splices) can protrude thru the opening

 

[petersonra]

So, if I use UL listed boxes and covers, UL listed wire nuts, and UL listed electrical tape, it's just fine to bury all the boxes I want behind drywall?

people tend to forget that UL listing requirements and NEC requirements are not the same thing. You have to abide by both. Just like you have to abide by the terms of the contract. if the customer wants his conduit painted pink and it is in the contract it is required even though neither UL nor the NEC requires it.

 

[gadfly56]

people tend to forget that UL listing requirements and NEC requirements are not the same thing. You have to abide by both. Just like you have to abide by the terms of the contract. if the customer wants his conduit painted pink and it is in the contract it is required even though neither UL nor the NEC requires it.

I was trying to make the converse point. UL may have approved the receptacles, but if you can't get to the splices or whatever else you need to do, like a ground connection to the box, you won't pass NEC muster. So the contract may require them, but if you can't produce a code-compliant installation you can't use them. Final decision is up to the AHJ. If you can convince him or her, go for it.

 

[petersonra]

I was trying to make the converse point. UL may have approved the receptacles, but if you can't get to the splices or whatever else you need to do, like a ground connection to the box, you won't pass NEC muster. So the contract may require them, but if you can't produce a code-compliant installation you can't use them. Final decision is up to the AHJ. If you can convince him or her, go for it.

that is pretty much what I said.

 

[gadfly56]

that is pretty much what I said.

OK, I guess I'm just a little thick today.

 

[winnie]

You don't necessarily need to get your hand in the hole as long as the wiring (splices) can protrude thru the opening

This...though this late in the day I think everyone is agreeing

It is fine, and common, to have a 4sq or even 5sq box buried in plaster with a single gang mud ring. Once the entire job is finished, you can't take the cover plate off. You don't have full exposure of the cross section of the box. But if you can get the splices out to work on them and then push them back when you are done, then it is fine; you have access to the splices.

These receptacles have the same problem, simply much much worse. The hole available to get the splices through is tiny. But if the rough is done properly then you can get the splices through the hole and work on them.

As I see it, the problem is not that the architect/customer wants these receptacles; it is that they decided on these receptacles after the rough was complete and it might not be feasible to arrange the cables to permit the splices to be accessed through the small holes.

-Jon

 

[EZEGoody]

In my previous life I have installed stair/walkway lights that were mudded in for a smooth finish. It was a bear to hook up when one of my guys missed the supply to the second light. These plugs look like they would be easier to access the connections than the lights that we used that were "UL Listed".
I would pass it if box fill/cable/conduit etc. was compliant. Code and common sense aren't the same thing sometimes. Some of you wouldn't daisy chain to make connections at the trim out easier. Some would use a raceway to an accessible j-box with stranded conductors for ease of pull. The level of planning of the install will be dictated by the level of the installer. It would have to be a bigger issue than this for me to fight a UL listing.

 

[nickelec]

Just literally had an inspection 10 minutes ago. Inspector failed it

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[gadfly56]

Just literally had an inspection 10 minutes ago. Inspector failed it

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Did the inspector raise any of the issues discussed here or something else entirely?

 

[nickelec]

No access to the splices or the screws that hold the device plate in place

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[GerryB]

I disagree with the inspector. Did you talk him into it? Actually I might rather try to get to those splices with a needle nose than the wiring on a small recess light. And as some said if you set it up right on the rough it wouldn't be too bad. Are there a lot of them?
Just thinking if you removed both outlets with the tool you could stick a finger in each hole and move the splices around to help grab them.

 

[kwired]

people tend to forget that UL listing requirements and NEC requirements are not the same thing. You have to abide by both. Just like you have to abide by the terms of the contract. if the customer wants his conduit painted pink and it is in the contract it is required even though neither UL nor the NEC requires it.

But what if customer wants it painted pink but UL or NEC prohibits it? (not saying it does but what if it did)

 

[gadfly56]

But what if customer wants it painted pink but UL or NEC prohibits it? (not saying it does but what if it did)

Then somebody else, not the sparky, gets to take credit for the violation. If I were the sparky, I'd provide a letter, politely declining to comply with the customer's request and including the relevant code citations. If s/he wants to hand that chore off to the painter on the project, that's on them.

 

[EZEGoody]

Have him prove the required amount of access needed for the splices. The device plate shouldn't need access based on the literature provided (going off your word) with the equipment showing how to service the receptacles. Maybe the designer can figure out a way to make the back splash "removable".

 

[FionaZuppa]

Seems NEC compliant.

They even have ones you mud over.

22.2.1 - Single drywall mounting plate - Bocci

22.2.1 is designed to be mounted on the front face of the drywall surface and covered completely with drywall mud. It fits all standard, single gang junction boxes and accepts any 22.3 operative component. Sold individually.

bocci.com

I don't know how you would get at the splices when you have more than one device in a box

Two pigtails?

And if you use Wago then even easier.

 

[winnie]

IMHO it is compliant to not have access to the cover mounting holes.

What is required is access to the splices. If the rough were done with proper consideration for providing access to the splices, then it would be completely fine. As the OP describes it, the rough was done and _then_ the customer asked for these devices, making it difficult/impossible to do properly.

As I see it, access to the cover mounting holes would be an alternative means of gaining access to the splices. So if the rough is not properly done to permit you to pull the splices out through the holes (as described in the device instructions) _and_ you don't have access to the cover mounting holes as a way to work around that issue, then you have a non-compliant installation.

-Jon

 

[FionaZuppa]

IMHO it is compliant to not have access to the cover mounting holes.

What is required is access to the splices. If the rough were done with proper consideration for providing access to the splices, then it would be completely fine. As the OP describes it, the rough was done and _then_ the customer asked for these devices, making it difficult/impossible to do properly.

As I see it, access to the cover mounting holes would be an alternative means of gaining access to the splices. So if the rough is not properly done to permit you to pull the splices out through the holes (as described in the device instructions) _and_ you don't have access to the cover mounting holes as a way to work around that issue, then you have a non-compliant installation.

-Jon

Agreed.

These items do not have covers. There is no cover covering the yoke. The yoke here is a snap-in panel mount. With a covered yoke one would need to take the cover off to remove the yoke. In this case the end-user does not need to do that, yet the yoke is still removable, and, wire "splices" are still "accessible".

I would suspect any inspector would like to see the rough-in with proper EGC tied to metal if metal box is used prior to the cover going on. Would be a pita to inspect that crud after 1" stone covers over it.

 

[kwired]

Then somebody else, not the sparky, gets to take credit for the violation. If I were the sparky, I'd provide a letter, politely declining to comply with the customer's request and including the relevant code citations. If s/he wants to hand that chore off to the painter on the project, that's on them.

Here it is still my permit and possibly my contactor license that are impacted by violations if I refuse to make corrections and/or not pay the reinspection fees that will be charged, so I am at very least explaining this to customer beforehand, if that don't work I can get inspector involved early on and hopefully can get a resolution of what will or will not pass. Inspector can inform them he has authority to order POCO to disconnect service if the installation does not comply with NEC. This will at least get customer off my back since they now realize there is someone else holding up what they want done and not just me.

 

[GoldDigger]

Is it possible to make the entire marble slab removable? (Not necessarily readily removable.)
One very large access panel.