Splice kit approved for behind walls?

[tortuga]

I have seen these splices before. I had a friendly debate with another electrician at the time as to if these were legal and when we determined they were, the discussion lead to the fact that you can still splice knob and tube buried in a wall with no box.

 

[jusme123]

Splice kit approved for behind walls

worst idea ever, fix the permanent wiring properly, JMO. Next electrician having to find a bad splice, will have nothing less than a nightmare finding that.

 

[iwire]

Next electrician having to find a bad splice, will have nothing less than a nightmare finding that.

I get paid by the hour.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Splice kit approved for behind walls

worst idea ever, fix the permanent wiring properly, JMO. Next electrician having to find a bad splice, will have nothing less than a nightmare finding that.

the long explanation in one of the links posted earlier describes using discretion to determine if a new wire could be pulled w/o extensive damage/repair of construction materials. the nec fails when it comes time to intent of the verbiage. a QAAV is not the only safe way to bury a splice in a wall, but is the only approved device at this time. also, why do people keep saying "tap", no tapping in the thread, its all a splice of one cable.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Splice kit approved for behind walls

worst idea ever, fix the permanent wiring properly, JMO. Next electrician having to find a bad splice, will have nothing less than a nightmare finding that.

if its $7k to rip out walls and to repair all that, how much biz will you be getting? vs using a small QAAV device and a small hole to patch.

the argument here is not about buried splice. but to your point, the application of QAAV use is discretionary, but likely will always be cheaper then a full wire replace.

 

[jusme123]

if its $7k to rip out walls and to repair all that, how much biz will you be getting? vs using a small QAAV device and a small hole to patch.

the argument here is not about buried splice. but to your point, the application of QAAV use is discretionary, but likely will always be cheaper then a full wire replace.

...my argument IS about the buried splice. Cost should never dictate how to properly repair electrical work. Using a splice kit (QAAV) and burying it in a wall is no different than using wirenuts

 

[user 100]

...cost should never dictate how to properly repair electrical work.

It shouldn't but it often does.

 

[JFletcher]

...my argument IS about the buried splice. Cost should never dictate how to properly repair electrical work. Using a splice kit (QAAV) and burying it in a wall is no different than using wirenuts

I beg to differ, the wirenut vs splice issue has been pretty well covered already. If it matters, you could install a 2 gang LV ring and a blank plate or an Oatey access cover over the splice, homeowner permitting. or at the very least write a note and leave it in the panel detailing said splice location. not that any of that is required, but all are above and beyond a code compliant install, and by all means a proper repair.

I'll agree tho that if new cable can be fished in and a box used, that should be done over using one of these interconnect devices.

 

[FionaZuppa]

...my argument IS about the buried splice. Cost should never dictate how to properly repair electrical work. Using a splice kit (QAAV) and burying it in a wall is no different than using wirenuts

up until the point NEC allowed QAAV devices to be used, there was no real cost argument, it had to be done to restore that wire. possibly removing completely may have been an option too for less $$, BUT, now that QAAV is allowed the costs are most definitely a big factor in its use. that $2.5k job is now just $800, and the homeowner loves you for that..... you would present a "i wont use QAAV for this fix" solution even if QAAV is allowed, less $$, and less mess for owner? sounds like lost work to me, or just a ignorant owner (which you could to be blamed for, you know QAAV's exist so its your professional duty to inform, but doesnt mean you would do such work).

beyond personal discretion upon your practice, my argument is around other non-QAAV solutions. i say a mounted box using wago would pass the same UL tests that are done with QAAV types, thus these other methods should not be excluded.

 

[gadfly56]

up until the point NEC allowed QAAV devices to be used, there was no real cost argument, it had to be done to restore that wire. possibly removing completely may have been an option too for less $$, BUT, now that QAAV is allowed the costs are most definitely a big factor in its use. that $2.5k job is now just $800, and the homeowner loves you for that..... you would present a "i wont use QAAV for this fix" solution even if QAAV is allowed, less $$, and less mess for owner? sounds like lost work to me, or just a ignorant owner (which you could to be blamed for, you know QAAV's exist so its your professional duty to inform, but doesnt mean you would do such work).

beyond personal discretion upon your practice, my argument is around other non-QAAV solutions. i say a mounted box using wago would pass the same UL tests that are done with QAAV types, thus these other methods should not be excluded.

That may very well be true, but until RACO, Steel City, Wago or someone else decides to go for a listing, QAAV is the only game in town for a concealed splice.

 

[user 100]

That may very well be true, but until RACO, Steel City, Wago or someone else decides to go for a listing, QAAV is the only game in town for a concealed splice.

:thumbsup:.

Can you do a concealed splice with conventional products that is safe? Sure.
Is it legal? Nope, and you're liable.

 

[FionaZuppa]

:thumbsup:.

Can you do a concealed splice with conventional products that is safe? Sure.
Is it legal? Nope, and you're liable.

if UL tests a mounted box, NM, NM clamps, and wago's, tested to the same safety tests QAAV's are tested to, and the box-wago passes, why is this any different than a QAAV device in terms of safety, not only for the splice itself, but for the lifetime of the splice regardless of if a box-wago can be opened later, boxes and wagos are made as reusable components, etc.

wago connector is already accepted for approved use, so i dont see any reason for wago to press the issue. the issue is, why does nec accept one safe method over any other safe method? using wago in a mounted box with proper NM clamps (i dunno, invent "proper clamps" is you want special strain relief) is just as safe as a QAAV device.

lets look at aother scenario, QAAV is installed, 5yrs later a new owner moves in, they have no clue where the "safe" QAAV was installed, they put a long screw in the wall and it goes right into the QAAV body and lands on the hot side CCC. hmmmm, that wont happen if you used a mounted box (metal or plastic) with a metal cover (unless they were using a self tapping screw and when it got real tough they just kept going, but we cant stop folks from doing stupid things, etc.).

i just think its very narrow minded to think QAAV's are the only safe way to bury a splice. we really didnt need QAAV to be able to do safe splice burials (concealment).

 

[gadfly56]

if UL tests a mounted box, NM, NM clamps, and wago's, tested to the same safety tests QAAV's are tested to, and the box-wago passes, why is this any different than a QAAV device in terms of safety, not only for the splice itself, but for the lifetime of the splice regardless of if a box-wago can be opened later, boxes and wagos are made as reusable components, etc.

wago connector is already accepted for approved use, so i dont see any reason for wago to press the issue. the issue is, why does nec accept one safe method over any other safe method? using wago in a mounted box with proper NM clamps (i dunno, invent "proper clamps" is you want special strain relief) is just as safe as a QAAV device.

lets look at aother scenario, QAAV is installed, 5yrs later a new owner moves in, they have no clue where the "safe" QAAV was installed, they put a long screw in the wall and it goes right into the QAAV body and lands on the hot side CCC. hmmmm, that wont happen if you used a mounted box (metal or plastic) with a metal cover (unless they were using a self tapping screw and when it got real tough they just kept going, but we cant stop folks from doing stupid things, etc.).

i just think its very narrow minded to think QAAV's are the only safe way to bury a splice. we really didnt need QAAV to be able to do safe splice burials (concealment).

There's the heart of the issue right there. I don't think anyone here is arguing that the installation you propose is, on the face of it, not as safe as the QAAV. It's just not listed. And if you could get UL out to do a field examination, that would likely be the most expensive splice in history.

 

[user 100]

if UL tests a mounted box, NM, NM clamps, and wago's, tested to the same safety tests QAAV's are tested to, and the box-wago passes, why is this any different than a QAAV device in terms of safety, not only for the splice itself, but for the lifetime of the splice regardless of if a box-wago can be opened later, boxes and wagos are made as reusable components, etc.

wago connector is already accepted for approved use, so i dont see any reason for wago to press the issue. the issue is, why does nec accept one safe method over any other safe method? using wago in a mounted box with proper NM clamps (i dunno, invent "proper clamps" is you want special strain relief) is just as safe as a QAAV device.

lets look at aother scenario, QAAV is installed, 5yrs later a new owner moves in, they have no clue where the "safe" QAAV was installed, they put a long screw in the wall and it goes right into the QAAV body and lands on the hot side CCC.

i just think its very narrow minded to think QAAV's are the only safe way to bury a splice. we really didnt need QAAV to be able to do safe splice burials (concealment).

Nobodys narrow minded- only that the kits are the only approved way of doing that. As for why one over the other- iwire was likely right in his earlier assertions about lobbying. And why worry about a nail or screw hitting the splice? Why not worry about the nail striking anywhere along the length of the very vulnerable nm feeding the splice- so why not outlaw nm? Can't make everything idiot proof.:happyno:

We also don't need to invent any "proper clamps" to make the hidden box idea work- existing clamps are fine if the box was mounted. If for a loose box, these new special clamps would be unnecessary, b/c we already have these approved kits.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Nobodys narrow minded- only that the kits are the only approved way of doing that. As for why one over the other- iwire was likely right in his earlier assertions about lobbying. And why worry about a nail or screw hitting the splice? Why not worry about the nail striking anywhere along the length of the very vulnerable nm feeding the splice- so why not outlaw nm? Can't make everything idiot proof.:happyno:

We also don't need to invent any "proper clamps" to make the hidden box idea work- existing clamps are fine if the box was mounted. If for a loose box, these new special clamps would be unnecessary, b/c we already have these approved kits.

i agree. but if you are following what i am saying, you dont really need UL for a box-wago method, they are all already approved items, you just need that "approved" stamp for the method, just as there are hundreds of other approved methods throughout nec book, etc.

 

[user 100]

i agree. but if you are following what i am saying, you dont really need UL for a box-wago method, they are all already approved items, you just need that "approved" stamp for the method, just as there are hundreds of other approved methods throughout nec book, etc.

And until 314.29 is amended ( can't ever see the NEC bending to allow hidden boxes w/out exception), we still cannot do it.

 

[FionaZuppa]

And until 314.29 is amended ( can't ever see the NEC bending to allow hidden boxes w/out exception), we still cannot do it.

i not arguing what the code was, or is. totally missing the point, you just not getting it. not everything you do to nec code spec is UL tested. there's 200 different ways to create a JB (different boxes, various ways to clamp/staple/terminate the cable/wire, numerous ways to splice the wires in the JB, etc etc etc). all those methods are "safe" according to nec. all i can say is, i tried to shine the light.

this is now a dead horse subject. cheers.

 

[TPO]

:thumbsup:.

Can you do a concealed splice with conventional products that is safe? Sure.
Is it legal? Nope, and you're liable.

I think everyone got off track.
The original post was if this was legal per NEC

I agree that the splice method is legal however the application is not
The splice is UL listed for nm cable only
so i would say not to code.
one question though is this maybe this is a low voltage or speaker cable, could you use this splice then?

A quick note ... these splices have been available and used for over 40 years, so I think they are pretty safe.
I dont remember for sure which code cycle changed that they could only be used in manufactured homes.
NEC 2014 changed that and allowed them for repair.
Local AHJ's have different opinions for what is repair and what they would like to see replaced.
I personally like the product, used the product, and never had one fail (that I am aware of).
also they make this product that does do a tap again for manufactured homes.

 

[user 100]

i not arguing what the code was, or is. totally missing the point, you just not getting it. not everything you do to nec code spec is UL tested. there's 200 different ways to create a JB (different boxes, various ways to clamp/staple/terminate the cable/wire, numerous ways to splice the wires in the JB, etc etc etc). all those methods are "safe" according to nec. all i can say is, i tried to shine the light.

this is now a dead horse subject. cheers.

Sure, everything mentioned earlier- box and wagos- is listed, but what was being proposed is not allowed per 314.29- it doesn't matter if the code considers the same thing acceptable when its accessible-that's trumped by the fact that the code does not consider it acceptable when it is obstructed by building finish/structure.

 

[bixbyru]

Almost certainly is.



I think it is-

Could be the lighting in the pic isn't optimum and maybe the clear plastic is a little clouded over. Maybe we're wrong- maybe the wire is ns tc, maybe it's some weird speaker wire, whatever it is, it isn't legal- that's the most important aspect.

If it's speaker wire, then it's low voltage; in most jurisdictions, with low voltage all bets are off.