splices in walls

[480sparky]

Consider this:

An existing dwelling with a wall sconce. The homeowner wants the sconce some feet away from the existing, as built, location.

I am now going to rewire the existing installation by removing the existing lighting outlet box and use a NM Tap Device made of insulating material to connect a new NM cable to the existing cable, and then, I am going to artfully fish the new NM cable to the new sconce location and cut in a new lighting outlet in the existing wall surface.

Seems that the key word here is rewire. This clearly encompasses the existing wiring that is not fished and allows the alteration by fishing.

Afterwards, the wall at the original sconce location is closed, without a box, burying the NM Tap Device.

But you do not start out with a cable that is concealed.... it is accessible in the box. You are concealing in by this action.

 

[augie47]

I don't like it, but it sure sounds acceptable.

 

[al hildenbrand]

So you don't bury the tap. That's my point.

Again, the key word in 334.40(B), with respect to your point, seems to me to be rewiring.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I'll change the hypothetical example a little to another perspective.

I am hired to install a sconce where none has been. The sconce has an integral switch.

I come into a finished dwelling with my noncontact voltage detector (or some other cable locator) and locate a hot conductor in the wall. Prior to opening the wall, I satisfy myself that the cable is on a specific breaker, and that the cable is not switched.

I open the wall, install the NM Tap Device to connect a new NM cable that I then fish to the new lighting outlet box for the new sconce.

The wall is then patched, burying the NM Tap Device.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I don't like it, but it sure sounds acceptable.

:grin:

Boy Howdy! Do I understand that.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

I'll change the hypothetical example a little to another perspective.

I am hired to install a sconce where none has been. The sconce has an integral switch.

I come into a finished dwelling with my noncontact voltage detector (or some other cable locator) and locate a hot conductor in the wall. Prior to opening the wall, I satisfy myself that the cable is on a specific breaker, and that the cable is not switched.

I open the wall, install the NM Tap Device to connect a new NM cable that I then fish to the new lighting outlet box for the new sconce.

The wall is then patched, burying the NM Tap Device.

Illegal, Illegal, and Illegal

 

[480sparky]

I'll change the hypothetical example a little to another perspective.

I am hired to install a sconce where none has been. The sconce has an integral switch.

I come into a finished dwelling with my noncontact voltage detector (or some other cable locator) and locate a hot conductor in the wall. Prior to opening the wall, I satisfy myself that the cable is on a specific breaker, and that the cable is not switched.

I open the wall, install the NM Tap Device to connect a new NM cable that I then fish to the new lighting outlet box for the new sconce.

The wall is then patched, burying the NM Tap Device.

Again, it is accessible, and your actions concealed it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, Al. It just stikes me as wrong to bury these things. Maybe I'm too old and old-fashioned to accept something new and radical.

If we're discussing it like this, and there's valid points on both sides of the fence, my response it to take the 'safe' side and not bury them.

I have seen them buried, but only in manufactured (factory-built) housing. Most of them are in the unfinished basement, which I have to problem with. But a few I know are up in the (inaccessible) attic before the two pieces are drawn together. But those are installed by the factory and connected by their agents and is outside the scope of my work (usually, just to build the service).



BTW, in your above example, did you also install a Federal Pacific AFCI breaker on the circuit you tapped into?

 

[al hildenbrand]

BTW, in your above example, did you also install a Federal Pacific AFCI breaker on the circuit you tapped into?

:grin:

Well. . . in Minnesota, in those areas inspected by the State of MN Dept of Labor and Industry Electrical Licensing and Inspections (most of the State), as of the issuance of the 2011 ROP (and a few specific comments therein), I, as a licensed electrical contractor, can extend existing branch circuits without invoking 210.12(B).

May be different in your jurisdiction.

 

[480sparky]

:grin: Well. . . in Minnesota, ........

You're no fun..... I wanted you to see if you could find a FP AFCI.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Again, it is accessible, and your actions concealed it.

Not really.

The existing branch circuit is concealed by the finished dwelling before I start the rewiring. It is concealed when I am done. Per 334.40(B), the fished wire is concealed . . . all the way to the NM Tap Device . . .

 

[al hildenbrand]

You're no fun..... I wanted you to see if you could find a FP AFCI.

Heh!

It gets even better. The MN DOLI ELI AHJ allows new branch circuits without AFCI subpanels on equipment for which no AFCI exists.

 

[LarryFine]

I'll change the hypothetical example a little to another perspective.

I'll do that, too. I've used the tap to add a receptacle for a wall-mounted TV to an existing circuit. The T-tap remained accessible in the crawl space. This elimiated the need for two boxes and a jumper (plus the labor) where the existing cable was too taut to make a single junction for the tap.

The T-tap I used is a Molex, and the tap plugs in at 90 degrees to the main body, rather than parallel like the Tyco, but they're functionally the same. The T-tap pays for itself in parts savings alone (T-tap vs. 2 boxes, 2 plates, 6 wirenuts, and cable), not to mention the time and labor savings.

Added: One of the best places to use such the non-T-tap splice would be when relocating a ceiling fixture, and the existing cable won't reach the new box. If the joiner was legal to bury, a blank plate on the ceiling would be eliminated. Maybe Tyco can confirm whether the joiner can be legally buried.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I have been using a UF splice kit that has 1 short heat shrink to cover the splice and a long heat shrink to cover the previous shrink.

This is overdue in this thread.

Welcome to the Forum!

Can you tell us a manufacturer and part number for the splice kit you are describing above?

 

[MF Dagger]

Al, could you point me to a link for the MN info you are talking about?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al, could you point me to a link for the MN info you are talking about?

Sure. Read the last page of Last Summer's CCLD Review. The title of the question is confusing, but the actual question and answer is correct. I followed up the confusion of the title with guys at ELI and had the correctness of the answer confirmed.

 

[MF Dagger]

QUESTION: When a new outlet (i.e. point on the wiring system at which current
is taken to supply equipment) for a receptacle, smoke detector or gas
fi replace is extended from an existing branch circuit in a dwelling, is
arc-fault circuit-interrupter (AFCI) protection required for the entire
branch circuit, per NEC 210.12? What if an AFCI device was not
available for the existing electrical panel?

ANSWER: No. The National Electrical Code (NEC) applies to NEW
installations. Existing electrical installations that do not comply with
the provisions of the current code shall be permitted to be continued in use
unless the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) determines that the lack of conformity
presents an imminent danger. See Annex H (Administration and Enforcement) in the
NEC for more information about existing installations and additions, alterations, and
repairs. Annex H is not part of the requirements of the NEC. Annex H is a model set
of rules that could be adopted by a jurisdiction for the administration of an electrical
inspection program. It?s meant to be informational only.
The 2010 National Electrical Code Committee Report on
Proposals (ROP) is available online.
The 2010 ROP contains the proposed amendments for the 2011 National Electrical
Code. Several proposals for the 2011 NEC dealt with AFCI protection and existing
branch circuits. Code-Making Panel No. 2, in its panel statements, have consistently
stated that ?The decision on applying the new construction AFCI requirements to a
circuit modifi cation is that of the authority having jurisdiction.?

 

[MF Dagger]

The way i read that answer is that I can use an arc-fault receptacle if one were available. Do you have a formal response or anything from the state AHJ? I'd sure like to ditch as many AFI's as possible but I'm going to need some ammo when the inevitable fight pops up over it.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Do you have a formal response or anything from the state AHJ?

That interpretation of the State AHJ was presented at that Spring '09 IAEI meeting by John Williamson, Supervisor Electrical Inspections. I don't have a "formal" document that I can share. But he assured me that this is the position of the State Electrical AHJ for State inspected areas (St. Paul, for example, has a very different opinion about the reach of 210.12(B).)

John was clear that this was a reversal of the State's previous stance on the matter.

If you have a State inspector that isn't aware of this by now, refer him to his Area Rep, or to Electrical Licensing & Inspection and John Williamson.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The way i read that answer is that I can use an arc-fault receptacle if one were available.

I'm not sure I see that in the text that you copied and pasted from the CCLD Review. When it says "AFCI device", I think its saying breaker, like a Pushmatic, Wadsworth, Federal Pacific, etc, or like AFCI fuses for an existing fuse center. When there is no combination type AFCI made for the existing hardware in an existing dwelling in the State inspected areas of MN, yet that hardware has available poles from which new branch circuits can be extended, one may install new branch circuits without adding a subpanel for mounting an AFCI.

The receptacle type AFCI, if it is ever given to us by the manufacturers, is already covered by 210.12(B) Exception No. 1.