Moving a duplex outlet

[rbunch4468]

I want to move a duplex outlet about two feet on my shop wall. The walls are finished, so what I want to do is install a new old work box, power it from a tap from the current outletbox. I would, then, have the old box consisting of wire nutted power, with the outlet fixture removed. I want to fill the face of the old cutout with a wallboard patch and finish the surface instead of using a blank cover. Is there a reason that I should not do this? Is this a code violation?

 

[Marctrees]

NO.
I am unable to cite the Code article, but not only is it against Code, it is stupid for future.

Troubleshooting being one reason.

You cannot and should not bury or conceal any splices.

ALL boxes have to be "Accessible", will no longer be if you mud over it.

The correct way to do this is either leave the existing receptacle active, OR, remove the existing receptacle , do your connections, and put on a normal blank cover. Marc

 

[pattenp]

There is an approved device for making a concealed splice, it's a Tyco splice. But personally I'd just leave the box and put a blank cover on it.

Tyco Electronics
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Tyco-Electronics-Romex-Splice-Kit-2-Wire-1-Clam-CPGI-1116377-2/202204326

 

[checkthisout]

No, not legal.

Is the outlet trapped behind something and you need to move it so you can access it or do you just need power 2 feet closer to something??

 

[rbunch4468]

Thank you...

I will not embed the current box behind the finish wall, as I do not want to violate code.

I will research the Tyco splice, though. Normally, I would opt for the box with a blank cover. In this case, I want the finished wall surface.

Are there other reasons to reconsider the Tyco splice?


Thanks again

 

[rbunch4468]

Also, just to provide context, this is a new-to-us home built in the late 80's. We are less than thrilled with some of the finish quality, including many of the garage lighting and recepticals. While planning to upgrade my ceiling lighting, I discover that NONE of the current fixtures are mounted to boxes, and there are wire nut splices behind the ceiling wallboard above each of six fixtures. I am in the process of opening up these ceiling areas and installing boxes to contain the splices and mount new fixtures.

 

[larry4406]

As PattenP said.

My electricians use the Tyco splices as last resort and yes they are buried in the wall without use of a junction box.

Tyco Electronic's Non-metallic splice and tap kits provide a fast and reliable method for splicing or tapping 2 wire w/ ground and splicing 3 wire w/ground non-metallic cables up to 300 volts. They are designed and approved for use in rework within existing structures. Splice and Tap Kits also eliminate wire nuts for installation and replace the conventional method for adding a splice or tap for non-metallic cable without the need for exposed and unsightly junction boxes. NEC approved Article 334-40b.

 

[rbunch4468]

I have read quite a few other articles on the Tyco splices. Many varied opinions about using them even if they are legal... There seems to be controversy over whether or not they SHOULD be legal.

Given this concern, I am going to err on the safe side. My solution allows me to rotate the current outlet to exit on the opposite wall face into an adjoining room. I think this will work out best for me. I will get the pristine finished wall where I want it, and a new outlet in this spare room. Done deal.

Thank you for all of your responses...

 

[mjbasford]

Those Tyco splice kits are NOT approved to be left in the wall and inaccessible. They are rated to be installed without a jbox, but they must remain accessible same as any other splice/connection.

 

[pattenp]

Those Tyco splice kits are NOT approved to be left in the wall and inaccessible. They are rated to be installed without a jbox, but they must remain accessible same as any other splice/connection.

Just where are you getting this information? Not approved by who to be installed inside a wall without access?

 

[mjbasford]

334.40(B) - listed for use without junction box? yes, but the way i read the code, there is no where allowing even listed devices to not be accessible.

 

[pattenp]

334.40(B) - listed for use without junction box? yes, but the way i read the code, there is no where allowing even listed devices to not be accessible.

334.40(B) states listed device can be use for repair wiring where cable is concealed. There's no wording that say's the device is to be accessible.
Technically the OP is not repairing wiring, he's extending wiring, but that could be argued.

 

[Cmreschke]

334.40(B) - listed for use without junction box? yes, but the way i read the code, there is no where allowing even listed devices to not be accessible.

Then a uf splice kit would be a violation as well, seeing how it would be buried. No?

 

[CGT80]

Also, just to provide context, this is a new-to-us home built in the late 80's. We are less than thrilled with some of the finish quality, including many of the garage lighting and recepticals. While planning to upgrade my ceiling lighting, I discover that NONE of the current fixtures are mounted to boxes, and there are wire nut splices behind the ceiling wallboard above each of six fixtures. I am in the process of opening up these ceiling areas and installing boxes to contain the splices and mount new fixtures.

I don't know if this is to code, but it achieves the same goal: use a romex or flexible conduit connector, depending on how it was wired, and thread or snap that into the light fixture and place the junction in the light fixture, where a bad connection can not cause problems. If it is romex, it will not be exposed and most lights have knock outs or you can drill the fixture with a step bit.

 

[Fyrme]

Thank you...

I will not embed the current box behind the finish wall, as I do not want to violate code.

I will research the Tyco splice, though. Normally, I would opt for the box with a blank cover. In this case, I want the finished wall surface.

Are there other reasons to reconsider the Tyco splice?


Thanks again

Legal or not, There's no way I want a mechanical splice hidden behind a wall that my family lives in. Buried under dirt is one thing, but inside my home? uh, no.

 

[mjbasford]

334.40(B) states listed device can be use for repair wiring where cable is concealed. There's no wording that say's the device is to be accessible.
Technically the OP is not repairing wiring, he's extending wiring, but that could be argued.

I guess this is a difference in interpretation. Cable can be concealed, but no allowence for the splice (as I read it)

 

[checkthisout]

That splice is rated for in-wall, no access junction box.

 

[Screw Loose Dan]

I have read quite a few other articles on the Tyco splices. Many varied opinions about using them even if they are legal... There seems to be controversy over whether or not they SHOULD be legal.

Given this concern, I am going to err on the safe side. My solution allows me to rotate the current outlet to exit on the opposite wall face into an adjoining room. I think this will work out best for me. I will get the pristine finished wall where I want it, and a new outlet in this spare room. Done deal.

Does your garage have a separate breaker panel or are the outlets all in the same box as the house panel?

 

[theoldwizard1]

Then a uf splice kit would be a violation as well, seeing how it would be buried. No?

I have used that at my son's house. Previous homeowner thought is was acceptable to bury the 10/3 UF going to the garage at about 6". Of course there was not enough cable to do it right. I had to add about 10'.

 

[theoldwizard1]

The Tyco "in wall" splice was invented, and first approved, for use in modular homes. I suspect there are 10s of thousands that have been installed for years.

 

[pattenp]

I guess this is a difference in interpretation. Cable can be concealed, but no allowence for the splice (as I read it)

If the splice was not allowed to be hidden using a listed device as specified in 334.40(B) the code section would say so. There is no general provision in the NEC that states all splices need to be accessible. You are injecting something into the code that doesn't exist. 334.40(B) says no box is needed so that implies in itself that the device does not need to be accessible.

 

[sberry]

My solution allows me to rotate the current outlet to exit on the opposite wall face into an adjoining room. I think this will work out best for me. I will get the pristine finished wall where I want it, and a new outlet in this spare room. Done deal.

Thank you for all of your responses...

This is a really good way to do it.

 

[rburke65]

Would depend on the meaning of "concealed". I find it hard to believe that you are allowed to bury this inside a wall without access.....but......I'm not up on current codes.

 

[wyliesdiesels]

If the splice was not allowed to be hidden using a listed device as specified in 334.40(B) the code section would say so. There is no general provision in the NEC that states all splices need to be accessible. You are injecting something into the code that doesn't exist. 334.40(B) says no box is needed so that implies in itself that the device does not need to be accessible.

Im late to the game on this one but NEC code is permissive. If it doesnt say u cant then you can.

These have been used for years without issue. I dont get the angst against them....