Timeline for Does NEC require junction boxes to be accessible without tools?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2022 at 21:59 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @Trawson Having screw-down panels in places that are not required to be accessible, like above and below a flush-mount panel in a stud wall, is a really good idea. It just doesn't meet the standard for "accessible". At the end of the day, your core question is about picayune finer-points interpretations of NEC, and none of us can do that, that is ENTIRELY between you and your AHJ. All we can do is tell you what is generally accepted in practice. There is nothing to litigate there. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 17:58 | comment | added | supercat | @trawson: I wonder why there isn't a standard procedure for providing indications of where access panels are located? An access panel that was disguised, but whose precise location and instructions for access was noted by a tag in the breaker box, would seem more easily usable than one behind an ordinary junction box cover that was located behind some shelves full of books. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 3:21 | comment | added | trawson | The answer to the second question is less clear to me, but I didn't mean to be obstinate about it. From the discussion, especially about what might happen down the road, I can see that a screwed down panel as I planned is not a good idea, and I don’t expect to use one (I will probably screw down the larger plywood panel, then put an access door in it). Anyway, my interest there was not in rationalizing anything, more in the logic of code language, and what the code says in so many words vs. what is subject to interpretation. That's just how my brain works. Sorry that wasn’t clear. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 3:21 | comment | added | trawson | Well I do suffer from various things, not sure if that is one of them :). I regret that this discussion ended up trying to cover both the original question of “does the code require that junction boxes be accessible without tools?” and one from another thread about “is screwed-down plywood a code-compliant access panel?” That was partly my mistake in responding when the second issue was raised instead of sticking to the first. Anyway, as far as I can see the answer to the original question is clearly no, there's no such code requirement. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 22:28 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 240 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2022 at 22:16 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @trawson You missed it. You are suffering justification/rationalization, in which your brain is overinvested in a particular pre-chosen outcome, and will dream up a quarrel with any facts presented which might threaten that outcome. You'll just have to wait for whatever chemical thing is causing that to subside. Then it will make sense. There's a lot of this going around lately, for some reason. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 22:04 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 105 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2022 at 21:45 | comment | added | trawson | I mostly agree. It seems like these are great arguments for good practices, but they don't seem like things stated in the code. For example, I would certainly want access panels to be identifiable as such and not just look like part of a surface, but I don’t think it’s a code requirement, unless I missed it. And of course you don’t want them to later become inaccessible – but afaik the code doesn't say you can't use screws for access panels because they might break later, and there are commercial access panels that do use screws. Etc. I'm seeing the points but not a direct code basis for them. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 20:43 | history | answered | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |