# Sealing Boxes not Just for Air Leakage



## Glenn (Jun 13, 2013)

I've been renovating my home.  I removed this flood light from the side of my house.  I found it completely full of wasp nests.  No open knockouts...just the small spaces around the wires coming through.  I thought the picture was worth sharing.  The box recessed into the brick was completely stuffed full of next debris.  Good reason to seal up your boxes and fixtures.


----------



## globe trekker (Jun 13, 2013)

Glenn,

Thanks for the pics.!  Is it "required" to seal up everything?   Code sections please!

.


----------



## electriclese (Jun 13, 2013)

I always stuff some duct seal putty in the back hole to seal around the cable entrance and I silicon the threaded plug threads and screw them in.  The new wp boxes don't have thru mounting holes, rather ears / tabs so box shouldnt be drilled to mount if it is then silicon the screw holes.


----------



## gfretwell (Jun 14, 2013)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Glenn,Thanks for the pics.!  Is it "required" to seal up everything?   Code sections please!
> 
> .


110.12(A)

(A) Unused Openings. Unused openings, other than those intended for the operation of equipment, those intended for mounting purposes, or those permitted as part of the design for listed equipment, shall be closed to afford protection substantially equivalent to the wall of the equipment. Where metallic plugs or plates are used with nonmetallic enclosures, they shall be recessed at least 6 mm (1/4 in.) from the outer surface of the enclosure.


----------



## mjf (Jun 14, 2013)

on another note, not positive it's required, but I always install a chase nipple in the threaded entrance hole in an install like the one pictured.


----------



## raider1 (Jun 14, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> on another note, not positive it's required, but I always install a chase nipple in the threaded entrance hole in an install like the one pictured.


Mounting a WP box over another box IMHO would be a violation of 314.22 as the WP box is not an extension ring and renders the splices in the box in the wall in-accessible unless you remove the surface mounted box.

Chris


----------



## mjf (Jun 14, 2013)

raider1 said:
			
		

> Mounting a WP box over another box IMHO would be a violation of 314.22 as the WP box is not an extension ring and renders the splices in the box in the wall in-accessible unless you remove the surface mounted box.Chris


True, was about to ask "what if all splices are made in the WP box", but that would still leave bonding of the recessed box inaccessible.


----------



## mjf (Jun 14, 2013)

On the other hand, here comes my "accessible" arguement again

I'd have to remove 2 screws and the WP box to access the recessed box in the OP's picture.

I have to remove 3 or 4 screws and the can to access the JB on a recessed fixture.


----------



## gfretwell (Jun 15, 2013)

If you are not damaging the building finish, it is accessible.



> Accessible (as applied to wiring methods). Capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure or finish or not permanently closed in by the structure or finish of the building.


----------



## electriclese (Jun 15, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> If you are not damaging the building finish, it is accessible.


Agreed.  Who is too lazy to undo a few screws??  I would understand if there was thirty of these to open.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 15, 2013)

Interesting conversation about the code compliance of the two boxes.  Just to add to that discussion, the installation was (I believe) original to the 1958 construction.

It is now completely removed and to be refilled with a new brick.  Replaced with a ceiling fan in the new porch roof...ahhh...


----------



## raider1 (Jun 17, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> If you are not damaging the building finish, it is accessible.


Ok I still say that the installation is a violation of 314.22 as the surface extension is not an extension ring but a listed WP box.

Chris


----------



## jar546 (Jun 17, 2013)

I agree that the WP box mounted over the existing metal box is a violation of 314.22.  In addition, the WP box (which is not an extension ring) does not cover the entire existing box embedded in the wall, making it accessible to all of the critters you see, therefore, the violation itself is causing the problem.


----------



## raider1 (Jun 17, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I agree that the WP box mounted over the existing metal box is a violation of 314.22.  In addition, the WP box (which is not an extension ring) does not cover the entire existing box embedded in the wall, making it accessible to all of the critters you see, therefore, the violation itself is causing the problem.


I would agree with that.

Chris


----------



## gfretwell (Jun 17, 2013)

Careful now, pretty soon we will start talking about a wet location cable being necessary because it extends beyond the building envelope.

Where does the wet location START?


----------



## NMCB13 (Jul 3, 2013)

Best thing to do now is to install a Bell #5406 single gang eweather proof extension cover (or equal) and a water proof device cover for a PAR 38 lamp holder.


----------



## NMCB13 (Jul 3, 2013)

I just noticed that there is a blue insulated wire connected to the grounding screw .......


----------

