Where Does the NEC Stop?

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
In another thread a very respected gentleman stated the following.

I believe that a homeowner can never, NEVER create a code violation by virtue of using electrical appliances and equipment.

I would like so much to agree with that.

I should point out he went on to say;

If I am wrong here, if the code is not written in this way, then I still think that it should be written in this way.

I agree it should be that way.

But is it?

Consider some basic requirements in 210 that require a 15 amp receptacle not to be loaded beyond 12 amps if part of a multi-outlet circuit.

Or even that a branch circuit must have the capacity to supply the load connected to it.

Now in 2005 we get into a requirement that 'Holiday Lights' must be UL listed.

Are homeowners supposed to be pulling permits for such things under temporary wiring and inspectors busting them for un listed lighted Santa's?

How about Vending machines?

They now need GFCI protected receptacles unless it is has GFCI protection in the cord.

Who is responsible for that, the vending machine 'mover'?

Lets say you install a GFCI for 2 wire outlet replacement.

Is the homeowner supposed to be aware of 250.114?

My point is that IMO creating un-enforceable rules takes away from the code as a whole.

As a parent I know enough not to make a rule I have no intention or ability to enforce.

Anyone have any thoughts on this.

No scores kept, no right or wrong answers, only opinions :)

Bob
 

69boss302

Senior Member
Un-enforcable rules are not rules, they are nucances. They are just there so that someone can feel like they made a rule. What is so sad though is that by the time some one even thinks about enforcing it, the entire rule makes no sense. Then all the rule makers stand around and say "That rule was put in for a reason, what ever it may be. We can't change it."

All to often once something is in black and white it becomes like a sacred cow. I can't tell you how many times I have stood in a room with a group of people that say we can't do something because this rule was made by someone in said organization many years ago, probably dead, but out of respect for him the "rule" stay's alive.

The "rule makers" should realize that as you stated Bob, the old un-enforcable rules take away from the literal valitity of the ones that truly lead to a safe wireing system.

So now I will jump off of my short soad box and mind my own business. Just my 2 cents, isn't that what you asked for.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
69boss302 said:
So now I will jump off of my short soad box and mind my own business. Just my 2 cents, isn't that what you asked for.

Stand tall and proud on that soap box. :)

It is what I was looking for.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
"Where does the NEC stop?"

I don't know, but if the code gets any bigger, it can be used as a good door STOP. Buiding codes in general are a violation of constitutional rights. If I am a private land owner in this country, I should be able to build whatever I want, whenever I want, regardless of what some building code says. But that is not reality is it.

I say building codes should only make requirements that protect persons from someone or something and not protect people from themselves. This provides general public protection as needed.

For example, I am not a huge fan of the baby barriers required at all pools here in Florida. It's not that I am not concerned about children safety, but that I am more concerned about lack of parential responsibility. Some people would argue that required window shutters here in Florida amount to the same. I do not agree. If a storm breaks the windows in a building resulting in the structure failing, the windborn debry from that damage will result in the damage of other people's property. I see a difference.

When it comes to the NEC. It's hard to know where we need to draw the line. The examples you provide are good evidence that the NEC may be going too far. Tamper-resistance receptacles in a dwelling is another good example of the NEC trying to be a good parent when the real parents aren't.

I too look forward to how others feel about this issue.
 

amptech

Senior Member
Location
Indiana
"I should be able to build whatever I want, whenever I want, regardless of what some building code says."
I am also a landowner but I cannot agree with this statement. I depend on the building codes to protect my property from contamination from my neighbor's septic system or lack of a septic system, from damage caused by my neighbor's house fire due to faulty wiring or faulty HVAC system installation. Without building codes and zoning laws what would stop a landowner from constructing a wreckyard or a dump in the middle of a residential neighborhood? And without building codes what would be the standard for spec homes? That happened here in the late 50s-early 60s and what we have now are slums that are out of control and destroy the value of surrounding areas. The town boomed because of an automotive plant and building codes went out the window as little crackerbox houses went up at record speed to house workers. Building codes are necessary but they need to contain a generous amount of common sense and they only work when everyone is required to play by the same rules.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I think what Byran is saying is something like this.

Building codes that protect my 'neighbors' from my actions are necessary.

Building codes that only protect me from myself are over the line.

Example, a relative (another electrician) was building a home in a remote area under a tight budget.

He poured the foundation for the cellar installed the deck on that and made it weather tight. He and my sister lived in this 'basement without a house' for about a year. As they constructed the house themselves after work and weekends.

Officially he could not do that as there was no occupancy permit.

JMO, Bob
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Great topic, Bob. I wonder who that "gentleman" was that you referred to. As for me, I don't hang out with "gentlemen." ;) :)

Let me start by saying that, in general, if you start reading any kind of rule book at any point in the book, and if the beginning of any section you encounter lets you know that that section does not apply to you, it is not necessary for you to read the rest of that section. For example, if Section 42 does not apply, you need not read Sub-sections 42A, 42B, 42B-1, 42B-2, or 42C. By this token, let us let a homeowner start reading the NEC. He or she reaches 90.2A, and discovers that the entire book is all about "installation." But their house is already built, and all electrical distribution components and wiring are already installed. The homeowner can close the book, assured that nothing therein applies to them.

iwire said:
Consider some basic requirements in 210 that require a 15 amp receptacle not to be loaded beyond 12 amps if part of a multi-outlet circuit.
When I design the house, and when Bob installs the electrical, and when Larry inspects it, we must comply with this rule. If the homeowner tells us that the fridge is a "Sub-Zero" that requires 14 amps, then if we were to install a 15 amp circuit we would be in violation of this requirement.

On the other hand, if the homeowner tells us nothing about the appliances, and we install a 15 amp circuit with one receptacle outlet behind the fridge, we will have complied with the rule. If the homeowner later buys a larger fridge that takes up more current, the circuit might trip. But the homeowner will not have violated the NEC by setting up this situation. The NEC simply does not apply to the homeowner.

iwire said:
Now in 2005 we get into a requirement that 'Holiday Lights' must be UL listed.
So if a homeowner hires us to set up the holiday lights, and if the scope of work includes purchasing the light strings, then we must comply with this new requirement.

On the other hand, if the homeowner uses an existing outlet to plug in a string of lights, and if the homeowner somehow managed to purchase lights that do not have a listing, then the homeowner may be placing the safety of the family at risk. But the homeowner will not have violated the NEC by setting up this situation. The NEC simply does not apply to the homeowner.

iwire said:
My point is that IMO creating un-enforceable rules takes away from the code as a whole.
The rules are not un-enforceable. Larry can red-tag anything that I design or that you build. But if Larry is satisfied with the installation, and some later day the homeowner uses the electrical system in a way that the NEC describes as not being allowed, then the homeowner will not have violated the NEC by setting up this situation. The NEC simply does not apply to the homeowner.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
charlie b said:
The NEC simply does not apply to the homeowner.

I don't see how you come up with that, keeping in mind I would like to agree.

Have you read the scope of say 590?

If a homeowner hangs lights and plugs them in they have installed the lights.

Would you say if a homeowner has to follow the NEC if they legally wire the house from scratch?

In a recent thread a homeowner was throwing a party with a DJ and there would be cords run outside from inside to feed the equipment.

That would be temporary wiring as covered by 590 and could well require GFCIs per 210.8
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Let me qualify my statements. I recently went through CBO certification and apart of the required reading was lots of good stuff on legal aspects of code administration and early code development, all the way to the Hammurabi Codes in ancient Babylonia.

There were many significant periods throughout history which have shown how building codes can save lives and property. The Burning of Rome, The Great London Fire, and the Chicago Fire are all prime examples of building practices gone wrong.

In the end, I feel if the building codes are a true consensus process - where all persons of all expertise have a say as to what is required and enforced when it comes to zoning, building, and even property maintenance, I am on board. But the manufacturer's and the big corporations seem to have a louder voice than the people do. If product development is the basis of code change, that is a problem. If profit is the basis of code change, that is a problem.

That is where the line should be drawn.
 

ceknight

Senior Member
bphgravity said:
Buiding codes in general are a violation of constitutional rights. If I am a private land owner in this country, I should be able to build whatever I want, whenever I want, regardless of what some building code says. But that is not reality is it.

It's equally interesting to note that building codes are the pure essence of democracy. The taking of individual liberties for the common good is the principle that got it all started.

Up to a certain point, we all recognize that certain concessions to liberty are worthwhile. Keeping your neighbor from having an open pit sewer is, for instance, clearly in the community's best interests.

What's happened is that the "common good" has been growing steadily into something that many of us no longer recognize as either "common" or "good". As you note, we now have codes to protect people from themselves and their stupidity.

You can take this "protectors of a blameless citizenry" thing too far, and the code bodies are doing just that. And I don't just mean the NEC....

bphgravity said:
I too look forward to how others feel about this issue.

You may count me among those who really do believe that laws and codes designed to protect the stupid, irresponsible, and neglectful are one of the biggest threats to our viability as a species. :)
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I agree that the NEC states it is about the installation of electric equipment but in reality many of the rules have more to do with use than installation.
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
In regards to Charlie's thread. I tell people DO NOT to bring in the equipment before final. I don't want to see it. No doubt heresy with some inspectors. None that I can think of here though. However, i am talking commercial.

The only residential I see is Hi-rise and SF when they build the models. Homeowners remodels or customs I do not inspect.

EDIT: Delete sentences. Comments on my personal, not professional experience, deleted.

So back to Bob's OP question. ""I believe that a homeowner can never, NEVER create a code violation by virtue of using electrical appliances and equipment.""

Are we talking strictly cord and plug? If so then failure to remove Holiday Lighting would be a violation. Can't wait to hear about someone enforcing that one.

If the holiday lights are required to be listed and they are installed on the house, then why wouldn't that be a violation. Installation has been performed. If you hang the lights on hooks or nails, are you not installing them??

Aside from the above, I can't think of anything that applies to use of cord and plug that the homeowner would create a violation, provided he or she uses the product correctly. Like fishing the cord through the wall or something like that.
 
Last edited:

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
"I believe that a homeowner can never, NEVER create a code violation by virtue of using electrical appliances and equipment."
Should we take this statement to mean that we should wire in such a way that there's nothing a user could possibly do to create a hazard or other violation, or that it's incumbent upon the user to never attempt to circumvent the intent of the NEC?

"Remember: you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor!"
 

paul32

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
bphgravity said:
But the manufacturer's and the big corporations seem to have a louder voice than the people do. If product development is the basis of code change, that is a problem. If profit is the basis of code change, that is a problem.
I also think this is different from actual legislation. I believe if a business owner sat on a city council he would not be allowed to vote on something that related to his business because of the conflict of interest. I don't know why the square d proposal to expand arc fault usage isn't rejected simply because there is a conflict of interest.

As far as the "let me do what I want if it doesn't affect my neighbors" goes, it can also affect the next homeowner. Someday someone else is going to have that house, and should not be endangered by the prior homeowners actions.
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
iwire said:
Stand tall and proud on that soap box. :)

It is what I was looking for.

He was. It was just a short soap box.:p
Now in 2005 we get into a requirement that 'Holiday Lights' must be UL listed.

Are homeowners supposed to be pulling permits for such things under temporary wiring and inspectors busting them for un listed lighted Santa's?

Maybe if the AHJs did just that they wouldn't have as much time to issue violations with no article no. cited.:p :p

Building codes are necessary but they need to contain a generous amount of common sense and they only work when everyone is required to play by the same rules.

When has that ever happened?

Could we just have some legislation that requires everyone to use just a little bit of common sense? He**, in some places you can't put up a fence, need permission to change the color of your siding or paint your house a different color, you can't have a detached garage. Rules......rules....I've had it with ridiculous rules and regulations.

I have every right to do what I want to do (as long as it does not interfere with someone else's rights). In this great democracy of ours, I would just like to see everyone treated the same and worry about dispensing justice as opposed to always following the letter of the law.

There is no question that we all have equality before the law (as long as the money holds out).

I personally would rather be stolen from than do the stealing, but if justice were properly dispensed there would be less theft.

When I was a kid; if I picked an apple off of someone apple tree 2 miles from the house without permission and was seen. I would be back there the next day with an apology and asking what chores they would like to have done. And believe me; my parents would see to it that I followed through.

My how times have changed. Some for the better, but some for the worse too!

Ah, I feel better now.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
Have you read the scope of say 590?
I have. I note that the word "installations" appears there, as well as having appeared (albeit in the singular form) in 90.2(A).


iwire said:
If a homeowner hangs lights and plugs them in they have installed the lights.
I submit that plugging in a plug and cord connected item does not comprise "installation," regardless of the manner in which the item is constrained to remain in its desired position. Set a lamp on an end table, set a toaster on a kitchen counter, manhandle a dryer into its corner of the laundry room, hang holiday lights on a tree or on hooks from the gutters, or (not intending to reopen this old debate, as I am fully aware than many of you will disagree with this example) screw puck lights to the bottom of a kitchen cabinet: if you bring power to the item via a plug and cord connection, then you did not "install" the item, you are merely "using" the item.

Why then, you ask, is there a new rule about holiday lights being listed? I haven't a clue. All I can offer is to restate the opinion that the rule would apply to you, if the homeowner is paying you to purchase and "install" the lights.


iwire said:
Would you say if a homeowner has to follow the NEC if they legally wire the house from scratch?
I would. But that activity comprises "installation," and is covered by the NEC. Hanging and plugging in the holiday lights is not "installation," and is not covered by the NEC.


iwire said:
In a recent thread a homeowner was throwing a party with a DJ and there would be cords run outside from inside to feed the equipment. That would be temporary wiring as covered by 590 and could well require GFCIs per 210.8
I did not read that thread, so I don't know the issue or the opinions stated by Forum members. But I submit that this would not be a situation covered by 590.

I see no difference between plugging in a reading lamp and plugging in a large package of electronic stage equipment. My wife likes to rearrange furniture from time to time, and reading lamps get moved from one part of the room to another. That does not mean that the use of a reading lamp, in any one of its locations, is a "temporary lighting installation," as addressed in 590. I would say (again, without having read that other thread), that the only thing that would bring 590 to the party would be if the equipment had special (or very large) power needs, so that the local utility had to be called in to install a special power drop for the event. If the DJs equipment can be supplied from the household receptacles, it is not a 590 situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top