The NEC. Does it stop at the outlet or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
Lacking any knowledge of the code makers intent IMO we have no choice to be include all common definitions.
Agreed. And neither your selection of one ?common definition? nor my selection of another can prove that the other?s position is invalid.
iwire said:
As a citizen I am not required to even look at a law book, but sure as heck it still applies to me.
The difference, Bob, and it is a huge difference, is that there is a reason that the law does apply to you, and the reason is that the law itself says so. By contrast, the NEC does not apply to you (speaking to you now only as a homeowner or home renter, as the case may be), because the NEC itself says so. It says so in 90.2(A), by limiting its scope to the installation of equipment.
iwire said:
Let me restate my position.
And I?ll restate mine:
1) The NEC applies to all electric equipment installed in a home. Now let?s talk about what ?common sense? tells me that ?installed? means. (Warning: what follows is my opinion only!)
2) Nothing that receives its power from the premises wiring system by way of a plug and cord connection is ?installed,? in the sense of 90.2(A), regardless of the degree to which it may be fastened in place. Thus, none of it is covered by the NEC.
3) An item of utilization equipment that receives it power from the premises wiring system by way of a hard-wired connection but that is not permanently fastened in place (one example being a dishwasher) is not ?installed,? in the sense of 90.2(A). Therefore, such items are not covered by the NEC.
4) An item of utilization equipment that receives it power from the premises wiring system by way of a hard-wired connection and that is permanently fastened in place (one example being a ceiling light fixture) is ?installed,? in the sense of 90.2(A), and therefore is covered by the NEC. Indeed, 410 has quite a lot to say about that particular example.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
jflynn said:
I agree with Bob on this one,after all,- safety should be everyones priority...
I hope you did not intend to imply that to disagree with Bob's opinion on this (or any other) matter is to advocate unsafe practices, for I would resent such an implication.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Charlie how do you reconcile ,..lets say ,..422.51 with your way of thinking ??
(see #2 above)
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
sandsnow said:
This tells the manufacturer how to make their appliance.
But it does not say anything at all to the HO.

This part of the discussion actually has me a bit puzzled. If the manufacturer does not include a feature that the NEC calls upon them to include, or does not choose to get their product UL listed, is it a code violation? If so, when? Does it violate the code the moment the product leaves the factory floor? The moment it hits the "Big Box Store" shelf? The moment a HO (or building owner) buys the product and puts it in their car? The moment the HO (or building owner) plugs it into a receptacle outlet? If the Electrical Inspector sees passes the inspection of a new building, and if that building has a standard 120 volt, 20 amp receptacle outlet on one particular wall, and if the owner plugs into that outlet an item that is not UL listed, is there a violation? By whom?
 

M. D.

Senior Member
charlie b said:
But it does not say anything at all to the HO.

This part of the discussion actually has me a bit puzzled. If the manufacturer does not include a feature that the NEC calls upon them to include, or does not choose to get their product UL listed, is it a code violation? If so, when? Does it violate the code the moment the product leaves the factory floor? The moment it hits the "Big Box Store" shelf? The moment a HO (or building owner) buys the product and puts it in their car? The moment the HO (or building owner) plugs it into a receptacle outlet? If the Electrical Inspector sees passes the inspection of a new building, and if that building has a standard 120 volt, 20 amp receptacle outlet on one particular wall, and if the owner plugs into that outlet an item that is not UL listed, is there a violation? By whom?

Sort of like using a duplex receptacle on a 15 amp circuit for the fridge,.. there is no violation until someone plugs another piece of U.E. in... I can violate the code because I would be hired to perform electrical work ,.. so if I plug a second item in I violated the code . The H.O. is exempt and can not violate the code.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
charlie b said:
By contrast, the NEC does not apply to you (speaking to you now only as a homeowner or home renter, as the case may be), because the NEC itself says so. It says so in 90.2(A), by limiting its scope to the installation of equipment.

Charlie that argument does not make a bit of sense to me.

If an area adopts the NEC it applies to electrical work done in that area. It does not matter if an electrician or homeowner does it. The NEC does not contain the word homeowner or electrician

Here in MA homeowners are allowed to work on their own homes, they still must follow 310.16.

And I’ll restate mine:
2) Nothing that receives its power from the premises wiring system by way of a plug and cord connection is “installed,” in the sense of 90.2(A), regardless of the degree to which it may be fastened in place. Thus, none of it is covered by the NEC.

The NEC has a section directly addressing table and floor lamps. They are cord and plug connected.

Please explain how that does not apply to what it is aimed at?

3) An item of utilization equipment that receives it power from the premises wiring system by way of a hard-wired connection but that is not permanently fastened in place (one example being a dishwasher) is not “installed,” in the sense of 90.2(A). Therefore, such items are not covered by the NEC

I have no idea how you can say that. :-?

A dishwasher is without a doubt in my mind 'installed' in a home.

4) An item of utilization equipment that receives it power from the premises wiring system by way of a hard-wired connection and that is permanently fastened in place (one example being a ceiling light fixture) is “installed,” in the sense of 90.2(A), and therefore is covered by the NEC. Indeed, 410 has quite a lot to say about that particular example.

Again 410 has at least one section directly referencing table and floor lamps.

IMHO you have forgotten your own rules and are letting what you want it to be color your responses. :smile:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
charlie b said:
But it does not say anything at all to the HO.

Just like it does not say anything to the electrician, it does not matter. If the NEC is adopted it applies to all.

So if either the HO or EC install a window AC that does not meet 440.65 then a violation of the NEC has happened.

If an area decides to enforce that or not is entirely another story.
 

jflynn

Senior Member
charlie b said:

I hope you did not intend to imply that to disagree with Bob's opinion on this (or any other) matter is to advocate unsafe practices, for I would resent such an implication.


NO WAY is that what I intended to imply,it was a blanket statement regarding safety nothing more
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
charlie b said:

But it does not say anything at all to the HO.

This part of the discussion actually has me a bit puzzled. If the manufacturer does not include a feature that the NEC calls upon them to include, or does not choose to get their product UL listed, is it a code violation? If so, when? Does it violate the code the moment the product leaves the factory floor? The moment it hits the "Big Box Store" shelf? The moment a HO (or building owner) buys the product and puts it in their car? The moment the HO (or building owner) plugs it into a receptacle outlet? If the Electrical Inspector sees passes the inspection of a new building, and if that building has a standard 120 volt, 20 amp receptacle outlet on one particular wall, and if the owner plugs into that outlet an item that is not UL listed, is there a violation? By whom?

Real quick as it's late. I think it is a contradiction between Article 90 and subsequent sections. The only way to get an answer would be a proposal. Probably something the correlating committee should have picked up on a long time ago.

I can tell you what I do and that is I do not "see" electrcal items that are not fastened in place that are cord and plug connected.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
jflynn said:
Let me restate my position.

1) The NEC applies to all electric equipment installed in a home.

2) That does not mean an electrician is required to plug a lamp in.

3) That does not mean a permit must be pulled for that lamp.

4) That does not mean an inspection must be done on that lamp.

Items 2, 3 and 4 are decided on a local level hopefully with some common sense.

I agree with these statements.
The limits to the NEC are found in 90.2 which will lead you to the conclusion that plugging in a table "lamp"/fixture is covered by the NEC.

charlie b said:
And I?ll restate mine:[/SIZE][/FONT]
1) The NEC applies to all electric equipment installed in a home. Now let?s talk about what ?common sense? tells me that ?installed? means. (Warning: what follows is my opinion only!)
2) Nothing that receives its power from the premises wiring system by way of a plug and cord connection is ?installed,? in the sense of 90.2(A), regardless of the degree to which it may be fastened in place. Thus, none of it is covered by the NEC.
3) An item of utilization equipment that receives it power from the premises wiring system by way of a hard-wired connection but that is not permanently fastened in place (one example being a dishwasher) is not ?installed,? in the sense of 90.2(A). Therefore, such items are not covered by the NEC.
4) An item of utilization equipment that receives it power from the premises wiring system by way of a hard-wired connection and that is permanently fastened in place (one example being a ceiling light fixture) is ?installed,? in the sense of 90.2(A), and therefore is covered by the NEC. Indeed, 410 has quite a lot to say about that particular example.

I disagree with this concept of "installed", or permanently fastened in place, or screws or no screws. . It doesn't matter. . It all falls under the NEC and, at the very least, Article 400 applies.

Energized is the same thing as installed, even if you have a portable item energized is installed. . A portable generator is installed when its energized [250.34]. . A portable pool is installed when its motor is energized [680.30].
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Here.

Stand on the utilization equipment side of the outlet and look back into the Premises Wiring (System). How far does the UE regulation extend into the NEC, or does the UE regulation stop at the outlet?

Consider a residential bath exhaust fan installed over a bathtub (or shower).

The White Book tells the installing electrician that the exhaust fan is to be GFCI protected. . .as will the manufacturer's instructions (with few exceptions).

The non-NEC regulations trump the "minimum standard" of the NEC, and the NEC, in 110.3(B), gives blessing to being so upstaged. In the case of this shower (or tub) exhaust fan, the White Book changes the NEC.

As I stated earlier
To me, this is a question of which, NEC or some other regulation, is preponderate.
There is a continuum of both bodies of regulation across the other, legally, but, one will dominate the other on specifics.
 

mivey

Senior Member
I must admit, I sided with charlie the last time. I can also see iwire's position, to a degree. I wish I had something of substance to add but I can't think of anything at this moment as you guys have eloquently covered the immediate info at hand.

At the moment, I find myself torn between the two positions but still leaning to charlie's. I feel so...............undecided/uncomitted/? I would still like to hear more discussion as I just can't come to a clear stand.

Does the code apply to a piece of equipment installed by the electrician (or homeowner acting as an electrician)? I think so.

Does it apply to grandma plugging in a lamp/tv/coffee-maker? I don't think so. Grandma should be protected by the NEC-compliant receptacle, breaker, etc. and by the UL(and whoever else)-compliant appliance.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but in EVERY single case cited in this thread so far, in all instances in which the NEC has a statement that addresses plug and cord connected equipment (not the outlet, but the equipment itself), the NEC is essentially instructing the manufacturer to provide certain features. Holiday light strings must be listed. Vending machines must have GFCI in the cord. A/C units must have LDCI or AFCI protection.

So I ask again: If a manufacturer builds a vending machine, and does not put a GFCI in the cord, is it a code violation from the moment the product leaves the factory floor, before anyone buys it or tries to put it into a building? 90.2(A) says that the NEC applies to the installation of electrical equipment. Why, then, can it be talking to manufacturers about the construction of a manufactured product? Manufacturer?s do not ?install? equipment, they ?manufacture? equipment.

Scenario: Let?s not talk (as another thread is talking) about hiding anything from an Electrical Inspector. But suppose the owner of a new building has completed the construction, and passed all inspections. Suppose the owner had told the EC to place a few receptacles in a particular room, to accommodate vending machines that the owner hasn?t gotten around to ordering yet. There is no intent to deceive the inspector; it is simply that the owner is negotiating between the Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola Bottling Companies for the vending contract, and no decision has been made yet. Next week, after the Electrical Inspector has passed the building, the owner makes a choice. The owner buys a couple vending machines from a manufacturer who did not put a GFCI in the cord. The vending machines are delivered, rolled into place, and plugged in. How can this create a violation? This is not an act of ?installation,? but rather setting a box on the floor. NEC 90.2(A) does not apply to that act.

I would venture to bet that if you were to take the following poll, you would get 10,000 ?no? answers for every ?yes? answer. Question: If were to purchase a lamp, bring it home, set it upon your nightstand, and plug it in, would you use the word ?install? to describe this process (i.e., did you just ?install? the lamp)? Going back to the beginning of NEC Article 100, I conclude that ?commonly defined general terms? would not commonly incorporate the notion of plug and cord items under the umbrella of ?installation of electrical equipment.?

I think Larry has said it best:
sandsnow said:
I think it is a contradiction between Article 90 and subsequent sections. The only way to get an answer would be a proposal. Probably something the correlating committee should have picked up on a long time ago.
This is the reason I don?t think I am violating ?Charlie?s Rule.? Yes, the code says what it says. But in this case it is saying two different, mutually exclusive things.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
iwire said:
If an area adopts the NEC it applies to electrical work done in that area. It does not matter if an electrician or homeowner does it. The NEC does not contain the word homeowner or electrician.
I agree absolutely. Where we disagree is in regard to what constitutes “electrical work.” It does not matter who puts a new receptacle into a wall. That is electrical work, and it is covered by the NEC. It does not matter who plugs in a window A/C unit. That is not electrical work, and it is not covered by the NEC.
iwire said:
A dishwasher is without a doubt in my mind 'installed' in a home.
(NOTE: Be prepared for me to sound like I’m quibbling here. But I am being a precise as I know how to be.) Now you are letting the English language get into the way of verbal communication. You are using the word “installed” in two different ways, and coming to a conclusion based on it being used in the same way twice.

Example (an old and very poor joke):
John lives in Dallas. He gets a call at home, and answers the phone. The caller asks if John is there. John replies, “No, I’m not here.” The caller does not understand. John says, “Well, I am not in St. Louis, so I must be somewhere else. And if I am somewhere else, then I can’t be here.” This (old and very poor) joke relies on using the phrase “somewhere else” in two separate ways.

In your statement, you are using the word “installed” in the context of common conversational English. I agree, and most people would agree, that the act of placing a dishwasher into position and connecting the plumbing and electrical stuff can be described as “installing” the dishwasher. That is not the same as it being “installed” in the context of 90.2(A). Even in areas that forbid homeowners from doing electrical work, and that require permits for all electrical work, they would not require the Sears delivery personnel to obtain an electrical permit to take out the old dishwasher and put in the new one, even if the power comes from a hard wired connection.

I continue to draw the line at the “premises wiring system.” I continue to submit that the NEC applies to it, and to it alone. I have a problem with it talking to manufacturers. Perhaps I will start writing up a revision for 2011.
 
Last edited:

M. D.

Senior Member
Charlie by your own examples the NEC reaches beyond the outlet,.. perhaps there is no way to enforce that reach ,.. but as has been demonstrated there are words in the book that reach beyond the outlet.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
M. D. said:
. . . but as has been demonstrated there are words in the book that reach beyond the outlet.
Indeed, they reach beyond the building in which the electrical installation is taking place. They speak to a company located 2000 miles away in another state! That may be a really effective source of confusion. But it does not alter my view that the NEC is all about the installation of electrical equipment, and that plugging something in is not an act of installation.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
charlie b said:
Indeed, they reach beyond the building in which the electrical installation is taking place. They speak to a company located 2000 miles away in another state! That may be a really effective source of confusion. But it does not alter my view that the NEC is all about the installation of electrical equipment, and that plugging something in is not an act of installation.

in regard to the vending machine it reaches the the electrical installation of the supply cord of said machine
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
M. D. said:
in regard to the vending machine it reaches the the electrical installation of the supply cord of said machine
No it doesn't. Or so at least continues to be my opinion. The NEC speaks to the manufacturer of the vending machine. The manufacturer does not "install" the cord, but rather attaches the cord to the machine at some point in the manufacturing process. Nothing in the manufacturing process includes the act of "installing."

When the machine is delivered, the delivery person (or the owner) does not install the cord; they simply plug it in. Nobody, ever, at any point in its usefull lifetime, "installs" the vending machine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top