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

[M. D.]

Just so we know what we are talking about

Install;

1 a: to place in an office or dignity by seating in a stall or official seat b: to induct into an office, rank, or order <installed the new president>

2: to establish in an indicated place, condition, or status <installing herself in front of the fireplace>

3: to set up for use or service <had an exhaust fan installed in the kitchen> <install software>

Attach

1: to take by legal authority especially under a writ <attached the property>

2 a: to bring (oneself) into an association <attached herself to their cause> b: to assign (an individual or unit in the military) temporarily

3: to bind by personal ties (as of affection or sympathy) <was strongly attached to his family>

4: to make fast (as by tying or gluing) <attach a label to a package>5: to associate especially as a property or an attribute : ascribe <attached great importance to public opinion polls>intransitive verb

 

[dnem]

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?

State law would determine if the NEC applies to the manufacturing process. . If they put a 12 gauge cord on a 50hp motor it would violate the NEC if the state you're in applies the NEC to the manufacturing process. . Otherwise it's not a violation until it is installed [and plugged-in is installed].

Why, then, can it be talking to manufacturers about the construction of a manufactured product?

Is it a manufacture violation to make a vending machine without a GFCI cord or only a violation the moment that you plug it in ?

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?

By violating 422.51 when you plug it in

This is not an act of ?installation,? but rather setting a box on the floor.

Plugging it in is an installation.

NEC 90.2(A) does not apply to that act.

Yes it does.

I would venture to bet that if you were to take the following poll,

The NEC isn't enforceable by polls.

But in real life, when grandma plugs in that flea market table "lamp" with the 22 gauge cord, she's violated the NEC and nobody comes to arrest her.

 

[dnem]

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.

And that's the whole point. . This is a permit and inspection issue/question not an NEC question. . The NEC applies to the energizing of all equipment that is found in 90.2. . Permit and inspection is a completely different question.

 

[dnem]

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.

So if my state has accepted the 2008 NEC as law but the vending machine is manufactured in a state that isn't under the 2008 NEC. . It isn't manufactured under the 2008 NEC and you say the installor is just plugging it in, which you don't define as an NEC violation. . So who violated the state law that required the 2008 NEC ? . Was it the trucker that transported the machine over state lines from one state to the next without consulting if one state was under '05 but the other under '08 ?

 

[charlie b]

Plugging it in is an installation.

That's your opinion (and some other people's opinion as well). I disagree. There is nothing in the NEC that proves you are right.

The NEC isn't enforceable by polls.

I said no such thing. But Article 100 does say that it does not include "commonly defined general terms." My point, and I stand by it, is that common usage of the term "install" would not include plugging something in.

 

[zbang]

Lemme go back to the logical argument- Because the NEC does address the construction of some utilization equipment, and does state the need for listing in some cases, we cannot infer that requirement where it is not otherwise stated. While there is a requirement for vending machines, is there a requirement for portable beeswax removers? For instance: In Art 550 there there is a requirement for listed portable appliances. We can not assume/infer anything about those appliances other than the need for NRTL listing, nor can we assume anything about them when outside of 550. We may see some requirements (such in 250), but those are explicit statements.

While I do see the arguments, and restating slightly, I'm still of the opinion that unless explicitly stated, the NEC stops at the outlet.

 

[mivey]

But in real life, when grandma plugs in that flea market table "lamp" with the 22 gauge cord, she's violated the NEC and nobody comes to arrest her.

..must..resist..urge..to..say..it..would..be.."grandmothered" :grin: . I just could not.

 

[mivey]

..must..resist..urge..to..say..it..would..be.."grandmothered" :grin: . I just could not.

I just wanted to see if the space between the "a" and the "n" would show up again. It only shows up in the post. Wierd.

[edit: sorry for the slight distraction but what's up? is ".." creating some kind of escape sequence for the forum software that injects a space?]

 

[mivey]

Lemme go back to the logical argument- Because the NEC does address the construction of some utilization equipment, and does state the need for listing in some cases, we cannot infer that requirement where it is not otherwise stated. While there is a requirement for vending machines, is there a requirement for portable beeswax removers? For instance: In Art 550 there there is a requirement for listed portable appliances. We can not assume/infer anything about those appliances other than the need for NRTL listing, nor can we assume anything about them when outside of 550. We may see some requirements (such in 250), but those are explicit statements.

While I do see the arguments, and restating slightly, I'm still of the opinion that unless explicitly stated, the NEC stops at the outlet.

I am thinking it stops there as well but I just can't tear myself away from the words in 422.51: "...shall be connected to a GFCI-protected outlet"

Who are they addressing? How can the NEC come back and get me (Joe Homeowner) for something I plug in later? What if it is a drill at a work site? Isn't this more of an OSHA type thing?

I believe Charlie said something about the difference between an installation and end-user. I can't remeber the exact quote at the moment.

When does connecting a vending machine change from an installation to an end-user type deal? I'm still not clear.

 

[sandsnow]

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.

Would you agree that the Code should give guidelines to manufacturers of electrical components of the premises wiring system?
I think that is necessary.

How about 590.3 which talks about time constraints for temp wiring. 590.3(B) clearly applies to xmas lighting on your house. We ignore that one here in our city. It does apply to the act something plugged in by the homeowner.

 

[iwire]

Plant a seed and watch it grow.

 

[charlie b]

Would you agree that the Code should give guidelines to manufacturers of electrical components of the premises wiring system?

Sure. Examples are panels, outlet boxes, and wires. Things that attach to the premises wiring system, such as floor lamps, are a different matter. Should the NEC address such things? Perhaps. Does the NEC address such things? Since they are not ?installed,? I would say no.

590.3(B) clearly applies to xmas lighting on your house. . . .It does apply to the act something plugged in by the homeowner.

I think it does not. I read this as applying to a city park in which an EC is hired to put up a service or feeder to a panel or small enclosure that powers holiday lights on a large city-owned tree. 590 is about temporary installations. Plugging a string of lights into an outdoor outlet is not an installation, so it is not a temporary installation, so 590 does not apply.

 

[charlie b]

Plant a seed and watch it grow.

I'm still wondering what your intentions were, in starting this thread. Are you trying to break the "Big Oops" thread's record for the most posts? :grin:

 

[iwire]

I'm still wondering what your intentions were, in starting this thread.

There is nothing sinister in my motives, this is an electrical forum and in between the wedding threads and the earthquake threads I figured I would try to encourage discussion of an NEC topic. :smile:

I picked a topic I figured could run a while and one that I do believe in. I stand by my stated positions that the NEC passes the outers and applies to HO as well much as ECs.

I have kind of steeped back form posting as I can't at this point add much new. But I am enjoying seeing the thread grow.:smile:

Are you trying to break the "Big Oops" thread's record for the most posts? :grin:

Nope, just trying to give code discussion a firm kick in the rear. I hope people dig out the code books and think about things in a different light.

I wish you and I agreed on this topic, it would make me happier but such is life. :smile:

 

[George Stolz]

Besides, this is an old topic that Bob knows I won't get my feelings hurt for disagreeing with him on.

I believe the NEC does not apply to anything beyond the receptacle, based on the NEC definition for premises wiring. It states that premises wiring ends at the outlet.

However, the sections that have been mentioned do indicate that the writers do wish for the NEC to apply to items beyond the outlets. In that case, they should amend articles 90 and 100 to reflect that, IMO.

 

[frizbeedog]

In my opinion the NEC passes right by any outlet, including beyond receptacle outlets.

When we look at 90.2(A) we find the NEC applies to electrical equipment installed in public and private premises.

The NEC is not limited to just the "premises wiring system" as defined in Article 100.

There are many of examples in the current NEC that apply only to cord and plug connected utilization equipment.

Of course the NEC extends beyond the outlet. Article 551 as one example.

But you had to throw "Premisis Wiring" in the mix. :roll:

A line of demarcation, but not as is applies to the influence of the NEC. Seems simple.

I too wondered what you were up to with this thread and wish you could add more, but you say you have nothing more to add.

And to add, it seems silly to me to install outlets without regard to what will eventually be plugged into them, even though the act of plugging in equipment has been argured that it is not an act of installing. Yes, we cannot control what eventually gets plugged in, but given our knowlege of the code we will attempt to make sure that the outlets will met the requirements of the equipment that utilizes them.

Our knowlege of areas extending beyond the outlet, influences our decisions as installers, and in the end is enforcable by the AHJ.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I believe the NEC does not apply to anything beyond the receptacle, based on the NEC definition for premises wiring. It states that premises wiring ends at the outlet.

The Premises Wiring (System) is the assembly between the service point and the outlet, except for certain things that may be scattered around in the Premises Wiring (System).

-I will be civil and not trot out my favorite example-

The PW(S) is a physical assembly. The NEC is not physical, it is regulation.

I agree with Bob that the NEC extends beyond the boundaries of the PW(S), but, in my opinion, in most specific cases, it doesn't have much effect.

 

[iwire]

I agree with Bob that the NEC extends beyond the boundaries of the PW(S), but, in my opinion, in most specific cases, it doesn't have much effect.

And I agree with that as well, in most cases it has little to no effect.

But when the CMP does want to make an impact beyond the receptacles they have that ability.

 

[iwire]

I believe the NEC does not apply to anything beyond the receptacle, based on the NEC definition for premises wiring. It states that premises wiring ends at the outlet.

However, the sections that have been mentioned do indicate that the writers do wish for the NEC to apply to items beyond the outlets. In that case, they should amend articles 90 and 100 to reflect that, IMO.

George, I absolutely agree with you about what the Article 100 definition "premises wiring (system)" says.

Now go over to 90.2(A) and see if you can find the term "premises wiring (system)". :smile:

What you will find is that 90.2(A)(1) says more or less 'electrical equipment installed in public and private premises' and that only shows up specifically in 90.2(A)(1), it does not show up in (2), (3) or (4).

Note Charlie is hanging his hat on the word 'installed' he is not bringing up the definition of Premise Wiring system.

 

[dnem]

Everybody here is on one side or another: the NEC covers everything energized under 90.2, the NEC doesn't cover everything energized under 90.2

Let's get specific. . How is 422.51 enforced ?
1] The manufacturer is located in a state that's a couple code cycles back
2] They don't market their machines in '08 NEC states
3] One of their new machines ends up in an '08 state anyway
4] There was a trucking company that brought it into that state
5] A gas station owner plugs it in

Who violated 422.51 ?

If you believe that the NEC covers everything energized under 90.2, then the gas station owner violated the NEC but didn't violate local permit or inspection rules because you're allowed to plug-in without permits and inspections. . Nobody comes looking for the station owner but that doesn't change the fact that he violated the NEC.

If you believe that the NEC doesn't cover everything energized under 90.2, then who violated 422.51 ?

I agree with Bob that the NEC extends beyond the boundaries of the PW(S), but, in my opinion, in most specific cases, it doesn't have much effect.

I agree, "it doesn't have much effect". . I'm not saying anything will happen to the gas station owner but it's still his responsibility. . If somebody gets shocked, it's because he violated the NEC and energized the machine without following 422.51. . It's a crappy situation to put him in because how is he, as a "civilian" supposed to know that 422.51 even exists. . But that's how the NEC is set up.