Where Does the NEC Stop?

[iwire]

Charlie you seem to lately be dispensing answers based on what you feel it should be without any support of the NEC.

It leaves me baffled and confused.

You say those items (holiday lights and DJ equipment) are not installations.

However the inspectors responding to this and the other thread feel differently even though I don't think any of them want to inspect holiday lighting on private homes.

Going back to 590.

If anyone runs an extension cord for 'remodeling' it is in fact covered by 590s rules for GFCI protection.

It is not installed it is simply run across the floor.

 

[charlie b]

Charlie you seem to lately be dispensing answers based on what you feel it should be without any support of the NEC.

I don't think I have said anything that conflicts with the NEC. I have merely given my interpretation of the NEC. Others, particularly those of the AHJ persuasion, may interpret it differently.

It leaves me baffled and confused.

Well, that's where I am coming from, so where else could I lead you?

You say those items (holiday lights and DJ equipment) are not installations. However the inspectors responding to this and the other thread feel differently even though I don't think any of them want to inspect holiday lighting on private homes.

They are free to feel differently, and I have no intention of inviting them to inspect any holiday lights that I might choose to put up this year.

Going back to 590. If anyone runs an extension cord for 'remodeling' it is in fact covered by 590s rules for GFCI protection. It is not installed it is simply run across the floor.

My earlier comments were minor, perhaps even frivolous. This one makes my real point.

You are not quite right when you say "If anyone runs an extension cord . . . ." The rule is speaking to the installer of the remodeling project, not to the homeowner. 590.6 says that is applies to,

. . . temporary wiring installations (yes, I see that word here) used to supply temporary power to equipment used by personnel during . . . remodeling . . . or similar activities.

590.6(A) then tells us that if an existing receptacle (i.e., part of the premises wiring system) is used for temporary electric power, then it needs to be GFCI-protected. The person(s) or contracting company that is (are) performing the remodeling project is (are) responsible for compliance with this rule. They are also responsible for obtaining the permits and for arranging the inspections. The way I see it, if they run an extension cord to power their drills and saws, and if they don't use a GFCI receptacle or an extension cord with GFCI built in, then they, and not the homeowner, are in violation of the NEC.

By the way, this is true even if the homeowner is doing the remodeling as a DIY project. The NEC comes into play because some manner of "installation" is in progress. The rule about GFCI protection for extension cords would apply to the homeowner's own extension cord and the homeowner's own saber saw. But it applies because of the remodeling project, and it applies only during the remodeling project. If the homeowner uses the same extension cord plugged into the same receptacle to power the same saber saw the following weekend to build a bird house, the NEC would not apply, and GFCI-protection would not be required.

In this example, a simple extension cord has become a "temporary wiring installation" by virtue of its being involved in a remodeling project. But when the project is over, inspection and all, and after the contractor leaves, nothing that the homeowner chooses to do with an extension cord will comprise an "installation," temporary or otherwise. 590 will not again come into play, for the simple reason that the NEC itself is no longer a player.

 

[LarryFine]

Why then, you ask, is there a new rule about holiday lights being listed?

I would imagine that, as with most rules, necessity was the mother of invention. As with stop lights and seat belts, the need arose from what happened before, in an effort to not repeat the past.

In other words, people got shocked enough that someone stood up and cried "Enough!"

 

[iwire]

Well, that's where I am coming from, so where else could I lead you?

LOL

To me an installation is an installation no matter who does it.

Please consider 250.114 and how it relates with 406.3(D).

I install a GFCI receptacle under 406.3(D) the HO tells me he will use it for a lamp.

Months later they add equipment that is required to be grounded by 250.114.

IMO they created a violation.

 

[sandsnow]

Thread Drift:

You can't comply with both sections unless everything is a two wire cord.

If 250.114 overrides 406.3, then might as well leave everything as a two wire recep. I can't think of anything else besides what is in 250.114(3) that you would have in a house. Great, I just changed all my old 2 wire recep's to GFCI devices, but I can't use them for anything with a 3 wire cord.

My call would be that 406.3 overrides 250.114. Just because it makes sense to me. Other interpretations?

 

[George Stolz]

Not to diminish Charlie's Rule, but I think I found a new bumper sticker here:

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.

Larry, I tend to agree. Now I want to check on the ROP and see if someone's fixing this. I think Don submitted a proposal last cycle, if memory serves...?

 

[hillbilly]

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.

That's not the way I learned it. That sounds like something from the communist mannifesto.
As far as what bphgravity and Iwire said....Yea...me too.
steve

 

[hardworkingstiff]

The more dense the population, the more rules we will have. You can't avoid it.

The "codes" I believe are mostly driven by insurance companies.

 

[ceknight]

That's not the way I learned it. That sounds like something from the communist mannifesto.

Yeah, willingly contracting away certain liberties to a representative governing body in exchange for (roughly) equal protections and restrictions for all is about as communist as.....apple pie?

Dude, that's our system here in these good ol' Excited States of America.

I will admit my earlier comments were very quick, I didn't think any of you wanted the full lecture version. Besides, the truth is that building codes aren't the purest essence of democracy in action; the taking of property by eminent domain probably holds that title.

--

Maybe we should get back to the more pressing topic of whether winged frogs would still bump their butts. Oh, wait, that's another thread....

 

[websparky]

Wake up and smell the bacon!

Wake up and smell the bacon!

I agree with Charlie and his post #22.

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Bryan, you missed the actual meaning of the text by leaving out the entire text and quoting part of the text. Shame on you!

90.1(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

Bob, I think you should reconsider Charlie's point about "installation".

90.2 Scope. (A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following: ...............

The code then continues to list all of the types of places that are covered and not covered concerning installations. Look in the code to see how almost each listing starts with the word installations.

90.2(C) Special Permission. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcing this Code may grant exception for the installation of conductors and equipment.............

and

90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations,...............

110.1 Scope. This article covers general requirements for the examination and approval, installation and use, access to and spaces about electrical conductors and equipment; enclosures intended for personnel entry; and tunnel installations.

 

[LarryFine]

. . . I just changed all my old 2 wire recep's to GFCI devices . . .

I hope you mean that they're all GFCI-protected, and not that every receptacle is a GFCI. That would be quite a waste of money.

 

[iwire]

My call would be that 406.3 overrides 250.114. Just because it makes sense to me. Other interpretations?

It makes sense but IMO is not a fact without an exception listed under 250.114.

I in a hurry now but I can provide examples of how exceptions are uses like that. (Like the exception to allow IGs)

 

[iwire]

Websparky. normally I would be glad to respond to your thoughts but as you opened you post with...

Wake Up and Smell the Bacon

I can't be bothered

 

[allenwayne]

Several weeks ago i was at a tract of land i bought in KY.I have 2 services on the property one on the house and another on the garage.The POCO came to do an actual reading since the others were estimated.I said I wanted to upgrade the 100 amp in the garage to 200 amp I intend to make a wood working shop what did I need to do as far as permits.He said if I owned the land I didn`t need a permit.Just call for a disconnect and they will return inspect and reconnect.Needless to say I upgraded they reconnected and alls good.I come from florida,here if you add a deck you need a permit.My neighbor in KY is building a 4,000 sq ft log home no permits no inspections just build it.I guess they figure if it falls in on you then your the dummy.

 

[websparky]

Bob,

I can't be bothered

Clever way to avoid the conflict!

OR

Since you are now a "Moderator", you are above answering certain members posts?

Why not just admit you were mistaken and really didn't read the code on this one before you disagreed with Charlie!!

 

[sandsnow]

It makes sense but IMO is not a fact without an exception listed under 250.114.

I in a hurry now but I can provide examples of how exceptions are uses like that. (Like the exception to allow IGs)

Correcting myself:

Table 250.3 addresses this and allows 406.3 to override 250.114

oops, I shoulda checked that yesterday.

 

[lile001]

"Where does the NEC 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.

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.

1. Where does the NEC stop? Well, most of them stop right after Annex G and the Index (Groan) (duck in case of thrown shoes)

2. "Building codes are a violation of constitutional rights" - Just yesterday a public building collapsed in my state, killing one and injuring a whole club full of Elks. Now you can say what you want about the Elks club, but they don't deserve to be killed. At the heart, the Codes try to protect the public from this sort of danger - we don't want our schools, Elks clubs and so on collapsing at random. Or burning down or electrocuting people.

The only article of the Constitution http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
that could be stretched to cover building codes is Article IV, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. One could argue that a building inspector is searching unreasonably, however I am sure that it has been argued that the public's safety has trumped this right in this case, after a few Triangle Shirtwaist fires or Hyatt Regency skyway collapses convinces people of the dangers of unregulated buildings. Both of these disasters occurred on private property.

I would agree, public safety is important enough to curtail our rights to create unsafe buildings and enforce minimum building standards. I hate meddling building inspectors just as much as you do, but their job is important and necessary.

 

[charlie b]

To me an installation is an installation no matter who does it.

I don't think I have said anything that contradicts this. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.

I thought I had been clear in saying that the homeowner cannot create a violation by using any component in the home's electrical system. However, if a homeowner were to perform a DIY project that involved wires in any way, then he or she will have crossed the line from "using" to "installing," and the NEC would become a player in the project.

I am just saying that plugging in a lamp is not an "installation," nor is hanging holiday lights, nor is rearranging the layout of the living room such that the TV and stereo are now plugged into different outlets.

To simplify my point, the only things a homeowner has at his or her disposal, with regard to the electrical system, are receptacle outlets, into which they may plug whatever they wish, and lighting outlets, into which they may insert whatever bulbs they wish. Neither of these two activities would comprise "installation," and therefore neither is addressed by the NEC.

Please consider 250.114 and how it relates with 406.3(D). I install a GFCI receptacle under 406.3(D) the HO tells me he will use it for a lamp. Months later they add equipment that is required to be grounded by 250.114. IMO they created a violation.

I am sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this situation. Is your example saying that you could replace a broken non-grounding-type receptacle with a GFCI receptacle (but with no EGC), because 406(D)(3)(b) says that you are allowed to do so, and because the HO assured you it was for a lamp, but then the HO buys a small chest freezer and plugs it into that outlet?

Let me presume that is what you meant.

IMHO, it's not an NEC violation. I am sticking with my views that this is a use, and not an installation, of electrical equipment.

Clearly, this would not be a safe situation. But the NEC cannot protect all homeowners from doing themselves harm through their own thoughtless decisions or unsafe acts. The NEC cannot protect the HO from plugging in a very long, light duty extension cord, running it under the rug, and plugging a dozen items, nor from inserting a 150 watt bulb into a lamp that sports a "max 60 watt" sticker, nor from running the electric hedge trimmer from a Living Room (non-GFCI outlet) instead of the garage GFCI outlet. Per 90.1(B), the NEC is there to provide an "installation that is essentially free from hazard. . . ." Use (or misuse) of that installation by the homeowner is none of the business of the NFPA.

 

[charlie b]

I think that the following might explain the basis for my views. Please tell me if I am mistaken in this.

If I were to hire you to do some electrical project at my home, and if you took out the proper permits, and if you did something that violated the NEC, then the Inspector has a "hammer" with which to compel you to fix it. The hammer is that the Inspector can simply decline to sign off the permit.

But if I were to have an open house, and if a neighbor who happens to be an Electrical Inspector stops by for a drink, and if that Inspector happens to notice the un-grounded receptacle outlet into which I have plugged a refrigerator full of beer and sodas, I think the Inspector has no authority to compel me to remedy the situation.

By the same token, if I were to put the house up for sale, and if a prospective buyer were to hire an electrician to perform an inspection, and if the electrician writes up a list of "code violations," then the prospective buyer cannot bring to bear the force of law, in order to compel me to fix it. It may become a point of negotiations, but I have the option of declining to sell to that person, and leaving the system as it is.

 

[69boss302]

OK Charlie, I keep thinking about this. Now I don't completly agree even with what I am going to say but let me formulate it this way. If by what you are saying the H. O. can do what he wants, can that be construed to mean the owner can do what he wants.

Using this concept why is it that in industrial facilities where someone has run an extension cord to a fan or something to use while they are operating a piece of machinery, note: not installing but operating, the owner gets hit because of the NEC reference that you can not use portable cords as an extension of premis wiring?

Now I agree there is a lot more to consider in an industrial environment, there are other people to consider but if the cord is ran so it is not a triping hazard and it is in good condition, what is the real section to be used to say that the extension cords can not be used?