2011 code neutral in all switches?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps one advantage of this being in the new code is it will keep jacklegs from trying to add receptacles, lights, etc from a box that only has a 2 wire switch leg and then using the grounding wire for a neutral. I know I've seen that more times than I can remember. In that case it would be a safety issue.
 
Last edited:
This was a deal of sorts between the NFPA and UL. The UL standard for these devices permits 0.5mA of current on the EGC. This is the same level of leakage current that the UL standards permit for appliances. However in the case of the "electronic" switches the current is not leakage current but normal operation current.

The rules in the NEC really do not permit the use of the EGC as the grounded conductor no matter what the listing of the product says. The NFPA wanted UL to change the standard, but UL said we won't change the standard until the code requires a grounded conductor at the switch location. The NFPA caved in.

They should have just issued formal interpretations that made it very clear that you can't used any device that uses the EGC as the grounded conductor, listing or no listing. This would have forced the "electronic" switch manufactures to change the design of their equipment even without a change in the UL standard.

Now that the code has this rule, it is expected that the next edition of the UL standard for these devices will remove the provision that permits the use of the EGC as the grounded conductor.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Done-- I sent it in.

Proposal 404.2(C) exception (3) Boxes used for lights controlled by a door jamb switch.

Substantiation: These door jamb switches are very tiny and adding another wire will make it more difficult for wire fill. It also is unnecessary as an electronic controller cannot be used in jamb switch boxes anyway.
Click to expand...

Hey Dennis , while you pen is warm why not try to get the Mass exception through?


Exception No. 2: Where multiple switch locations control the same lighting load in an interior
room or space, a grounded conductor of the lighting circuit shall not be required at each such
location if one has been provided at one or more switching points that is (are) visible from most
areas within the room including all principal entry points.
Where a switch controls a receptacle
load or lighting load that does not serve a habitable room or bathroom, or where automatic
control of lighting has been provided or the switch is not within the lit area, a grounded circuit
conductor shall not be required.
Click to expand...
Can these be submitted electronically ?
 
M. D. said:
Hey Dennis , while you pen is warm why not try to get the Mass exception through?
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with the MA amendment. Although I feel the NEC is a design issue and should not exist, I do think in the spirit of the rule that the amendment would not hold water. If I remember correctly there are many switches out there for multiple switching that need a neutral at each location.
Exception 3 I just don't agree with.

M. D. said:
Can these be submitted electronically ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, just download the form in Word and then submit it to the email address at the bottom of the form.
 
Go to NFPA site to download the 2014 proposal form. Click Here

Down near the bottom is this
Proposal form for 2014 edition (DOC, 50.5 KB). Click it and then you can download it as a word file.

I usually fill out all the info that doesn't change then save that as a file to use. This way I don't have to fill the form out everytime I make a change. I also scanned my signature and inserted it on the bottom where you are supposed to sign. I am not sure that is necessary but I did it anyway.

Now all you have to do is fill out the change and substantiate.
 
tkb said:
Article 404.2(C) is trying to provide for a future installation.

Doesn't this contradict 90.1(B)?

90.1(B). . . not necessarily . . .for. . .future expansion of electrical use.
Click to expand...
No.
Not necessarily but it can be.
I guess the most they are saying is it won't interfere with future expansion.
 
Last edited:
Dennis Alwon said:
Also if conduit is used then a neutral need not be present.
Click to expand...

Neither, is it required if there is crawl space or attic access.

404.2 Switch Connections.

"(C) Exception: The grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted
to be omitted from the switch enclosure where either
of the following conditions in (1) or (2) apply:

(2) Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting
loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is
open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, or
through a wall, floor, or ceiling that is unfinished on
one side"
 
360Youth said:
Neither, is it required if there is crawl space or attic access.

404.2 Switch Connections.

"(C) Exception: The grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted
to be omitted from the switch enclosure where either
of the following conditions in (1) or (2) apply:

(2) Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting
loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is
open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, or
through a wall, floor, or ceiling that is unfinished on
one side"
Click to expand...

Thom I must disagree with you on that. The access must be on the same level.
 
iwire said:
Did you get yourself a code book yet or are you still posting about what you have not read?
Click to expand...

I still depend on the kindness of strangers to post the code excerpts in question so that I can attempt to decipher the possible meanings using symbolic logic.

To help me in this effort I have just borrowed a copy of Elementary Symbolic Logic from my local library. How did I get along so far without it???

I was generously offered a current codebook via e-mail but I am having trouble with my e-mail account. See "kindness of strangers" above.

Regarding the NEC, I think the whole thing can be reduced to a humongous computer program. You type in questions and it answers you. I think they call such a program an "inference network." Maybe somebody already sells one.

If not, if you'll forward me a check then I'll start on it! How's that for a logical IF-THEN statement???
 
Last edited:
Dennis Alwon said:
Thom I must disagree with you on that. The access must be on the same level.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the "or" differentiate whether the box is accessible from attic/crawlspace vs. unfinished ceiling/wall/floor?? I agree with you on the "same level" wording, but it would hardly be the first time NEC wording was questioned. :grin:
 
360Youth said:
Doesn't the "or" differentiate whether the box is accessible from attic/crawlspace vs. unfinished ceiling/wall/floor?? I agree with you on the "same level" wording, but it would hardly be the first time NEC wording was questioned. :grin:
Click to expand...

Actually, I may have it reversed, and they consider an attic/crawl space as a ceiling/floor unfinished on one side. Either way, I still think it allows for that option.
 
360Youth said:
Doesn't the "or" differentiate whether the box is accessible from attic/crawlspace vs. unfinished ceiling/wall/floor?? I agree with you on the "same level" wording, but it would hardly be the first time NEC wording was questioned. :grin:
Click to expand...

Thom , I feel pretty comfortable that it means open above or below the switch on the same level as the switch. It is poorly written however it is what it is.

Even if it is open below and above on the same level does not mean there is access to the neutral from the same circuit at those points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top