210.70 Remote Control ?

[augie47]

Inspected a job where the homeowner has asked that NO wall switches be installed (esthetics).
The plans are for the lighting to be a type of "smarthouse" with hand held remote units to control the lighting.

A few code changes ago I submitted a change that at least one wall switch required by 210.70 (A)(1) be located at entry to that room. It was rejected as a "design requirement", not a NEC problem.

Opinions please.
Would the requirements of 210.70 be satisfied:
(a)If there is a manual overide built into the controller ?
(b) If the homeowner has all wall switches grouped in one location (such as a closet) simply to comply with "wall switch controlled" ?

 

[charlie tuna]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

and you know what they say about "opinions"! from what the code indicates in 210-70 A exception #2 that remote control wall switches must have a manual override -- what i believe they want is that at any time anyone entering the residence can effectively travel safely in darkness..--- fireman --policeman-- crook--etc!!

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

They could put them all in a closet or next to the panel and they met the code even without the remote.They still need them in halls ,stairways,garage.

I don't like it but think you must pass it

 

[physis]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

I think this might be a case for special permission. Lighting in itself can be considered outside the perview of the NEC as stated in 90.1(A).

It bothers me when the NEC attempts to force all buildings into some cookie cutter form.

As for 210.70, I think the wall switch is required. But since there is no such thing as a customary location, in terms of a definition at least, I also think the wall switch can be put almost anywhere. Of course that would also be an AHJ call.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

What i can't see is why a owner would want this set up.Where will the remote be ? unless it's hanging next to the door they will be entering dark rooms.Since when did a switch become too ugly ?Have seen them painted to blend in.Maybe nec needs to start saying where the switch must be.If it did this would not be a problem to fail.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

I think a hand held remote is the stupidest idea in the world. But I also the guy should be allowed to be stupid if that's his preference as long as it doesn't create a safety concern.

And again I don't think 210.70 actually addresses safety with respect to 90.1(A).

 

[apauling]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

I think it is quite possible to determine "customary" location. it may argued to infinity on this forum, but the long history of switches adjacent to the entry to a room would suffice in legal terms. What does matter is that this is another AHJ interpretation issue and their willingness to stick it out.

"Customary" does not apply to all switch locations, and I'm not sure about the 2005 NEC at all.

Police, firemen, and the better prepared thieves usually carry flashlights.

paul

 

[jim sutton]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

In my humble "opinion", this defeats all common sense and goes against the obvious "intent" of the code. But, due to the "loopholes" in the wording of this section he could legally control all the lighting with one wall switch located anywhere in the house.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Panels are generally in walls.

Is a breaker a wall switch?

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Does a wall sconce with a pull chain meet the code ?

 

[physis]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Jim, (Sutton) I don't really mean to try to turn this subject into a huge debate. But I think there are two separate issues here.

The easy one is 210.70. And I agree that it's not very complicated. But in terms of requirements I see it as rather ambiguous.

But I also think that a question like this goes quite a bit beyond that particular code section.

You mention common sense and obvious intent of the code. I tend to think there's a loss of continuity when you go from 90.1(A) to 210.70. I don't think that there is an obvious intent in that regard. exactly the opposite actually.

Edit: I had to specify Mr. Sutton due to the posts that have appeared during my writing phase.

[ August 12, 2005, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Originally posted by physis:
Jim, (Sutton) I don't really mean to try to turn this subject into a huge debate. But I think there are two separate issues here.

The easy one is 210.70. And I agree that it's not very complicated. But in terms of requirements I see it as rather ambiguous.

While true, I think it's up to the EC to defend his installation as it strays farther and farther from the accepted norm. Once the switch moves out of the room, down the stairs and into a closet 50' away, it gets highly difficult to argue that it is in the "customary" wall switch position.

I would fail it, IMO.

This section appears to be written with the option of a motion sensor in a place where a regular switch would be. Thus, when the "contrivance" installed instead of a reliable switch fails, it can be replaced with a regular switch. A remote control triggering IC's with 18-2 or Cat-5 is most certainly out of the question, IMO.

You mention common sense and obvious intent of the code. I tend to think there's a loss of continuity when you go from 90.1(A) to 210.70. I don't think that there is an obvious intent in that regard. exactly the opposite actually.

Not so much. It could be argued that without switches controlling lights, an alternative would be to carry a candle into a room to find the light switch.

It's akin to the idea that without receptacles every 12', we'd have extension cords burning houses down every five minutes.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

CUSTOMARY only applies if we are using exception #2.
210.70 a 1 just says we will have a wall switch,it does not say where
Exception 2 is if we have occupancy sensors not remote control ,so exception #2 does not apply

 

[physis]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Not so much. It could be argued that without switches controlling lights, an alternative would be to carry a candle into a room to find the light switch.

Well, then I could start arguing how unsafe the expectation of having a wall switch is. Of course that wouldn't actually be a productive argument.

I'll just put 90.1(A) here.

Practicle Safeguarding. The purpose of this code is the practicle safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

I can almost see this as implying light is good. But I have to change my mind when I read 210.70(A)(1) Ex.1

Edit:

It's akin to the idea that without receptacles every 12', we'd have extension cords burning houses down every five minutes.

I don't necessarily disbelieve you George, but where do you get that data from?

Edit: And I haven't seen you around much lately, how ya been?

[ August 12, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[torcho]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

I too have had people disgusted by switches and outlets. I don't see what the big deal is, if it bothers you that bad, get Decora, they look pretty good to me. The last house like this I saw had a "Smart Panel" (for lack of better terms) installed at each entryway and all associated switches and modules inside the closets. IMO it is a little better than remote controls because at least you can turn on some/all lighting when you enter the house. When I was an apprenticing a few years back in Denver, we did a big project that the builder spec'd all light switches to be installed at 3' from floor, I was told so artwork could be hung without obstructions. I guess everyone is different...to me it get's a bit out of hand at times.

 

[jim sutton]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

How does 90.1 (A)apply to the hazards arising from the non-use of electricity?

If you walk into a home are you using electricity?

Of course common sense will tell you to put switches at convenient locations.

I don't care how much you wordsmiths' dissect the code, it aint perfect.

 

[jimwalker]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Confused here.A switch will bother them then what about the receptacles ? Or will they hide all them behind furniture ?

I do remember once when i used the bathroom at a friends house.Open door,look for switch,aint no dang switch.Hey Bill where is the switch ? In the hall next to the bathroom door !!! Now what smart electrician did this house ?

 

[jim sutton]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

I've had customers complain about switches before. They said they were in the way of their pictures!

"That dam electrician put switches everywhere"
Thats me, first name Dam, last name electrician!

 

[iwire]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Originally posted by jim sutton:
How does 90.1 (A)apply to the hazards arising from the non-use of electricity?

Kind of moot point as the NEC requires us to install lighting outlets in places people may not want them for purpose of safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity.

Homeowner: I don't want electricity here. (A lighting outlet)

NEC: You must have electricity there to protect you from electricity.



Bob

Edit mute to moot. DOH!

[ August 13, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[physis]

Re: 210.70 Remote Control ?

Home owner: I don't want light in this room.

NEC: Ok, just put a switch there then, forget the light.