Christmas Lighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Christmas Lighting

Sorry I did some editing while Roger was posting.

Originally posted by roger:
and what is plugged into them, or what time of the year it is plugged into them, would not have any bearing on defining them as "Temporary Wiring"
Click to expand...
That is the real answer, these receptacles are not temporary wiring. :)

I could not see the forest for the trees. :D
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

Awe shoot Bob, I was editing as you were editing. :D

Roger

[ October 07, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

My point was since gfci wasn't required in 75 then it is legal to still use it without.If outlet was installed under 2002 then yes gfci is required.No i dont think it's safe or wise but legal cause it is grandfathered in.How much trouble would it be to change them to gfci and add a bubble cover ? Then they get what they want and safe
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

Since we are now down to parsing, I?ll put it this way:

?Construction? is an undefined term in the NEC, and I believe it is sufficiently general to cover the issue unless it is legally defined somewhere else. And it is:

Fed OSHA 29CFR1926.32 Definitions
"Construction work." For purposes of this section, "Construction work" means work for construction, alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decorating
Click to expand...
We will now parse ?during.? Until and including the time the installation is ?plugged in? and we walk away from it, we are ?during.? Therefore, while you could install the decorations you couldn?t energize them until it complied with 527.6.

I have been very careful through this discussion, not to declare whether I thought the installation was unsafe or not. I have basically said, if someone believes it is unsafe, they must do something about it. If they do not believe it is unsafe, fine ? just be prepared to defend the position in court, if necessary, and ?I didn?t think the NEC required it? is not likely to be sufficient if someone is injured.
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

Bob,(rbalex) on the practical side, maybe we decide to use these lights (even if they are called Christmas lights) for illumination with no specific activity taking place, therefor the use of these receptacles still would not meet the criteria of construction / decoration.

Roger
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

No but "it was wired to the code enforced at the time we wired it" just might get him off the hook.Just what are we to do about all them bedrooms we wired without afci ? are we liable ? How about the kitchens that had no gfci ?The most we can be held for is the current code.
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

Along these same lawsuit lines, if we are driving a vehicle such as a 66 Mustang, 68 Firebird, or a 50 GMC pickup, would a mechanic be sued if he worked on it yet didn't convert the brakes and steering to modern technology and we had a wreck? ;)

Roger
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

All we owe them is a to code and good quaility structure.20 years from now we will likely have many more safety devices.Look back 25 years at what was required for smoke detectors.If we could get sued over every thing like this than we would never have EC
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

If a utility owns the lighting system it is exempt from the NEC, even if installed on city ROW. Who owns the lighting system and poles?
What height are the receptacles installed?

I agree that GFCI protection is an excellent idea, but we can't require it for a non-NEC governed installation.
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

I?m honestly surprised I?m on the ?other? side on this one. I?m one of the most permissive design engineers I know. However, I?m more concerned with actual safety than Code compliance. I fought many Code proposals over the years to make things ?safer? when I believed the current status was ?safe enough.? I?ve even had a few proposals accepted that relaxed requirements a bit. (I?m still battling CMP1 over some poor implications of 110.9. My support among ?Users? is growing and I?ll win this one if don?t die first. :D )

You draw a line between ?safe? and ?unsafe.? Where you are choosing between ?safe? and ?safer? it?s reasonable to consider cost, convenience, esthetics, performance, personal preference, as well.

I believe a Professionally Engineered design is:

1.) Safe to an unsuspecting public
2.) Safe to trained workers
3.) Does the job intended consistent with 1 and 2
4.) Is cost effective consistent with the 1 through 3.

(#3 is usually where client convenience, esthetics, performance, personal preference etc. comes in.)

I still haven?t said I believe a lack of GFCI is unsafe or not in this situation. I?ve said if someone believes it is unsafe they can?t leave it that way, ?compliant? or not; and I?ve offered a substantial basis to support the position.

While I may not be able to sue a mechanic for not upgrading the brakes on a Mustang, 68 Firebird, or a 50 GMC pickup, in most states I can force the owner to install seat belts even in automobiles that didn?t originally require them at time of manufacture.
 
Re: Christmas Lighting

I've never seen the national automotive code or the authority having jurisdiction coming around to inspect the brake jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top