Crawl Space Lighting

[JJWalecka]

Is there a code proposal that would require open lighting in a crawlspace to be physically protected.

 

[tom baker]

No but due to someone breaking a lamp and a shock or electrocution?, crawl space lighting is now required to be GFCI protected.
You can certainly put in a proposal, but due to the above I doubt it was pass.

 

[JFletcher]

They probably should be; I've smacked and broken more than one myself.

If you can find accident reports involving crawlspace lighting, or carefully word a proposal, you may be able to get protection on crawlspace lights. Shock and electrocution are not the dangers that having sharp, hot, broken glass in your face/head are imo. I dont think it a bad idea but then again, here, crawlspace lights are an afterthought and done as cheaply as possible. There's usually one at the entrance and one near an HVAC unit, if it's lit at all.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I Moved this thread to the correct forum. The new code will require that crawl space lights will need to be on a gfci exactly because of the reason the op was asking about.

 

[kwired]

I Moved this thread to the correct forum. The new code will require that crawl space lights will need to be on a gfci exactly because of the reason the op was asking about.

New code being 2020?

I don't know I like the GFCI idea, and think physical protection would be better.

You smack the bulb and GFCI keeps you from being electrocuted - fine but unless there is only the one luminaire in the crawlspace you are now left in the dark as well. Physical protection keeps you from breaking the bulb easily in the first place.

GFCI won't really matter much in a wood framed attic either as you often won't have grounded objects to contact allowing ground fault current to flow when this happens.

I also don't really care enough one way or the other so I am not sending in any PI, for anyone suggesting I do so.

 

[tom baker]

Physical protection with lamp guards was discussed by the CMP but they went with GFCI

 

[kwired]

I see it is in 2017. Just says for lighting outlets not exceeding 120 volts.

Guess that includes any "low voltage" lighting if you would have any in such a space.

Still think that if the primary reason for wanting this was because of smacking into an open bulb - that a physical lamp protection would have been a better choice. Take a crawl space with HVAC equipment in it and you must provide lighting for servicing of the equipment reasons. A person breaks the lamp and in the process trips the GFCI. If it is the only luminaire doesn't matter so much, but if you have several luminaires and some distance to go back to the crawl space entry - you are left in the dark if all the lights are on the same GFCI. Protected lamp would have prevented this from happening in the first place.

Option to use GFCI if you don't protect the lamp would give the designer options, otherwise NEC is stepping in as the design manual which it claims it is not a design manual.

I have an food products plant I do work for where we frequently access an attic space to run electrical and mechanical items. This space has had vapor tight linear fluorescent luminaires in it since before I ever started to do any work there about 30 years ago. Lamps are pretty reasonably protected from physical damage because of the vaportight design. My guess is they mostly took an on/below grade crawl space with typical "keyless porcelain" luminaire type into consideration when they made this rule.

I am a big supporter of GFCI but in recent codes they keep pushing it to some places it really doesn't need to be.

 

[JFletcher]

I see it is in 2017. Just says for lighting outlets not exceeding 120 volts.

Guess that includes any "low voltage" lighting if you would have any in such a space.

Still think that if the primary reason for wanting this was because of smacking into an open bulb - that a physical lamp protection would have been a better choice. Take a crawl space with HVAC equipment in it and you must provide lighting for servicing of the equipment reasons. A person breaks the lamp and in the process trips the GFCI. If it is the only luminaire doesn't matter so much, but if you have several luminaires and some distance to go back to the crawl space entry - you are left in the dark if all the lights are on the same GFCI. Protected lamp would have prevented this from happening in the first place.

Option to use GFCI if you don't protect the lamp would give the designer options, otherwise NEC is stepping in as the design manual which it claims it is not a design manual.

I have an food products plant I do work for where we frequently access an attic space to run electrical and mechanical items. This space has had vapor tight linear fluorescent luminaires in it since before I ever started to do any work there about 30 years ago. Lamps are pretty reasonably protected from physical damage because of the vaportight design. My guess is they mostly took an on/below grade crawl space with typical "keyless porcelain" luminaire type into consideration when they made this rule.

I am a big supporter of GFCI but in recent codes they keep pushing it to some places it really doesn't need to be.

I agree about the guards vs GFCI, however anyone crawling into a crawlspace w/o a headlamp or flashlight probably deserves to crawl back out at least once in total darkness. :lol:

 

[kwired]

I agree about the guards vs GFCI, however anyone crawling into a crawlspace w/o a headlamp or flashlight probably deserves to crawl back out at least once in total darkness. :lol:

You are probably right, but the older I get the less I want to carry, sometimes making more work for myself anyway. New young workers often have a tool belt packed full of things. A long time ago I started pulling some of those things seldom needed out of the usual inventory of tools carried, and even then I would still take out certain tools on a particular day when I didn't expect to be needing them. Planning to run raceway for next few hours or even all day - probably are not going to need wire strippers or cable cutters, or voltage tester so why carry that extra weight around and feel the effects mid day or after work?

 

[JFletcher]

You are probably right, but the older I get the less I want to carry, sometimes making more work for myself anyway. New young workers often have a tool belt packed full of things. A long time ago I started pulling some of those things seldom needed out of the usual inventory of tools carried, and even then I would still take out certain tools on a particular day when I didn't expect to be needing them. Planning to run raceway for next few hours or even all day - probably are not going to need wire strippers or cable cutters, or voltage tester so why carry that extra weight around and feel the effects mid day or after work?

or lose them in the crawlspace. 90% of the time I'm in one it's to run a new circuit, so I've got a roll of wire, hammer, staples, jbox, cover, wirenuts, flashlight, wirestrippers, etc etc etc.

Would be nice if the avg 750k home had better than 2 lights in the crawlspace, or any lights were put in 30+ years ago. I go with a headband light, frees up carrying a flashlight.