Do you always have to have a neu. In a switch box? This is a hospital.

Status
Not open for further replies.
zappy

zappy

Senior Member
Location
CA.
Emt to a single gang switch box. There is a hot,sw leg, and grd. Only inside. I heard you hav to always have a neutral. Is this true? Thank you for your help.
 
zappy said:
Emt to a single gang switch box. There is a hot,sw leg, and grd. Only inside. I heard you hav to always have a neutral. Is this true? Thank you for your help.
Click to expand...

Not true. 2014 reworded the article so that you can almost always get by without pulling a neutral to the switch location. As far as job specs I've yet to see such a silly requirement
 
404.2(C) is titled: Switches Controlling Lighting Loads.

If the switch in question is not controlling a lighting load this neutral issue - is not an issue.
If you read content carefully it also indicates that this is only required for circuits that use a grounded conductor. So if you have 240 volt or 480 volt lighting you don't need a "grounded conductor" at the switch, unless maybe they are connected to a corner ground system, though I doubt that was the intention of the section - it would still be required because of how it is worded.

There are some differnces in 2011 and 2014. 2014 did find ways to put some previous exception material into the main content and now has no exceptions to it, as well as added some instances where this grounded conductor is not required.
 
ADub said:
Not true. 2014 reworded the article so that you can almost always get by without pulling a neutral to the switch location. As far as job specs I've yet to see such a silly requirement
Click to expand...
It is not such a silly requirement, IMO with all the occupancy sensors that are being used in todays buildings. Residential it is not used as much but the rule was there to avoid making connections using the equipment grounding conductor where the neutral was needed.
 
ADub said:
. As far as job specs I've yet to see such a silly requirement
Click to expand...
Its not a silly rule at all. When a motion detector is installed where there is no neutral then the motion sensor operates from line to ground and puts about 5 mA on the building EGC. Image a building full of motion detectors and you could have 100 mA on the EGC, a possible shock hazard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dennis Alwon said:
It is not such a silly requirement, IMO with all the occupancy sensors that are being used in todays buildings. Residential it is not used as much but the rule was there to avoid making connections using the equipment grounding conductor where the neutral was needed.
Click to expand...

tom baker said:
ADub said:
. As far as job specs I've yet to see such a silly requirement[/QUOTE
Its not a silly rule at all. When a motion detector is installed where there is no neutral then the motion sensor operates from line to ground and puts about 5 mA on the building EGC. Image a building full of motion detectors and you could have 100 mA on the EGC, a possible shock hazard.
Click to expand...

It is silly. If a device requires a grounded conductor then a neutral will be brought to the box. To suggest every single switch box should have one in case it's ever needed is wasteful and silly. If homeowners and handymen are installing occupancy style devices without a neutral where one is needed well that's their problem not mine. IMO the cmp thinks the same way because they make it very easy for us to get by without bringing a neutral to our switch boxes
Click to expand...
 
ADub said:
tom baker said:
It is silly. If a device requires a grounded conductor then a neutral will be brought to the box. To suggest every single switch box should have one in case it's ever needed is wasteful and silly. If homeowners and handymen are installing occupancy style devices without a neutral where one is needed well that's their problem not mine. IMO the cmp thinks the same way because they make it very easy for us to get by without bringing a neutral to our switch boxes
Click to expand...

There is no question that the NEC may be going beyond there statement that they are not a design manual however this rule may help code compliancy at later dates.
Click to expand...
 
ADub said:
tom baker said:
It is silly. If a device requires a grounded conductor then a neutral will be brought to the box. To suggest every single switch box should have one in case it's ever needed is wasteful and silly. If homeowners and handymen are installing occupancy style devices without a neutral where one is needed well that's their problem not mine. IMO the cmp thinks the same way because they make it very easy for us to get by without bringing a neutral to our switch boxes
Click to expand...


NEC never has introduced rules that appear to be there mostly to protect the homeowners and handymen from their ignorance:happyno::happyno::happyno::happysad::happysad::happysad:
Click to expand...
 
iwire said:
OK, I will agree it is not 'silly' it is simply wrong and has no place in the NEC.

The only reason it is in the NEC is because UL used extortion tactics to get it put into the NEC.
Click to expand...

We normally disagree on a lot of stuff, but I think I have to say that Yes, I fully agree with you.:eek::) Running a noodle to switches, even with the new exemptions is the wrong intent of the NEC.

What about applications without conduit ect that will never use a noodle in its 80 years of use? Why become a design manual? By their logic I could require every kitchen to have 6 extra 6/3s behind every countertop just in case a 1 in 100 million chance took place like a HO deciding to move their range on the opposite side of the kitchen. By requiring that extra circuit it would be safer since they might not know how to run a range feed.


406.15 is another example of dumb.
 
mbrooke said:
We normally disagree on a lot of stuff, but I think I have to say that Yes, I fully agree with you.:eek::) Running a noodle to switches, even with the new exemptions is the wrong intent of the NEC.

What about applications without conduit ect that will never use a noodle in its 80 years of use? Why become a design manual? By their logic I could require every kitchen to have 6 extra 6/3s behind every countertop just in case a 1 in 100 million chance took place like a HO deciding to move their range on the opposite side of the kitchen. By requiring that extra circuit it would be safer since they might not know how to run a range feed.


406.15 is another example of dumb.
Click to expand...
I'm not with you on 406.15, though I may be open to having some exceptions to that one, but otherwise it is a good rule in general.
 
Not Silly at all

Not Silly at all

Since every switch outlet has the potential to have a snap switch replaced with either a pilot light switch, motion detector or whatever gadget the dreamers come up with next, having a capped off neutral present or being a simple pull into the box is a very smart, albeit a pia, plan. :)
 
donf said:
Since every switch outlet has the potential to have a snap switch replaced with either a pilot light switch, motion detector or whatever gadget the dreamers come up with next, having a capped off neutral present or being a simple pull into the box is a very smart, albeit a pia, plan. :)
Click to expand...
Those of us that think this is a case of NEC overstepping into design requirements do not disagree that it may be a good idea, but still is a design issue and not a safety issue. It only becomes a safety issue when the future installer doesn't provide the proper conductor for the device installed.

Over the years the NEC has added several of these "what if down the road ..." kind of requirements. Well what if down the road we need 1200 amps supply instead of 150? Maybe all services should be at least capable of handling 1200 amps no matter what the initial load may be, I know I wouldn't mind the average profit from installing a new service if that were the rules, so maybe I should put in a proposal for this :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top