sw's in rooms with 2 or more doorways

[dnem]

There's a lot of gray area in the NEC book.

You can say that again

It seems like anymore more on the forum we just quote from the book and leave it there. (not all the time).

I have just the opposite impression of this web site. I find that every single word is subject to debate. And I actually like it that way because it sparks my brain to stay fresh and gets me thinking about stuff I haven't considered before.

I wanted to create a little rukkus to see what Ideas came out. Remember we can all learn a little from different ideas and apply them different also.

Definitely !
This type of input gives the opportunity to think that I don't get in continuing ed.

David

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

90.4 does not give the inspector the right to interpret code as he sees someone may intend. I have been to court too many times to have learned this.
Interpretation can be used for different things, such as material that is new between code cycles. Not to change the code, as they may see fit.

I am sure that the code making panel is wise enough to know that what was written for stairway switching requirements, did not require 3 ways. Remembe that 90.1(B) even states the installation according to code may not be efficient... we all know that becomes a design issue, not an issue for 90.4.
I do pity the installer who decides to install single pole switches though.


In some older homes, I have come across only one switch on stair ways. I believe most of those people may have survived the ordeal.

 

[dnem]

All I was trying to show was that the wording is really vague.

There's alot of that in the code book.

What ifs,should bes,I`d rather see are not valid argumentsWhat is valid is the wording used.While I would never single pole stairwells the code doesn`t say lighting outlet(s) controlled at each level/landing.All it says is that a switch will be at those locations.

If you can show me where it says the lighting outlet(s) must be controlled at EACH level/location/landing wherever then I would go along with you.[/b]

There's 2 different ideas that are involved here and there's a difference between the 2.

Questioning whether or not a code exists that can be enforced is one issue and with good reason many here have brought up 90.15(B)&(C) to interject the point that the scope of the NEC is limited.

Questioning the interpretation of an existing rule is a different issue and is spoken about in 90.4.

How 210.70(A)(2)(c) is interpreted is an example of the later issue. The AHJ doesn't have to produce the exact wording that you're looking for.

It's seems that the approach that you're advocating is that the NEC is a restriction on the inspector only. He must produce the exact wording that the contractor/installer is looking for or else he must approve the installation.

David

 

[dnem]

90.4 does not give the inspector the right to interpret code as he sees someone may intend.

What do you see as the criteria that should be used for interpreting ?

I am sure that the code making panel is wise enough to know that what was written for stairway switching requirements, did not require 3 ways.

It's true that 210.70(A)(2)(c) doesn't say 3ways. But it does specify what needs to be accomplished by the type of control used. It's the type of control that can't be accomplished with single poles. It requires 3ways, master/slave combos, or some type of automatic control.

David

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

David
Where do you see the NEC saying that a person has to install 3 ways?
It says "there shall be a wall switch at each floor level"



If the NEC was left up to the interpretation of each individual inspector, then we would have no need for codes to be written.
There are times due to local environments, new material and the like, but in general, the inspector has to read what is written and enforce it. If one should have a hard time understanding, that is a good time to reach out for help, not make up his own rules.

 

[dnem]

David
Where do you see the NEC saying that a person has to install 3 ways?
It says "there shall be a wall switch at each floor level"

See my post that's two posts before this one from 1:50pm

David

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I am sure that the code making panel is wise enough to know that what was written for stairway switching requirements, did not require 3 ways.

It's true that 210.70(A)(2)(c) doesn't say 3ways. But it does specify what needs to be accomplished by the type of control used. It's the type of control that can't be accomplished with single poles. It requires 3ways, master/slave combos, or some type of automatic control.

David[/quote]

The code does not say in this section what needs to be "accomplished". That is a performance issue of which the NEC deals very little with. The NEC is mostly a perscriptive type of document, leaving the perfomance issues to the design portion of the job. As long as the perscriptive requirements of the NEC are complied with, design can be performed in a wide fashion.
Single pole switches, dimmers, multiple switches or lighting contactors, etc...

 

[allenwayne]

David I feel you are missing the point.Even though it would be good wiring practice to 3 way for stairs it isn`t a required install.The NEC is a minimal requirement and unless a jurisdiction has addendums that require controls for the lighting outlet(s) from EACH level then if single poles are installed then the minimum has been met.
Look at standard branch circuit wiring in a home #14 is allowed even though there are vacums on the market that will max out the circuit when used.My home was wired in #12 but that was because I wanted more than the minimum.I could have used #14 but chose to use #12.Same as I chose to 3 way almost all lighting in the house.But then again I wired it as I felt was needed and not just to minimum requirements.Each bath room has dedicated receptacles why I am married and have 2 teen girls and all use hairdryers and such and to me the minimum wasn`t enough.But when it comes to contractor standards the minimum will and has always been the norm.Cost,cost,cost.....So while I can agree with you that it is good practice it is not required to 3 way stairs :wink:

 

[dnem]

I am sure that the code making panel is wise enough to know that what was written for stairway switching requirements, did not require 3 ways.

It's true that 210.70(A)(2)(c) doesn't say 3ways. But it does specify what needs to be accomplished by the type of control used. It's the type of control that can't be accomplished with single poles. It requires 3ways, master/slave combos, or some type of automatic control.

David

The code does not say in this section what needs to be "accomplished". That is a performance issue of which the NEC deals very little with. The NEC is mostly a perscriptive type of document, leaving the perfomance issues to the design portion of the job. As long as the perscriptive requirements of the NEC are complied with, design can be performed in a wide fashion.
Single pole switches, dimmers, multiple switches or lighting contactors, etc...

I'm not going to argue with you over the definition of the word "accomplished" or the word "performance" or the word "prescriptive".

There are things that are required and some sentences are not clear which needs an interpretation.

90.4 does not give the inspector the right to interpret code as he sees someone may intend. I have been to court too many times to have learned this.

I'm also not going to argue with you over the concept of "intent" and what's legal and what is not legal because I have found most court findings are alot more narrow in scope than most people think they are.

Someone representing the AHJ is going to make an interpretation on the meaning of ambiguous sentences, and they're going to try to figure out what the panel was trying to say, which is the definition of the word intent. The AHJ is not going to design the job but they're going to enforce the rules as written when clear and as enforce the rules as interpreted when not clear.

David

 

[allenwayne]

David what can be more clear than210.70 2 Cwhere one or more lighting outlet(s)are installed for interior stairs there shall be A WALL SWITCH at each floor level,and landing level that includes an entryway to control the lighting outlet(s)between levels that have 6 risers or more.So as long as the switch controls the lighting outlet(s) that will illuminate the next level you can have a single pole at each level that controls a lighting outlet that illuminates the next level sill to do yes but you still can`t show where 3 ways are the required install. I reregisterd in this forum after 2 forum changes ago but have been visiting this site well over 2000 posts ago and the one thing I have learned is that unless you can back a claim with a valid NEC article then it is only your opinion and they are like well you know the rest.Heaven knows I have been the brunt of all to many ribs here as a result of my personal opinions.This is an NEC forum and not a electrician opinions forum.I`ve learned that there are many well educated and experienced people that frequent this site and over the years I have learned alot from the wisdom they have.I just hope some have also learned from me.The minute we can cite opinions as the rule then that is when this NEC forum will cease to be a place of knowledge for the new guys in our trade as well as us old dogs that have trouble getting off that dang porch

 

[dnem]

David I feel you are missing the point.Even though it would be good wiring practice to 3 way for stairs it isn`t a required install.The NEC is a minimal requirement and unless a jurisdiction has addendums that require controls for the lighting outlet(s) from EACH level then if single poles are installed then the minimum has been met.
Look at standard branch circuit wiring in a home #14 is allowed even though there are vacums on the market that will max out the circuit when used.My home was wired in #12 but that was because I wanted more than the minimum.I could have used #14 but chose to use #12.Same as I chose to 3 way almost all lighting in the house.But then again I wired it as I felt was needed and not just to minimum requirements.Each bath room has dedicated receptacles why I am married and have 2 teen girls and all use hairdryers and such and to me the minimum wasn`t enough.But when it comes to contractor standards the minimum will and has always been the norm.Cost,cost,cost.....So while I can agree with you that it is good practice it is not required to 3 way stairs :wink:

I don't think your vacuum example is comparing apples to apples. There is no code article that specifies additional requirements for receptacle circuits that could be used by a portable vacuum.

But there is a code article that refers to stairway lighting. And as we've discussed here, it is not written with the clearest wording that could have been chosen which has caused the need for it to be interpreted. There is a question about if it refers to stair landing switches that control lighting for stair landings or for stair treads.

You are taking the position that 3way control of stair lighting is not required. I am taking the position that the AHJ can interpret 210.70(A)(2)(c) is mean that 3way, master/slave, or automatic control is required for stairways.

The issue of cost is secondary to that.

David

 

[dnem]

David what can be more clear than210.70 2 Cwhere one or more lighting outlet(s)are installed for interior stairs there shall be A WALL SWITCH at each floor level,and landing level that includes an entryway to control the lighting outlet(s)between levels that have 6 risers or more.So as long as the switch controls the lighting outlet(s) that will illuminate the next level you can have a single pole at each level that controls a lighting outlet that illuminates the next level sill to do yes but you still can`t show where 3 ways are the required install. I reregisterd in this forum after 2 forum changes ago but have been visiting this site well over 2000 posts ago and the one thing I have learned is that unless you can back a claim with a valid NEC article then it is only your opinion and they are like well you know the rest.Heaven knows I have been the brunt of all to many ribs here as a result of my personal opinions.This is an NEC forum and not a electrician opinions forum.I`ve learned that there are many well educated and experienced people that frequent this site and over the years I have learned alot from the wisdom they have.I just hope some have also learned from me.The minute we can cite opinions as the rule then that is when this NEC forum will cease to be a place of knowledge for the new guys in our trade as well as us old dogs that have trouble getting off that dang porch

Do you classify all AHJ interpretations as opinions ?

 

[dnem]

David what can be more clear than210.70 2 C

I'm wondering if you really meant to say that. Because if you did, I don't see you as being a person that will listen to reason.

I have met people many times in my life that feel that their way of seeing something is the only way. I have found that discussions with such people are a waste of time.

David

 

[allenwayne]

You posted before I did.David the AHJ can only interpet what is written in the manner it is written and with the words used.They can`t construe meanings of the wording.If there isn`t a particular word written then it can`t be enforced and in order for an inspector to require 3 ways the it would have to be written that each level will control all lighting outlets. But that isn`t the way it is written.Maybe you should put forth a proposal to change the wording to include control at each level all lighting outlets but till then it DOES NOT SAY thatI only brought out other items to make a point these were above minimum requirement and that is a voluntary action and so is 3 ways on a stair,until you can cite an article that shows otherwise I have to agree to disagree with you.

 

[allenwayne]

If an AHJ can`t cite an article or show me that what they are citing is in writing then yes I will question what they interpet.

 

[dlhoule]

Why are we discussing this? Is it going to save any time or money not to put 3 ways in? Who isn't going to be installing 3 ways?

I do agree that it is not required.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

David
One cannot inspect of intent.

Look at the last code cycle when the wording between two different CMPs made installing some cable types a violation inside of raceways. The was not the intent, but it was enforced by the inspectors who read what the code says.

Again your interpretation is your pesonnal opinion based on your experience in the field.

I am not sure if 3way switches are required anywhere in the NEC... yet we see many of them installed in the field, why? It is good design practice and now almost expected by the consumer. Like I said earlier, there are many older homes that do not have threeway switches installed.

You have an opinion on this, a strong one, but that does not give you the authority as an inspector to ask for the 3 way.

 

[Mike03a3]

FWIW, I think this is one example where the inspector probably CAN interpret what the words mean.

First the words (2002NEC)

210.70(A)(2)(c):

Where one or more lighting outlet(s) are installed for interior stairways, there shall be be a wall switch at each floor level, and landing level that includes an entry way, to control the lighting outlet(s) where the stairway between floor levels has six risers or more.

First, let's look at the single outlet version. If the stairway has a single light illuminating it, that light must be controlled by a switch at every accessible level. The code clearly requires that a user be able to switch it on and off from any level. The code doesn't require 3-ways, but it does require multiple switches to contol a single outlet.

Now, I add a second light to the stairwell. There are two possible ways to interpret this. (1) The multiple switches must control both outlets; or (2) The outlet(s) may be separately controlled.

I choose the first. Agreeing that the stairs have more than six risers and have lighting outlets, let's reduce the wording a bit:

. . .there shall be be a wall switch at each floor level . . . to control the lighting outlet(s)

not each outlet, but "the outlet(s)" must be controlled from each level by "a switch"

 

[dnem]

You posted before I did.David the AHJ can only interpet what is written in the manner it is written and with the words used.They can`t construe meanings of the wording.If there isn`t a particular word written then it can`t be enforced and in order for an inspector to require 3 ways the it would have to be written that each level will control all lighting outlets. But that isn`t the way it is written.Maybe you should put forth a proposal to change the wording to include control at each level all lighting outlets but till then it DOES NOT SAY thatI only brought out other items to make a point these were above minimum requirement and that is a voluntary action and so is 3 ways on a stair,until you can cite an article that shows otherwise I have to agree to disagree with you.

You make the point that it DOES NOT SAY 3ways and yet skip the fact that it does not say single poles either. It doesn't say either, so an interpretation must be made to determine what type of control is being required.

I'll repost a comment that I made earlier in this thread.

It's seems that the approach that you're advocating is that the NEC is a restriction on the inspector only. He must produce the exact wording that the contractor/installer is looking for or else he must approve the installation.

David

 

[dnem]

If an AHJ can`t cite an article or show me that what they are citing is in writing then yes I will question what they interpet.

Questioning is good. Noone should find fault with you for that.

Not agreeing and coming to a different conclusion is also alright. If we each explain our reasoning and still don't agree, that isn't a big problem.

David