sw's in rooms with 2 or more doorways

[dnem]

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.

I think that the reason we are so intent on working thru this is because it's an opportunity to discuss an installation that everybody agrees that they would use multilevel or automatic control. We are really disagreeing over the reach of the authority of the AHJ and/or the inspector. What restricts the inspectors ability to make judgment calls ?

I think that's an important thing to discuss.

David

 

[dnem]

David
One cannot inspect of intent.

I disagree.

Look at what is the known facts of this situation.
1) 210.70(A)(2)(c) doesn't mention 3ways
2) 210.70(A)(2)(c) doesn't mention single poles
3) 210.70(A)(2)(c) says the switches must be located on the landings but it does specify if the lighting they control is landing lighting or stair tread lighting.

The lack of specifics make the requirement unclear.
Something that is unclear is open to interpretation.
A person who interprets something unclear written by someone else, without trying to determine what intent the writer was trying to say, is assuring that they will interpret according to his own personal thoughts or feelings on what conclusion he would personally like to see as a rule.

If the inspector used his own personal opinion to come to an interpretation rather than trying to determine the intent of the author of the ambiguous words or sentences, would you actually be happier with that result ?
Why would you think the opinion of each inspector would be better than the intent of the writer ?

David

 

[iwire]

I think that's an important thing to discuss.

David

David as long as you choose to use 90.4 as the basis for each of your arguments there is noting to discuss.

It makes no sense for us to discuss requirements of 210.70 as you are going to say;

"My interpretation via 90.4 is this..."

Your view of 90.4 is much different than most of us and it is not the view I find from inspectors in the three states I hold a license.

If your area lets you loose to use 90.4 for every issue then the rest of the NEC is irrelevant.

You may be interested to see what 90.4 looks like in my home state.

MA electrical amendments.

90.4. Revise the first paragraph to read as follows:

90.4 Enforcement. This Code shall be used by the
authority enforcing the Code and exercising legal
jurisdiction over electrical installations. The authority
having jurisdiction of enforcement of the Code
shall accept listed and labeled equipment or materials
where used or installed in accordance with instructions
included with the listing or labeling. The
authority shall have the responsibility for deciding
upon the approval of unlisted or unlabeled equipment
and materials, and for granting the special
permission contemplated in a number of the rules.

As far as 'interpretations' we also have local amendments.

90.6. Revise to read as follows:
90.6 Interpretations and Appeals. To promote
uniformity of interpretation and application of the
provisions of this Code, interpretations may be requested
from the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations.
Requests for interpretation shall be in the
form of a question that can receive a ?Yes? or ?No?
answer. This in no way supersedes the right of any
individual who is aggrieved by the decision of an
Inspector of Wires to appeal from that decision to
the Board of Electricians? Appeals in accordance
with M.G.L. c. 143 ?3P. The Board of Fire Prevention
Regulations shall, upon the request of the Board of Electricians? Appeals, render interpretations
to the Board of Electricians? Appeals.
It is customary to revise this Code periodically
to conform with developments in the art
and the result of experience, and the current edition
of the Code shall always be used.

Notice the first sentence in particular To promote uniformity of interpretation and application of the provisions of this Code, interpretations may be requested from the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations.

The idea here is to have all inspectors enforcing the same rules across the state, not have each inspector give their own interpretation.

Now if you still want to discuss 210.70 I would be more than happy if you can leave 90.4 out of your posts.

 

[iwire]

Do you classify all AHJ interpretations as opinions ?

He should as that is all they are.

The only 'official' interpretations come from the NFPA unless you have a local amendment that says otherwise. 8)

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

"Why would you think the opinion of each inspector would be better than the intent of the writer ?"

How do you know what the intent of the CMP or the author of the proposal was/is?

If an inspector was so intent to really find out, he should compose a letter the NFPA could answer and await the answer.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

A switch is required on each landing where there are 6 or more risers but nothing says it has to be a 3 way or 4 way or single pole.I think anyone would wire a 3 way in that case but then again some will say if not on the print it gets a single pole and thats it.
Kind of like a switch for exterior lighting some say it has to be at the door but the nec says it has to be there and that means anywhere.

It dont even half to be a switch.Photo cell or timer is fine

 

[dnem]

David as long as you choose to use 90.4 as the basis for each of your arguments there is noting to discuss.

It makes no sense for us to discuss requirements of 210.70 as you are going to say;

"My interpretation via 90.4 is this..."

Your view of 90.4 is much different than most of us and it is not the view I find from inspectors in the three states I hold a license.

If your area lets you loose to use 90.4 for every issue then the rest of the NEC is irrelevant.

"If your area lets you loose to use 90.4 for every issue....."
Let me post this same reply that I posted previously in the thread because you're not on the right track.

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.

You may be interested to see what 90.4 looks like in my home state.

Notice the first sentence in particular To promote uniformity of interpretation and application of the provisions of this Code, interpretations may be requested from the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations.

The idea here is to have all inspectors enforcing the same rules across the state, not have each inspector give their own interpretation.

Uniform interpretation by a central board would be great. It sounds like a better system than we have in Ohio. I would think that the provision that requires a question that can be answered yes or no would speed up the process of getting an answer and ensure that the answer comes back quickly.

In Ohio this discussion wouldn't be taking place because the state code specifies the amount of light necessary on each stair tread. So in the real world for me, this discussion is only academic.

David

 

[allenwayne]

David i think you are missing the entire point.An inspector can only make an interpetation based on a factual basis.Not because I said so,or that is what I want.I don`t have knowledge of Ohio state codes but you did state that it is in regards to minimal lighting ,is the issue of control of the lighting addressed???Now academic is in itself speculative and not definitive http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.
Again I say that unless a jurisdiction has an addendum that states that more than one point on a stairway will control all the lighting for said stairway it stands as written.You stated that I am not willing to listen.No it`s more like unless you can persuade me that the code says otherwise,I might not agree.
As Jim posted the control can be a timer/sensor or such.But you haven`t swayed me that just because an inspector says something that is final.

 

[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.

I think that the reason we are so intent on working thru this is because it's an opportunity to discuss an installation that everybody agrees that they would use multilevel or automatic control. We are really disagreeing over the reach of the authority of the AHJ and/or the inspector. What restricts the inspectors ability to make judgment calls ?

I think that's an important thing to discuss.

David

Absolutely nothing beyond his abilities. Just like there is no restriction on him jumping off of a high roof if he thinks he has the ability to do so. I personally think it would be beyond his abilities. It would be nice if we could get a quick answer to each and every question that comes up that could be uniformly applied. I am not sure we have any two States that do things the same way. It is mostly State rules and regulations that spell out what can be called a violation from any Inspector. In most States there are provisions for going to a higher level for an answer.

 

[bikeindy]

Would it be accurate to state the NEC is not an installation manual but simply it is an installation guide. The NEC is not intended to tell us Exactly how to place switches in a house because that would be nonsensical. The NEC is part of the fire protection code to protect people from morons installing wiring in any particular way the deem fit. Personally I don't like that part about having receptacles placed everywhere except that I make more money for each one the code requires me to put in. Why is there so much discussion on such a simple topic. And guess what I can put in a stairway light and switch it on and off from both landings using single pole switches or to be more technically correct SPST switches. who ever named "3ways" 3 ways is a retard anyway.

 

[dnem]

Again I say that unless a jurisdiction has an addendum that states that more than one point on a stairway will control all the lighting for said stairway it stands as written.

I completely agree !

What is written is not in dispute. And nobody is suggesting that an inspector can change what is written.

What is written stands as written and in the case of 210.70(A)(2)(c) the meaning and application of what is written is unclear, that's why the idea of interpretation has come up.

You state that what I'm saying is my interpretation and I agree with you.
I state that what you're saying is your interpretation but you don't agree.

You interpret that multiple lights over the stairway area can be controlled independently. 210.70(A)(2)(c) doesn't say that, you interpret that, and then insist that you're not interpreting.

David