ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema

Steve, so right back at you. As an inspector, you would still need to recite a code that is being violated, what ever code that may be.

If not, we are back to where we were in this conversation, and that is, the wording in the NEC, as you admit, doesn't require it.


Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 08-26-2005).]

I have read through this thread, and it amazes me how some will take what they personally like to do and try to inject that process into the actual code wording.

"210.70 Lighting Outlets Required. Lighting outlets shall be installed where specified in 210.70(A), (B), and (C).
(A) Dwelling Units. In dwelling units, lighting outlets shall be installed in accordance with 210.70(A)(1), (2), and
(3).
(1) Habitable Rooms. At least one wall switch-controlled lighting outlet shall be installed in every habitable room and bathroom.
Exception No. 1: In other than kitchens and bathrooms, one or more receptacles controlled by a wall switch shall be permitted in lieu of lighting outlets.


In joining these forums and especially in my duties as an inspector, I try to read what is written and then enforce that - once in a while actually explaining to the contractor/electrician that it is the minimum and more could be done to protect him/herself from possible trouble in the future.

With that being said, this section does not require a luminaire, it requires a lighting outlet - which is distinctly defined. So this should not be a code issue.

What I see happening here is the personal preference as to how to finish the job for a final.

Contractors have at it and do what you like.

Inspectors, inspect for code - if the ceiling or wall sconce LIGHTING OUTLET is blanked - so be it.

I perform some of the most thorough inspections contractors have seen (most not too happy about it either ), yet I do not test all parts of the installation to see it all works.

As Ryan stated early on:

"Accept it. We as AHJ's can't save the world."

Alan asked if the inspector should accept or reject the installation in Indiana. I say not if some other code requires it.
If using the IRC or IBC, illumination is required if there is less than 8% glazed area per floor area exists. Stairway illumination is required with different switching reqs depending on the location of the stairs.

Saying the NEC doesn't require it -end of story-- is not an acceptable or responsible or complete answer.

I know this is an electrical contractors site, but all codes that relate to electrical work, not just the NEC, can and should be applied to the electrical contractor.

But yes, more than 8% glazed area does not require any type of artificial illumination per IRC or IBC(except egress paths with exceptions).

Alan should check his adopted building code and check for amendments. If the I-codes are adopted then make sure there is a light and ventilation schedule on the plans to verify whether artificial illumination is required.

We are not bound (or trying) to only discuss electrical code requirements from the NEC on this board, right?

I'm with Steve on this, reguardless of MY personal, feelings on the matter...
I hate whem my wife leaves the table lamps on, and I have to turn on my mandatory lighting outlet, so I can get back accross the room without trippng over the coffee table.

If all that is required is a wall switch to be final, are you (inspectors out there)then planning to go back for the light? Like mentioned, other codes do require illumination. For instance under CA's Title-24, I have to install "high-efficiancy lighting" in certain room, and the Electrical Inspector is responsable for making sure I do so. I cant blank them...

Likewise, if someone installed a reccessed can in a closet, would you allow them to leave it there, because it did not have a bulb and trim in it? Its a "lighting outlet", but incomplete without a proper bulb and trim suiting the area it is installed in. That would not be a completed for final job would it?

And I think that it is pretty clear that the NEC that they want you to turn something on as you enter the room if they will require a switched outlet, in leiu of a "lighting outlet".

Sounds like they expect light to eminate from those additional "junction boxes" in the wall or cieling. As it is not a "lighting outlet", unless it has a light in it.

Alan brought up the use of "intended" in the definition of lighting outlet. For those of us with the code on CD, search that word...

I guess if they didn't intend to have a light in the lighting outlet. They didn't want the code enforced, or to pay any attention to the definitions either.

Not trying to yank chains, but these debates are just all about minced words are the not?

So if it is intended for a light, shouldn't it have one?

Steve, as long as there is a code (any code) requiring it, it is required. This is not being argued and has been pointed out earlier in this thread.


It is if we are discussing just the NEC.

The point that the NEC doesn't require it is a fact.


We should discuss all applicable codes, but we should be acurate in what we are saying or enforcing.


Roger

I've got to agree with e57, the sticking point here is the word intended. And, as I said earlier, I personally think that the key is the whole phrase intended for the direct connection. IMO what they are trying to do is say that the lighting outlet has a luminaire, lampholder, etc. directly connected to it as opposed to cord and plug connected. You get the permission to use the switched outlet to cord and plug connect in other than kitchens and bathrooms in the exception to 210.70(A)(1). But, only in habitable rooms. No such exception exists for the other required lighting outlets such as those in hallways, stairways, exterior entrances, storage & equipment spaces, etc. In those spaces or areas the luminaire or lampholder must be directly connected to the lighting outlet. For obvious reasons, I might add.

All that having been said, we don't know for sure what the intentions of CMP 2 were on the lighting issue or, for that matter, CMP 1 in regards to that definition. Hopefully Alan's proposal will either bring about a change, or at least cause the CMP's to clarify what they had intended.

I think we can all agree with that.

Roger

I don't think the proposal has any chance of passing.

Where are the dead bodies? Do you have data showing acciednts caused by this?

CMP 1 should also be sent a proposal since they are responsible for the definitions.

I'm not really sure we need to show them dead bodies on this one. It's just that with the proposal, the CMP's will either reject them because they didn't have in mind that the fixtures have to be installed, accept it because they want fixtures installed, or by their commentary in the ROP, clarify what the language actually means. I see this as less of a disagreement on the actual issue and more of one of semantics. Read that definition and place the emphasis on different wording, and it can indeed take on more than one meaning. So, it's less about dead bodies than it is about "tell us what you meant to say here".

[This message has been edited by Mvannevel (edited 08-30-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Mvannevel (edited 08-30-2005).]