The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Forum Software Upgrade coming soon...
by Webmaster
Today at 07:28 PM
Faricating Guards out if Lexan?
by frank
Today at 04:33 PM
Would ELV branch circuits be a good idea?
by LongRunner
Today at 07:42 AM
100% breakers?
by Texas_Ranger
Today at 06:13 AM
Dangerous DIY Advice
by Potseal
01/12/17 09:52 AM
New in the Gallery:
Desk-mounted "power-board"
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
HotLine1 15
gfretwell 11
ghost307 10
Webmaster 10
sparkyinak 9
Who's Online
1 registered (lesk), 193 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#94375 - 07/29/05 07:18 PM Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Alan Nadon Offline
Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 398
Loc: Elkhart, IN. USA
Section 210.70 requires lighting outlets wall switched for habitable rooms, etc. There is an exception for switched receptacles.
The definition of a lighting outlet is an outlet INTENDED for the installation of a lampholder etc.
On final inspection the contractor put blank covers on the lighting outlets and claimed that the owner would select fixtures (luminaires) at some future date.
Should the inspector accept or reject ?
We are curious in Indiana, because it is a real situation.
Should the word intended be removed from the definition (Article 100) of lighting outlet,therefore requiring a lampholder, luminaire, pendant etc. ?
Alan-- Inspector.
_________________________
Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#94376 - 07/29/05 07:29 PM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Larry Fine Offline
Member

Registered: 02/18/05
Posts: 684
Loc: Richmond, VA
I would require at least a keyless; elsewise, the requirements are not met. Without a luminaire, there is no light.
_________________________
Larry Fine
Fine Electric Co.
fineelectricco.com

Top
#94377 - 07/29/05 08:07 PM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Ryan_J Offline
Moderator

Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 1355
Loc: West Jordan, Utah, USA
Accept it. We as AHJ's can't save the world.

I mean honestly, what do you gain from having them put in a cheesy keyless?
_________________________
Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City

Top
#94378 - 07/29/05 08:18 PM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
DougW Offline
Member

Registered: 06/08/03
Posts: 1083
Loc: North Chicago, IL
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ryan_J

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

I mean honestly, what do you gain from having them put in a cheesy keyless?


Or a $5.99 Orange Box single bulb & fluted glass fixture from China.

Top
#94379 - 07/29/05 09:06 PM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Jps1006 Offline
Member

Registered: 01/22/04
Posts: 609
Loc: Northern IL
The advantage of keyless over a blank is a functioning light. Why the NEC has the requirement, I don't know specifically if it is for protetion from fire from what some clever people might do to get light, or if it to minumize the hazards of fumbling through a dark room. But for whatever the reason for the code, there is exposure to the hazard until the lights get picked out, ordered, delivered, and installed, which could be a long time. Mix some small kids in and who knows. Are ther bigger things in life to worry about, sure, but I don't think it is unreasonable to require a keyless. As an installer, I wouldn't leave a house for final with just blanks.

Top
#94380 - 07/30/05 12:18 AM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Alan:

Leaving that outlet with a blank cover is an accident waiting to happen!

I have called for the installation of at least a lampholder before signing off a final during my career.

 Quote:
Should the inspector accept or reject ?


REJECT!
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#94381 - 07/30/05 03:15 AM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
iwire Offline
Moderator

Registered: 01/05/03
Posts: 4343
Loc: North Attleboro, MA USA
 Quote:
Section 210.70 requires lighting outlets wall switched for habitable rooms, etc. There is an exception for switched receptacles.

The definition of a lighting outlet is an outlet INTENDED for the installation of a lampholder etc.


You answered your own question.

The NEC requires a lighting outlet, that is all.

If the room uses a switched outlet would you require them to install a floor lamp before you signed off?

It is the same concept.

To me the NEC is crystal clear here, a lighting outlet is not a luminaire.

For those that say reject, please provide the code reference you would cite?

Bob
_________________________
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts

Top
#94382 - 07/30/05 03:31 AM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
110.3(A)(8) and the approved plans and specifications!

Switched lighting are required, especially in bathrooms and kitchens!

Common sense, too!
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#94383 - 07/30/05 03:49 AM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
iwire Offline
Moderator

Registered: 01/05/03
Posts: 4343
Loc: North Attleboro, MA USA
 Quote:
110.3(A)(8)


110.3(A)(8) does not allow an inspector to require items not required by the text of the NEC.

 Quote:
the approved plans and specifications!


We have built many condos that simply show lighting outlets without Luminaires. The Luminaires will be chosen by whoever buys the condo which may be long after the occupancy permit is released for the building.

 Quote:
Switched lighting are required, especially in bathrooms and kitchens!


No, lighting is not required by the NEC, lighting outlets are required in these locations by the NEC

 Quote:
Common sense, too!


Well that may be true, but it is no way enforceable by an electrical inspector who works within the rules.

I would still like to hear why it is unsafe to leave a blanked up lighting outlet in a living room but it is perfectly safe to leave a switched outlet without a lamp in the same room.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Bob
_________________________
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts

Top
#94384 - 07/30/05 04:02 AM Re: Proving Intent- Inspectors dilema
Electricmanscott Offline
Member

Registered: 01/12/02
Posts: 1478
Loc: Holden, MA USA
I am with Bob on this. Perfectly clear to me as well. Joe you as a code guru who has been know to argue the literal wording of the code should certainly be able to see this. You yourself call the blanked up box an outlet. NEC requirement is met. Pass the job according to the code not personal opinion.

[This message has been edited by Electricmanscott (edited 07-30-2005).]

Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >


ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals