Dedicated Circuit: Is Junction Box Required?

[Twayne]

By law, there has to be. It's a legal requirement, I'm afraid.

HTH,

Twayne`

[dpb]

Twayne wrote: ...

The first part of that is sorta' true; the last sentence is complete and utter hogwash. It appears you are the one under a serious misconception. NEC has no standing other than whatever whichever jurisdiction in charge choose to give it. It is NOT law nor have any status such as that. As so, local jurisdictions could choose to ignore it entirely and do it all on there own or w/ some other basis than NEC. That they don't is simply reflective that there's no reason to reinvent the wheel in general not that there's any inviolate mandate or law the requires it.

And, again, while undoubtedly you're in and have always been in locations for which that is true doesn't mean it is universal.

As noted, locally there is no code provision at all in the County outside the 3-mile limit for other than sewer/water.

The county _requests_ that folks do get permits for residential building but they have no authority in place to require it.

--

[RBM]

I get it now. The world acording to Twayne

[dpb]

Twayne wrote: ...

...

Why should I not believe what is so? And, thank you very much, we like the status quo very much.

And, of course, you're welcome to disbelieve whatever you wish; it's not uncommon for city folk in populated areas to think its required for governments to take care of everything for them.

The "city" is county seat w/ population of roughly 20,000. The State allows municipalities to extend their zoning, etc., to 3-miles from city limits but beyond that it's the county's call. Being as it is rural and farmers are notoriously independent when it comes to what they think is the best for their operation, it's not at all surprising there's no support for additional zoning in the county.

The sewage/well requirement was in response to the proliferation of trailers and so on in a couple of areas within the county and has been adequate to curb further excesses since adopted. My Dad, in fact, served on the joint city-county planning commission for some 20 years and was instrumental in drafting same years ago.

Again, there's a whole lot of territory out here that most folks don't know nuthin' about...

--

[dpb]

Twayne wrote: ...

...

Cite? It certainly isn't federal law (or hasn't made itself known locally anyway) and see above for local situation here...

--

[RBM]

I know I'm jealous. Where I live, in Bill Clinton's back yard, you can't piss without a permit

[Evan]

.com,

LOL... So there is no possible conflict of interest there at all...

You PAY a company to inspect, would you keep paying them if they failed your work... LOL...

Who randomly spot checks various types of installations to be sure that the codes are actually being interpreted and correctly applied...

Sounds to me you could shop around for an private inspection firm which is less strict than another...

Tell me which state/county this is in so I will never stay in any structure there, as they are not being inspected by an uninterested party like the government...

~~ Evan

[Evan]

So, theoretically, a business could build a hotel establishment along a highway somewhere and if it is outside the "3-mile limit" no one bats an eyelash about it other than where the sewage goes ?

LOL... Sounds _real_ safe...

Or are there exceptions to these exemptions for certain occupancy types... Given that such places are often only protected by a volunteer fire department your house will be mostly burnt down by the time the fire is brought under control...

This is why inspection by government inspectors is something people should want... The government has no financial interest in when the work gets signed off, you pay the permitting fees up front and property taxes if applicable no matter what is on your land...

To leave one private business who has a financial interest in maintaining a business relationship with an electrician who installed wiring for a customer of their own and therefore a financial interest in passing inspection to get paid for the job and hoping that the first and foremost priority in all cases is life safety is something you gotta have your head buried really far into the sand to buy into...

~~ Evan

[Evan]

ROFL... Where I come from "city limits" means the boundary where one city becomes another, or you are leaving the city and entering into unincorporated county lands... NOT the extent of the densely populated central district of the city...

If you get power, water and police/fire services from a city, you should be bound by their codes no matter how far you live from the center of the built up area...

Wow, there are still some backward parts of the US that live in potentially unsafe dwellings like people in 3rd world countries...

:-O

~~ Evan

[Bob]

Unless the local government has been bought off by unions or other special interests who require permitees to spend more than is necessary on building projects, only to benefit certain trades. Think of all those fire traps of houses outside of Chicago with wiring that is not in metallic conduit.

[RBM]

LOL... So there is no possible conflict of interest there at all...

You PAY a company to inspect, would you keep paying them if they failed your work... LOL...

Who randomly spot checks various types of installations to be sure that the codes are actually being interpreted and correctly applied...

Sounds to me you could shop around for an private inspection firm which is less strict than another...

Tell me which state/county this is in so I will never stay in any structure there, as they are not being inspected by an uninterested party like the government...

~~ Evan

So you believe that somehow a government inspector is less likely to become corrupt than a private inspector? That's actually pretty funny, and very naive. The truth is up until a few years ago my area was inspected by one company, in fact the original electrical inspection company, in fact the same company that did electrical inspection for Thomas Edison. The company had no competition, could charge whatever they wanted, had complete autonomy, and went bankrupt after a hundred years due to corruption and mismanagement. The current system works much better for everyone concerned, but if you feel endangered by successful free enterprise, than feel free to not visit New York City and it's environs

[bud--]

That is good advice coming from Twayne, because Twayne's code advice is usually wrong.

It is reassuring to know that Twayne is more familiar with the code enforcement in RBM's area than Roy is.

The NEC is put together only by the NFPA. It is generally (but not always) consistent with other organizations regulations and standards.

Complete bull crap.

The NEC has *no* authority except as part or all of it is adopted or modified by an "authority having jurisdiction". The authority can do what they want, including "loosening" the NEC. Or no electrical code may be in effect. If state or lower entities do not adopt a code there is no code for residential. I believe there is some rather basic electrical in OSHA.

Why does there have to be? Cite the requirement. Feds? UN? T-party? The pope?

Zoning is not the same as building codes.

The code that is enforced locally is about always based on the NEC. Most code requirement questions can be faithfully answered on this newsgroup. There are many people on this newsgroup that are quite familiar with the NEC. Obviously Twayne is not one of them.

As usual. Power factor correction capacitors. Using a dryer neutral for a ground. Class 1, 2, 3 transformers.

[Doug Miller]

Wrong. The Code describes itself as "contain[ing] provisions that are considered necessary for electrical safety." Nowhere does it describe itself as a set of minimum standards. Further, the Code specifically authorizes local jurisdictions to waive provisions of the Code.

Wrong. The Code is the product of *one* organization, the NFPA.

Wrong; as noted above, local jurisdictions are explicitly permitted under the Code to waive portions of it if they choose. Further, the Code itself has no legal force unless adopted as law by a particular jurisdiction -- and nothing at all prevents a jurisdiction from adopting only part of the Code as law, should they choose to do so.

It would help a lot more if it were true. Perhaps you should stick to giving advice on topics you actually know something about, if there are any. This isn't one of them.

[Twayne]

Wow, you guys may be pros, but you're missing a lot! The requirements of the NEC cannot be ignored or loosened without case by case investigation and approval, meaning good reason. Any loosening of the code that's possible is included IN the NEC itself or its references. The only way to avoid NEC adherance is to superced the entire context with another, stronger document with adjustments in areas necessary. Somce California cites are a great example of this. Rather than asssting in general, you choose to nit-pick and extoll the exceptions to the rules, without regard to location or authority, and that tells me that you are dangerous people to take advice from.

Just for grins, I took this e-mail to our local inspector's office where I know the inspectors. We went to lunch together (we each paid our own way) and this was the general concensus:

-- You sound like the type where intent of the requirements isn't your strong point.

-- You are the type to cut corners, most likely.

-- Your atttudes are far from what's needed in having the client's benefit in mind.

-- And your understanding of the NEC and how/when/where it's applied appears to be seriously lacking IF you are in a role where they matter to the work you do.

-- I did not know the NEC could be replaced, which they showed me in black and white.

-- I came off as condescending and may have inspired your trollity. Yeah, I learned a new word!

As for the rest of your trollish BS and silliness, it's been deleted; not needed for this response.

HTH,

Twayne`

[krw]

No, it is *you* who is missing a lot. Try reading.

You're wrong (but I doubt you'll read my post any more than you read others). The NEC has no special god-given authority. The NFPA is a *private* non-profit company that publishes a standard that is useful for government entities to reference in their laws. It is up to the governmental entity with jurisdiction to include the NEC, subsets of the NEC, or other rules into *its* laws. The laws do *not* have to include the entire NEC or any other rules.

Absolutely wrong. The cities can write whatever electrical codes they wish. Usually they reference the NEC because it's easier and they don't have the expertise of the NFPA. They are usually stricter that the NEC, but there is no reason they can't be more lax. Often they reference older versions of the NEC.

No, you're being told that you're *WRONG*, but you're too pig headed to read.

I'm sure you told them everything that was said here. Yeah, right.

When you're wrong, you're *really* wrong.

[Twayne]

Of course not!, AFAIK, and it should not anyway since NEC is NOT the body responsible for deciding what is a set of minimal requirements and what is not. It is, however the MINIMAL requirements for the US fire and personal safety protection requirements. It may specify say 8 conductors in a certain box: no more than 8 in a box can be used and still pass the electrical code. It is not possible for another body to step in and say BS, I'll allow

10, or 12, or 21! It can spec a minimal distance between objects, but as before that distance can NOT be made less but it CAN be more! You need to get a grip and actually think about what you're on about before spewing misinformation to the world, in particular the type that indicates a final word on a location's requirements can be gotten from this newsgroup and be as good or better than going to the local controlling authority.

What you are trying to say, and failing to do, and only bringing up confusion for most who are not familiar wth these areas, is that the NEC comes from a SMALL part of the NFPA - 70 I think? Not sure but if YOU don't know, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. The NEC is a set of "regulations" for protection of personnel and property safety in electrical installations. Except for heavily more stringent regulations, NOT weaker. Fiber-optics is one such area, but nit-picking of that kind only serves to dillute the credibility of your own input. The NFPA "adopted" NEC and approved by ANSI. I almost defy you to cite ANY local which has less stringent rules than the NEC unless the artcles concern something that is Not Applicable to the region. You will find that even such a case, should it exist, is NOT the end of the line and WILL have been approved, usually by ANSI. I don't mention the other 3 because I don't want to do your homework for you.

Urban Renewals has this short, concise definition: The accepted standard for installation of wiring and associated devices. It is written by a panel of experts and printed by the National Fire Prevention Association. Top of Page [Top]

Oh, then how come the NEC calls FOR the NFPA in many sections if IT IS the NFPA sourced it? It's not uncommon at all to see things like: " NEC REQUIREMENT ? Either of the following listing requirements** A. Underwriters Laboratories B. FM Global

• Refer to NFPA 220 for definition of non-combustible Type I and II building construction.

** Fine Print Note, Section 450.23, (B)(1) states: "Installations adjacent to combustible material, fire escapes, or door and window openings may require additional safeguards such as those listed in Section 450.27. It says to go to the NFPA for DEFINITIONS, not for rules. The NEC contains the rules. "

The NEC is NOT the NFPA! Two different offices, two different functions in the overall scheme of things. Also: NEC REQUIREMENT ? Either of the following listing requirements** A. Underwriters Laboratories B. FM Global " Why are those NEC requirements and not NFPA if you actually know what you're talking about. And then: " NEC OPTIONS* ? Both liquid confinement, and either of the following listing requirements A. Underwriters Laboratories B. FM Global or ? Both liquid confinement and auto extinguishment or ? Vault per NEC 450, Part III

• No additional safeguards are required if one or more of Exceptions 1-6 of Section 450.26, Oil-Insulated Transformers Installed Indoors apply. "

"

The above is so far off base as to make me wonder whether you anything but a passing familiarity with NEC, NFPA/NEC, ANSI, UL and the other associated bodies. You CAN build anything you want to, but trying to sell or installing it, besides negating insurances, is definitely a legal requirement of any jurisdictional body. A good example of not having NEC labelling can be found in California: Without the LosAngeles "Orange" sticker for instance, you aren't going to sell anything legally. And guess what that entails? Yup; NEC or UL or one of several other MOU's they carry/allow. But not a single one of them is going to be less stringent than the NEC Is. NYS is another one, Chicago was going to something like the "sticker" thing, but I don't know if they have done so.

So let's get real and talk about the subjects the OP's ASK about, not hair splitting and silliness such as has gone on thru these last couple days. If I've bruised your precious ego, that's your problem not mine.

HTH,

Twayne`

[Twayne]

What town/city/village/county/state do you live in? Perhaps I can help you with that.

It's folly to take advice from people that cannot see/experience your specific problem wthout knowing first what the specific requirements are. You won't get that here; you'll get advice and guesses. 99.99% of the country DOES have their own local offices, so whatever your problem is, and I think it's just not knowing where/who to call/write to, so the advice to check with them is excellent advice. Without information from the controlling authority, you cannot be expected to adhere to the code, even if all it says is to adhere to the NEC.

HTH,

Twayne`

[Twayne]

I suspect the problem there may be simply not knowing where the responsibility lies and the rest might be sort of educated guesses. He only mentioned county; nothing about town or state, for instance. I know it can be hard to figure out sometimes and it becomes important if it's an insured property.

HTH,

Twayne`

[Twayne]

Where specifically is that?

HTH,

Twayne`

[Twayne]

So ... call a professional then. I hope the one you call has the proper license/background. Who then does the inspections?