National Electrical Code

Utility Room Blues

Oct. 21, 2016

Interpreting the intent of the National Electrical Code

All references are based on the 2014 edition of the NEC.

Imagine if you were called to troubleshoot this oil-fired heating system and found there were no lights installed in this utility room. It would be very difficult to do, and could even be downright dangerous. Yet, this installation could be Code-compliant if this appliance was installed in a commercial building or some other non-dwelling occupancy. How can this be?

Ecmweb Com Sites Ecmweb com Files Uploads 2015 12 Nec Utility Rooms

Well, if we first look at the rules for dwelling units in Sec. 210.70(A)(3), it seems as though lighting would be required for this equipment, since it would most likely be installed in a basement or a utility room. Similar equipment installed in an attic or an underfloor space would also require lighting to be provided for servicing the equipment. However, once we install this same piece of equipment in an occupancy other than a dwelling unit, the rules change — and not necessarily for the better.

Section 210.70(A)(3) only applies to dwelling units. It doesn’t apply to a store, print shop, bank, bakery, or any other occupancy that is not a dwelling unit. For other occupancies, we must follow the minimum rules in Sec. 210.70(C). Unfortunately, when we read the rules in 210.70(C), we learn that the only two places that would require lighting for this type of equipment would be if it were installed in an attic or an underfloor space. Literally, zero lighting is required by the Code for servicing this oil burner if it is installed in a basement or the utility room of a building that is not a dwelling unit.

Is this a good idea? I don’t think so. I also don’t think it’s the intent of the Code to specifically exclude lighting for equipment in these non-dwelling locations. We must remember that the Code is a minimum standard. Working on equipment without good lighting could be dangerous.

Fortunately, this “loophole” gets closed up in the 2017 NEC. A new rule in Sec. 210.70(C) will follow the same requirements that we currently find in Sec. 210.70(A)(3).

This is another reminder to always use good judgment and logic when applying Code rules because the literal wording in the NEC doesn’t always match the intended meaning of the rule — despite the best efforts of everyone involved in the Code-making process.

About the Author

Russ LeBlanc | Owner

Russ started in the electrical trade as an apprentice in 1985. He worked his way up to become a Journeyman Electrician and then eventually became a Master Electrician and Licensed Construction Supervisor. In 1999 Russ become an Electrical Instructor for The Peterson School of Engineering in Massachusetts where he developed his passion for teaching, and quickly became Department Head of Electrical Instruction. Russ has taught thousands of apprentices, electricians, engineers, inspectors, and other electrical professionals during his career as an instructor. He continues to provide electrical professionals with Electrical Code seminars, Arc-Flash Awareness training seminars and educational material through his LeBlanc Consulting Services in North Reading, MA whose specialty is educating electricians. He has been an active member of the NFPA Electrical Section and has authored hundreds of National Electrical Code proposals and comments which have become Code rules to improve the safety for the electrical industry. Russ is also an IAEI certified Electrical Inspector.

Please visit www.russleblanc.net for more information.