The problem with 210.52(E) & 210.63

Status
Not open for further replies.

bikeindy

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis IN
Jim W in Tampa said:
The customer is blaming the wrong person.But then its them that wanted cheap to start with.Now they are willing to pay.

I know that. But that doesn't change the fact of what their perception is. Pay for quality are you kidding me that was the good ol' USA not today. Buy cheep pay twice or three times in the long run but feel good today. But thats for another forum.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
mpd said:
david

what extension cords are you talking about? would you rather have the HVAC contractor use alligator clips & a receptacle and tap power out of the air cond. disconnect?

The handbook commentary for 210.52(A)(1) page 88 talks about this requirement being placed in the codebook "thus eliminating the need for extension cords" in all of the rooms covered by 210.52(A).

The spacing in 210.52(C)(1) is based on a 2 foot appliance cord used without an extension cord.

In 210.63 the 25 foot rule allows the service worker to only have to carry a 25 foot extension cord to do their work.

210.52(E) lacks a location restriction so the extension cords get strung like Christmas light stringers from the AC plug to the back deck.

I think it would be better for the AC service worker to use alligator clips and leave the back plug where it can be used year round. Better yet would be to fix 210.63.

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Shockedby277v said:
David, was your house built by the lowest bidder?? :)

No, my house was built in the 50s

I have to inspect all of the houses built/remodeled including all of the lowest bidder houses.

David
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
bikeindy said:
I don't work for GC's that are so cheap I can't tell them that I need to provide a back porch receptacle and a service receptacle for the AC and not get paid for it. I also locate a receptacle next to the Furnace even if one is going to be placed 10' away. I think it is a quality thing to do. People rely on us to provide them with a good electrical system, that includes other trades who will be working at the home that is purchased by the person who deserves to have a receptacle where it is most useful to them. Do both and get paid, tell the GC I do good work not minimum work. If they are doing the minimum and expect you to do so, do you really want your name on the panel?

If every contractor added to their bids to cover what they thought constituted a "quality" job, you would never be able to build affordable housing for the average Joe.

For reasons that make no sense at all to me, even though most people rarely use them, many areas of the country require bathtubs. A bathtub takes up a lot of room and adds a lot of cost to a bathroom, and most people probably shower rather than bathe anyway. Its a nice feature, but it adds a lot of cost.

There is no reason a perfectly safe and usable, but small home could not be built for $20,000 except for all the code design issues that add lots of cost.

My take is build what the HO wants to pay for. GCs are pretty good at figuring out what that is.
 

allenwayne

Senior Member
georgestolz said:
Another feature of 210.63 that is ridiculous is "accessible from grade." A receptacle could be 5 feet away from the A/C unit, but on an accessible porch (which is above grade), and not be allowed to serve 210.63.

And, before someone says, "Yeah, right, no one would enforce it to that extreme..." rest assured, I've had to talk my way out of adding a receptacle in just such a circumstance. A proposal is in order.

Don has posted an ROP where the CMP actually stated that the receptacle must be accessible while standing on the ground. A proposal to change this would have to be very compelling to change their minds on this, I imagine.
Maybe not a consideration where you live but here we have different flood levels and some are as far as 14 ft. above sea level how do we make a receptacle accesable from grade level when the flood level and the unit as well as the service are 14 ft. above sea level and grade is 0 ft,maybe2 ft. above flood level.We are allowed one gfci receptacle and one light switching device below flood level BTW the switch doesn`t have to be gfci protected..It is usually the 3 way that controls the interior stairway light.Also the elevator feed is allowed to be within this flood level but doesn`t have to be gfci protected.I don`t make the rules here just follow them.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Jim W in Tampa said:
Builders want cheap because thats what sells.What they get is 1 or 2 year helpers wiring there house.The 25 foot cord issue is crazy.A 50 foot rule would make more since.What gets me is that on small office buildings this required outlet for ac is often off an allready loaded circuit with computers.It is asking for a problem.Also on roof tops it often means several outlets because of distance being over 25.

"Also on roof tops it often means several outlets because of distance being over 25."

And yet another reason why the 25 foot rule is stupid !

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Pierre C Belarge said:
210.63 does not require one to use loaded computer circuits, it does not require having extension cords installed. If those conditions should arise, it is a design issued that is developed by "cheap" people, not code requirements.

Also adding 210.63 as an additional receptacle to the required back yard receptacle is sort of going against the grain of thought here isn't it??? Why ask for more to be installed because there are a few lazy/cheap people out there?

I do not see this as an issue where we live/work.

A pet peeve should not become a code requirement.

Just my 5 cents worth;)

"Why ask for more to be installed because there are a few lazy/cheap people out there?"

Because it's not just a few cheap people. I inspect whole developments of 400 to 600 houses that are all filled with extension cords leading to the back porch. I do inspections on some of the last houses in those neighborhoods and as I look around, there are orange cords strung along the rear foundation of every house.

It certainly is a pet peeve but that doesn't mean it doesn't have substance. It's a hazard that was caused by an [apparently] unintended interaction between 210.63 & 210.52(E).

If extension cord use is just a design issue and not a safety hazard than we should throw out 210.52(A)(1), (A)(2)(1), & (C)(1).

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
cpal said:
The imortant thing to focus on is that the Code process is by public review. The last pages of the book and the NFPA web site will provide a form for proposals to create new Code language or modify or remove existing language. The proposals for the 2011 edition will be due no later than November of 2011. You may request copies of the Repot of Proposals for the 2008 NEC by calling the NFPA. They will send them to you for Free!!!.

If this subject has been raised through this cycle you will have a vehicle by which to make coment during the seconded consensus period.

Strong feelings sometimes promote afirmed actions and create changes. Be part of the solution.

Just a thought!

Charlie

"The proposals for the 2011 edition will be due no later than November of 2011."

There is something wrong with your dates.
You might want to correct something.
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
dduffee260 said:
Ok. so it sounds like houses are being wired "cheap" because of GC's who will not pay more than a nickle profit on a house. I have a solution for this. Looks like all electrical contractors need to go up on their prices. I will make this prmoise. If everyone else goes up, after a few years of making sure they are good to their word then I will go up !!!!........That is a win -win deal for sure !!

"If everyone else goes up, after a few years of making sure they are good to their word then I will go up !!!!"

I've got a feeling that you're not going to get many takers for your suggestion
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
infinity said:
You're fortunate that you have builders who are not building to absolute minimums. But they're out there. Around here we call them "builder special homes" where everything in the place is based solely on one thing, price. If someone who prides themself as a quality contractor doesn't want to build that way then their competitors will be working and they won't. I love when the homeowner asks why there bathroom exhaust fan sounds like a plane taking off. I tell them that they got what their builder was willing to pay for.

"If someone who prides themself as a quality contractor doesn't want to build that way then their competitors will be working and they won't."

And whoever it is that ends up doing the work, us inspectors will keep seeing the results, and homeowners will keep stringing those extension cords out.

David
 

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Pierre C Belarge said:
Dave
If this is such an issue in your jurisdiction, why not talk to the AHJ and see if there can be a local amendment.

As of May 27, 2006 local amendments are not allowed in Ohio.

Any change would have to come from the state thru the building code or national from the NEC.

David
 

mpd

Senior Member
david

I do not see this section being a problem or a hazard, I cannot recall one phone call from a homeowner complaining about the location of the outside receptacles, and even if I did if the job is code compliant I could care less, let the homeowner & contractor fight it out, not my problem as an inspector.
 

JohnE

Senior Member
Location
Milford, MA
David,

In my area I don't think that I've ever seen a back deck without a receptacle. If I were in your area, I think I'd feel the same as you.

A proposal should be made to mandate a receptacle on a deck.

More important than on an island IMO.

With that said, all the homeowners you've mentioned should and could hire an electrician to install a receptacle on the deck. The cord isn't the only solution.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top