210.63 - AC Receptacles

[George Stolz]

1.) NEC Section/Paragraph: 210.63
2.) Proposal Recommends: [revised text]
3.) Proposal:

Add the following text to section 210.63:

210.63 Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Equipment Outlet. A 125-volt, single-phase, 15- or 20-ampere-rated receptacle outlet shall be installed at an accessible location for the servicing of heating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. The receptacle shall be located on the same level and within 7.5 m (25 ft) of the heating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. The receptacle outlet shall not be connected to the load side of the equipment disconnecting means. Where an indoor receptacle is intended for the servicing of outdoor equipment, it shall have GFCI protection for personnel.

4.) Substantiation: Given the infrequent nature of servicing the equipment mentioned in this section, it should be permissible to utilize an indoor receptacle for such tasks, provided GFCI protection is provided.

This proposal is submitted to coordinate with a related proposal concerning 400.1, to clearly exclude factory-assembled extension cords for temporary tasks from the purview of the NEC.

[ August 21, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[bphgravity]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

Who determines when an indoor receptacle is intended to be used for servicing the equipment?

Couldn't I as an overbearing and unreasonable inspector suggest that any and every receptacle in an occupancy could be used with an extension cord by maintenance workers to serve equipment?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

Bryan,

I'd say it's reasonable to assume that if a receptacle isn't placed outdoors, any receptacle within 25' of the equipment is fair game to be required to be GFI protected.

But when did you start playing that role?

 

[iwire]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Where an indoor receptacle is intended for the servicing of outdoor equipment, it shall have GFCI protection for personnel

George in my opinion an indoor outlet can not be used as the outlet for servicing an outdoor unit. IMO a receptacle inside the building is not at the same level as the equipment outside the building. I have never seen a building that was not at least a step or two above grade.

Also take a look at "Accessible"

Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

IMO if you expect me to through a cord through a window to service an outdoor unit you have a violation of 210.63

[ August 22, 2005, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

I expect to get access to the interior of a person's home if I am servicing their equipment.

Notice, it's not readily accessible. We can go through a hoop or two and still be compliant.

What about changing to "a receptacle installed within 25' for 210.52(G) shall be permitted in lieu of a receptacle outside"?

 

[cselectric]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

I'm not quite sure I understand the need for this proposal. What exactly is the objection to outside GFI's?

 

[iwire]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

Originally posted by georgestolz:
I expect to get access to the interior of a person's home if I am servicing their equipment.

Notice, it's not readily accessible. We can go through a hoop or two and still be compliant.

George I am aware of the differences between readily accessible and accessible.

Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

The NEC does not know if you will get access to the persons home or not and keep in mind 210.63 applies to all occupancies not just dwelling units.

You still have not addressed elevation.

IMO it is extraordinarily hack to expect an inside receptacle to serve as the service receptacle for an outdoor unit.

I would never expect an inspector to accept that, you might as well just remove 210.63 altogether. :roll:

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

I probably deserve that.

Naa, I definutely deserve that.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.63 - AC Receptacles

Originally posted by iwire:

Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.

You still have not addressed elevation.

Do you consider traversing two steps to an otherwise accessible porch to be "guarded by elevation"?

Some AHJ's I know of would.

I disagree.

Edit to add: I failed a house recently for my receptacle for the back of the house being at the back door, which was on a deck with a railing and stairs, approximately five feet above grade.

I installed another receptacle, accepting the phrase "accessible from grade level" as one term, instead of realizing "accessible" was a defined term.

So couldn't it be read as "[accessible] from grade level"? "Close approach" is provided by the stairs leading to the deck.

[ August 23, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]