NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnsonl

Member
As a plans examiner, I have and had required contractors to provide receptacles (GFCI) on the roof tops of commercial buildings that only have powered roof fans or ventilators on the roof, yet in many instances I have several contractors argue that the outlet is not required because the fans are ?Ventilation? equipment.

I have found that there are several interpretations to when these outlets are and are not required (i.e. just for units containing refrigerant and such), yet I believe the intent of NEC 210.63 is to provide an outlet for the service technicians who are conducting service on any rooftop HVACR, HVAC or HACR equipment that has power accessible to the unit from the rooftop, for when during servicing (i.e. drilling, cutting, refrigerant evacuation/recovery and other such operations that may require a power source), the technician may attempt to ?makeshift? available power in order to perform the maintenance or service.

Although one of Mr. Holt?s newsletters provides that this rule does not include ventilation equipment, I suggest that the 2003 ICC Mechanical Code be referenced for the definition of ?Heating, Air Conditioning and Refrigerant Equipment? (See ICC?s definitions for ?Air Conditioning?, ?Air-Conditioning Systems?, and ?Ventilation?), although I can concur with Mr. Holt?s article if the roof top equipment does not include an electrical source available to the technician (i.e. relief vents and such) to ?makeshift? an outlet from.

Also, please consider 210.63?s inclusion of Heating equipment. For example: A modular electric heater that is rooftop mounted, and used for tempering make-up air for installations requiring frequent air changes. These units are rated up to 235KW and 22,000 CFMs, depending on heating requirements. The heaters are intended for indoor or outdoor installations in commercial kitchens, factories, foundries and similar commercial and industrial occupancies, yet they have no refrigerant, yet I would require an outlet per NEC 210.63 to be installed for the stated reason above of the ?technician may attempt to ?makeshift? and out from the available power in order to perform maintenance (i.e. drilling, cutting and such)?.

Comments Please,

With Thanks,
Larry

(The following is an excerpt from Mr. Holts' newsletter concerning this subject):

210.63 Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Equipment Outlet
The words ?on rooftops and in attics and crawl spaces? and the exception were deleted so that this rule would coordinate with the mechanical code. This section now reads:
A 15 or 20A, single-phase 125V receptacle outlet must be installed at an accessible location for the servicing of heating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment (HACR) on rooftops and in attics and crawl spaces. The receptacle must be located within 25 ft. and on the same level of the heating, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment. The receptacle outlet cannot be connected to the load side of the equipment disconnecting means... Figure 210?8 Author?s Comment: This rule does not apply to ventilating equipment.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

It is hard with the discussion of 'intent' going on right now in another thread, but I believe you must again go to the rule itself, and not the 'intent'.

I believe that a recept for servicing should be located near exhaust hoods. It makes sense to me, but that is my belief, not a decision based in the code rule.

I don't know what the original intent was behind this rule, by not including all air handling equipment and limiting it to heating and air cond. This rule is specific in what it lists.

What I believe should be and what is written is different.

According to the rule, no recept is needed in this case.

[ May 17, 2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: milwaukeesteve ]
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I would agree with Steve. If it's not on the list than it's not required.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

milwaukeesteve and infinity,

I appreciate your input, but I specifically chose to use the word ?intent?, for the 2002 NEC Hand book describes the rational of 210.63 the Handbook also uses the word ?intended? in part if its description of why these outlets are required in these locations.

With Thanks,

Larry
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I haven't read the opening post because it's really long and I'm really lazy.

Johnsonl, you're using both intent and the handbook?

Neither are enforceable.

I'm might be missing the point though. Im just thought I'd point that out.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

In follow up to my original posting, I provide the following as additional support concerning requiring a rooftop outlet to a comercial building that only has mechanical ventilation (i.e ones that have power to them supplied at the rooftop unit), and they are as follows:


1. NEC 90.1 (A) Practical Safegaurding

2. NEC 90.1 (B) Adequacy

3. NEC 90.1 (C) Intention

4. NEC 90.1 (D) Relation to Internation Standards

5. NEC 90.4 Enforcement

6. NEC 210.8 (B)(2) GFCI Protection

7. NEC 210.63 Required Outlets

8. NEC 440.3 Air-Conditioning and Refigerating Equipment

Please note: NEC 440.3 references NEC 430 (Motors).
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I have and had required contractors to provide receptacles (GFCI) on the roof tops of commercial buildings that only have powered roof fans or ventilators on the roof, yet in many instances I have several contractors argue that the outlet is not required because the fans are ?Ventilation? equipment.
Click to expand...
I agree with the contractors that 210.63 does not apply to a fan. And because I can't find a definition for any of the equipment listed in 210.63 I guess we have to make an educated guess or ask the AHJ to decide what that equipment is.

yet I believe the intent of NEC 210.63 is to provide an outlet for the service technicians who are conducting service on any rooftop HVACR, HVAC or HACR equipment that has power accessible to the unit from the rooftop, for when during servicing (i.e. drilling, cutting, refrigerant evacuation/recovery and other such operations that may require a power source), the technician may attempt to ?makeshift? available power in order to perform the maintenance or service.
Click to expand...
This has no effect on what the code says.

But I think it's completely reasonable to put a receptacle there. Just not a code requirement.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

While looking up the definitions for the ICC terms, look up the definition for "malicious prosecution" which is the legal term for requiring something that is not in the code. :)
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I just checked your profile, and you're an inspector? :(

Shame.

Edit: As far as intent, I think it would have been easier to say "roof mounted equipment" if that's what the "intent" was.

[ May 17, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

You maybe interested to know that Proposal 2-246 Log 457 revised section 210.63 by adding "ventilation" equipment. The proposal was rejected. The Panel statement, "The panel does not agree to extend the requirement to ventilating equipment, as the service needs for this equipment differ from those of heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment."

Proposal 2-247 Log 1633 was similar in that the submitter wanted to include all equipment that may require servicing. This proposal was rejected as well.

And if you look at the new exception to this section, not even evaporative coolers at one- and two-family dwellings require a service receptacle.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Bryan's comment is a great example of knowing the intent or comments in the code making process when an AHJ makes interpretaions of the Code. Thanks for that Bryan.
I always examine what I know about the code when someone posts a question like that.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Johnsonl, you included 90.4 in your list, you don't have the misconception that 90.4 gives you permission to create code requirements do you?

Wouldn't this infact be insulting those who as a group write the code?

Roger
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

It also points out how "guessing" what the intent is isn't very useful.

Edit: responding to Larry's post. Roger snuck in on me.

[ May 17, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

johnsonl,

What is your motivation in this matter? List me one saftey concern that you have that demands a 125vac GFCI recpt. for an exhaust fan service?

frank
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

From the feed back I am receiving, I have to conclude that although there are requirements to provide access, a level work surface and working space and clearances for mechanical ?Ventilation? equipment, there are arguments that providing an accessible GFCI outlet for the service technician is unwarranted.

It would seem then that the preference is to have the technician ?Makeshift? an outlet or utilize an extension cord that may or may not be plugged into a GFCI outlet, and being that the rooftop at some time may be damp or wet is not a concern.

I guess I am glad that I am wrong in requiring these outlets be installed in circumstances that seem warranted based upon the buildings design and servicing needs, and that I am also wrong in thinking that providing this requirement for protection to the service technician is a good thing. Mmmmm.


International Mechanical Code (IMC)

IMC 202 Definitions: Air Conditioning, Equipment, Ventilation

IMC 301.7 Electrical

IMC 310.11 Repair

IMC 306.5 Equipment and appliances on roofs or elevated structures

IMC 306.6 Sloped roofs
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I sense some sarcasm.

I think what people are pointing out is that there is something you think ought to be in the NEC that is just not there.

Rather than make up such a requirement out of thin air, the proper way to handle it is to submit a code change rquest stating your thinking.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I'm not trying to be mean to you, but I guess you haven't actually read the responses.

It isn't a code requirement and you shouldn't be trying to require it as an inspector.

That's all.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

Date: Wed Jul 16 2003
Report #: 2542
Code: Building
Section: 423.1
Question:
Is it the intent of 423.1 to allow Public Educational Facilities (Public Schools, Community and Junior
Colleges) to enforce more restrictive requirements as may be imposed and communicated via Project
Manuals (Specifications), Drawings or other methods without submitting for a Local Amendment to such?
Answer:
The Florida Building Code, including Section 423, establishes minimum standards for building
construction. School Boards (as building owners) may impose more restrictive requirements.
Commentary:
Specifications for a project may impose construction requirements greater than the code minimum
standards. Those specifications do not become local code amendments and are not required to be adopted
as such.
Notice:
The Building Officials Association of Florida, in cooperation with the Florida Building Commission, the Florida Department
of Community Affairs, SBCCI, and industry and professional experts offer this interpretation of the Florida Building Code in
the interest of consistency in their application statewide. This interpretation is informal, non−binding and subject to
acceptance and approval by the local building official.
 
Re: NEC 210.63 Re-visited (Again)

I see where the "school board" acting as the "building owner" can include a receptacle on the roof.

Edit: I also see this:

This interpretation is informal
Click to expand...

[ May 18, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top