ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues 210.52(E)

From a construction glossary

If anything, this section should be tweaked to read "two opposite sides" of a dwelling, as opposed to front and back. I love a different view on what the "front" of the house is.

Don, exactly, and if a patio is at this level the intent is met, or if the receptacle can be accessed at this level the intent is met. I still have not seen anything that sustains the interpretation of standing on dirt as a requirement.


Roger

Roger,
I've never seen a patio or deck that was at the actual level of the earth. They are all above this level.
Don

See Table 300.5:

Notes:

1. Cover is defined as the shortest distance in millimeters (inches) measured between a point on the top surface of any direct-buried conductor, cable, conduit, or other raceway and the top surface of finished grade, concrete, or similar cover.

So finished grade is not the same as concrete or similar cover.
Don

Don, if they had not included the word "level" it would have more strength as to meaning on dirt.

I know that the panels statement in rejecting the ROP did not include the word "level" but the article does and there is no errata changing it.

If the true intent is to be standing on dirt, what if we built a raised planter box 3' high and 4' wide around the whole house and filled it with dirt, is this a new grade since we can now stand in the dirt and use the receptacle?

What would be the logic behind the reason they would want a person to be physically standing in dirt to use this receptacle?

Roger

I believe that our legal system has a long history of not prosecuting "de minimus" violations. A classic example might be not enforcing a speed limit were the individual accused of going 1 mile over :-). I submit that a deck on grade is such a minimal violation- if it is one at all!

Moreover, we also have a doctine of not applying a law where such application would result in a greater harm. We're not going to prosecute someone for driving without a license if the driver has had a heart attack- and they're being rescued. This would apply to such examples as the house on stilts because of flooding (or tides).

Indeed, in the case of follding, we can construe "grade", for our purposes, to be the high-water mark!

Has the code gotten away from "minimum for safety" and into "design" here? I agree that an outside receptacle, in a useable location, is mighty nice- but do we really want to require it?

Roger,
I have never said that this code rule is logical or makes sense. It is my opinion that the panel intends that the required outside receptacle be accessible while standing on the earth and not a porch or patio. I see no reason for this rule, but I think that is the intent of CMP2. The NJACT changes book says "Interpretation of 210.52(E) from NFPA staff and from members of the code panel has been that a receptacle outlet located above a porch or deck that is accessible at grade level does not meet the requirement of being "accessible from grade level."
Don

I think we are working too hard at this. The intent is that harry homeowner, standing in the yard with his orange cord, can get to a receptacle without climbing over the rail (accessible from grade), shoving the cord in a window/door, reaching or going up steps to reach a receptacle more than 6'6" above grade. If this is a low deck or patio, accessible from grade the receptacle on it will fulfill the requirement. IMHO
If it was screened in and you had to route the cord out a door ... no.
A more intertesting question is if the receptacle was under the deck, how high would the deck have to for the outlet be to be called "accessible"?

art 100
Accessible (as applied to equipment). Admitting close approach; not guarded by locked doors, elevation, or other effective means.