ECN Forum
Posted By: Roger 210.52(E) - 05/24/05 11:59 PM
I was having a conversation with a friend this past Friday and this subject came up.

Does anybody have a clue as to why there is a difference in the two paragraphs?

What's the difference between "at grade level" as worded in the first paragraph and "from grade level" as worded in the second paragraph, and if there is a difference, why?

There is also some handbook commentary

Quote
NEC 2005 Handbook commentary

For one- and two-family dwellings, the phrase accessible at grade level clearly requires that the two required receptacle outlets are to be available to a person standing on the ground (at grade level). Outdoor receptacle outlets on decks, porches, and similar structures can be used to meet 210.52(E) as long as the receptacle outlet is not more than 6 1/ 2 ft above grade and can be accessed by a person standing at grade.


What does that mean?

What about receptacles installed on a ;

1. concrete patio at grade level?

2. concrete patio 8 inches above grade level?

3. deck that is 24 inches above grade level that is accessible by stairs?

Would these receptacles be accessible at grade level?

Opinions please. [Linked Image]

Roger


[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 05-24-2005).]
Posted By: Tiger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/25/05 12:21 AM
I don't get the confusion, Roger. The two required outlets have to be accesible when you're standing on the ground. If you have a high deck or balcony, you may want an outlet there. It may not satisfy the requirements of the two required outlets. The solution is to have more than two exterior outlets. It's only a problem if your attitude is minimalistic.

Dave
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/25/05 12:42 AM
Tiger, did you mean attitude or altitude. [Linked Image]

Then considering your post why is there diferent wording in the two paragraphs or even the need for two paragraphs?

What if there were a 20' wide by 8" high patio completely surrounding the house, unless you have extremely long arms you will not be able to access them from the "ground", and due to the fact that most of us have minamalistic length arms [Linked Image] what would you say?

BTW, the reason for the topic isn't my problem if you're wondering, I don't do residential.

Roger
Posted By: Ryan_J Re: 210.52(E) - 05/25/05 01:14 AM
I think the reason for the two different terms is simply that the first paragraph has been in the code for a while, the second is new to the 2005. I'll bet this will change in the 2008 (maybe [Linked Image])
Posted By: Tiger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/25/05 02:14 AM
I visited a relative in a home near the ocean. The home was on stilts, so that no part of the actual home was within reach. I don't recall seeing an outlet on the front and rear stilt. Per usual, it goes to the AHJ to interpret the requirements.

Dave
Posted By: renosteinke Re: 210.52(E) - 05/25/05 02:34 AM
Really- expecting proper grammar from engineers pretending to be lawyers- haven't we learned better by now? :-)

I think that the key word is accessible....remember, the porch/deck/patio is considered "outside" the house- even if they are completely screened in and without any doorway into the yard.
I can imagine a house on sloping ground, where I would understand the code to require a receptacle both at deck level, as well as outside the deck area, nearer the ground.

I would try to solve the question by looking at things from a practical level....where will the hedge trimmers and electric mower get power? Or the TV and electric Bar-B-Q on the deck? Will serving both needs from the same receptacle create additiona hazards- and are there other features that would keep this from happening?

Along these same lines, I think we can dispense with the "in use" cover if the deck has a roof over it.

The details of the deck might also affect my decision as to where to locate the roof-line receptacle for the Xmas lights as well :-)
Posted By: JBD Re: 210.52(E) - 05/25/05 04:22 PM
In my opinion "at grade" means standing directly on the ground (ground does not mean dirt). "From grade" means leaving the ground to gain access is acceptable.

Imagine a set of steps that is 2 ft high by 7 ft deep, a receptacle at the top of steps is not accessible directly "at grade" but it is accessible by moving "from [the]grade".
Posted By: iwire Re: 210.52(E) - 05/26/05 01:17 AM
Dave

Quote
It's only a problem if your attitude is minimalistic.

Roger's question was not one of workmanship but a straight forward question about the wording of the NEC.

Here is an example of the work Roger is involved with.

[Linked Image]

Nothing minimal here. [Linked Image]
Posted By: renosteinke Re: 210.52(E) - 05/26/05 03:15 AM
Just remember- the NEC is not a design manual- so we shouldn't be surprised to find situations where it needs some inteligence applied to the application process :-)
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/26/05 10:00 AM
John,
Quote
Just remember- the NEC is not a design manual- so we shouldn't be surprised to find situations where it needs some inteligence applied to the application process :-)
you are getting close to the reason I started this thread.

Bob, thanks for the back up. [Linked Image]

Roger
Posted By: Tiger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/27/05 03:22 AM
I thought I smelled an ambush before I posted my reply. Live & Learn.

Dave
Posted By: pdh Re: 210.52(E) - 05/27/05 07:56 PM
I think I see what Roger is asking. If I have a big flat concrete pad a couple inches above ground, and a house sitting on it, I presume it is "at grade". If the pad extends 20 feet beyond the house in all directions, standing on the pad next to the house would probably still be "at grade level".

Now let's raise the house. At what point do we say it is no longer at grade level? 6 inches? 2 feet? 5 feet? 12 feet?

210.52(E) uses the term "at grade level" in 2 ways. One is to select which units of a "two-family dwelling" must have these outside outlets. It seems the intent is that a 2nd floor apartment of a 2 unit building do not need this. But this still begs the question just how high is still "at grade level". I think much of this will hinge on the definition of "level". Think about it in terms of "floor levels" of a house.

If a dwelling that is 2 feet about the actual dirt level (not uncommon) is still considered "at grade level" for this purpose, then "at grade level" can mean whatever height to qualify. What I'm saying here is that since "at grade level" is used to qualify the unit to have these outside receptacles ... and "at grade level" is specified as where they must be accessible, then this must be implying that the same height can be used. So if the outlet is accessible from the porch at the same height as the house floor itself that is considered "at grade level", then the porch at the same level is suitable for "at grade level" access.

So there are 2 aspects to this question. One just how high does "at grade level" really mean (is there a definition somewhere?). The other is does "at grade level" mean the same thing in both places it is used in 210.52(E)? I can't see how one phrase can be expected to have 2 different meanings in the same paragraph.

So it seems to me that if a porch is at the same level as a house where the entry floor is considered "at grade level", then the porch is also "at grade level" ... whatever that is.

Disclaimer: I am not an electrician/EC. I just hire them sometimes to do electrical work in data centers I may be designing or managing. I'm also digging into these issues for a house design I may be building in the future.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: 210.52(E) - 05/27/05 10:58 PM
At the risk of sending this thread in an entirely different direction, I would like to assert that journeymen are professionals, who are paid for their knowledge, experience and judgement- not simple slaves to the time clock, who "only do as told."
Indeed, I will go even farther to say that it is the electrician who is the expert- more so than any inspector, engineer, architect, or whatever.

Carry things far enough, and you reach the same point the US Supreme Court once reached in a pornography case: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!"

The only reason this sort of thing becomes an issue is when folks use the NEC as a design manual- rather than planning for the needs of the customer. Indeed, I make a fairly decent income converting new homes "built to code" into homes "suitable for living in."

These problems are made worse by the code attempting to be too specific, rather than defining principles. They are also the result of removing Joe Citizen from the process. The best definition of 'what is right' is 'what you can convince twelve strangers is appropriate."

We do have a criteria for determining if a set of stairs needs three-way light control. Applying that principle, perhaps "three steps" is a reasonable point where a second, lower receptacle is warranted. Similarily, we have the "six foot rule" for spacing; perhaps that could be applied to the width of decks and such.

If you're going to make this an enforcement issue, the time for application is at the plan review stage; it would be wrong to apply it after the house is up.
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/27/05 11:28 PM
I'll explain the reason for this thread tomorrow. [Linked Image]

Roger
Posted By: harold endean Re: 210.52(E) - 05/28/05 10:17 PM
Tiger,

A house down by the ocean or in a Flood Zone ( In some states , Like NJ) puts you in a Flood Zone area and you can not install any electrical appliance in the flood zone. That would mean HVAC, Services, motors, etc. That might be a state regulation which would override the NEC.
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 03:55 AM
2005 Massachusetts Electrical Code Amendment

Quote
210.52(E). Add the following sentence at the end:

For the purposes of this section, the phrase “accessible at grade level” and the phrase “accessible from grade level” shall mean readily accessible from grade, and no more than 2.0 m (6½ ft) above grade level.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 04:29 AM
Harold, I think that is a FEMA rule and should be uniform in every state. We even have the AC condensers sitting on elevated pads if they are in a FEMA flood area.
You still might have service equipment <meters> and the 2 outdoor receptacles in the flood zone tho since they have to be accessible from grade.
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 12:17 PM
Okay, the reason I started this thread.

The way I understand it is that there is a certain county in N.C. where the inspectors interpret the Handbook commentary (yes, we know it is just commentary, but some don't) "to be available to a person standing on the ground (at grade level)" to mean that if there were a 4" slab on grade patio under the receptacle, it would be tagged.

Now, if you jack hammered a 12" x 12" hole in the slab so that you could stand on earth (depending on shoe size the hole may need to be enlarged [Linked Image]) at the receptacle location it would pass. [Linked Image]

Roger
Posted By: harold endean Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 01:45 PM
Greg,

The POCO will allow the service meters up off the ground. They don't require them to be accesible on the grade. I guess their thought is that they will just shut off the power up at the pole. They wouldn't even go through the water to reach the house. I have seen houses that have like and open basement and the rest of the house is 15 feet in the air. The service meter is up on the deck and you have to go up the stairs to get to it. If the area floods, all the water will pass under and through this "basement" area. The building codes won't allow doors on this area or very small doors that will break down and allow the water to floow through.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 04:47 PM
Roger,
It is not just a handbook statement. It is the published statement of CMP2.
Quote
2-234 Log #2762 NEC-P02 (210-52(E))
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Douglas Hansen, Codecheck
Recommendation:
Revise section 210.52(E) by adding "and above the lowest walking surface" as follows:
(e) Outdoor Outlets. For a one-family dwelling and each unit of a two-family dwelling that is at grade level, at least one receptacle outlet accessible at grade level and not more than 2.0 m (6 1/2 ft.) above grade and above the lowest walking surface shall be installed at the front and back of the dwelling. See 210.8(A)(3).
Substantiation:
In hillside situations, the area that is 2.0 m above grade at the front or rear of the dwelling could be below the lowest deck surface or driveway, and not be useable to the occupants. This proposal requires an additional receptacle in the area that is accessible to the occupants.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The present requirement is that the receptacle be accessible at grade level. If the area where the receptacle is installed is not a grade level area that is accessible to the occupants, it would not meet the requirements.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
Don

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 05-29-2005).]
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 05:32 PM
Don, I agree with the rejection of the proposal but that is not really the issue at hand.

The issue is more as to what is "at grade level", a concrete patio poured on grade, level with sod or what have you, would be "at grade level".

To interpret it as a requirement that an individual be physically standing on dirt is a little ridiculous isn't it?

Roger
Posted By: PCBelarge Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 07:27 PM
"To interpret it as a requirement that an individual be physically standing on dirt is a little ridiculous isn't it?"

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I go outside my house and stand on a poured pad for a patio, that is "grade Level"

There is a 2 foot raised deck with a railing. The receptacle is on this deck and not reachable from grade - add a receptacle


There is a 2 foot raised deck with a railing. The receptacle is on this deck and is mounted within reach from grade - job complete.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 09:10 PM
Roger,
Quote
2-236 Log #3197 NEC-P02
(210-52(E))
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Phillip David Martin, City of Chattanooga, TN
Recommendation:
Revise text as follows:
(E) Outdoor Outlets. For a one-family dwelling - each unit of a two-family dwelling that is at grade level, at least one receptacle outlet readily accessible at grade level and not more than 6 1/2 feet shall be installed at the front and rear of each dwelling.
Substantiation:
It has been ruled in our area these outlets cannot be accessed by stairs and Code comply.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The present Code text requires that the receptacle be accessible "at" grade level. A receptacle that cannot be reached while standing on grade and be within the 6'6" height requirement would not meet the requirement of 210.52(E).
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
This statement makes the panel position very clear. If you can't reach the receptacle while standing on grade, then it does not meet the code rule.
Don
Posted By: George Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 09:28 PM
Roger ---

The designer should mark the grade level on the plans.

If you want to argue that a concrete patio is grade level, I guess a concrete slab supported by 20' posts could be called "grade level."

I don't find the words "at" and "from" to be important.
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 09:49 PM
Don, you seem to be drifting.

In your opinion, regardless of others be it ROP's or other suggestions, what is grade?

Help me out here, if the pure intent was earth or dirt, why not say so?

George, the civil drawings show topographical points, and although I agree, the designer is not the NEC in this conversation, I'm not talking about job specs or contract documents.


Roger



[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 05-29-2005).]
Posted By: iwire Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 09:53 PM
When I look up "grade" in regular dictionary's one of the definitions is "Ground level" or the level at which the ground meets a building.

If a cement deck is at this same level I would call it grade level.

I do not see anything in the panel statements that grade level must be dirt.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 10:00 PM
We're talking about "grade level" as if that were something definite- and it isn't. The level of the ground varies, and a deck can be 'below grade on one side and a few steps 'above grade' at another.
There is also the problem presented by certain architectural styles that have decks, with severely overhanging roofs, completely encircling the building.

Either this rule needs to be dropped, or greatly re-written.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 10:15 PM
The panel statement does not say "at grade level" or "at grade". It says "on grade", to me that means that you must be standing on the earth itself. Even if it said "at grade", a deck or concrete slab would not be "at grade", it would be "above garde".
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 10:23 PM
Don, not trying to put you on a spot, but if the NEC doesn't make a special attempt to provide a definition, (not handbook opinion) aren't we left with the literary definition as in a common dictionary?

Roger
Posted By: iwire Re: 210.52(E) - 05/29/05 10:27 PM
Don I have the same basic question as Roger.

What leads you to the conclusion grade is dirt?

Picture a dwelling unit located in the city with only concrete and asphalt surrounding it. (Probably tough for some to imagine that. [Linked Image])

Where is grade there?
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 12:05 AM
From a construction glossary
Quote
Grade Level
Flat or sloping surface, the ground elevation, upon which a building is built.
Quote
Grade
1. A rating in a scale to classifying according to rank, quality, degree, etc.
2. The ground level around a building.
3. The degree or rise of a sloping surface.
4. To change the original slope of ground to prepare for paving or for drainage purposes.
5. A method of classifying the quality of building materials, such as lumber.
Posted By: The_Judge Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 12:32 AM
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. [Linked Image]
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 02:52 AM
Don,
Quote
2. The ground level around a building.
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
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 04:20 AM
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
Posted By: Joe Tedesco Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 11:23 AM
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.
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 03:33 PM
Quote
the top surface of finished grade, concrete, or similar cover.
So finished grade is not the same as concrete or similar cover.
Don
Posted By: Roger Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 04:03 PM
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
Posted By: renosteinke Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 05:11 PM
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?
Posted By: resqcapt19 Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 05:39 PM
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
Posted By: gfretwell Re: 210.52(E) - 05/30/05 05:52 PM
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.
© ECN Electrical Forums