GFCI's above 6.5 feet

Originally Posted By: tgardner
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hey Gents,


Last week I inspected a condo unit ( 3rd floor) and discovered that the exterior entry Receptacle and the rear deck(balcony) exterior receptacles did not have GFCI protection. Checking that the unit was built in 2002, under the 1996 NEC, I called this out as needing GFCI protection.

The condo maintenance technician called me up and said the "since they are more than 6.5 feet above grade, they don't need GFCI receptacles". I said that I thought he may be wrong, but that I would call the local building inspection dept. and inquire.

Victor Cruz, a Bedford County, VA building inspection official, agreed with the maint. tech. stating that since they were on the third floor they were more than 6.5 feet above grade and therefore exempt from the GFCI protection requirement.

These receptacles were 16" above the deck level and certainly accessible. Am I in a time warp here or are they correct in their interpretation of the code?

Glad to be back,

Tim Gardner


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



GFCI Requirement History Page



Jerry Peck


South Florida

Originally Posted By: tgardner
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry,


I use your page as a guide when calling these things out and it was my reference this time as well. Is it possible there is an exception in the code that allows the sit. I described?

Thanks for the speedy reply - tg


Originally Posted By: kmcmahon
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry…that is an awesome compilation of data for GFCI’s that you made!



Wisconsin Home Inspection, ABC Home Inspection LLC


Search the directory for a Wisconsin Home Inspector

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Tim,


No exception. With one possible exception. ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) The 1996 NEC changed it back to include all (except the snow blower one). If that building was permitted under the 1993 NEC, only the first floor exterior receptacles were covered. If it was built in 1996, it was probably permitted under the 1993 NEC (or one even older).

Kevin,

Thanks. I'll be upgrading it to include 2005 soon (hopefully).


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: rwashington
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks Jerry. Just printed your chart out. That will be a great reference sheet in my folder.



Richard W Washington


www.rwhomeinspections.com

Originally Posted By: chorne
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Tim,


Considering that your address was "Gents" I will not respond.

Ps. when in doubt ask Joe T.! ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Carla


Originally Posted By: tgardner
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Carla, sorry for the exclusive salutation icon_redface.gif


From now on it will be L & Gs.

Jerry- the condo was built in 2002 under the 1996 NEC.

TG


Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



If they are using the 1996 NEC, they need to READ IT. icon_biggrin.gif


Tell them to go back and READ IT. They probably did not pick up the change back to 'all' from the 1993 NEC.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry,


Excellent reference guide. Thank you very much.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



tgardner wrote:
Hey Gents,

Last week I inspected a condo unit ( 3rd floor) and discovered that the exterior entry Receptacle and the rear deck(balcony) exterior receptacles did not have GFCI protection. Checking that the unit was built in 2002, under the 1996 NEC, I called this out as needing GFCI protection.

The condo maintenance technician called me up and said the "since they are more than 6.5 feet above grade, they don't need GFCI receptacles". I said that I thought he may be wrong, but that I would call the local building inspection dept. and inquire.

Victor Cruz, a Bedford County, VA building inspection official, agreed with the maint. tech. stating that since they were on the third floor they were more than 6.5 feet above grade and therefore exempt from the GFCI protection requirement.

These receptacles were 16" above the deck level and certainly accessible. Am I in a time warp here or are they correct in their interpretation of the code?

Glad to be back,

Tim Gardner


Hi Tim:

They are correct, not required on decks, but would be a
good idea, and only a verbal recommendation from you to enhance
safety.

Some people have concrete decks and they can get
shocked while in bare feet if using a defective appliance.


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
They are correct, not required on decks, but would be a good idea, and only a verbal recommendation from you to enhance
safety.

Some people have concrete decks and they can get
shocked while in bare feet if using a defective appliance.


Joe T.,

"not required" Please explain. Always trying to learn.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry:


You know what the answer is!

I tried calling you and received a message?

"GFCI Protected Receptacles are Not required" ... on decks of multifamily dwellings .... ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)

PS:

Wasn't the GFCI first introduced in the 1968 NEC in Article 680 for pools?




--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



What is the code section? Thanks.


"Wasn't the GFCI first introduced in the 1968 NEC in Article 680 for pools?"

For the underwater pool light, not the receptacles.

Sorry about the phones, they are forward to the person who answer them for me.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jpeck wrote:
What is the code section? Thanks.

"Wasn't the GFCI first introduced in the 1968 NEC in Article 680 for pools?"

For the underwater pool light, not the receptacles.

Sorry about the phones, they are forward to the person who answer them for me.


Quote:
210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
FPN: See 215.9 for ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel on feeders.


Yes, for the light but the GFCI was first defined in 680-4(g)(2) on page 357.

PS: Missing line on 2 since that was changed too, see 65 NEC

![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe T.,


RE: ""GFCI Protected Receptacles are Not required" ... on decks of multifamily dwellings .... "

I am not grasping that answer "210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
FPN: See 215.9 for ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel on feeders." and what it means and how you are applying it to not require GFCI protection on those balconies.

RE: "Yes, for the light but the GFCI was first defined in 680-4(g)(2) on page 357."

Yes, defined for in the section referencing the light. Did not apply to receptacles then.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jpeck wrote:
Joe T.,

RE: ""GFCI Protected Receptacles are Not required" ... on decks of multifamily dwellings .... "

I am not grasping that answer "210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
FPN: See 215.9 for ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel on feeders." and what it means and how you are applying it to not require GFCI protection on those balconies.

RE: "Yes, for the light but the GFCI was first defined in 680-4(g)(2) on page 357."

Yes, defined for in the section referencing the light. Did not apply to receptacles then.


Yes, So why don't you add it to your list so it will be included to make it even more accurate and useful by the field.

Quote:
210.52(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? ft) above grade shall be installed at the front and back of the dwelling. See 210.8(A)(3).


Have you been telling people that the deck receptacles on multifamily dwellings (3 or more) are required to be GFCI protected?


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jtedesco wrote:
Yes, So why don't you add it to your list so it will be included to make it even more accurate and useful by the field.


Because that would make it less accurate - it is titled " ... Receptacle Outlets". It does not cover swimming pool lights.

Originally, I had swimming pool lights on there, but many people were confused, because everything else was about 'receptacles', so I removed it and clarified the title to "receptacles".

Quote:
210.52(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? ft) above grade shall be installed at the front and back of the dwelling. See 210.8(A)(3).


Have you been telling people that the deck receptacles on multifamily dwellings (3 or more) are required to be GFCI protected?[/quote]

Yes, see 210.8(A)(3)

210.8 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel.
FPN: See 215.9 for ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel on feeders.
(A) Dwelling Units. All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles installed in the locations specified in (1) through (8 ) shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.
(3) Outdoors
Exception: Receptacles that are not readily accessible and are supplied by a dedicated branch circuit for electric snow-melting or deicing equipment shall be permitted to be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Article 426.

There is NO exclusion to only cover 1&2 family to the GFCI section. The exclusion is the requirement FOR the receptacle to be required, but when receptacles are installed, there is no exclusion to only apply GFCI protection only to 1&2 family.

Have you been telling people that the deck receptacles on multifamily dwellings (3 or more) are NOT required to be GFCI protected?


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jerry:


I see your point now "outdoors" ... ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)

I was thinkimg about "at grade level", but, still need to be sure that the rule would call for the protection on a deck.



I will have my crew go back to these buildings and add the GFCI protection for all receptacles if this is true.


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



If those apartments were built under current code they WOULD require GFCIs on the balcony. I bet some in your picture don’t even have GFCI in the kitchen or bath.


I know for a fact that Lee Co Fla will require a GFCI on any outside 120v 15/20a receptacle in a condo.


As an HI you really have to understand there is no obligation to bring existing homes up to current code but it is still valid to point out a possible danger. A am not sure what vehicle that is.