• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

New Deck Drives a Service Change

ALL:

I perhaps see where some misunderstanding is coming from. This is the difficulty of working between so many code editions. The requirement for AFCI on extending circuits is new in the 2011 NEC and 2012 IRC. I did not make that clear in the video the way I did with the 20 sf threshold.

The above video states it is based on the 2009 and 2012 IRC. I am adding some notes right now to the video to make it clear that the extension is only in the 2012 and 2011 codes. I am also including the mention of a receptacle AFCI device that can be installed at the first receptacle.

NOTE: See the every slow progress toward AFCI protection across the land...and why I interpret it like I have:

2005 NEC: Bedrooms only

2008 NEC: Now we expand it to a bunch of other rooms

2011 NEC: Now we sneak it a little further and it applies to extension of circuits.

2014 NEC: Do you think it will sneak a little further? I hope not.

We should all live in dark caves. Electricity is far to dangerous.
 
Glenn,

JMHO if it's not a general introduction on receptacle placement the video may need to be produced or broken into parts i.e. part 1, part 2, etc., especially when numerous code sections need to be clarified as applicable.

As does the Prescription Deck Construction Guide I suggest reference all the code sections as Jeff mentioned earlier in thread.



The first disclaimer for example IMO depending on interpretation of AHJ the administrative section does not require existing buildings not being altered to have the receptacles installed with these types of additions.



Receptacles where required are provided for convenience whereas illumination when stairs are included are required for safety. As presented in the video the trip hazards and dangers associated with the used of extension cords makes an argument for safety. However at the risk of unintended consequences of that interpretation one could bypass the receptacles; the deck could be built inches off the exterior wall with guard rails and thus the exterior wall is no longer serves the deck. Also one could in placed of the “other exterior doors” install a replacement sliding door for a deck that does not require a permit (200 sf. or less) and not have to install receptacles. In other words IMO the charging language for receptacles is for convenience not safety in regards to the administrative requirement for additions of decks, porches and balconies. Should a new room addition include the deck, porch or balcony then I would require the receptacle(s).



I think the safety provisions for receptacles are the wiring and circuit requirements such as arc-fault, GFCI, covers, tamper-proof, etc.



I can also see where there could be need for clarification with deletion of the 200 sf. in the 2012 IRC; is it a landing and not a porch, deck or balcony?



In the video example for a single receptacle to serve "multi-level" decks can be supported with the definition of story above grade.



It’s commendable to provide a video interpretation; U-tube is a sign of the times. And aware it takes considerable amount of time and research; and after all that is invested; there will be errors found, missing information and changes needed to further clarify.



I've not read all the replies since yesterday; so this message may seem out of place.

Francis

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs.

Additions, alterations or repairs to any structure shall conform to the requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing structure to comply with all of the requirements of this code, unless otherwise stated. Additions, alterations or repairs shall not cause an existing structure to become unsafe or adversely affect the performance of the building.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn said:
The IRC electrical codes are just a pirating of the NEC. Same provisions.
Click to expand...
I don't like the word "pirating". There was a combined effort between the ICC and the NFPA when this was done. I still think they should have simply referenced to the NEC instead of rewriting it to "simplify" it for the IRC
 
102.7.1, gotta love that one. Some interpret it to mean they don't have to do a damn thing or enforce a damn thing. Not what it means. Always an excuse for laziness though.
 
I actually didn't mean pirate in a negative way. I guess I should have thought about Somalia before that selecting that choice of words.

I will be more careful in the future. The NFPA has the history behind them for electrical codes and I do respect that. I am wondering, however, the direction in which they are going. Thus my reference to living in caves.
 
Glenn said:
I guess I should have thought about Somalia
Click to expand...
That would've done it for me....or Johnny Depp

Now the NFPA being cavemen.....that's a tough one. Thick eyebrows? Pterodactyls? Fred & Barney? Oh I know, Geico.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Confirmed in my 2011 NEC Handbook today (it was at the office over the weekend)

NEC 2011: 210.12(B) is the same language as in the 2012 IRC. Modify, extend or replace "wiring" within the listed room... you bought yourself AFCI protection.

We may not write it; we make not like it.
 
I haven't got past final inspection yet for the deck, because I've now got a big electrical job to do.True story...my house.
Click to expand...
How did that happen when the misapplied code for that hasn't been adopted yet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn said:
7-1-11 Colorado adoption date. As well as a handful of other states over a year ago.Mike Holt
Click to expand...
Now I'm lost...doesn't Colorado follow the 2009 IRC with it's electrical code? I don't know what is says so perhaps you can post it.

And now I'm found....as in I found this above:

The above video states it is based on the 2009 and 2012 IRC. I am adding some notes right now to the video to make it clear that the extension is only in the 2012 and 2011 codes. I am also including the mention of a receptacle AFCI device that can be installed at the first receptacle.
Click to expand...
You might show this to your inspector. I wouldn't include the part about the receptacle AFCI device. There's no sense in confusing him with stuff that hasn't been adopted yet.

How's that for some good news?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
Now I'm lost...doesn't Colorado follow the 2009 IRC with it's electrical code? I don't know what is says so perhaps you can post it.You might show this to your inspector. I wouldn't include the part about the receptacle AFCI device. There's no sense in confusing him with stuff that hasn't been adopted yet.

How's that for some good news?
Click to expand...
Colorado is a home rule state, so each local jurisdiction can adopt it's own code. However, the electrical code is established at the state level. The date I posted is the date the 2011 NEC was adopted in CO. The words "mike holt" in the previous post is a link to a website that shows all the state NEC adoptions.

I am sorry that I have thrown this whole topic of "receptacle on decks" into a whole different discussion about extensions of AFCIs circuits under a code that is not yet widely adopted. That, and the construction at my house, were not really supposed to be the topic. I used my current remodel as an example of how code can take a domino effect if not considered carefully. However, this is my analysis of what is required by the code in my house. I do not want to throw my friends in my local building department under the bus as has happened. They did not make the call on me, I did. The deck has indeed been built, and that is my old horrible service panel in the video, and the path of the code "from a deck to a service change" is a scary possibility for some (sans the use of the AFCI receptacle at the first receptacle). I am still under construction too, as there is other remodeling taking place. I admit it was a bit of a stretch how I presented it in my previous post. I apologize for misleading. It still is makes the point that the code is getting a bit of a long reach.

Did anyone notice that the 2008 NEC/2009 IRC only requires the receptacle on decks with 20 sf of "usable space", but that under the 2011/2012 ALL decks, porches and patios require one. That is an example of how I believe it's getting ridiculous. Notice the small little landing in my video...a receptacle...really? For what?
 
Here is an Nema State Map as of today. It gives a good idea of where everyone in the country is at. It does not seem to get the local thing but it is pretty accurate.

ry%3D480
 
It does not matter who has adopted what code cycle because the code references are distinguished by year in the video and those that have those years adopted will know which apply. I see no problem with the video as long as the code references are there.

Every code class that I have ever taken has had some controversial topics that appear to be more opinion of the instructor whether it was her/his pet peeve or her/his opinion of a gray area. No code class is perfect but as long as the core information is there, the student can formulate his/her own opinion, and usually do.

Our industry is riddled with inconsistencies between inspectors and I see no change in sight anytime soon. Just look at the arguments on this site over the same black and white code.

It is obvious to me that the OP is looking for feedback on this new material and he is getting it, like it or not. It is important that as professionals we provide concise constructive criticism or ignore the thread. If you don't have references to reply with, you are not helping the situation and turning a positive into a negative. We are all here to learn.

And for the record, the OP contacted me privately to ask permission to do this. Limits were discussed. Enough said.
 
jar546 said:
We are all here to earn.
Click to expand...
Here kitty, kitty...here kitty, kitty....nice kitty cat.... Yeouch....... damned cat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn said:
. . . The NFPA has the history behind them for electrical codes and I do respect that. I am wondering, however, the direction in which they are going. . .
Click to expand...
On the other side I wonder how many will follow or enforce the code . . .

2011NEC 210.52(E)(3) Building Codes Forum

It seems there is a overlapping protection where an extension cord if used will be on an arc-fault circuit anyways.



Instigator

Francis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the link to the other thread. I am surprise how many folks agree with the removal of the size threshold. It seems a lot of the argument is related to the precense of guards. However, there is nothing in the code provision about guards.

Here is food for thought.

A small 4x4 elevated deck (like the one in my video) is providing one simple feature...it's a landing for the door and the stairs. Yet I hear argument for it to have a receptacle...primarly due to the guards being there for holiday lights.

How is that different than a small 4x4 concrete stoop at a grade level door with a few steps off the front (as far as how it's written in the code). Why wouldn't we call that a "patio" and require a receptacle "within the periphery" of the little concrete stoop. Probably because we know it's only really serving as a landing. Or should the receptacle still be provided?

Maybe the code should discuss the precense of gaurds, if that is the real issue on the small decks, porches and patios.
 
Section E3801.7 in the 2006 IRC requires at least one receptacle at the front &

rear of the dwelling (presumably for convenience of the inhabitants use).

It doesn't say on the landing, ..but rather at the front & rear of the dwelling,

not higher than 6'-6" above grade.

.
 
There's FINALLY some good news for the decking industry...some "deregulation" of sorts. It's time to update this video to the 2015 IRC now that the 2014 NEC is published!

This section has been modified to no longer require the outlet to be "within the perimeter" of the deck. It merely has to be "accessible from" the deck. It turns out that when they removed the 20 square foot threshold in the 2011 NEC, folks finally realized the unintended consequence of the decision. Sometimes the door assembly on a small balcony takes up all the wall space.

Ahhh...but of course no new code language can come without new issues. There's another little change to this section, and I can't say it was worded very well.

For reasons not explained in the "Analysis of Changes" document, this provision not only requires the deck to be "accessible" from the dwelling, but now it must also "attached". Very dumb idea...

While I think they are intending to address a deck that is out in the middle of the yard and not "adjacent" the house, they've now connected the convenience of having a receptacle with the structural design of the deck. Senseless....

I think "accessible from the house" took care of it just fine. Little do electrical professionals realize (I presume) that two decks can be built to function identically, serve a door that is not the egress door, and one may be "attached" while the other is not. That should have no bearing on the requirement for a receptacle...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top