The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
Earthquake in New Zeeland
by RODALCO
11/27/16 11:25 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by Tjia1981
11/27/16 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
Texas_Ranger 8
Trumpy 8
sparkyinak 7
Who's Online
0 registered (), 99 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#85224 - 06/10/03 05:47 AM 230.54 (C) Exception
Redsy Offline
Member

Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 2138
Loc: Bucks County PA
At least one online expert insists that the exception does not permit service heads below the point of attachment, only movement AWAY from the point of attachment.
An exception should directly apply to the rule.
The rule in this case is that service heads be ABOVE the point of attachment, so the exception permits otherwise (BELOW the point of attachment).
If the rule was, for example, that service heads be within 12" of the point of attachment, I might agree that the 24" exception would not necessarily permit the haed installed below.

Anyone else?

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#85225 - 06/10/03 08:35 AM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception
Bill Addiss Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 4196
Loc: NY, USA
Redsy,

IMO the words ... "Where it is impracticable to locate the service head above the point of attachment, the service head location shall be permitted ..." should leave no doubt that it could be left up to AHJ interpretation of what is 'practicable'.

Bill

Top
#85226 - 06/10/03 08:43 AM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception
Redsy Offline
Member

Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 2138
Loc: Bucks County PA
Assuming that it is agreed that it is indeed impracticable (whatever that may mean in this particular instance).
Does the exception permit you to install the head lower than the attachment point of the service drop.
I say it does.

Top
#85227 - 06/10/03 08:58 AM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception
Bill Addiss Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 4196
Loc: NY, USA
I say it does too.
I can't see it meaning anything else.

Bill

Top
#85228 - 06/10/03 02:23 PM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6804
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
The exception is included as a part of the NEC to provide a reference for us AHJ's to modify the rule as written. (A little common sense always helps too) In my area, a discussion with the Utility Co. Wiring Inspector prevents this subject from becoming a nightmare.
John
_________________________
John

Top



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals