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

ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 16
Recent Posts
fuse rejectors
by gfretwell. 03/23/17 01:12 PM
Another Forum Update
by Admin. 03/22/17 03:04 PM
Dining room plugs
by watersparkfalls. 03/21/17 10:31 PM
TRUE POWER
by jraef. 03/21/17 09:13 PM
WEG CFW-11 Frequency Inverter
by jraef. 03/21/17 08:50 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
231,275 Are you busy
165,982 Re: Forum
160,497 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 54 guests, and 13 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#85224 - 06/10/03 08:47 AM 230.54 (C) Exception  
Redsy  Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
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?


2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides

#85225 - 06/10/03 11:35 AM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception  
Bill Addiss  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,875
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


#85226 - 06/10/03 11:43 AM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception  
Redsy  Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
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.


#85227 - 06/10/03 11:58 AM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception  
Bill Addiss  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,875
NY, USA
I say it does too.
I can't see it meaning anything else.

Bill


#85228 - 06/10/03 05:23 PM Re: 230.54 (C) Exception  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,798
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


Member Spotlight
SafetyWired
SafetyWired
Pa, USA
Posts: 44
Joined: July 2013
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.011s Queries: 14 (0.003s) Memory: 0.7662 MB (Peak: 0.9038 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-03-24 02:02:09 UTC