<img border="0" src=&q...uot;377" height="282">

Click on Photo for a closer look.


Submitted by Frank Cinker Pittsburgh, PA E-mail
CinkerF@cs.com

"A new 200 Amp Service did not pass electrical inspection. The
conductors were too close to window. McGRAW-HILL'S NEC
handbook indicate service drop conductors. NEC section 230.9 states
service conductors. Does this code section apply to service entrance
conductors or service drop conductors?"

Frank,
The code section uses the words "service conductors" so in my opinion it applies to both service drops and service entrance cables. Is that window designed to be open? If not there is no violation in the current code. I would like the 3' restriction to apply to all windows, not just those designed to be opened, but that's not what 230-9 says. Any overhead drops near windows interfere with the placement of fire service ladders in the event of a fire.
Don(resqcapt19)

Don,
The window is designed to be opened. NEC handbook (McGraw-Hill, 1999) seems to indicate both in words and photo that section 230.9 applies to service drop conductors. When in doubt I suppose the current NEC book should used instead of a NEC Handbook.

cinkerf (Frank)

I wanted to mention that this code violation will be corrected by extending the service raceway above the window along with the service drop conductors.

cinker (Frank)

Frank,

I would say that 230-9 is referring to both, in that it addresses the conductors without an overall covering, which would be the Conductors coming out of the Service head and the Triplex from the pole. Since they both (service drop and service conductors) extend to the point of splice, the drip loop would also have to be included.

In the 1990 NEC Handbook (sorry, I don't have a more recent one) It talks of including the drip loop in the clearance requirements. There is even a picture of the drip loops also being above the Window to meet the exception requirements.

If I can get my scanner working I will post a picture.

I hope this helps,

Bill

<img border="0" src=&q...t;400" height="273">

Click on Photo for a closer look

Taken from 1990 NEC Handbook


How's this?




Bill

Frank,
The handbook is not an official interpretation. It is only opinion and as such is no more valid than yours or mine.
Don(resqcapt19)

Bill,

Thanks for the clarification. It seems to make the most sense. Good job on scanning the drawing.

cinkerf (Frank)

Don,

You are correct concerning NEC Handbooks. However, they are a very useful. I usually purchase the McGrall-Hill and the NFPA code handbooks each new NEC edition. It's a little expensive but for me it's worth it.

Frank (cinkerf)

Thanks Frank,

Don,

I am aware that the Handbook is not an Official interpretation. While We are on that subject, though - does that make sense?

Do I dare ask why?
The Handbook I am referring to was published by the NFPA and says (from the jacket)

"All of the commentary material has been researched, written, and reviewed by experts in the field of electrical safety-NFPA staff and members of the National Electrical Code Committee."

Once again, I know what it says (somewhere) about not being an official interpretation, but why isn't it? It looks pretty official to me, and it is being touted as a "must have" for inspectors etc ...

Is there an explanation? Apparently they say it's researched and written by them (NFPA), and you "must" have it, but don't believe anything you read?

I'm confused

Bill

Don,

As to this situation, I suppose that it could be argued that if the Top of the window was incapable of opening, that it would be in compliance as is? (but not if the window was changed)

You brought up a good point about the Fire Safety Ladders access. I'll bet that many people don't think about that.

Bill

You know, I'm looking at the drawing I just posted and realized that the scenario on the right with the point of attachment at the corner of the house would not even be acceptable in my area. The point of attachment (in my area) has to be below and within 10 inches of the service head!


Bill

Bill,
You're right about the access for fire ladders not being though about by very many people. I have submitted code proposals for the last 2 code cycles to make the 3' apply to all windows not just those that are designed to be opened. The CMP does not agree with me and have rejected my proposals. It is hard enough to put fire service ladders in place to effect a rescue without having to worry about overhead lines, especially since most fire service ladders are metal. As always the NFPA seems to require a "body count" before acting.

As far as the handbook goes, it does make sense as the opinions in there are not written in a way that would comply with the rules for making a "formal interpretation". I agree that the inforamtion in them is helpful in understanding the code, and I prefer the McGraw-Hill handbook over the NFPA one, but neither one is a legal interpretation. That is left to the local AHJ or a request for a formal interpretation.

Don(resqcapt19)

Don,

I have always heard that the comments in the Handbook are not an official interpretation, but I don't understand exactly why. I can understand why a Handbook published by someone other than the NFPA would not have official interpretations in it, but why not the NFPA version? I am trying to grasp what makes the comments "not official" if they are made by the same people that write the code? (or is that not true?)
Is it that they are not complete in some way, or might taken out of context?

Sorry for all the questions, I hope that you don't mind.

Bill

Bill,
I think that a formal interpretation requires the involvement of the CMP that covers the section of the code(I'm not sure about this, maybe Joe T. and tell us for sure how an interpretation works). The people that write the Handbook are not the people that wrote the code, the code making panel members write the code. The panel members are not employees of the NFPA, but the authors of the handbook often are. The statement in the handbook even says it is not an offical interpretation because the writing of the opinions in the handbook do not follow the rules in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects as would be required for a Formal Interpretation.
In my opinion the best place to find out what the CMP is trying to say is to look at the Report on Proposals and the Report on Comments for when the section in question was added or changed. Even panel statements on rejected proposals for the section in question will often give an insight to what the CMP thinks the code section actually means.

Don,

Thanks, I think that makes things a little clearer. I guess that I was looking at the NFPA as more of an authority where it's role and position may be closer to that of an organizer and publisher. I would have to think that most of it's content has to generally follow the intent of the CMPs and that errors or something misleading in illustrations (especially) would have been picked up before publication or soon after.

Maybe they should call it a guidebook, that would fit better I think.

Bill