ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Shout Box
Recent Posts
MRI LED lights dimmer control replacement - wow!
by HotLine1. 01/19/18 06:19 PM
Video: Inventor of the GFCI self-testing shocks
by Bill Addiss. 01/17/18 11:11 PM
FPE in Germany
by HotLine1. 01/17/18 07:07 PM
VDE 0100 to introduce AFCIs
by LongRunner. 01/17/18 10:32 AM
Fujifilm Recalls Power Adapter Wall Plugs
by Admin. 01/16/18 07:04 PM
New in the Gallery:
Housebilding DIY wiring
SE cable question
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 20 guests, and 15 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
230.54 (C) Exception #85224
06/10/03 07:47 AM
06/10/03 07:47 AM
R
Redsy  Offline OP
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
Re: 230.54 (C) Exception #85225
06/10/03 10:35 AM
06/10/03 10:35 AM
Bill Addiss  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,890
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

Re: 230.54 (C) Exception #85226
06/10/03 10:43 AM
06/10/03 10:43 AM
R
Redsy  Offline OP
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.

Re: 230.54 (C) Exception #85227
06/10/03 10:58 AM
06/10/03 10:58 AM
Bill Addiss  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,890
NY, USA
I say it does too.
I can't see it meaning anything else.

Bill

Re: 230.54 (C) Exception #85228
06/10/03 04:23 PM
06/10/03 04:23 PM
HotLine1  Online Content

Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,918
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

Featured:

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
The_Lightman
The_Lightman
Orlando, Fl, USA
Posts: 49
Joined: August 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 20
sparky 15
Potseal 14
Popular Topics(Views)
243,554 Are you busy
180,361 Re: Forum
170,838 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1
(Release build 20180101)
Page Time: 0.017s Queries: 14 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9667 MB (Peak: 1.1049 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-01-20 01:02:47 UTC