School art suspened from lights

[firesafemgr]

I am an manager in the risk management department of an insurance company. I do inspections and train new inspectors. One issue that concerns me and I do write up is teachers hanging student art and posters from electrical light fixtures and conduit. I am having a problem finding code support in the National Electrical Code. Can anyone assist and let me know where in the code I can get support for making the recommendation of not allowing items to be hung from light fixtures and conduit?

Thank you so much for any assistance you may provide.

 

[charlie b]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Try Article 300.11(C):

?Cables Not Used as Means of Support. Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways, or nonelectrical equipment.?

And thank you for your support. :roll:

 

[firesafemgr]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Thank you so much for your help! All of our inspectors are required to note any electrical problems and require that it be checked by a licensed and qualified electrician. No self help allowed when it comes to electrical concerns.

Thanks again!

Originally posted by charlie b:
Try Article 300.11(C):

?Cables Not Used as Means of Support. Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables, raceways, or nonelectrical equipment.?

And thank you for your support. :roll:

 

[bennie]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Unless specifically forbidden it is permitted. I would not classify Johnnie's finger paints as equipment. Sorry the freedom of expression takes precedence.

Of course if the paper is near an incandescent lamp there is a real problem.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Charlie, while I agree that it is perhaps a bad idea, I don't think the article you cite applies. The article addresses cable wiring methods as a means of support. If the lights are supported by an electrical cable, the lights are not in compliance, nevermind the pictures. If they are hanging things from conduit, they are not using a cable for a means of support.

[ September 25, 2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]

 

[Guest]

Re: School art suspened from lights

There is no way to completely stop people from hanging things on exposed wiring or conduits.

Many (older) homes in the Bay Area have a garage below the living space. The garage is unfinished. They were built before firewalls (and fire ceilings) were required.

The laundry area is down there too. People hang their hangers on wires & conduits.

It may be legislated, but it cannot be stopped.

In these situations should we run a bigger pipe and install extra straps so it can take the load of the laundry? Or, do we just cite code? It's a paradox.

Another solution is to plan not to have pipes & wires where they are likely to be used to hang laundry or art.

 

[charlie b]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Originally posted by ryan_618: Charlie, while I agree that it is perhaps a bad idea, I don't think the article you cite applies.

You?re right, of course. But I wanted to keep the answer simple. 300.11(B) is more likely to be applicable, but the terms it employs (what is a ?raceway? anyway?) might be difficult for firesafemgr to use effectively. That is why I offered 300.11(C) as a place to start. Bennie?s point (is a picture really ?nonelectrical equipment?) might win out in a technical discussion between electrical inspectors and contractors. But the audience here is insurance inspectors, and the ultimate client consists of teachers and students. Bennie speaks ?truth?; I speak ?reality.? I strongly suspect that the simple language of 300.11(C) would serve to discourage teachers and students from an undesirable (even if not actually ?unsafe?) practice.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Charlie: I understand your point. I was really debating wether to post or not on that, but you know me, I can't shut up!

 

[websparky]

Re: School art suspened from lights

How about the National Fire Prevention Code?

2000 NFPA 1 Fire Prevention Code
8-2 Educational Occupancies.
8-2.2.3.2*
Where required by the applicable provisions of this Code, draperies, curtains, and other similar loosely hanging furnishings and decorations shall be flame resistant as demonstrated by testing in accordance with NFPA 701, Standard Methods of Fire Tests for Flame Propagation of Textiles and Films. (101:10.3.1)

8-2.2.3.6
Artwork and teaching materials shall be permitted to be attached directly to the walls and shall not exceed 20 percent of the wall area. (101:14.7.3.3; 101:15.7.3.3)

 

[ryan_618]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Dave: Great find!!!

The only question I have is do any states or jurisdictions adopt that code?

 

[firesafemgr]

Re: School art suspened from lights

We have looked at the National Fire Prevention Code and we can stretch the quoted section to apply. Not all states adopt NFPA codes. But we in the insurance industry are not restricted in what we use since are not law enforcement agencies. Thanks for all your help on this, I'm getting some great ideas!

Originally posted by ryan_618:
Dave: Great find!!!

The only question I have is do any states or jurisdictions adopt that code?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Did you really mean this?

But we in the insurance industry are not restricted in what we use since we are not law enforcement agencies.

Why even ask for enforceable code citations? Just refuse to do business with anyone who will file and successfully make a claim. . .

Create a pool of un-insured and let them remove themselves from the gene pool by their "uninsurable" activity.
.
.
.
But, no, I am being overly caustic. I apologize. If not THE LAW, then, what. . .

 

[firesafemgr]

Re: School art suspened from lights

What I meant by that quote is that we are not restricted in what we refer to as basis for our recommendations. Local government is restricted in what they enforce due to what the local governing body has adopted into law. The insurance industry uses the standards that best fit the situation, whether it's the International Building Code or NFPA standards. We need to justify our recommendations and have a basis for it, not just bluff our way through things.

As for removing the high risk locations from the pool, there are laws on the books that require coverage be provided to all who seek it. There are also mutual associations that must provide coverages to their "membership". So, we must provide the service to them, but do it in a way to prevent accidents from happening.

Please remember, we are all in this for the same end result, providing a safe enviornment for our family and friends to live, work, and learn. You wish to do your installations in a safe manner, and the insurance industry wishes to make sure that as our facilities age, we make any needed improvements to maintain that safe enviornment.

Thanks again for this lively discussion!!

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
Did you really mean this?

But we in the insurance industry are not restricted in what we use since we are not law enforcement agencies.

Why even ask for enforceable code citations? Just refuse to do business with anyone who will file and successfully make a claim. . .

Create a pool of un-insured and let them remove themselves from the gene pool by their "uninsurable" activity.
.
.
.
But, no, I am being overly caustic. I apologize. If not THE LAW, then, what. . .

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: School art suspened from lights

[threadjack]

So, we must provide the service to them, but do it in a way to prevent accidents from happening.

I live and work in Minneapolis - St. Paul, a metropolitan area since the latter 19th century. Existing electrical installations in stand alone single family dwellings vary from a few pristine 120 volt 30 amp services to truly enormous.

The inner-city ordinances define 30 amp services as full and no further branch circuit expansion can occur without service size increase. The smallest size available is 120 / 240 volt 100 amp.

There is a large installed base of 120 / 240 volt 60 amp services that, by ordinance, are deemed Code Compliant if the connected load in the dwelling is within the 14,400 watt "let thru" of the service, no hazards are obvious, the equipment is serviceable.

I receive calls from folks that have been told by their insurance agents that their home is uninsurable unless they increase their service size from 60 to a minimum of 100 amps. . .examination shows an intact 60 amp electrical system well within specs.

The law is the dwelling 60 amp electrical is code compliant by local ordinance and FHA/VA guidelines.

Is this a mis-application of accident prevention?[/threadjack]

 

[firesafemgr]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Some insurance companies can and do use different professional studies or claims experience that gives them data that indicate certain situations may have a tendanacy to cause a loss. Electrical demands in a building are different now than they were 50 years ago.

I can't speak for all insurance companies, but it is in these situations that my company recommends the hiring of a licensed and qualified electrican to inspect the electrical system and provide a written report on it's condition and any recommendations. As I first said on my first post, I'm not an electrician so I rely on their expertise.

Does that help?

Originally posted by al hildenbrand:
[threadjack]

So, we must provide the service to them, but do it in a way to prevent accidents from happening.

I live and work in Minneapolis - St. Paul, a metropolitan area since the latter 19th century. Existing electrical installations in stand alone single family dwellings vary from a few pristine 120 volt 30 amp services to truly enormous.

The inner-city ordinances define 30 amp services as full and no further branch circuit expansion can occur without service size increase. The smallest size available is 120 / 240 volt 100 amp.

There is a large installed base of 120 / 240 volt 60 amp services that, by ordinance, are deemed Code Compliant if the connected load in the dwelling is within the 14,400 watt "let thru" of the service, no hazards are obvious, the equipment is serviceable.

I receive calls from folks that have been told by their insurance agents that their home is uninsurable unless they increase their service size from 60 to a minimum of 100 amps. . .examination shows an intact 60 amp electrical system well within specs.

The law is the dwelling 60 amp electrical is code compliant by local ordinance and FHA/VA guidelines.

Is this a mis-application of accident prevention?[/threadjack]

 

[al hildenbrand]

Re: School art suspened from lights

Thank you for the response.

My experience has never included a request of me, as an electrical contractor and Minnesota master electrician, for anything from the insurance company, no letter, no additional certification.

The most common situation arises upon the sale of a property. The new owner / inhabitant of the stand alone single family dwelling is securing homeowners insurance and runs into this road block. The home has been thoroughly scrutinized by multiple inspections by city, seller, buyer and mortgage underwriter and all have signed off on the process with their blessings. Then the contact comes from the insurer. . .sometimes even after intial writing of the hazard policy for the new owner.

Nothing has changed. I investigate the dwelling and find all is within Code Compliance.

I recommend contacting another insurance agent / company and, viola!! problem solved.

I am left at this point suspecting individual agent's ethics. . .and am totally mystified by the (occasional) letter from the insurer (to the policy holder).