Why do we need 230.6 (5)

[yesterlectric]

I’m confused as to why they added 230.6(5) in 2014. The section states that conductors are considered outside of the building if they are in a service mast consisting of RMC that runs through the eve but not a wall. Great, we have the now in the code. But people have been using RMC for service masts and going through the eves of roofs for decades. So why do we just starting in 2014 need a section to allow this?

 

[tom baker]

Someone realized it was a violation.
Many other examples are similar.

 

[jusme123]

......so inside the eave is a wet location now. Sometimes the code should be treated like cologne, a little goes a long way.

 

[Eddie702]

Just like there was never a mention in the code about mounting a panel on a ceiling with the breaker pointing down. Until some one did it

 

[don_resqcapt19]

......so inside the eave is a wet location now. Sometimes the code should be treated like cologne, a little goes a long way.

That rule has nothing to do with inside the eve being a wet location. It has to do with inside the eve being inside the building and the rule in 230.70(A)(1), that requires the service disconnect to be nearest the point where the service conductors enter the building. That rule is never complied with where the riser passes through the eve space.

As Tom said, this has always been a technical violation, but also a common practice. Sometimes in cases like this, the code is changed to match the common field practice.

 

[infinity]

As Tom said, this has always been a technical violation, but also a common practice. Sometimes in cases like this, the code is changed to match the common field practice.

I agree and a better NEC would focus on code changes to things that are done everyday but not clearly defined by the code language.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree and a better NEC would focus on code changes to things that are done everyday but not clearly defined by the code language.

Looking forward to reading your PIs for the 2026 code

 

[infinity]

Looking forward to reading your PIs for the 2026 code

Is there still time? Last cycle I choose not to bother submitting any given the direction that the NEC seems to be going.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Is there still time? Last cycle I choose not to bother submitting any given the direction that the NEC seems to be going.

Not open for 2026 submissions now as they are in the process of creating the 2023 code. It should be open for 2026 PIs in late 2022 or early 2023, with a submission deadline of early September 2023.

There is still some opportunity to influence the 2023 code by submitting Public Comments on the actions taken by the CMPs in the First Draft Report. It is easy to comment on an change that was made, but not as easy to comment on a resolved (rejected) PI as they are a bit harder to find.
The First Draft Report will be published on 7/2/2021 and open for PCs until 8/19/2021.
The second draft report will be published 3/21/22 with notices to submit a motion for floor action at the June 2022 NFPA meeting due by 5/2/2202.

 

[infinity]

Not open for 2026 submissions now as they are in the process of creating the 2023 code. It should be open for 2026 PIs in late 2022 or early 2023, with a submission deadline of early September 2023.

There is still some opportunity to influence the 2023 code by submitting Public Comments on the actions taken by the CMPs in the First Draft Report. It is easy to comment on an change that was made, but not as easy to comment on a resolved (rejected) PI as they are a bit harder to find.
The First Draft Report will be published on 7/2/2021 and open for PCs until 8/19/2021.
The second draft report will be published 3/21/22 with notices to submit a motion for floor action at the June 2022 NFPA meeting due by 5/2/2202.

Thanks for the info.

 

[mortimer]

I agree and a better NEC would focus on code changes to things that are done everyday but not clearly defined by the code language.

"code language" is a foreign language to the layman as well as the electrical "upstart".

 

[augie47]

"code language" is a foreign language to the layman as well as the electrical "upstart".

That's one of the 1st things I cover in a Code Class. The attitude starts with "waste of time, we know what **** is" and they soon realize there is "Code" language which only resembles Webster.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That's one of the 1st things I cover in a Code Class. The attitude starts with "waste of time, we know what **** is" and they soon realize there is "Code" language which only resembles Webster.

And there is also code language and field language. What we typically call something in the field does not always match up with what Article 100 says the term means.

For example in my area a conduit body is almost always called a "fitting" in the field, and while the defined term fitting includes conduit bodies, it is a lot more extensive that that.

At one time the rules for a maximum degrees of bend in a raceway run used the term fitting and not pull point like it does now.
I am sure that the intent was that fitting would be read as "conduit body", but the term fitting includes couplings and so the language only actually said that you could not exceed 360 degrees of bend between couplings.