ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Applying tap rules to breaker feed

10-45 Log #4825 NEC-P10 Final Action: Reject
(240.21(B))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Don Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
(B) Feeder Taps. Conductors shall be permitted to be tapped, without
overcurrent protection at the tap, to a feeder as specified in 240.21(B)(1)
through (B)(5). Feeder taps shall be permitted to originate at the load terminal
of an overcurrent protective device. The provisions of 240.4(B) shall not be
permitted for tap conductors.
Substantiation: This type of installation is permitted in many areas, but the
code does not specifically permit it. The additional wording will make it clear
that this is a code compliant installation. As long as all of the conditions of this
section are complied with the point of origination of the tap conductor does not
create any additional hazard.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The proposed language is not necessary as the present
language permits such installation where appropriate.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

WOW! Great research! I totally disagree with the findings but at least I have
something in writing to show an inspector. How about a proposal to include the
NEC definition of a conductor? Did you find that info on the web?

Yes, that information is available on the web, but I did not have to research too much as I submitted the proposal. You can go here to find the Report on Proposals (ROP) and the Report on Comments (ROC) for the NEC. You can go back a number of code cycles.

Thanks for the link. I checked the site out. Amazing how many proposals are rejected.
Don't want the book too thick I guess.

Personally, I wish that more people would take a look at the ROP and ROC for each Code cycle. We came very close to a mandated floor box in a Meeting Room...it died only because enough comments were made to the 2011 draft. (Thanks, everyone).

There are a lot of folks who believe that the NEC is used as a tool to force the purchase of some specific manufacturer's product. Once you see how many time a manufacturer tries that and gets slapped down it makes you realize that the vast majority of the stuff that makes it into the NEC is there for a reason other than marketing.

The problem with reading the ROP is the daunting size of the document and the short time comments are open.

Agreed.
I find that a big part of the bulk is multiple proposals, sometimes verbatim, from multiple people.

I understand that in the name of fairness, they have to include every one of them, but it does make it quite a sizable tome.

I download the file of all 1,200 pages and just keep it open. I read a few pages at break, another few more at lunch, skip past the 50th proposal to mandate some prorietary new product...it takes me about a week of short bursts to get through it. But if it kills stupid stuff before it gets into the book I consider it time well spent.

It's also possible to just keep skipping ahead to the word "accepted" and gloss over all of the things that the CMP already turned down.

Proposals for the 2014 Code cycle are due November 4, 2011.
---HERE WE GO AGAIN---

Yes that is the insanity of this process. We have about 13 months to fix a version of the code that most people have not even seen yet and will not be adopted by most AHJs for over a year.