2011 nec 230.82(5) don't see the change?

[Gary Hill]

I am preparing a NEC update class using Mike Holt's excellent 2011 Changes book as the textbook. I was looking at 230.82(5) in the changes book, which says the Code changed the word "tap" to "connections". In my 2011 Code book 230.82(5) still says tap, and the only change in the section is to add (9) which allows communications equipment to be connected ahead of the service disconnect, with stipulations.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Gary

 

[volt101]

Errata Sheet doesn't have it, necplus doesn't have it, my three new books doesn't have it - central done forgot it!!!!

I do however understand what the problem is, you can not tap a service entrance conductor.

Have you checked the ROP & ROC's

 

[volt101]

_______________________________________________________________
4-152 Log #2881 NEC-P04 Final Action: Accept
(230.82(5))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: William Gross, Electric Service of Clinton
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
(5) Taps Connections used only to supply load management devices, circuits
for standby power systems, fire pump equipment and fire and sprinkler alarms,
if provided with service equipment and installed in accordance with
requirements for service entrance conductors.
Substantiation: The word ?Taps? as used in this section is similar to the
definition used in Article 240 for ?Tap Conductors.? Since this is not an Article
240 application and the definition of the word ?Tap? is not defined in Article
100 the wording should be changed.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 1
Explanation of Negative:
ZGONENA, T.: The panel action to accept this proposal was not appropriate.
The proposal should be rejected. The word ?Taps? is the correct word, in that it
requires applying the requirements for tap conductors in this situation.
Changing ?taps? to connections would allow the connection of conductors
which may do not meet the requirements of taps.
_______________________________________________________________



4-53 Log #2528 NEC-P04 Final Action: Accept
(230.82(5))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Timothy P. Zgonena, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Comment on Proposal No: 4-152
Recommendation: Propose to accept the original proposal.
Substantiation: Comment on panel action for Proposal 4-152:
The panel action to accept this proposal was not appropriate. The proposal
should be rejected. The word ?Taps? is the correct word, in that it requires
applying the requirements for tap conductors in this situation. Changing ?taps?
to connections would allow the connection of conductors which may do not
meet the requirements of taps.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
Comment on Affirmative:
ROGERS, J.: The word ?Taps? is the correct word, in that it requires
applying the requirements for tap conductors in this situation. Changing ?taps?
to connections would allow the connection of conductors which do not meet
the requirements of taps. The Action should be to reject the original proposal.



I think they missed it.........