any issues

[petersonra]

I think you've found a technicality with 240.28(1), but I'm not sure it's what the code intends. It basically wipes out the motor feeder protection requirements of 430.61 for feeders 10' or shorter.

I can't find 240.28(1).


are you talking about 240.21 (B)(1)?

how would this violate 430.61?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
I was thinking that there was language somewhere that said to treat parallel conductors as a single conductor but it does not actually say that.

I thought that too, but not only do I not find that, I don't even find anything that tells me I can use an OCPD that is equal to the sum of the ampacities of the conductors that are installed in parallel.

 

[petersonra]

I thought that too, but not only do I not find that, I don't even find anything that tells me I can use an OCPD that is equal to the sum of the ampacities of the conductors that are installed in parallel.

I sent them a formal interpretation request.

DOES 240.21 PROHIBIT THE USE OF PARALLELED CONDUCTORS AS TAP CONDUCTORS OR THE EXTENSION OF TAP CONDUCTORS WITH APPROPRIATELY SIZED PARALLELED CONDUCTORS?

I fully expect a response back in about 6 months saying I filled in the form wrong.

 

[steve66]

With 5 taps, it seems like you should just feed a distribution panel from the large breaker, and put the 5 smaller breakers in the panel.

 

[petersonra]

With 5 taps, it seems like you should just feed a distribution panel from the large breaker, and put the 5 smaller breakers in the panel.

its all inside a control panel.

 

[jumper]

I sent them a formal interpretation request.
I fully expect a response back in about 6 months saying I filled in the form wrong.

LMAO:lol: