NFPA Response to my question

Status
Not open for further replies.
petersonra

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
Semi-retired engineer
I sent a request in to get an interpretation back on May 31.

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

I had not heard anything back so I figured I would ask about it. I sent them an email. They said they had responded on June 5 and copied me the email response.


They had a typo in my email address so I never got it.

This was the response.

"No, however the requirements of 310.10(H) and 110.14(B) must be followed."
 
petersonra said:
I sent a request in to get an interpretation back on May 31.

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

I had not heard anything back so I figured I would ask about it. I sent them an email. They said they had responded on June 5 and copied me the email response.


They had a typo in my email address so I never got it.

This was the response.

"No, however the requirements of 310.10(H) and 110.14(B) must be followed."
Click to expand...

Glad you asked the question because I am getting ready to do both and now we have a definitive answer. Right?
 
ptonsparky said:
Glad you asked the question because I am getting ready to do both and now we have a definitive answer. Right?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily; it was an NFPA staffer's opinion. The email must have said something to that effect. You can't get a Formal Interpretation (FI) in 5 days AND per NFPA rules it can only be answered "yes" or "no" with no further comment. Drafting an NFPA compliant request for an FI is a real pain.
 
FWIW: I agree with the answer, but my agreement carries less weight than theirs :D
 
rbalex said:
Not necessarily; it was an NFPA staffer's opinion. The email must have said something to that effect. You can't get a Formal Interpretation (FI) in 5 days AND per NFPA rules it can only be answered "yes" or "no" with no further comment. Drafting an NFPA compliant request for an FI is a real pain.
Click to expand...

The reply said section 6-1.4(a) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects does not permit a formal interpretation that involves the determination of compliance of a design, installation, product or equivalency of protection. However, I can provide a staff opinion.

I don't see where the question violated one of those rules. But, apparently it did in some way.
 
guess I don't understand your "apparently it did" statement.... someone have an opinion that it is a violation ? does not appear the NFPA fellow thought so ....
 
petersonra said:
The reply said section 6-1.4(a) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects does not permit a formal interpretation that involves the determination of compliance of a design, installation, product or equivalency of protection. However, I can provide a staff opinion.

I don't see where the question violated one of those rules. But, apparently it did in some way.
Click to expand...
Did you submit a "formal interpretation request form? It appears that you have to make a specific request for a FI, not just a question submitted to the NFPA.
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-stand...ss/tias-errata-and-fis/formal-interpretations
 
petersonra said:
I submitted it on their Formal Interpretation Request Form.
Click to expand...
Obviously it didn't matter.

See Sections 6.1.2 and 6.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Even if it does pass Section 6.1.4 muster it is a LONG process to get an FI. I've been on both the sending and receiving ends and NFPA staff does everything it can do to avoid passing an FI along to a TC or CMP.
 
rbalex said:
Obviously it didn't matter.

See Sections 6.1.2 and 6.3 of the Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Even if it does pass Section 6.1.4 muster it is a LONG process to get an FI. I've been on both the sending and receiving ends and NFPA staff does everything it can do to avoid passing an FI along to a TC or CMP.
Click to expand...

Better known as, we just write it, we don't interpet it.
 
qcroanoke said:
Better known as, we just write it, we don't interpet it.
Click to expand...
No, it means NFPA Staff can only offer opinions; FIs can only be made by a TC or CMP. Basically neither Staff, TC nor CMP writes Code; they can only respond to formally offered Public Input.
 
rbalex said:
No, it means NFPA Staff can only offer opinions; FIs can only be made by a TC or CMP. Basically neither Staff, TC nor CMP writes Code; they can only respond to formally offered Public Input.
Click to expand...

Got it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top