tap or not

[GoldDigger]

Feeding it from a breaker in the service panel would make it a feeder and not a feeder tap so the tap rules and 230.3 would not apply, making it compliant to run through the interior of the garage, right?

If the feed through lugs are protected by the 200A main breaker and the feeder to the main house is rated for 200A, then it will not be a tap.
If you are just double lugging the input side of the panel, then the conductors will not be protected by the main breaker, and will be a service tap regardless of their size.
A tap situation is one where the smallest OCPD upstream of the tap wires has a higher rating than the allowed ampacity of the tap wires.

 

[RowE]

If the feed through lugs are protected by the 200A main breaker and the feeder to the main house is rated for 200A, then it will not be a tap.
If you are just double lugging the input side of the panel, then the conductors will not be protected by the main breaker, and will be a service tap regardless of their size.
A tap situation is one where the smallest OCPD upstream of the tap wires has a higher rating than the allowed ampacity of the tap wires.

Yes the feed through lugs are protected by the 200A main breaker, but the way it is now the #2 feeder to the house is terminated on the feed through lugs making it a noncompliant tap because of the conduit routing inside and outside of the building and the splices at the weather head.

 

[Smart $]

...
A tap situation is one where the smallest OCPD upstream of the tap wires has a higher rating than the allowed ampacity of the tap wires.

In the case of a service conductor tap, it's a lower ampacity than the supplying conductors and the [overall] service rating. The downstream ocpd and calculated load serve as the protection.

 

[jxofaltrds]

The dwelling is feed from the garage.



But 310.15(B)

(7) 120/240-Volt, 3-Wire, Single-Phase Dwelling Services
and Feeders. For individual dwelling units of onefamily,
two-family, and multifamily dwellings, conductors,
as listed in Table 310.15(B)(7), shall be permitted as
120/240-volt, 3-wire, single-phase service-entrance conductors,
service-lateral conductors, and feeder conductors
that serve as the main power feeder to each dwelling unit
and are installed in raceway or cable with or without an
equipment grounding conductor. For application of this section,
the main power feeder shall be the feeder between the
main disconnect and the panelboard that supplies, either by
branch circuits or by feeders, or both, all loads that are part
or associated with the dwelling unit. The feeder conductors
to a dwelling unit shall not be required to have an allowable
ampacity rating greater than their service-entrance conductors.
The grounded conductor shall be permitted to be
smaller than the ungrounded conductors, provided the requirements
of 215.2, 220.61, and 230.42 are met.

I am not trying to use the 'existing' exception.

 

[Smart $]

Yes the feed through lugs are protected by the 200A main breaker, but the way it is now the #2 feeder to the house is terminated on the feed through lugs making it a noncompliant tap because of the conduit routing inside and outside of the building and the splices at the weather head.

It's just the conductors running inside the garage that make it non-compliant. If they were routed completely outside, it would be compliant... at least regarding the tap issue.

 

[RowE]

Yes the dwelling is feed from the garage with a 4 wire feeder similar to the drawing u posted

 

[Smart $]

The dwelling is feed from the garage.

...

But 310.15(B)

... with or without an
equipment grounding conductor. ...

I am not trying to use the 'existing' exception.

Cannot discern the point of your post as it relates to the OP's situation. :?

The "with or without EGC" is just to cover the possible compliant scenarios, not to permit a required EGC to be omitted. 310.15(B)(7) is regarding circuit rating exception to the conductor ampacity requirements otherwise imposed, and has nothing to do with grounding conductors. IMO an entirely superfluous phrase.

 

[jap]

Yes the dwelling is feed from the garage with a 4 wire feeder similar to the drawing u posted

Sounds to me like they goofed up.
I would have thought they would have wanted to feed the house with 200 Amps and the Garage with a 100 Amp Feeder but maybe I'm wrong.
You cant get a 200 Amp Feeder to the house now without upsizing the wire all the way.

It all sounds backwards to me but maybe they wanted a 200 amp feeder to the garage, I dont know why.

JAP

 

[RowE]

Sounds to me like they goofed up.
I would have thought they would have wanted to feed the house with 200 Amps and the Garage with a 100 Amp Feeder but maybe I'm wrong.
You cant get a 200 Amp Feeder to the house now without upsizing the wire all the way

It all sounds backwards to me but maybe they wanted a 200 amp feeder to the garage, I dont know why.

JAP

I think the reason for going to the garage first was because there is alot of concrete in the backyard and the house has a awning that comes out about 10' for a patio along a good portion of the house, the overhead would have to maintaining 8' cleareance over the awning and the local power company will not allow the meter socket under the awning. There would be alot of concrete cutting to go underground. It would have been ideal for them to have installed an underground conduit before the shop was built.

 

[kwired]

Yes the feed through lugs are protected by the 200A main breaker, but the way it is now the #2 feeder to the house is terminated on the feed through lugs making it a noncompliant tap because of the conduit routing inside and outside of the building and the splices at the weather head.

You have about 3 options here, 1) increase conductor size within the building to 200 amps ampacity, 2) route the conductor outside the building and only enter with minimal amount necessary to get to the supply point, 3) install 100 amp overcurrent device on the supply side of the conductor in question. If the #2AWG is copper, the ampacity @ 75C is 115, and can be protected at next standard size up which is 125 amps, but load calc can not be more than 115. If you have 100 amp breaker at house you should not exceed 115 though.

I think the reason for going to the garage first was because there is alot of concrete in the backyard and the house has a awning that comes out about 10' for a patio along a good portion of the house, the overhead would have to maintaining 8' cleareance over the awning and the local power company will not allow the meter socket under the awning. There would be alot of concrete cutting to go underground. It would have been ideal for them to have installed an underground conduit before the shop was built.

NEC would also require 8' of clearance over a roof with less than 4/12 slope.

 

[david luchini]

2) route the conductor outside the building and only enter with minimal amount necessary to get to the supply point,

That doesn't sound right to me. If the tap conductors originate indoors, then you can't use the outdoor tap rule. Only the outdoor tap conductor point of load termination is allowed to be indoors.

 

[kwired]

That doesn't sound right to me. If the tap conductors originate indoors, then you can't use the outdoor tap rule. Only the outdoor tap conductor point of load termination is allowed to be indoors.

I have to agree that some may not allow it, on the supply end, NEC does not mention anything at all about that situation.

The load end however is covered in the NEC and can enter the separate building if hitting the overcurrent device near the point of entry - similar wording to how service conductors can enter a building if they hit the disconnecting means near the point of entry and even says requirements of 230.6 apply to this situation.

This is based on wording in 225.32. Now it doesn't specifically mention if it only applies to feeders or if it can also apply to feeder taps, which IMO still leaves room for differences in enforcement of what is/isn't allowed.

I happen to believe the load end doesn't matter if the supply side tap is made indoors or outdoors, you still have the same thing at the load end, but I would understand questioning of the supply end.

 

[david luchini]

I have to agree that some may not allow it, on the supply end, NEC does not mention anything at all about that situation.

I will have to disagree. The NEC is clear that for Outside Taps of Unlimited Length, the tap conductors must originate outdoors.

This is based on wording in 225.32. Now it doesn't specifically mention if it only applies to feeders or if it can also apply to feeder taps, which IMO still leaves room for differences in enforcement of what is/isn't allowed.

A feeder tap is by definition a feeder. I don't see how the enforcement of 225.30-32 would be any different.

 

[kwired]

I will have to disagree. The NEC is clear that for Outside Taps of Unlimited Length, the tap conductors must originate outdoors.



A feeder tap is by definition a feeder. I don't see how the enforcement of 225.30-32 would be any different.

Sorry but I fail to see where it is clear the tap must be made outdoors. The wording to make it undisputable just is not there IMO, unless you have something outside of 240.21(B)(5) that I am not aware of. IMO you need to do a little reading between the lines to say the tap must be made outdoors.

I already know the response will mention wording directly from (B)(5) : "except at the point of load termination".

My response is why not include more language to exclude the tap location to make it less disputable? That said it is not a big enough problem for me to try to get it changed - it is just my observation, and you are welcome to your own opinion as well.

 

[david luchini]

Sorry but I fail to see where it is clear the tap must be made outdoors. The wording to make it undisputable just is not there IMO, unless you have something outside of 240.21(B)(5) that I am not aware of. IMO you need to do a little reading between the lines to say the tap must be made outdoors.

I already know the response will mention wording directly from (B)(5) : "except at the point of load termination".

My response is why not include more language to exclude the tap location to make it less disputable? That said it is not a big enough problem for me to try to get it changed - it is just my observation, and you are welcome to your own opinion as well.

Yes, you know what my response will be. The language is plain and clear. Why must they include more language to say the same thing that the Code already says?

240.21(B)(5) Where the conductors are located outdoors of a building or structure, except at the point of load termination, and comply with all of the following conditions:

Q: How would tap conductors that originate within a building or structure comply with the above sentence?

A: They would not.

And since they do not comply with that sentence, the outside tap rule cannot be used. There is no reading between the lines required to say that the tap conductors must originate outdoors, just a plain reading of the text.

 

[mwm1752]

230.32 Protection Against Damage.
Underground service-lateral conductors shall be protected against damage in accordance with 300.5. Service-lateral conductors entering a building shall be installed in accordance with 230.6 or protected by a raceway wiring method identified in 230.43.

Service-lateral conductors AKA(unfused)can enter a building with proper protection and a AHJ approved location on the interior -- Just running it through to get to another building is a problem. Protect wiring as a feeder for compliance.

 

[jap]

It boils down to the #2 feeder wiring to the house is not protected as it should be.
Its landed on the load side lugs of the Outdoor 200 Amp Service Panel mounted on the outside of the Garage, and the #2 is not rated for 200 Amp Main Breaker thats protecting the Buss Bars of this Panel.
If left this way it is a Feeder Tap but the overcurrent protection for the #2 is missing.
Since its 4 Wire all the way from the Service Panel on the Garage to the House,He can simply install a 2p Breaker of the correct size in the Service Panel and move the wiring from the Load Side Lugs to this Breaker or Leave the #2 Wiring on the Load Side Lugs, but, then he would have to install a means of overcurrent protection to protect the #2 Feeder to the House within the distance allowed for a Feeder Tap.

 

[kwired]

Yes, you know what my response will be. The language is plain and clear. Why must they include more language to say the same thing that the Code already says?



Q: How would tap conductors that originate within a building or structure comply with the above sentence?

A: They would not.

And since they do not comply with that sentence, the outside tap rule cannot be used. There is no reading between the lines required to say that the tap conductors must originate outdoors, just a plain reading of the text.

Does it make any sense to allow a short length inside of a building on one end but not the other? As far as is it clear what it says, maybe it is, I may be questioning why it says it more so than what it says. Just doesn't make any sense to me why a short length with overcurrent protection higher than conductor ampacity is acceptable at one end but not the other. At least there is overcurrent protection, with service conductors entering for same short distance who knows what will open first in a fault condition.

 

[jim dungar]

Does it make any sense to allow a short length inside of a building on one end but not the other?

Yes, it does.
The intent is to allow a customer to create an outdoor distribution system similar to that of a utility.

 

[kwired]

Yes, it does.
The intent is to allow a customer to create an outdoor distribution system similar to that of a utility.

I already realize that, but what does it hurt to have underprotected conductor for a short length on the supply end inside a building when the load end is clearly allowed to be inside for limited distance - and the limitation allowed is not even specific, many local AHJ's have to set their own limitations as to what they will accept. One jurisdiction you may be allowed to enter just a foot, another maybe 5 feet, some may even let you go 10 feet or more - maybe with special conditions, and then others will still say no, overcurrent protection must be before entry

Is that short distance any more likely to burn building A down than the same distance @ same load is for building B?