25 FT Tap Rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
electrofelon said:
Exactly. The meter socket is just an extension of the tap conductor. The tap conductor ultimately terminates on the required OCPD. I am not seeing anything saying the tap conductor must be continuous without a splice, transition or joint.
Click to expand...

Code wants it directly terminated to an OCPD.
 
No real basis here, just my opinion based on logic below. Splice could be ok. Meter is not ok.

It's a gray area for a splice with whether the wire is terminating there at the splice or not. It might be ok to say it's a continuation of the same wire. Let's say there's no splice to start. Everything is ok. Then take some cutters and cut some wire, but then wirenut those two wire ends back. Is that all of the sudden no good?

A meter is an actual device being added into the circuit there. Contrast that with a splice; I don't think we'd call a wire nut a device being added to the circuit.

My $0.02
 
bwat said:
A meter is an actual device being added into the circuit there. Contrast that with a splice; I don't think we'd call a wire nut a device being added to the circuit.

My $0.02
Click to expand...
My issue is there is nothing that says the "device" they refer to must be considered the first thing a wire type conductor hits. Everyone seems to assume that I have to call the first thing the conductor hits as the "device" mentioned in the tap rule. I see no such language. I also see no language stating the tap conductor must be a wire type and continuous without transition or splice.. To me it seems like the "device" they refer to is the thing with the OCPD in it and that is all they care about as long as the length restriction is met.

I actually don't really have a dog in this fight, I thing the language is somewhat ambiguous but it bugs me when people say it says things that it doesn't.
 
mbrooke said:
I have not implied that in this thread. Code does not allow terminating taps into a meter socket, even though this rule is frequently misapplied in some areas.

Code wants tap conductors electrically short as possible- a meter socket is nothing more than an extension of a tap conductor instead of ending it at an OCPD.
Click to expand...
The only application I'm aware of, where you would strictly have to terminate your "tap conductors" in a meter socket, is when the meter socket is for a utility meter of a second service on the premises. In that instance, these are not 240.21(B) taps or 240.21(C) transformer secondary conductors, even if the same physical principles would seemingly apply to the circuit. These would be service conductors. You are allowed to terminate service conductors in a meter socket, before terminating in the service disconnect, and you have to do that when hot sequence metering is required, which is common for a self-contained meter.

If 240.21(B) or (C) applies, then this isn't a utility service meter where hot sequence metering would be required. This would a customer-owned check meter that doesn't concern the utility. Only NEC rules would govern it, rather than utility rules. Make it cold-sequence so it is easier to service, and make it load-side of the disconnect/ocpd required in 240.21(B) or (C).
 
electrofelon said:
In your opinion can a tap be spliced?
Click to expand...

Only the obscure 100 ft tap rule, prohibits splices. The fact that this isn't included in the other rules, or included as a blanket rule for all taps, implies the answer is yes. In fact, you might have to do this, using the outside unlimited tap rule, if your length is long enough for voltage drop curtailment to require you to upsize your wires.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is not an emergency disconnect if there are more than two meters.
Click to expand...
Ok, I’ll give you that one.
But realistically, when have you ever seen a meter bank combo built with the disconnects ahead of the meters? The internal bussbar section is built around the same tap rule which the OP is using in his construction.
Just sayin
 
electrofelon said:
My issue is there is nothing that says the "device" they refer to must be considered the first thing a wire type conductor hits. Everyone seems to assume that I have to call the first thing the conductor hits as the "device" mentioned in the tap rule. I see no such language. I also see no language stating the tap conductor must be a wire type and continuous without transition or splice.. To me it seems like the "device" they refer to is the thing with the OCPD in it and that is all they care about as long as the length restriction is met.

I actually don't really have a dog in this fight, I thing the language is somewhat ambiguous but it bugs me when people say it says things that it doesn't.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth,,,,, I feel the exact same way as you on this issue electrofelon.


JAP>
 
electrofelon said:
My issue is there is nothing that says the "device" they refer to must be considered the first thing a wire type conductor hits. Everyone seems to assume that I have to call the first thing the conductor hits as the "device" mentioned in the tap rule. I see no such language. I also see no language stating the tap conductor must be a wire type and continuous without transition or splice.. To me it seems like the "device" they refer to is the thing with the OCPD in it and that is all they care about as long as the length restriction is met.

I actually don't really have a dog in this fight, I thing the language is somewhat ambiguous but it bugs me when people say it says things that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

And then your post #15 of this:
electrofelon said:
It depends on exactly what "terminate" means. My opinion is that "terminate" does not necessarily mean anything and everything that isn't the same continuous conductor. For example Some will say that you cannot splice a tap because it terminates on the connector you are using. I don't really see the wording of the tap rules prohibiting the installation questioned.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to fully understand the position of it not being a violation (like Jap and electrofelon). So to you guys, as long as it hits an OCPD within the length restriction, then it's ok? That's what it seems like you're saying with "To me it seems like the "device" they refer to is the thing with the OCPD in it and that is all they care about as long as the length restriction is met."


I'm being sincere here. The word terminate, to me, means 'the connection at the end of that wire', so it's hard to agree with your "I see no such l language". And I say it's referring to the wires because it says "tap conductors terminate" and not "tap circuit terminates". But if 'terminate' doesn't have an article 100 definition, then it does seem to be a war of undefined words...
 
bwat said:
I'm trying to fully understand the position of it not being a violation (like Jap and electrofelon). So to you guys, as long as it hits an OCPD within the length restriction, then it's ok?

I'm being sincere here. The word terminate, to me, means 'the connection at the end of that wire', so it's hard to agree with your "I see no such l language". And I say it's referring to the wires because it says "tap conductors terminate" and not "tap circuit terminates". But if 'terminate' doesn't have an article 100 definition, then it does seem to be a war of undefined words...
Click to expand...

I can't speek for electrofelon, but, as far as I'm concerned, someone would have to explain to me how a tap conductor would somehow loose it's protection (not that you would but) if a splice is made in that conductor, or a switch is installed in that conductor, or being cut and wire nutted back together, or terminating line and load on a meter base, or any other item that is not an actual load as long as the tap conductor is within it's length requirements.

I simply see nothing in the language that says the tap conductor has to terminate in the overload protection terminal "first", only that it does have to terminate at an overload protection device to protect the tap conductor within a certain distance.

If the rule said that the termination at the overload protection or set of fuses had to be made "first", then, I'd understand no splice, or meter, or any other termination in the tap conductor prior to the overcurrent protection not being allowed.

JAP>
 
jap said:
I simply see nothing in the language that says the tap conductor has to terminate in the overload protection terminal "first", only that it does have to terminate at an overload protection device to protect the tap conductor within a certain distance.
Click to expand...
But isn't it fair to say that when you have a meter in there, that it's an entirely different conductor that runs from the load side of the meter to the OCPD?


FWIW, I'm not saying I agree with the code (if my interpretation is correct), I'm just saying it says what it says.
 
bwat said:
But isn't it fair to say that when you have a meter in there, that it's an entirely different conductor that runs from the load side of the meter to the OCPD?


FWIW, I'm not saying I agree with the code (if my interpretation is correct), I'm just saying it says what it says.
Click to expand...

Yes that's fair to say.

It would also be fair to say that you have internal workings of a breaker that are in between the actual terminal of the breaker and the trip mechanism inside of it.

Not sure why so much emphasis is being put on a termination point itself.



JAP>
 
bwat said:
But isn't it fair to say that when you have a meter in there, that it's an entirely different conductor that runs from the load side of the meter to the OCPD?
Click to expand...
That's entirely a question of where to draw the line.

The line is clear for the 100 ft tap rule, as it calls for an unspliced conductor. Then for the other rules, spliced conductors are OK by implication. A splice by wirenut or Polaris-style connector is generally considered OK. So now how about a splice by a busbar in a CT cabinet? And if that is OK, how do you distinguish that from a plug-in meter?

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top