Cut and cap 3/0 feeders in a gutter - re-energize

8

82angelfan

Senior Member
Location
Hesperia, Ca
OSHPD HCAI.
It is my intention to cut and cap "10' tap rule feeders" out of a panel and refeed that panel from a new main breaker in the MDSB.
Design approved the method of capping, but the Compliance Officer is saying we cannot leave live capped cables in a gutter or panel.
Does anyone know of a code preventing cutting and capping?
 

Attachments

  • EMAA riser diagram.pdf
    147.5 KB · Views: 10
82angelfan said:
Compliance Officer is saying we cannot leave live capped cables in a gutter or panel.
Does anyone know of a code preventing cutting and capping?
Click to expand...
Ask for a code reference. Sounds like someone is making up their own rule.

Also if the riser is actually tapped according to you diagram why can't you just remove the tap conductors from the riser.
 
82angelfan said:
OSHPD HCAI.
It is my intention to cut and cap "10' tap rule feeders" out of a panel and refeed that panel from a new main breaker in the MDSB.
Design approved the method of capping, but the Compliance Officer is saying we cannot leave live capped cables in a gutter or panel.
Does anyone know of a code preventing cutting and capping?
Click to expand...
Are you misspelling tapping? If not, what is capping?
 
The point of Post #2 is that if you have a compliant 10' feeder tap that terminates in an OCPD as required, and you cut back the 10' length to say 2' and just insulate the cut end, removing the OCPD, that is now a violation. As the remaining 2' of conductor is not protected at its ampacity. You'd need to remove all 10' of the feeder tap if you want to eliminate the OCPD.

Cheers, Wayne
 
infinity said:
It's not connected to anything.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, one end would be, it would still be energized. So it would be a 240.4 violation.

I guess I agree that if you want to leave a random 2' piece of wire in a gutter with both ends disconnected, you can. You probably don't even need to cap the two ends. : - )

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
As I understand it, one end would be, it would still be energized. So it would be a 240.4 violation
Click to expand...
As usual we disagree. :giggle: IMO that argument is weak. It's nothing more than a spare conductor since it's not connected to anything on one end. The 10' rule specifically mentions its connection to an OCPD on the other end for it to be considered to be a tap.
 
infinity said:
As usual we disagree. :giggle: IMO that argument is weak. It's nothing more than a spare conductor since it's not connected to anything on one end. The 10' rule specifically mentions its connection to an OCPD on the other end for it to be considered to be a tap.
Click to expand...

Definition of a Tap Conductor according to 100:

Tap Conductor.
A conductor, other than a service conductor, that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4. (240) (CMP-10)

If there is an OCPD upstream of these conductors-to-be-abandoned that exceeds their maximum current for their wire gauge, then they are a "Tap Conductor". This would mean they need to have an OCPD at their downstream end no matter what.

Easiest fix if you absolutely want to leave them in place to avoid doing demo work: Disconnect them from the point where the tap is being made.
 
DBill64 said:
Tap Conductor.
A conductor, other than a service conductor, that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4. (240) (CMP-10)

If there is an OCPD upstream of these conductors-to-be-abandoned that exceeds their maximum current for their wire gauge, then they are a "Tap Conductor". This would mean they need to have an OCPD at their downstream end no matter what.
Click to expand...
The last part of the sentence "as described elsewhere in 240.4". 240.4(E)(3) references the tap rules in 240.21. The 10' tap rule says the tap conductors must terminate in the OCPD. This conductor does not terminate anywhere so it is not a tap conductor.
 
infinity said:
The last part of the sentence "as described elsewhere in 240.4". 240.4(E)(3) references the tap rules in 240.21. The 10' tap rule says the tap conductors must terminate in the OCPD. This conductor does not terminate anywhere so it is not a tap conductor.
Click to expand...
I was pretty damn picky when I inspected our buildings but I don't know if I would pick that rock to make my stand on. :unsure: ;)
 
infinity said:
The last part of the sentence "as described elsewhere in 240.4". 240.4(E)(3) references the tap rules in 240.21. The 10' tap rule says the tap conductors must terminate in the OCPD. This conductor does not terminate anywhere so it is not a tap conductor.
Click to expand...
And what if the means of capping those wire ends comes loose 5 years in the future? You now have un-capped, live wire ends in some gutter just waiting to be a problem. The NEC is for fire prevention. Leaving energized wire stubs (even if they are capped) in gutter is not conducive to fire prevention IMHO.

My main question is: why even leave them? If the conductors are no longer needed to the point that they are going to be trimmed back to a gutter, then just fully remove them. The device being used to provide the splice isn't being removed, so it's not like leaving that little bit of wire is saving a whole lot of work in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top