One conduit and one disconnect

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Desreft

Member
I have an inspector telling me that he "thinks" that the following installation is not code allowed. I asked him for a code reference that says that we are not supposed to do this, but he is asking me for a reference stating that it is allowed. Anyway,...

We did a line side tap of a service as allowed by 2011NEC 705.12(A) (2013 California code). Our tap conductors are routed from the switchboard to a gutter above the disconnect within 10' of the switchboard. From the gutter one single conduit is routed to a fused disconnect for the PV system. This one conduit has the tap conductors and the PV system AC feeders.

The inspector is saying that we need two conduits. One per circuit. So that if the disconnect is OFF, it will be easy to tell which circuits are ON and which ones are OFF.

Can anyone think of a code reference that prohibits this installation?
 
Saturn_Europa

Saturn_Europa

Senior Member
Location
Fishing Industry
Occupation
Electrician Limited License NC
Desreft said:
I have an inspector telling me that he "thinks" that the following installation is not code allowed. I asked him for a code reference that says that we are not supposed to do this, but he is asking me for a reference stating that it is allowed. Anyway,...

We did a line side tap of a service as allowed by 2011NEC 705.12(A) (2013 California code). Our tap conductors are routed from the switchboard to a gutter above the disconnect within 10' of the switchboard. From the gutter one single conduit is routed to a fused disconnect for the PV system. This one conduit has the tap conductors and the PV system AC feeders.

The inspector is saying that we need two conduits. One per circuit. So that if the disconnect is OFF, it will be easy to tell which circuits are ON and which ones are OFF.

Can anyone think of a code reference that prohibits this installation?
Click to expand...

Ask him if he would accept clearly labeling the disconnect. Running more conduit seems like a solution to a problem that does not exist.
 
Smart $

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
The tap conductors are service entrance conductors under 230.40 Exception No. 5. Then there's this...
230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable. Conductors
other than service conductors shall not be installed in
the same service raceway or service cable.
Click to expand...
 
G

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
Lazy inspector? It seems to me that if an inspector fails a job that it should be incumbent upon him to reference the language in the NEC backing his decision to red tag it.
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Inspector was right, but for the wrong reasons. If he would look up the code to support his decision he may have eventually found the right reason.
 
S

Strathead

Senior Member
Location
Ocala, Florida, USA
Occupation
Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
Desreft said:
I have an inspector telling me that he "thinks" that the following installation is not code allowed. I asked him for a code reference that says that we are not supposed to do this, but he is asking me for a reference stating that it is allowed. Anyway,...

We did a line side tap of a service as allowed by 2011NEC 705.12(A) (2013 California code). Our tap conductors are routed from the switchboard to a gutter above the disconnect within 10' of the switchboard. From the gutter one single conduit is routed to a fused disconnect for the PV system. This one conduit has the tap conductors and the PV system AC feeders.

The inspector is saying that we need two conduits. One per circuit. So that if the disconnect is OFF, it will be easy to tell which circuits are ON and which ones are OFF.

Can anyone think of a code reference that prohibits this installation?
Click to expand...


Along with the comments the others have made, I have a little question about your wording. You state, " to a gutter above the disconnect within 10' of the switchboard." The conductors themselves, from termination to termination need to be less than 10 feet long to utilize the 10 foot tap rule.
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Strathead said:
Along with the comments the others have made, I have a little question about your wording. You state, " to a gutter above the disconnect within 10' of the switchboard." The conductors themselves, from termination to termination need to be less than 10 feet long to utilize the 10 foot tap rule.
Click to expand...
If service conductors are involved the tap rules in 240.21 do not apply.
 
Smart $

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
kwired said:
If service conductors are involved the tap rules in 240.21 do not apply.
Click to expand...
And as I pointed out above (and seems to have been disregarded), if service conductors are involved, you cannot have feeders or branch circuits in the same raceway.

Desreft said:
...
Click to expand...
Desreft said:
We did a line side tap of a service as allowed by 2011NEC 705.12(A) (2013 California code). Our tap conductors are routed from the switchboard to a gutter above the disconnect within 10' of the switchboard. From the gutter one single conduit is routed to a fused disconnect for the PV system. This one conduit has the tap conductors and the PV system AC feeders.
Click to expand...
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Strathead said:
I agree and that is a good point, but I still read his statement as implying that 10 feet away is OK when using the tap rule and just wanted to clarify it.
Click to expand...
But there is no "tap rule" when it is service conductors, want to word that differently;)

Service and non service conductors together is the main issue here anyway.
 
S

Strathead

Senior Member
Location
Ocala, Florida, USA
Occupation
Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
kwired said:
But there is no "tap rule" when it is service conductors, want to word that differently;)

Service and non service conductors together is the main issue here anyway.
Click to expand...

No, I want you to understand that differently. The OP made the ambiguous statement about the tap rule. At that time he had no concept of the service conductor violation. That was quickly pointed out by the excellent intelligent participation here. It doesn't change the wording the OP used when he was asking about other issues, which is ALL that I was addressing.:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top