splicing entrance conductors

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

keith gigabyte

Senior Member
Location
New Kensington, Pa
An inspector failed a job to reintroduce power to a home that utility had shut off for 2 years. All looked good except the neutral had been spliced in panel box. It had cadmium split bolt and proper size wire. Inspector said can't splice entrance conductors I cited 230.46 splicing entrance conductors. He said that refers to trough mounted blocks feeding multiple panels..ie 300 amp service with two 150 amp panels. Those are taps from my point of view. How would you handle it?
 
The inspector is incorrect.

Ask him to reconsider.

If he does not change his mind, go over his head if he has an electrically-knowledgeable superior. Otherwise, your best course will likely be to replace the SE.
 
keith gigabyte said:
He said that refers to trough mounted blocks feeding multiple panels..ie 300 amp service with two 150 amp panels. Those are taps from my point of view. How would you handle it?
Click to expand...
Ask him where it states such install must be mounted blocks.

If you want to call it a tap, fine. In your install you have a tap situation with one incoming and one outgoing conductor. Tell him you could splice the ungrounded conductors if it makes him feel better about it - though it won't really change all that much.
 
Pretty much what I thought thanks guys. But some other info. I didn't wite the joint i do work for a real estate company and they gave me task of getting power back on and I don't fix anything unless it needs it

at at least I know I'm not crazy
 
jumper said:
Sure and when he sees this:



he will be most cooperative.:D
Click to expand...

Besides the fact there is no code section saying we can't splice service conductors the inspector was shown a code section explicitly allowing service conductors to be spliced I am fine with my response. :cool:
 
iwire said:
Besides the fact there is no code section saying we can't splice service conductors the inspector was shown a code section explicitly allowing service conductors to be spliced I am fine with my response. :cool:
Click to expand...
Most of us agree with what you said (both times), but outside the inspector seeing that several think he is wrong, it may not even begin to change his opinion here.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
These are not taps IMO. It is a splice because the wire size is the same. A tap conductor is reduced in size and must follow the rules of Article 240.
Click to expand...
NEC doesn't have a definition for the word "tap". You can have taps that are outside the scope of art 240.21(B).

What is covered by 240.21(B) is what the NEC refers to as "feeder taps", though it does't actually have a definition in 240 or in art 100, so the term "feeder tap" sort of only applies when using 240.21(B).
 
Dennis Alwon said:
These are not taps IMO. It is a splice because the wire size is the same. A tap conductor is reduced in size and must follow the rules of Article 240.
Click to expand...
Not so for service entrance conductors. Following the requirements of Article 230 will result in an installation quite similar.
 
I wonder if the inspector has ever looked up at a weatherhead. How would he think we, as a POCO, go from our service drop to the customer's riser conductors. Splices...they are usually insulinks or side by side one-bolt or two-bolt clamps. Goes to different size wire, aluminum to copper, etc. Weird.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top