Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pepinbox

Member
My question is regarding article 400.9 of the 2002 NEC Code and how this may be applied to a temporary power distribution set up at a construction site. I feel that the taps used to provide power the 1hp pumps is in violation of this article. Any comments would be helpful. Here is my description of the site:

20 to 25 well pumps, reported to be 1hp each, were powered by a temporary generator. The primary cable used to provide power to the well pumps consisted of a hard service cord (type SOOW) routed along the surface of the ground along the entire length of the trench where the pumps were located. At each pump location, a secondary cable consisting of a receptacle on one end was tapped onto the primary cable in such a way that the (continuous) primary cable consisted of a series of taps coinciding with the location of each well pump. The receptacle provided at one end of the secondary cable provided a manual disconnect for the cord-and-plug connected pump.
 
tom baker

tom baker

First Chief Moderator & NEC Expert
Staff member
Location
Bremerton, Washington
Occupation
Master Electrician
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Need more information.
HP of pumps and voltage
Size of SOOW cable
Rating of receptacle
Overcurrent protection at generator
Were motors thermally protected
How are motors controlled auto or manual

This a basically an art 430 application, rules are different.
 
P

pepinbox

Member
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

I see art 430 regarding motors, but I am focussing on the fact that this cable has been tapped, as a violation of atr400.9. As far as your Q's:

HP of pumps and voltage: 1hp, 230VAC
Size of SOOW cable: #4
Rating of receptacle: 20A
Overcurrent protection at generator: unsure
Were motors thermally protected: unsure
How are motors controlled auto or manual: unsure, but probably activated by an integral float.
 
B

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

pepinbox,

I would agree that 400.9 is one of the many violations I can find in this installation.

frank
 
P

pepinbox

Member
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

" I would agree that 400.9 is one of the many violations I can find in this installation."

Please feel free to bloviate on this subject...
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Originally posted by pepinbox:
I am focussing on the fact that this cable has been tapped, as a violation of atr 400.9.
Click to expand...
If this temporary installation is at a construction site a box is not required.

527.4(G) Splices. On construction sites, a box shall not be required for splices or junction connections where the circuit conductors are multiconductor cord or cable assemblies, provided that the equipment grounding continuity is maintained with or without the box. See 110.14(B) and 400.9. A box, conduit body, or terminal fitting having a separately bushed hole for each conductor shall be used wherever a change is made to a conduit or tubing system or a metal-sheathed cable system.
Click to expand...
 
P

pepinbox

Member
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Thanks for the feedback Bob.

"See 110.14(B) and 400.9."

I have considered this article. My intereptation is that by refering back to section 400.9 splicing is only allowed to repair the hard service cord, not to tap it.

Paul
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Paul I can not agree with your interpretation of 527.4(G). It is very common (and code compliant) to make 'free air' splices at a construction site.

527.4(G) Splices. On construction sites, a box shall not be required for splices or junction connections where the circuit conductors are multiconductor cord or cable assemblies, provided that the equipment grounding continuity is maintained with or without the box. See 110.14(B) and 400.9. A box, conduit body, or terminal fitting having a separately bushed hole for each conductor shall be used wherever a change is made to a conduit or tubing system or a metal-sheathed cable system.
Click to expand...
It says nothing about for repairs only.

Article 527 modifies other sections of the code.

This is not to say that I think this is the best method, only that it meets code minimums.
 
P

pepinbox

Member
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Thanks for the input iwire. What I'm still having a bit of trouble is with the next line of art 527.4(G) where it refers back to 400.9:

quote:

527.4(G) Splices. On construction sites, a box shall not be required for splices or junction connections where the circuit conductors are multiconductor cord or cable assemblies, provided that the equipment grounding continuity is maintained with or without the box. See 110.14(B) and 400.9. A box, conduit body, or terminal fitting having a separately bushed hole for each conductor shall be used wherever a change is made to a conduit or tubing system or a metal-sheathed cable system.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Paul lets look at this from another direction. :)

If you interpretation of this is correct what is the point of 527.4(G) in the first place? :confused:

'A box is not required, see 400.9 a box is required' :confused:

The same thing would be accomplished by simply leaving 527.4(G) out of the code.

Look at 527.4(C) where they reference two other code sections.

527.4(C) Branch Circuits. All branch circuits shall originate in an approved power outlet or panelboard. Conductors shall be permitted within cable assemblies or within multiconductor cord or cable of a type identified in Table 400.4 for hard usage or extra-hard usage. All conductors shall be protected as provided in Article 240. For the purposes of this section, Type NM and Type NMC cables shall be permitted to be used in any dwelling, building, or structure without any height limitation.
Click to expand...
Notice how clearly the referenced sections are proceeded with 'shall be'. There is no 'shall be' in front of 400.9 or 110.14(B).

I do not know why they referenced 400.9 but I do not believe your interpretation is logical.

Just my opinion, Bob
 
P

pepinbox

Member
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

I suppose I can now arrive at the conclusion that although 400.9 does not allow tapping in general, for the specific instance of tapping the cord is acceptable at a construction site per 527.4(G).

Thank you for helping me noodle through this somewhat conflicting area of the code.
 
M

mc5w

Senior Member
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

However, Articles 210, 240, and 430 would require overcurrent protection ahead of each receptacle.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Originally posted by mc5w:
However, Articles 210, 240, and 430 would require overcurrent protection ahead of each receptacle.
Click to expand...
No that is not the case, 210 applies to branch circuits, this is not a branch circuit.

Artcile 240 is modified by Article 430.


2002 NEC
430.109(F) Cord-and-Plug-Connected Motors. For a cord-and-plug-connected motor, a horsepower-rated attachment plug and receptacle having ratings no less than the motor ratings shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means for other than a Design E motor and for a Design E motor rated 2 hp or less. For a Design E motor rated more than 2 hp, an attachment plug and receptacle used as the disconnecting means shall have a horsepower rating not less than 1.4 times the motor rating. A horsepower-rated attachment plug and receptacle shall not be required for a cord-and-plug-connected appliance in accordance with 422.32, a room air conditioner in accordance with 440.63, or a portable motor rated 1/3 hp or less.
Click to expand...
 
B

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Bob,(iwire),

It confusses me as to why you put your blessing on this set-up.
This is what I invision, Starts off from a generator(portable or trailer mounted) what kind of EGC is actually present? Next #4 soow cord is laid on the ground until it gets to pump#1,at that location with an open or free air splice,a #12 soow cord is tapped an it ends in a 20a cord recpt. O.K. now the cord from the 21a pump is connected to the motor that may or may not have motor protection. Now the #4 soow cord continues and does this 20-25 more times.
Next : What size OCPD is protecting this possibly non protected motor and the cord that is tapped to feed it? I didn't see mention of any gfci protection either. Also there has to be water every where with that many pumps.most construction sites they can even hook up one garden hose without getting water everywhere.
Last,I guess it's ok to put 400a plus,on this ,what 80a circuit breaker,4 maybe 5 will get to run. Code Compliant, can kill a man.

frank
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Originally posted by benaround:
Bob,(iwire),

It confusses me as to why you put your blessing on this set-up.
Click to expand...
Frank my answers on this forum have very little to do with my feelings on how work should be performed, or for that matter how I work.

I try to keep my answers here to what is required by the NEC or any other codes I may know about.

I am not going to say something is a violation just because I do not like the sound of it. :)

The name of the forum is "Mike Holt's Code Forum" I like to think the idea here is to provide accurate code information and let people decide from there if they want to exceed those rules. :)

Bob
 
B

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
Re: Splicing/Tap Code Violation

Bob (iwire),
I'm sure I speak for the "Forum" We appreciate it. Personally I hold your veiws with high regard.

frank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top