Tap rule

[ITO]

Ok I ran into a tap that did not look right and for the life of me I can figure out why.
Does this look right or is it violating the tap rule.

Any help is appreciated.

 

[iwire]

Looks like they tapped a tap at the blocks above the fused discos.

What size conductor from the 2 sets of 600s and the discos?

 

[iwire]

Also the tap of 2 sets of 600s does not comply with 240.21(B)(2)(2).

IMO this needs 4 sets of 600s in place of the two sets of 600s to make it NEC compliant.

 

[ITO]

I think the feeders to the 200A discos are 3/0.

 

[augie47]

How about the 100 amp ?
I agree with Bob that you would need (4) sets instead of (2) to be compliant and then you would need to look at the 10X rule in regard to the 100 amp tap size.

 

[jim dungar]

For overcurrent protection purposes (Art 240 stuff) a connection is not a tap. A tap only occurs when the 'new/added' conductor is smaller than the protective device.

For all but a few instances taps are limited to 25' of conductor length

To be compliant, you need to provide 1600A worth of conductor all the way to the furthest disconnect switch. Or, all of your 200A and 100A disconnect connections need to be made with (2) 600kcmil and not exceed 3' to the furthest switch

 

[ITO]

Ahhh tappig a tap...sigh

Thanks for the input, I am not feeling all that smart lately.