Tap rules for service conductors

[jaggedben]

I've never contested conductors on the POCO side of THE disconnect being anything other than service entrance conductors. What I have contested is calling the disconnect a service disconnecting means and grounding requirements.

How can they be service entrance conductors if they are not 'between the terminals of the service equipment and [another point]"?
Oh yes, by the way I'm quoting the article 100 definitions of service entrance conductors.

Also, by the way, you agreed before that 'service equipment' must have a 'service disconnecting means' and vice versa.

 

[Carultch]

How can they be service entrance conductors if they are not 'between the terminals of the service equipment and [another point]"?
Oh yes, by the way I'm quoting the article 100 definitions of service entrance conductors.

Also, by the way, you agreed before that 'service equipment' must have a 'service disconnecting means' and vice versa.

Other than spare conductors, any active conductor will be connected from the terminals of one piece of equipment to another piece of equipment. Otherwise it wouldn't carry any current.

Service entrance conductors connect from UTILITY-OWNED EQUIPMENT to the terminals of the service equipment.

 

[Carultch]

I think the point is not to have an extended stretch of conductors in or on a building with no overcurrent protection. (BTW, I thought there was a similar requirement for service conductors, but I can't find it?) Note that it applies to overcurrent protection but not disconnecting means.

To me the sticky situation is if the OCPD is less than 10ft in a straight line, but the wiring takes some circuitous route that is significantly more. Imagine a situation where it went up and over a room that was less than 10ft wide but more than 10ft tall. I think that violates the spirit if not the word. In the end, it's up to the AHJ. :roll:

I don't think we'd be talking about a conductor that travels in an extremely serpintine path that goes all over the room, and yet still meets its source and destination within 10 ft of one another.

A more practical example of why I'm asking this question, would be if you have an interconnection tap point at the bottom of a panelboard, and the wires are connected to the top of an adjacent disconnect. The equipment itself could be 5 ft, maybe 6 ft tall already. And then you have the conduit connecting the two of them, which might be 5 ft. So after taking a safe bend radius through the gutters of all this equipment, it may end up being a few feet above the 10 ft limit.

 

[Smart $]

How can they be service entrance conductors if they are not 'between the terminals of the service equipment and [another point]"?
Oh yes, by the way I'm quoting the article 100 definitions of service entrance conductors.

Also, by the way, you agreed before that 'service equipment' must have a 'service disconnecting means' and vice versa.

It's a "hole" in the definition IMO. Doesn't specifically explain the "hole", but there's 230.82(6)

Anyway, we get to the point in having to call them something out of our choice of service, feeder, or branch circuit conductors. Likely one of the first two, and we both know which goes on which side of the overcurrent protection device. 705.31 stretches or limits the location a bit, depending on how you interpret. But I think the section got pushed through without thinking it through first!!!

 

[ggunn]

As I said earlier, 10 ft is the max distance allowed between disconnect and OCPD. Think about it. Is the disconnect THE point of connection if conductors on one side are service, the other side feeders.

And Code stipulates no means of measurement... so I'll say whichever yields the shortest measurement. AHJ may interpret otherwise. :lol:

And ultimately, 705.31 has nothing to do with where the disconnect is located with respect to any service disconnecting means.

705.31 is pretty clear; it states that the OCPD shall be located "within 3 m (10 ft) of the point where the electric power source conductors are connected to the service." To me that means that the fused disco has to be within 10 feet of the tap, and the AHJ where I do most of my work interprets it the same way. Whether that means conductor length or physical distance is left ambiguous, but it seems to me that conductor length is the more logical interpretation.

 

[jaggedben]

It's a "hole" in the definition IMO. Doesn't specifically explain the "hole", but there's 230.82(6)

Anyway, we get to the point in having to call them something out of our choice of service, feeder, or branch circuit conductors. Likely one of the first two, and we both know which goes on which side of the overcurrent protection device. 705.31 stretches or limits the location a bit, depending on how you interpret. But I think the section got pushed through without thinking it through first!!!

It's too funny. Why is the 'hole' in those definitions, rather than in 230.82(6), or in the definition of a service, or in 705.12(A)?

At least you admitted it's your opinion this time.