ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#83664 - 02/12/03 01:23 PM Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member
Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 2749
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Question for Student:

Why is there no limit on the size of the tap conductor like the other rules in this Section?
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Top
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#83665 - 02/12/03 03:35 PM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
txsparky Offline
Member
Registered: 05/25/01
Posts: 552
Loc: Magnolia,.Texas U.S.A.
I would venture a guess that it has something to do with the fire hazard being greatly reduced.
_________________________
Donnie
Top
#83666 - 02/12/03 06:05 PM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
Ron Offline
Member
Registered: 03/13/02
Posts: 582
Loc: White Plains, NY
Lobbyists of the industrial plant equipment manufacturers?
Or maybe reduced exposure to hazards of a failure.

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 02-12-2003).]
_________________________
Ron
Top
#83667 - 02/12/03 06:25 PM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
nesparky Offline
Member
Registered: 06/21/01
Posts: 642
Loc: omaha,ne
The most common use of this rule that I have seen is for the secondary side of the POCO transformer when one transformer feeds more than one building. In some locations it is the EC's responsibility to install the secondary wiring thru the meter socket to the main disconnecting means of that service. Other locations require us to bury the conduit(s) for the underground service, the thePOCO installs the wire and terminates both ends.
Since the POCO in not under the NEC wire sizes are often different than what an EC would have to run.
My best guess is that the code panel did not want to get into an discussion with the POCOs and the NESC people.
_________________________
ed
Top
#83668 - 02/13/03 02:27 AM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member
Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 2749
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Thanks to all for your reply to this question:



[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 02-13-2003).]
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Top
#83669 - 02/13/03 05:51 AM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
resqcapt19 Offline
Member
Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2148
Loc: IL
In my opinion, 240.21(B)(1) and 240.21(C)(4) were placed in the code to let electrical contractors be more competitive with the utilities. The utility installation was never covered by the NEC and they have not normally provided overcurrent protection for these conductors. Now the electrical contractor comes along and wants to make the same type of installation in a campus or other type distribution system and he has to provide an OCPD for his conductors at the line end of the conductor. With these two tap rules, the electrical installation can be installed in the same manner no matter who installs it. If it is a safe installation for the utility, it is also a safe installation for a contractor.
Don
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)
Top
#83670 - 02/21/03 06:51 PM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
BiggladAnt Offline
Member
Registered: 02/21/03
Posts: 13
Loc: Kansas
What is POCO?
Top
#83671 - 02/21/03 07:10 PM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
electure Offline


Member
Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 4259
Loc: Fullerton, CA USA
POCO= PowerCompany
Top
#83672 - 02/21/03 07:17 PM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
electure Offline


Member
Registered: 12/24/00
Posts: 4259
Loc: Fullerton, CA USA
Then how come I can't install #6 aluminum for a 200A house service? It seems to work fine in the triplex cable that the POCO uses.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 02-21-2003).]
Top
#83673 - 02/22/03 11:34 AM Re: Tap Rule 2002 NEC Section 240.21(B)(5)
harold endean Offline
Member
Registered: 02/16/02
Posts: 2233
Loc: Boonton, NJ
Lets take this a step farther. You have a 480V feeder to a step down transformer. On the load side of the trans is say a flex. metal conduit feeding a trough with 3 disconnects. Can someone install another metal flex out of the transformer to another disconnect? Will this fall under the 10 foot tap rule? Will it fall under the 25' tap rule? For the sake of convinece make the load calcs all work out for the exisiting feeder. (i.e. the feeder to the trough is the correct size, the wires are the correct size and the disconnects on the existing were all the correct size.) The question basically is, Can you add another feeder cable out of the transformer to pick up one more disconnect in a different pipe?
Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Member Spotlight
Member Since: 11/17/00
Posts: 2232
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box


Who's Online
0 registered (), 59 Guests and 9 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
 
Top Posters (30 Days)
Admin 47
HotLine1 43
gfretwell 19
Ruben Rocha 12
Trumpy 9
 
Newest Members
Freecrowder, clee512, Jdscott2005, FAIZAN, Regitest2

ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals