Protection of branch service

At a garage with an antiquated electrical service, a buddy wired an old 2 pole switch box ( I hope with fusing ) to a disconnect that is just after the watt hour meter. The switch box supplies a 240 volt compressor. I don't know if the main disconnect has fusing in it to protect the Romex from the switch. So, my concern is that there is no protection for that short Romex.

Aren't branch services ( panels or boxes ) supposed to have conductor protection at the source of power?

I run branch services off a two pole breaker rated to protect the conductors leading to the panel.

Dave M.

Reply to
Dave M.
Loading thread data ...

That is a feeder tap. see 240.21(B)(1)

It should

It all depends on the size and length of the tap, how it is protected and the size of the O/C device in the disconnect. Since you said Romex I say no.

If the extra box is adjacent to the main disconnect(less than 3' total conductor length), connected in conduit and good for at least 10% of the main disconnect amps it is probably OK. That means a 20a sub-panel (what this is) tapped with < 3' of 12ga wire in conduit and meeting the other grounding rules it should be OK. The only other question is how did he make the connection in the disconnect??? If he doubled up the conductor in the breaker lug that is probably not OK. I haven't seen a breaker in these sizes that accept 2 conductors. There are tapping devices that would make this OK tho.

Reply to
Gfretwell

The conductor is about a foot between the switch box and the main cut-off and is not protected by conduit and it would have to endure at least three times its rated capacity if a short develops. I assume he stacked the conductors. It looks like it is not code because of the lack of conduit, right? I didn't know that any conductor could do without protection of it's rated load. NEC or not, I will always use a breaker to protect any conductor of any length, or am I being ridiculous?

Dave M.

Reply to
Dave M.

While I'm not a code guru, I do know this. NEC is a *minimum*. If the feeder is short, protection is not *required*. But protection is obviously better than without.

Ridiculous, no. But some tightwad customer may not like paying for it. But then, some customer's don't like paying for anything, so...

daestrom

Reply to
daestrom

That is covered in the "tap" rules. The assumption is you are only protecting against a short since the downstream O/C device protects against overload. By putting this short tap in conduit you are assuming that it is protected from damage, minimizing the potential of a short and containing the fire if the short occurs. I would say if he slipped this through a short piece of conduit it would be "hold your nose" legal. The other issues of the double lugging and whether his grounding is up to snuff should be looked at too.

Reply to
Gfretwell

Well, chances are nothing will go wrong. I just don't like it.

Dave M.

Reply to
Dave M.

Oh! This customer IS a tightwad!

Dave M.

Reply to
Dave M.

Properly done, feeder taps are used safely every day in commercial installations.

Reply to
Gfretwell

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.