408.36 rule

[anbm]

Reading 408.36 rule, I am wondering if one panel feeds another panel by feed-though-lugs mean... will this violate the code since we do not have protection for 2nd panel expecially if 2nd panel stays in different area?

 

[roger]

Reading 408.36 rule, I am wondering if one panel feeds another panel by feed-though-lugs mean... will this violate the code since we do not have protection for 2nd panel expecially if 2nd panel stays in different area?

The downstream panel is protected by the OCPD protecting the first panel. It is simply an extension of the first panel but would have to be treated as a sub fed panel if remotely located, ie, it would have to have a seperate EGC even if the first panel was service equipment.

The conductors to the second panel and the busses would have to be equivilent to or higher than the OCPD.

Roger

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Reading 408.36 rule, I am wondering if one panel feeds another panel by feed-though-lugs mean... will this violate the code since we do not have protection for 2nd panel expecially if 2nd panel stays in different area?

The second panel is protected by the main in the feed through lug panel. The OCPD in the main panel can not be larger than the rating of the second panel.

 

[hillbilly]

The second panel is protected by the main in the feed through lug panel. The OCPD in the main panel can not be larger than the rating of the second panel

Just to add.....Unless any of the tap rules can be applied (240.21).

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Just to add.....Unless any of the tap rules can be applied (240.21).

Great Point

 

[infinity]

Here's an example of feed through lugs on a 400 amp panel:

 

[augie47]

Here's an example of feed through lugs on a 400 amp panel:

Would that conductor routing not be a violation of 300.3(B) & 300.20 ?

 

[infinity]

Would that conductor routing not be a violation of 300.3(B) & 300.20 ?

Yes there are violations in that photo. That was one of the reasons that I took the picture.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Just to add.....Unless any of the tap rules can be applied (240.21).

The tap rules only apply to conductors. The second panel must be protected at or below its rating. The statement that said; "The OCPD in the main panel can not be larger than the rating of the second panel", is correct.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Would that conductor routing not be a violation of 300.3(B) & 300.20 ?

Unless the panels are also listed as heaters.

 

[Smart $]

The tap rules only apply to conductors. The second panel must be protected at or below its rating. The statement that said; "The OCPD in the main panel can not be larger than the rating of the second panel", is correct.

OP doesn't mention specifically whether the second panel is MB or MLO, and to this point everyone is assuming it is MLO. As such, your statement is correct. However, the tap rules can be used if the second panel has a MB and all requirements of the applicable tap rule(s) is(are) met.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

OP doesn't mention specifically whether the second panel is MB or MLO, and to this point everyone is assuming it is MLO. As such, your statement is correct. However, the tap rules can be used if the second panel has a MB and all requirements of the applicable tap rule(s) is(are) met.

The original post says the second panel does not have protection...if it had a main breaker it would have protection, so it appears to me that the second panel is MLO.
You are correct that the tap rules would apply to the required protection of the conductors if the second panel had a main, and this main could, in some cases, provide protection for both the panel itself and the feeder conductors.