Disconnect fed from the line side of another disconnect

[arcsnsparks98]

I ran into an installation yesterday that has me puzzled. A second disconnect was added to a circuit (30A) and was fed by jumpering out of the line side lugs of the first disconnect. Aside from the lugs possibly not being listed for more than one wire, is there a code section prohibiting this? It seems to be no different than back in the day when you could use a receptacle to complete a circuit.

 

[roger]

Like you said, the lugs may be a problem but, if the conductors are sized properly all is fine.

BTW, you can still feed through a receptacle with the exception of the neutral of a MWBC.

Roger

 

[starbolin]

I ran into an installation yesterday that has me puzzled. A second disconnect was added to a circuit (30A) and was fed by jumpering out of the line side lugs of the first disconnect. Aside from the lugs possibly not being listed for more than one wire, is there a code section prohibiting this? It seems to be no different than back in the day when you could use a receptacle to complete a circuit.

Allowed if meeting one of the exceptions in 230.40 and, as Roger said, the panel lugs are rated for multiple conductors. Many panel lugs are so rated. I used to see this all the time in temporary installations for theater productions. Often done live. Somehow we managed to do it without blinding anyone. Now-a-days I pay more attention to arc-flash possibilities.

 

[david]

Allowed if meeting one of the exceptions in 230.40 and, as Roger said, the panel lugs are rated for multiple conductors. Many panel lugs are so rated. I used to see this all the time in temporary installations for theater productions. Often done live. Somehow we managed to do it without blinding anyone. Now-a-days I pay more attention to arc-flash possibilities.

Like you said, the lugs may be a problem but, if the conductors are sized properly all is fine.

BTW, you can still feed through a receptacle with the exception of the neutral of a MWBC.

Roger

I am not sure from the op what the disconnect is for, the first disconnect may be load end of a tap, with out knowing what the circuit is it may or may not be able to except an additional load.

 

[starbolin]

I am not sure from the op what the disconnect is for, the first disconnect may be load end of a tap, with out knowing what the circuit is it may or may not be able to except an additional load.

My bad Yes, he is talking about a feeder tap, I didn't get that. Thanks David.

 

[S'mise]

Isn't a tap a smaller conductor?
If so, it would have to land in a fused disconnect and follow the other tap rules.

 

[david]

Isn't a tap a smaller conductor?
If so, it would have to land in a fused disconnect and follow the other tap rules.

there is not enough information presented in the original Post.

If the first disconnect mentioned by the OP would happen to be the disconnect on the load end of a tap then connecting to the line side of that disconnect would be a tap as well even if the conductors are the same size as the original tap conductors. If that is the case you would be tapping into tap conductors

 

[roger]

there is not enough information presented in the original Post.

Actually there is enough information to answer the question as asked. We can always read more into a question than what is asked and that is the reason for many failed exams.

If the first disconnect mentioned by the OP would happen to be the disconnect on the load end of a tap then connecting to the line side of that disconnect would be a tap as well even if the conductors are the same size as the original tap conductors. If that is the case you would be tapping into tap conductors

Agreed but that was not what the question was.

There are many things that could create code violations with the scenario but trying to mention all the possibilities would create an awful long post.

Roger

 

[david]

Actually there is enough information to answer the question as asked. We can always read more into a question than what is asked and that is the reason for many failed exams.

Agreed but that was not what the question was.

There are many things that could create code violations with the scenario but trying to mention all the possibilities would create an awful long post.

Roger

fair enough Rodger,Your one of the moderators here.

I should have left it alone when I suggested that the OP needed to investigate what a disconnect is being used for before considering if it is a code violation to tap into the line side and extend the circuit for some other purpose.