Electric Panel Question - two v one panels

Page 2 of 5  
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:51:03 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I'm not sure we're in agreement yet.
I think you are quoting: ********** The structure disconnecting means can consist of no more than six switches (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures for eac h supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [225.34 ], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22]. ***************
Instead, look at Fig 1 here: http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/branch-circuits-part-1
What we have in the pool area seems to be a branch circuit that is NOT conn ected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and connec ted directly to the feeder circuit.
I don't seen how that can meet code. Even if it does it is dumb.
There are two separate requirements: means of disconnect, and means of over current protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, but SURELY violated overcurrent protection.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:59:44 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

s (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures for e ach supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [225. 34], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22].

nnected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and conn ected directly to the feeder circuit.

The line to the pool panel is not a branch circuit. A branch circuit would be the individual circuits after the pool panel that run the pool pump, the pool lights, etc, ie each separate breaker serves one. If you install the pool panel like the original installers tried to install it, it's a second main panel and the line serving it is the service conductor. More than one main panel is permitted.

As it is, it very likely doesn't meet code, for the reason Gfre cited. He stated that all disconnects have to be grouped together. You cited the relevant code section too. If the pool panel is near the other outside disconnect, then it could be code compliant . More likely it's a good distance away and hence not code compliant.

ercurrent protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, bu t SURELY violated overcurrent protection.
You ignored my explanation and example of similar *service conductors* that also have no overcurrent protection, because none is required by code. Simple example is the millions of homes where the meter is outside, then service conductors run from the meter to the main panel in a basement, garage, utility room, etc. Between the meter and the panel, there is no overcurrent protection. It's the same in that regard to running the service conductors to the pool panel, it's a second main panel. And so far, the only code violation that I see is the one Gfre cited. And that one is only a violation if the pool panel is located away from the other outside disconnect, (which it probably is).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The pool guys were DEFINITELY not electricians to make that mistake. You can guarantee there was no permit and no inspection either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Correct. Either move the feeder from the live side of the main to the switched side or cut the (always live) feader and install a second "main disconnect" breaker panel beside the main panel marked "pool disconnect" or similar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Huh. This is weird. I thought a feeder had to always have overcurrent protection but I'm wrong, by NEC 240.21(b).
There is a ten foot rule. 240.21(B)(1) It does apply to my house.
But I'm thinking that this pool "might" be covered by 240.21(B)(5) instead. In that case there needs to be a single disconnect at the pool rather than 6 breakers though. Maybe there is?
See here: http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/understanding-rules-feeder-taps
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If I'm reading your comment right, the distance you are talking about in this setup is only a couple inches, the boxes are side by side, within two inches of each other. Then the power goes out of the second box (the pool breaker box) and 40 feet to the pool equipment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:51:46 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:

rrent code.

e of the feed they tapped into, and it probably is a quick and easy fix. H ope they left a little slack in the conductor.

t between the breaker panel and the pool is completely unprotected. If any thing happens to that line you may dump 20,000 amps to ground, pretty likel y burning down the house in the process.

Another interesting related question to Tim's concern about lack of overcurrent protection is this. Let's make it simple, just a meter that is outside and a panel that is outside. AFAIK, it's OK under code for the service conductors to run any distance *outside* from the meter to the pane l. Meaning you could have the panel 40 ft from the meter, with no overcurrent protection in between. Not suggesting that I would do it that way, that it's a good idea if there are other obvious ways of doing it, etc, just that from what I know of the code, I think it's compliant.
Gfre, am I right on that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:16:12 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

e

nel.

t

No, according to one of the links I posted earlier, that distance depends o n meeting some criteria for ampacity and protection of the wiring. There a re three possibilities: wiring under 10 feet, wiring under 25 feet, and un limited length, and these can all be done without overcurrent protection BU T not without meeting some additional conditions.
Provided those conditions are met overcurrent protection is not needed, I w as wrong on that point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:41:56 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

t

the

panel.

ent

t

on meeting some criteria for ampacity and protection of the wiring. There are three possibilities: wiring under 10 feet, wiring under 25 feet, and unlimited length, and these can all be done without overcurrent protection BUT not without meeting some additional conditions.

What links are those? You posted links to branch circuits and then feeder circuits. *Service conductors* between the meter and the panel are n either. And even for what you did post, I didn't see anything that specifies 10 ft, 25 ft, etc. I have no idea what you're talking about.
You keep making claims about what can and cannot be done and so far, you've been wrong. In particular, it now appears that the pool install that the OP was concerned about is code compliant, unless something else we don't know about, was done wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:51:04 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

neither. And even for what you did post, I didn't see anything that

My understanding of the code is that any circuit between the meter area ove rcurrent device (and the OP says he has one) and the branch circuit overpro tection device is by definition a feeder circuit. Feeder circuits are cove red by Article 215.
If that is wrong then everything I've said is misguided. But all the defin itions I could find online seem to indicate it is a feeder. The service co nductor ended at that initial overcurrent device; everything downstream is either a branch circuit (Article 210) or feeder (215).
Then technically the circuit between the supply side of the main panel and the pool panel is a feeder tap, because it is tapped into the feeder circui t.
If I'm right all the rules for feeders apply to the run from the first disc onnect by the meter up to the main panel in the garage, and all the rules f or feeder taps apply to the run between main panel supply and pool panel.
It seems the only way I'm wrong is if entire run to the main panel is actua lly a service conductor rather than a feeder. (no way it's a branch)
As far as I can tell from googling, the difference between service conducto r and feeder conductor is overcurrent protection. If it has, it is a feede r.
Now I'll quote the OP's original post: "Main supply wires come out of the g round, go thru the electric meter and into a main breaker panel on the outside of the house that has a single large breaker in it that shuts of the entire house. " That whole ru n from that single breaker to the main panel in the garage is protected, th erefore (to me) it looks like a feeder.
What am I missing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2014 12:26 PM, TimR wrote: ...

That's ok...
...

No, but where you're off compared to the OP's configuration is that the connections are _BEFORE_ the disconnect. Hence, they're also (a parallel) service.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:01:12 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:


I was initially off badly. I thought the connections were before the disco nnect and therefore the circuit was unprotected. It was confusing because the term main disconnect was used to mean two different things.
I know know there are two disconnects. There is one at the meter outside t he house. There is a second one at the main panel (the main breaker of the main panel in the garage). The pool panel connects between the two discon nects. Therefore the "main" breaker on the "main" panel will not disconnec t the pool panel. But the upstream meter area breaker will.
Which makes sense - they shut that one off when they wired the pool, as opp osed to pulling the meter.
Given that configuration, those look like feeder circuits to me. Could be w rong of course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2014 1:12 PM, TimR wrote: ...

...

Except that is _NOT_ the configuration as described by the OP...
From the OP's very first post --

He says specifically that other than pulling the meter there is no cutoff at all for the pool box.
Ergo, the feed comes from _BEFORE_ the outside breaker _FEEDING_ the first inside main and that is, thereby, another feed and is as noted, electrically and extension of the feeder _to_ the outside single breaker.
Again, we're left w/ the question of "why" that OP hasn't amplified on enough to know other than, as I surmise, the box out there is a single-breaker box only and it was more convenient to do the hot splice (or perhaps they did pull the meter, who knows, it's been >20 yr according so some other posting I believe) rather than put a Y into the output legs from that breaker or perhaps it isn't rated sufficiently for the total load and they were too cheap to replace it...all of those we simply have no data for at this point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I do admit that the actual wiring explanation remains confusing and is subj ect to different interpretations.
Quoting:

He might be saying that and he might not. He says flipping "that main brea ker" does not depower the pool panel. But "that main breaker" could easily refer to the main breaker in the main panel as opposed to the "other main breaker" out by the meter.
If it is the meter area breaker I admit defeat, I am just flat wrong. (but I wouldn't have wired it that way) (and I'm not sure HOW he would have wir ed it that way. That would mean running an additional line all the way fro m the meter area to the garage, instead of a few inches from the main panel to the pool panel. And even then, wouldn't it have been easier to connect to the load side? But it is possible. I'm basing my guess on the likelih ood of them doing it the easiest and cheapest way)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2014 1:52 PM, TimR wrote:

...
I "admit" nothing like that at all on that point...it's perfectly clear what was written was what was meant. I read every follow-up of OP's up to the point at which I first replied and he's said nothing that contradicts that.
You can continue on with the tilting match; I'm retiring unless OP says something different or in addition to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 3:17:11 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

+1
From the original post:
Main supply wires come out of the ground, go thru the electric meter and into a main breaker panel on the outside of the house that has a single large breaker in it that shuts of the entire house. Inside the garage is another panel that is fed from that main breaker and it has all the individual breakers for the various circuits, lights, plugs, A/C, Stove, etc.
Later I had a pool built and by some means the pool people went into the outside panel and tapped into the electric ahead of the big breaker. So flipping that main breaker to off does not de-power the panel for the pool equipment. The pool equipment panel has no "main" breaker but just individual breakers for the different pool things. "
It's absolutely clear, as stated. Especially this part:
"the pool people went into the outside panel and tapped into the electric ahead of the big breaker. "
There is only one breaker, serving as the disconnect outside. The meter service feeds that. He's saying the pool people tied in ahead of that breaker. Also, as further proof, is the recent squawking from the electricians that they were concerned as to whether it was code or not. I really don't see how there is any confusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/31/2014 1:52 PM, TimR wrote: ...

Not as it was written, no.

That "all the way" distance is probably simply thru the garage wall as more than likely the inside box is mounted directly or very nearly behind the meter that's on the outside wall...
As for the feed instead of loadside, we have no information by which to judge "why" other than (perhaps) they thought it would exceed a load calculation rating for the existing breaker and weren't charged with increasing that capacity ('scope' in other words)...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 6:03:14 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

"Later I had a pool built and by some means the pool people went into the outside panel and tapped into the electric ahead of the big breaker. So flipping that main breaker to off does not de-power the panel for the pool equipment."
Then we have:
"In mucking around in the panel I realized there was no way to disconnect the panel from the mains and I had no desire to RR the bad breaker with the box live. So I called the local electricians I trust and had them come over to RR the breaker."
And the electricians weigh in:
"They said they have never seen a pool panel that did not tap in after the main house breaker and were concerned it did not meet code. "
Good grief, how could it be any clearer?

IDK what the "all the way" distance is that he's referring to. They put the main disconnect/breaker for the house outside. It feeds a panel in the garage with all the house breakers. The pool panel is installed as a main panel would be and it's right next to the disconnect/main breaker panel outside.

Agree, it's odd, but who knows the reasoning. My main point in all this is that odd, not typical, etc <> code violation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:26:51 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

re neither. And even for what you did post, I didn't see anything that

vercurrent device (and the OP says he has one) and the branch circuit overp rotection device is by definition a feeder circuit. Feeder circuits are co vered by Article 215.
Once again, he doesn't have a circuit between the overcurrent device near the meter and the pool panel. What he has, what we've been talking about, is a circuit that's *before* the overcurrent protection, before the disconn ect. It's service conductors that go straight from the meter to the pool panel. That pool panel is a main panel.

initions I could find online seem to indicate it is a feeder. The service conductor ended at that initial overcurrent device; everything downstream i s either a branch circuit (Article 210) or feeder (215).
Per his description, the pool panel is not downstream of the disconnect and there is no overcurrent protection. In fact, that is precisely why you thought it was a code violation, wasn't it? You also acknowledged that because of the fact that it's before the disconnect, either the power would have to be turned off by the utility or the install would have had to be done hot, because there is no disconnect. Hence, I don't see how it can be a feeder circuit.

d the pool panel is a feeder tap, because it is tapped into the feeder circ uit.

sconnect by the meter up to the main panel in the garage, and all the rules for feeder taps apply to the run between main panel supply and pool panel.

ually a service conductor rather than a feeder. (no way it's a branch)
Which main panel? The pool panel? The pool panel is a main panel and the conductors to it are service conductors.

tor and feeder conductor is overcurrent protection.
Bingo.
If it has, it is a feeder.

ground, go thru the electric meter

run from that single breaker to the main panel in the garage is protected, therefore (to me) it looks like a feeder.

Mostly that the whole debate here is about what goes to the pool panel, not into the house. But you do have a point. Since the inside panel is downstream of the overc urrent protection that's outside, I agree the circuit between the outside breaker and the inside main panel apparently meets the definition of a feeder. But the pool panel is before all that and the conductors going to it are service conductors. And again, AFAIK, you can have any length service conductors, without overcurrent protection provided they are outside the building.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:50:40 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

When I first posted this it didn't seem like a major issue as to where each panel was but I see that it could be. These panels (the original one and the new pool panel) are within inches of each other. The main panel has the single large original main breaker. That feeds to inside the house, maybe a wire run of 50 feet, to the "breaker panel" in the garage with has a dozen breakers in it. This "new panel" that may or may not meet code is the pool panel that's two inches away from the original single Main Breaker panel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.