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.
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.
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)
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.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:52:59 -0800 (PST), TimR wrote:
Nowhere in the initial post (or elsewhere in the first week) did I see any mention of a "main breaker" in the distribution panel in the garage. My take on it is the main is outside at the meter, and there are 2 "distribution panels" in the garage - one for the house, and one for the pool. Neither one is a "service entrance panel" with a main disconnect/service breaker, and the house distribution panel is connected after the main disconnect, and the pool panel before the main disconnect. If that would EVER have passed inspection I would be very surprised. Around here the only place we would ever see anything resembling that would be in a rural installation with a "pole disconnect" main feeding service entry panels in the main buildings, and possibly, but very unlikely, a small distribution panel in a small outbuilding where that distribution panel is within sight of the main disconnect. That would possibly have passed a number of years ago, but I doubt it would be allowed if installed today. A "distribution panel" might be piggy-backed off a "sub breaker" in the main entrance panel to expand the panel, or depending on the distribution panel, perhaps "lugged off" from the main breaker in the distribution panel. The "pole disconnect" could be a 500 amp or 200 amp breaker, with the service entry panels being 100, 150, or 200 amp, and the "sub breaker" being up to 60 amp, more or less.
Years ago "main fused disconnects" and separate fused "distribution panels" were quite common, particularly in rural areas, often with the fused main disconnect outside - sometimes next to the meter, but often with the meter on the first pole of the incoming feeder line (at the end of the lane) with the feeder fused at the pole pig.
There is no limit on the length of service conductors"outside" the building which could also men under 2"+ of concrete within the building.
The code says "The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors."
Some jurisdictions think that means you have a back to back installation with a short nipple going through the wall and that distance starts getting longer as the looseness of the interpretation expands but it should not be more than a few feet.
The commentary in the handbook says
No maximum distance is specified from the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means. The authority enforcing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision on how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the service disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited over current protection. In the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials. Some local jurisdictions have ordinances that allow service-entrance conductors to run within the building up to a specified length to terminate at the disconnecting means. The authority having jurisdiction may permit service conductors to bypass fuel storage tanks or gas meters and the like, permitting the service disconnecting means to be located in a readily accessible location. However, if the authority judges the distance as being excessive, the disconnecting means may be required to be located on the outside of the building or near the building at a readily accessible location that is not necessarily nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.
If the service disconnect is outside and the pool panel runs off of the load side of it where it enters the house, this is a feeder and most of what has gone on in this thread is moot.
At that point the only consideration is that a feeder tap must be protected at it's ampacity at the load end (all of the breakers added up not more than the ampacity of the tap if there is no main) Then the question becomes, is this in a raceway?
On 12/31/2014 2:32 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: ...
...
I still think by the NEC it is still legal owing to the "six and under" and proximity proviso albeit (as I and almost everybody else has commented) it's not the ideal.
In practice it's no different than if it were a very small installation and there were only the single inside box, no outside box but only six branch circuits total in that one box. That still suffices as disconnecting all branch circuits by NEC.
Again, I'd surely prefer that the original installation had cleaned it up but I think (barring local exceptions) it's within NEC. I don't know Canadian variations from NEC but my first guess is it'd be ok there, too. Just because something isn't necessarily as convenient as it could be doesn't make it non-compliant.
Oh, stray synapse firing...wonder if that they somehow tied to the incoming feeds would fail under the "workmanship" clause??? :)
You can get a 100a breaker that will fit in a regular 2 slot bay for most panels. That would run a big spa heater, the spa and a pool with enough left over for a big air compressor. (I have it at my house)
Well, you're right, it wasn't mentioned. But the distribution panel in the garage serves every circuit in the house. Wouldn't it be unusual for ther e not to be a main breaker there?
The houses in my area mostly have a single disconnect and breaker on the ex terior of the house near the meter, and a main panel somewhere in the house with a main breaker and individual breakers for each circuit. Mine did no t have the exterior disconnect until we upgraded the main panel.
The OP may not actually know precisely where his pool panel is tapped in. I hope he will chime in again and clarify.
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.
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.
side of the feed they tapped into, and it probably is a quick and easy fix. Hope they left a little slack in the conductor.
cuit between the breaker panel and the pool is completely unprotected. If anything happens to that line you may dump 20,000 amps to ground, pretty li kely burning down the house in the process.
Thanks for the explanation. It's consistent with what I thought. Key point is that there was a lot of angst over not having overcurrent protection on a run that is external to the house. Your statement confirms my point that service conductors with no overcurrent protection are allowed outside.
reaker" does not depower the pool panel. But "that main breaker" could eas ily refer to the main breaker in the main panel as opposed to the "other ma in breaker" out by the meter.
but I wouldn't have wired it that way) (and I'm not sure HOW he would have wired it that way. That would mean running an additional line all the way from the meter area to the garage, instead of a few inches from the main pa nel to the pool panel. And even then, wouldn't it have been easier to conn ect to the load side? But it is possible. I'm basing my guess on the like lihood of them doing it the easiest and cheapest way)
Neither did I, but that also doesn't mean there isn't one.
My take on it is the main is outside at the meter, and there
That part is incorrect. He stated the pool panel is outside, next to the disconnect/main breaker for the house.
Neither one is a "service entrance panel" with a main
What specific code does the way it's installed violate? It's definitely weird, certainly not the preferred way of doing it, not the typical way. But not being typical code violation.
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)...
"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.
Not at all - if the main protection is atr the outside fused disconnect (or main breaker) only a distribution panel is required inside the garage - not a service entrance panel. A distribution panel does not have or need a main breaker.
the garage serves every circuit in the house. Wouldn't it be unusual for t here not to be a main breaker there?
Only a distribution panel may be required by code now. But remember that a n outside fused main disconnect or main breaker is a relatively new code re quirement. Most older houses will have been built without them and would h ave been required to have a main breaker in the panel. I stopped at Lowes and looked, the panels for sale all have main breakers in them. I also loo ked at work in a couple of electrical rooms, exactly half the distribution panels had a main breaker. These were clearly distribution panels downstre am of the switchgear but still had main breakers. So yes distribution pane ls can have a main breaker.
I would be very surprised to hear that the main house panel in the garage d oes not have a main breaker. OP?
HomeOwnersHub 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.