Electric Panel Question - two v one panels

Page 4 of 5  
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:19:30 AM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

there not to be a main breaker there?

requirement.
Then please provide us with a cite for that "new code requirement". You're really wandering badly in the wilderness here. AFAIK, there is no such requirement in NEC. Typically service runs straight from meter, to a main panel that is located close to where the service enters the building . That is where the main and only disconnect breaker for the service is located. That's why all those panels you talk about below have a main breaker in them.
Most older houses will have been built without them and would have been re quired 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 looked at work in a couple of electrical rooms, exactly half the distribution panels had a main breaker. These were clearly distribution panels downstream of the s witchgear but still had main breakers. So yes distribution panels can have a main breaker.

Whether it does or not doesn't change the fact that the pool panel is located outside, right next to the disconnect/breaker out there. It's wire d in direct to the meter, before that disconnect and not connected to the house panel that's located in the garage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/01/2015 9:06 AM, trader_4 wrote: ...

Ewww....I missed that but in re-reading all of Ashton's posting I see he does indicate that. I did in my earlier perusals of his postings skim that particular one too fast and thought the new pool panel was installed in the garage beside the existing house panel (hence my earlier comment about through the wall distances).
On that basis, I'll recant my former "Code-compliant" statement owing to the "nearby" rule unless there's an access door always unlocked and the two are right at that location where the door is -- otherwise, one has to take a hike to get from one to the other.
That also explains why the tie-in in front of the other breaker in large part in my mind...altho it surely would have been _a_good_thing_ (tm) to use a feed breaker in the new pool panel(*) or one with a separate main.
(*) Most, if not all, the new GE "homeowner" panels I see in the local box stores don't have a classic top-center-mounted main but use one standard double location as the feed that is then distributed to the rest of the panel. Depending on the panel, that may be the way this one actually is so there is, in fact, a cutoff, he just didn't recognize it as such as it doesn't look like the classic other style.
Altho there one would expect the other electricians to have pointed that out so suppose it isn't but is feed straight to the terminal lugs...that would be an interesting point for OP to clarify--what box, specifically is used there? _Perhaps_ he could convert to that form.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Some or all of the people who've been arguing with me COULD well be 100% ri ght. Certainly they ARE 100% sure they are right.
I still think the actual circuit wiring here remains uncertain. There is m ore than one way to interpret the OP's statements, and it can be a mistake to rely on the exact wording of a non expert homeowner who may have misinte rpreted what he saw.
Some people assume a short distance from meter to panel, but we don't actua lly know this isn't a detached garage 100 feet away. Others assume no main breaker in the garage panel, and that could be true, but again we don't kn ow. My house has a main breaker in the panel in the basement as well as an outside breaker at the meter. That is not uncommon in my area. It could well be unknown in another part of the country where inspectors have a diff erent interpretation of code
It would be useful to know: is there a main breaker inside the garage pane l? Does the exterior breaker by the meter shut off the pool panel? The an swers to those are assumed, and the assumers are 100% certain, but there is room for error here.
(where I work, about 10% of the mechanics are prone to being very certain t hey have all the info and their first assessment is correct - those 10% eas ily cause us 90% of the grief)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 11:16:10 AM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

Here's part of the problem. You can't just say "panel". There are 3 panels here. Two are outside, right next to each other. One is a panel that holds the main breaker/disconnect for the house. The other is the pool panel. The third panel is inside the garage and holds the breakers for the rest of the house. All that is crystal clear form the description given. I don't see anything uncertain, just the failure to read what is posted.

Sure, pile on some more crap. Have you ever seen a house where all the breaker for the house are in a detached garage 100 ft away? Good grief.

IDK, I don't care, because it has nothing to do with the question, the issue, which was that the pool panel is outside, connected directly to the meter.

Because you said the panel is not near where the service from the meter enters the building. You said the service runs under the house to get to the main panel. That's why code requires the breaker/disconnect outside.
That is not uncommon in my area. It could well be unknown in another part of the country where inspectors have a different interpretation of code

The OP has made it crystal clear that it doesn't. That's why he had to call the electricians. That's why those electricians said the way it was installed was unusual, they didn't know if it met code etc. Good grief, IDK why we're still going over this. Do you read what's posted?
The answers to those are assumed, and the assumers are 100% certain, but there is room for error here.

I don't assume. I just read and understand what's posted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:42:17 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

Oops.
I missed that too
Well, I didn't miss it, but I misinterpreted it. When he said the pool panel was inches from the main panel, I thought he meant the main panel inside the garage. If it's outside and inches from the meter, that's a different story.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:42:17 AM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

I don't think recanting is required. The pool panel is located outdoors right next to the disconnect/main breaker for the house. You have one disconnect for the house and provided there are 5 or less breakers in the pool panel, it meets the requirements for disconnects. Is there something else here?
That also explains why the tie-in in front of the other breaker in large

It's not just the OP. He called electricians to replace the pool breaker because he determined that it was wired directly to the meter, no way to shut off the power. He reported that the electricians also said they had never seen it done that way, didn't know if it was code, etc.

Exactly. I can't imagine that it's not wired directly to the meter. Also, you would think if it was a real simple matter to rectify, the electricians would have offered to do it while they were there. That may suggest that there is some reason there that the pool guys also ran into. In the case of the pool guys, I wouldn't be surprised that they quoted $X dollars for the pool install, maybe ran into costs that they didn't plan on for various stuff, then found that to do this pool panel the normal way would have cost some extra $$ and they weren't going to incur the cost, so they did what they did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/01/2015 10:28 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Maybe I'm being too strict on my interpretation here; I was thinking the NEC "all" would include both pool and house from one location since the pool isn't (as we've agreed?) a subpanel. Hence, my speaking of accessiblity and location. Not sure on this point (and I'm not looking it up... :) )

Anyway, I think we've seen all there is to be seen here..."move along, folks!" :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:28:21 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

It is from one location. There is one panel outside that contains only a disconnect/breaker for the whole house. Right next to it is the pool panel that contains breakers for the pool. As long as there are no more than 5 breakers in the pool panel, then you have 6 or less disconnects for the whole works and they are grouped together in one place. That grouping reqt was the only code issue that I've seen and it was Gfre that pointed it out. When Ashton told us the pool panel was right next to the outside panel with the house disconnect, I thought that resolved it.
Also interesting, don't know if you missed it, but Ashton posted that a permit was pulled and it passed inspection.
Hence, my speaking of

Here is what Gfre posted when the issue that the disconnects had to be grouped came up:
"The problem is there can only be a total of 6 breakers to disconnect the entire service and they must be "grouped". You can't have one at the house panel and another in the pool panel any distance away. Essentially most inspectors see "grouped" to mean, right together (panels side by side) so you can stand in one spot and trip all 6 breakers. They also have to be labeled service disconnect. "
.--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Does it matter that there are six breakers in two boxes?
What if there were six breakers in three boxes, or even six boxes?
Is there some point at which the AHJ will say they are no longer "grouped?"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/01/2015 12:30 PM, TimR wrote:

Nope; NEC wording has only the number six and proximity.
Why don't you actually go _read_ NEC some instead of random hypothesizing and "what if?"'ing???
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 1:30:12 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

Why don't you read the code and if you find something that is actually not code compliant with the pool panel, tell us. We do know that a permit was pulled and it passed inspection, so obviously the AHJ was OK with the breakers in two different panels located next to each other.
And please stop making bogus claims, eg that code now requires a disconnect/breaker on the service outside the building.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/01/2015 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote: ...

DOH! <Sound of head slap echoes>
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

and are irttually unheard of in urban areas today. Installations with outdoor disconnects generally did not have internal disconnects (servive entrance panels)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 4:28:04 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Didn't know that, thanks. I've always lived in urban areas and can't remember ever looking at an electrical setup in rural.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 10:05:41 -0800 (PST), trader_4

There is a fly in the soup here. If this is not service equipment, that 6 breaker rule is gone. You bump up into this one. ----------------------- 408.36 Overcurrent Protection. In addition to the requirement of 408.30, a panelboard shall be protected by an overcurrent protective device having a rating not greater than that of the panelboard. This overcurrent protective device shall be located within or at any point on the supply side of the panelboard. ----------------------
If the pool panel is not rated at the ampacity of the service disconnect, you are violating this rule.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:29:04 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

And if it is a service, does that mean there are two, which is a violation of 230.2? There's also a rule in 230 that says a service can never be tapped above the disconnect.
But I'm never sure I'm reading the NEC right, there are so many exceptions and references to "but only when permitted by" other sections, etc.
One thing I'm sure, 225.37, 230.2, and several other places require a permanent plaque whenever there is more than one service, feeder, or branch in an area, so those electricians were probably right telling him he had to add a sign.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:36:40 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

Having two main panels is not a violation of 230. It's done all the time on larger houses with higher capacity services. I have one right here, two 150 amp main panels, identical, next to each other, on a 300 amp service. By not more than one service, they mean not more than one service from the utility to the wiring that supplies the house. With two main panels, right next to each other, you have that. It comes into the house as one service, then splits to the two main panels in a gutter type box between the two.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 2, 2015 8:46:37 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

Okay. I read 230 several times and could not be sure I understood what it meant.
There is a prohibition against tapping a service conductor. I would guess that means the second panel would have to be a clean run from the meter lugs rather than off the top of the house disconnect?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 2, 2015 9:58:35 AM UTC-5, TimR wrote:

Where is this alleged prohibition stated? 230.46 specifically allows splicing and tapping service entrance conductors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, January 2, 2015 10:28:29 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

be tapped above the disconnect.

230.82. It says you can't connect anything to the supply side of the servi ce disconnecting means. I interpreted that (I know, dangerous) to mean any where from the supply lug of the disconnect back to the meter, so if you ar e allowed a second service conductor you'd have to start that one at the me ter. That does seem a bit in conflict with 230.46 that says you can splice and tap, but only if you follow 100.14, 300.13, and 300.15, and also in co nflict (maybe) with 230.40 that says there can only be one service entrance conductor.
This is all from the 2014 code I found online.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.