Electric Panel Question - two v one panels

[trader_4]

I don't think it's nitpicking. Per Gfre, they want all the service disconnects for a building to be located close to each other, visible together, etc.

No, it's wired ahead of the other disconnect. The pool panel and the house panel both are wired in identically, in parallel. I believe for it to be a feeder, it would have to be wired in *after* the main disconnect. The incoming service serves two main panels in parallel.

It's not the grouping in the pool panel that's the issue. Those are grouped. The grouping violation is if the pool panel is not located right near the other main disconnect that serves the house. Then you have several, ie the pool breakers, in one place and the other one for the rest of the house, in another. That's what would be a code violation.

Yes, that would fix it, assuming there is somthing that is actually a violation. But so far, if that pool panel is installed outside, next to the disconnect for the house panel, then from everything I see so far, there is no code violation. It's just not a good way of doing it.

[clare]

The pool guys were DEFINITELY not electricians to make that mistake. You can guarantee there was no permit and no inspection either.

[clare]

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.

[TimR]

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:

[Ashton Crusher]

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.

[Ashton Crusher]

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.

[Ashton Crusher]

You've probably already seen the other posts on this but the pool panel with the breakers is only inches from the main breaker panel, which is only a foot below the meter. It's beginning to sound like this might actually meet code. The pool panel feeds from "the meter" so to speak.. its feed does not go thru the original main house breaker but was tapped ahead of that breaker.

[Ashton Crusher]

I"m the OP. There was a permit and inspection. I would never have let them put in the pool and associated stuff without them getting a permit and having a contractor's license.

[TimR]

I think I misinterpreted how this thing is wired.

If I now understand correctly, you have a meter, followed by a single large exterior breaker that serves as disconnect and overcurrent protection for the entire service. (just like the exterior breaker we added to my house)

That feeds a main panel in the garage, which also has a single main breaker that kills the entire panel including all the house circuits but not the p ool panel.

You have a pool panel next to it that is fed after the whole house exterior breaker but before the main panel, so it has overcurrent protection for th e circuit.

So I've changed my mind about violating code. (maybe) The way you have it set up, everything is protected, and you can disconnect the pool circuits t o work on them without killing the whole house.

It might be wise to have a sign posted saying the pool panel is still live when the main panel is dead. Someone replacing a breaker in the pool panel might assume the main panel disconnect would suffice, when in fact you'd h ave to go back to the disconnect breaker after the meter. I don't know if residential requires that signage. Industrial where I work would, but that might be OSHA rather than NEC.

My only question about code now is whether or not you are required to have a single main breaker in the pool panel rather than your six. If you do ha ve one, I'm inclined to think you are fully compliant. Or if not, at least you are safe.

[TimR]

On the other hand, if your pool panel is fed after the meter but before the exterior disconnect, then I think you're probably in violation or at least unsafe.

But it seems to me it would have been easier to install after that disconnect, otherwise you'd be working hot or have to pull the meter.

[trader_4]

ches (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures fo r each supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [2

25.34], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22].

connected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and c onnected directly to the feeder circuit.

ne main panel is permitted.

overcurrent protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, but SURELY violated overcurrent protection.

Wow, I wasn't expecting that. I think most of us assumed the pool panel was some distance away, not right next to the disconnect. So, from what we have now, it appears that it is in fact code compliant.

Gfre, what do you think?

[gfretwell]

There are a few other issues but if the disconnects are grouped and 6 or less, it is probably "hold your nose" legal. Did they bring the ground electrode conductor into this enclosure too?

I would still question why they did not do a feeder tap on the load side of the service disconnect.

[trader_4]

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?

[TimR]

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.

[trader_4]

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.

[dpb]

...

Haven't chimed in but went back and found your various postings -- with the apparent caveat that there are no more than six (6) _TOTAL_ breakers to disconnect everything, my assessment is it is compliant.

Not wise, and as gfre says, "why in the world would they have done that???" but compliant(*) (NEC, anyway; local interpretations/enhancements/etc., always override).

I agree w/ the notation; I'd also suggest the notation someone else suggested of noting the outside breaker does _not_ deenergize the secondary box as a simple precaution/reminder. (I've got one similar here in that the well pump is near another box which appears externally as though likely would deenergize but doesn't. It's labelled that it doesn't so any new well-service people who would be there and if I weren't around will know w/o finding out the hard way. In this case, however, there _is_ another that will cut it just a a side note.)

(*) I suppose that perhaps there wasn't room for another double feeder breaker in that outside box would be the most likely reason? Surely doesn't seem like there would be any other logical one...

[TimR]

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?

[TimR]

That breaker would have to be big enough to feed 6 branch circuits, and some of those (pumps, etc.) might be big ones. So, no room for a big breaker, OR maxed out the capacity of the panel, or both.

[dpb]

...

The physical dimensions up to 100A of most double-pole breakers are no different than any other so that's not necessarily the problem at all, I'd think.

That the box may be only a single-breaker box physically would be my supposition as the likely cause but we don't know as afaik OP hasn't enlightened us on that specific...

[dpb]

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.