On Thursday, January 1, 2015 9:29:04 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
Tom Horne had that reqt listed as one of the key points in his post a
few days ago:
"Whether your arrangement is in violation of the National Electric Code or
not depends on several facts as yet unrevealed.
How many breakers are in the pool panel and what ampacity are they? If the
re are five or fewer breakers and there is no room for additional breakers
to be added then the installation may well have been compliant when it was
built. If there are more than five breakers in the pool panel then the ins
tallation was a done in violation of the Code.
Are both panels listed for use as service equipment?
Were the Grounding Electrode Conductors brought into and terminated in both
Were the taps off of the meter load side done with listed materials install
ed in conformance with their listing and labeling.
Answer those questions and we may be able to give you a sound judgement on
whether the installation is code compliant "
That's been one of the givens, that it can meet code, provided it's done ri
No problem using a service entry panel as a distribution panel, and if
there is a primary fused disconnect outside, 2 service entry panels
can be connected downstream with one possible problem. Since you can
turn off ONE "sub main" without killing all circuits in the building
that may be a problem -
Using a distribution panel as an entry panel is a different story
unless it is rated to use a buss mounted breaker as a main input
breaker. to convert it to a service entry panel.
Up here in Canada I have not seen that done - suspect it is not
There is only one service coming in from the utility.
We seemed to have determined that this only has one service disconnect
and the pool panel is a feeder tap off of the main feeder to the house
That leaves us with how we are protecting the pool panel and the
On Friday, January 2, 2015 1:06:44 AM UTC-5, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
No, that is not how it's wired. There are two panels outside. One contains
only a disconnect/breaker for the house. Right next to that is the pool
panel, which is wired in on the utility side of the house disconnect/breaker.
Wiring goes from the outside panel with the house disconnect/breaker into
the garage where the third panel, with all the house breakers is located.
I thought most of us were in agreement on that when the thread began.
It's not protected, apparently because it's treated as a second main panel,
not a feeder.
The prohibition against "tapping" is prohibiting skinning the cable
and putting a burndy type clamp on the cable to connect a second
cable. That used to be done a lot. The only legal way to do it now is
at the lug. In certain cercumstances 2 lugs may be fasteded to one
bolt, with one cable connected to each lug. In other cercumstances a
bus bar with 2 lugs is required. I don't know what the rules are
allowing or requiring one or the other.
You can tap the service conductors to feed multiple service
disconnects. It is fairly common in big industrial installations where
they want to break a bigger service into smaller segments.
This usually happens in the CT can where the metering transformers are
or in a gutter right next to it.. That will get piped right into
multiple disconnects from there.
230.82 is talking about other equipment that is not part of the
service equipment. You can just look at the exceptions to see that,
In residential the best way to do this would be to buy a multi lug
meter base but you could use any listed splicing method inside the
Where you might run into trouble would be if you did this in the
service disconnect enclosure and there was not sufficient room.
At this point it is just an academic exercise because I believe we
determined the OP was tapped on the load side of the SD.
I am really not sure we even care because we have wandered so far from
the original question.
On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:12:51 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
violation of 230.2? There's also a rule in 230 that says a service can ne
ver be tapped above the disconnect.
hat it meant.
rvice disconnecting means. I interpreted that (I know, dangerous) to mean
anywhere from the supply lug of the disconnect back to the meter, so if you
are allowed a second service conductor you'd have to start that one at the
meter. That does seem a bit in conflict with 230.46 that says you can spl
ice and tap, but only if you follow 100.14, 300.13, and 300.15, and also in
conflict (maybe) with 230.40 that says there can only be one service entra
I just read that and I can see Tim's interpretation.
I think that like you say they are taking the perspective
of talking about everything looking back from the service disconnect
and hence didn't include the service eqpt itself. They should
say that though to make it clear.
IDK why you keep saying that it was determined that the OP was tapped
on the load side? The only one who floated that was Tim, no one else
agreed. What did you see that leads you to
believe ther pool panel is connected after the outside disconnect?
EVERYTHING I see says it's tapped on the meter side:
From the very first 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.
(Particularly probative there is that he says the pool electrician
went into the one and only *outside* panel, which contains only a
disconnect breaker between the meter and house and that they wired
*ahead* of that disconnect/breaker. He further states that this
disconnect/breaker will not disconnect the pool panel.)
OK, so a while ago the breaker in the pool panel that was for the 220v
swimming pool pump went bad and it would not stay "on". There was no
short or anything. I had turned it off to replace the pump motor (bad
bearings) and found it would no longer stay on. Again, I verified no
shorts and in fact if I flipped it to on "just right" it would stay on
and the pump would run. 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.
(he calls in an electrician because he had no way to cut power to the
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. They
weren't 100% sure but insisted that I (not they, they wouldn't do
it), they insisted that I needed to label the two panels (they are
side by side) as 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. They didn't want to even have the
label in their handwriting but did want it labeled!
(the electricians don't say, "oh, this is normal, you can just cut
power to the pool panel by opening this disconnect over here". Instead the
confirm he's right, say they are concerned that they've never seen it
done this way, that it doesn't meet code, should at least have labels
installed marking the two panels as one and two, etc.)
Again, one can _not_ read NEC by subsection in isolation; one can draw
the wrong conclusion (as TimR did here). It is a document in its
NEC Figure 230.1 graphically shows which parts of NEC Chapter 2 apply to
the various parts of the power distribution system. This figure is the
"road map" if you will to applying the requirements of NEC Chapter 2.
NEC 230.82 limits the equipment you can connect to the supply side of
the service disconnect to certain specific items.
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.