On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:50:40 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 09:05:24 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:15:58 AM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:47:53 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
My house originally had electric as follows...

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.


I think that would have always violated code, but definitely violates current code.

I suspect the pool people made a simple error in the panel with what 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.

The reason it violates code AND is a real hazard is the length of circuit 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 likely burning down the house in the process.

I'd like to see the specific code that it violates. I think Tom has
a valid point. If the pool panel has 6 breakers or less, it meets the
qualification as a panel. Many houses have more than one panel. The
disconnecting means has to be readily accessible and I believe there is
something to the effect that it has to be as close as possible to where
the service conductors *enter* the building. That's because code is
concerned about conductors without overcurrent protection within the
building. But I don't know that applies to conductors outside the
building and from the description, it sounds like those conductors are
probably outside, but the OP didn't say for sure.

What Tom is saying is the OP has two main panels, one for the house, one
for the pool. And he outlined relevant issues that must be complied with
to do it right. I'd say it's certainly not the typical way of doing it.
Typically you'd put a breaker in the main panel, make the pool a subpanel.
I agree that would be a better approach, because it provides over current
protection for the outside run to the subpanel.
But there may have been reasons they did it that way, eg existing main
panel full. If there is an NEC code cite that says you can't do what was
done, I'd be happy to see it.


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.


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.