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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?

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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?


*There should have been another main breaker installed right after it was tapped from the existing main for the pool sub-panel. That entire feed to the pool sub-panel is unprotected. Maybe you can replace your existing main breaker with a small outdoor panel and put a main for the pool sub-panel in there.

Here are two possible options: Siemens EQ LoadCenter outdoor four circuit panel #W0406ML1225CU or #W0406ML1225CUb which can handle up to six circuits. I don't know what the largest branch breaker is that they are rated for.

Catalog: https://extranet.w3.siemens.com/us/i..._App_Guide.pdf

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014 16:38:37 -0800 (PST), John G
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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?


*There should have been another main breaker installed right after it was tapped from the existing main for the pool sub-panel. That entire feed to the pool sub-panel is unprotected. Maybe you can replace your existing main breaker with a small outdoor panel and put a main for the pool sub-panel in there.

Here are two possible options: Siemens EQ LoadCenter outdoor four circuit panel #W0406ML1225CU or #W0406ML1225CUb which can handle up to six circuits. I don't know what the largest branch breaker is that they are rated for.

Catalog: https://extranet.w3.siemens.com/us/i..._App_Guide.pdf
Definitely not code compliant because it is impossible to "kill" the
pool panel. Putting a main breaker at the pool panel would likely make
it code compliant, although you would still have an unprotected feed.

Ashton Crusher posted for all of us...



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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?

It violates code. In fact they are updating the code with an emphasis toward
pools and docks because of shocks and electrocutions.

You should have it corrected and have the installer pay the bill.

--
Tekkie

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:50:48 -0500, Tekkie®
wrote:

Ashton Crusher posted for all of us...



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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?

It violates code. In fact they are updating the code with an emphasis toward
pools and docks because of shocks and electrocutions.

You should have it corrected and have the installer pay the bill.

The installer went out of business 20 years ago.

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 1:36:55 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:50:48 -0500, Tekkie®
wrote:

Ashton Crusher posted for all of us...



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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?

It violates code. In fact they are updating the code with an emphasis toward
pools and docks because of shocks and electrocutions.

You should have it corrected and have the installer pay the bill.

The installer went out of business 20 years 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 there 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 installation 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 panels?

Were the taps off of the meter load side done with listed materials installed 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

--
Tom Horne

On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:25:44 -0800 (PST), Tom Horne
wrote:

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 1:36:55 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:50:48 -0500, Tekkie®
wrote:

Ashton Crusher posted for all of us...



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.

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.

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!


So now finally the question..... Does what I described violate code
or is it just unusual?

It violates code. In fact they are updating the code with an emphasis toward
pools and docks because of shocks and electrocutions.

You should have it corrected and have the installer pay the bill.

The installer went out of business 20 years 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 there 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 installation 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 panels?

Were the taps off of the meter load side done with listed materials installed 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

I won't be able to answer those other then it does use at most 5
breakers. But there is room for more. For now I'll have to trust
that the electrician that didn't really like how it was set up still
thought it was "safe" in a practical sense. I suspect it isn't quite
up to code from all the comments. I put permanent labels on the two
boxes saying 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 like he requested.

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.

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.

On 12/30/2014 10:15 AM, TimR wrote:

[snip]

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.


Yes, it's a hazard. Also, there is no quick way to shut off everything
at the pool. Someone may think there is, but there isn't.

--
"Nothing fails like prayer" -- Annie Laurie Gaylor

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:10:22 PM UTC-5, Sam E wrote:
On 12/30/2014 10:15 AM, TimR wrote:

[snip]

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.


Yes, it's a hazard. Also, there is no quick way to shut off everything
at the pool. Someone may think there is, but there isn't.

--
"Nothing fails like prayer" -- Annie Laurie Gaylor

Nonsense. You can shut off everything at the pool just like you
do with the millions of pool subpanels that are installed. You
just turn off the individual breakers.

And again, if it's an NEC code violation to have two main panels
like this is wired, I'd be happy to see the cite of the applicable
section.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:31:45 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
And again, if it's an NEC code violation to have two main panels
like this is wired, I'd be happy to see the cite of the applicable
section.

I'm not a code expert. In my opinion it is not a code violation to have two panels.

It is a code violation to have a circuit not protected by a breaker.

If something goes wrong IN the pool area, it will trip one of the six breakers.

If something goes wrong in the line between the "main" panel and the pool area, there is nothing for it to trip. Well, eventually it will kick the electric companies fuse on the pole. But you REALLY do not want to wait for that to happen.

Last time we had this argument I looked up fault current. A 30 Amp breaker on a 200 Amp panel will trip pretty fast, you'll get a bolted fault current of 3-4000 amps but it's gone in less than a cycle. You don't have any breaker in this line, so you have to wait for the power company fuse to blow, and they can dump 20,000 Amps.

When we bought our house we had them upgrade the main panel. It did not have protection between the meter and panel, and that part of the circuit was under the house. It was grandfathered, but when we upgraded we had to supply an additional breaker after the meter but before the circuit. Code required it.

I really think this is a simple fix, the pool guys just put their wire on the supply side instead of the load side by mistake.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:51:03 PM UTC-5, 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.

K, thanks. Now we have something that defines the code problem. I know you
can have more than one panel, paralleled off a single service. I
didn't know the disconnects then need to be grouped together so that
they are nearby. The only remaining question would be how far the pool
panel is from the house panel. If by some chance it was right by the
disconnect for the house, then it could still be kosher.

But I think we all agree that it's not typical to use a second main
panel for a pool, even if you could make it code compliant
and certainly not the way any of us would likely do it.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:16:31 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:31:45 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
And again, if it's an NEC code violation to have two main panels
like this is wired, I'd be happy to see the cite of the applicable
section.

I'm not a code expert. In my opinion it is not a code violation to have two panels.

It is a code violation to have a circuit not protected by a breaker.


The service between the meter and the panel in the typical one panel
house is not protected by a breaker. If you have two main panels, the
service between the meter and each panel is not protected either.


If something goes wrong IN the pool area, it will trip one of the six breakers.

If something goes wrong in the line between the "main" panel and the pool area, there is nothing for it to trip.
Well, eventually it will kick the electric companies fuse on the pole. But you REALLY do not want to wait for that to happen.


Same is true if something goes wrong in the service between the meter on
the side of millions of houses and the panels in the basement, a utility
room, garage, etc.




Last time we had this argument I looked up fault current. A 30 Amp breaker on a 200 Amp panel will trip pretty fast, you'll get a bolted fault current of 3-4000 amps but it's gone in less than a cycle. You don't have any breaker in this line, so you have to wait for the power company fuse to blow, and they can dump 20,000 Amps.

When we bought our house we had them upgrade the main panel. It did not have protection between the meter and panel, and that part of the circuit was under the house. It was grandfathered, but when we upgraded we had to supply an additional breaker after the meter but before the circuit. Code required it.

I think you're misinterpreting what you saw and heard. You service apparently
ran under the house. Code requires that the disconnect be either outside or
inside as near as possible to where the service enters the building. It
sounds like what happened in your case is that the new electricians determined
that because the service went under the house, that qualified as "entering
the house", which would require a disconnect near that point and that
they could not rely on the main panel one because it was too far away.

The more typical case is a meter on the outside, service conductors enter
the building near there, main panel inside has the disconnect. You have
maybe ~6ft of service conductors between the meter and panel. The disconnect
is the main breaker in the panel. The conductors between meter and panel
don't have overcurrent protection. AFAIK that has been and continues to
be code compliant. And AFAIK, outside, you can run those service conductors,
with no overcurrent protection as far as you need to.



I really think this is a simple fix, the pool guys just put their wire on the supply side instead of the load side by mistake.

It seems almost impossible to do it by mistake for several reasons.
One is that it's very obvious. The other, the OP would have to let us
know, but it sure sounds like the house was powered up at the time.
To do it the way it was done, the electrician would either have to get
the power company to remove/restore power or do it live.

How simple it is would depend I guess on what else there is that's wrong,
like maybe the terminals are not rated for multiple conductors, etc.

Per gfre's post, we now know what code the present install does violate.
And that's that there can be no more than 6 service disconnects and they
must be grouped close by. So, unless the pool panel is near the existing
outside disconnect, it fails that test.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:51:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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.

I'm not sure we're in agreement yet.

I think you are quoting:
**********
The structure disconnecting means can consist of no more than six switches (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures for each supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [225.34], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22].
***************

Instead, look at Fig 1 he
http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/branch-circuits-part-1

What we have in the pool area seems to be a branch circuit that is NOT connected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and connected directly to the feeder circuit.

I don't seen how that can meet code. Even if it does it is dumb.

There are two separate requirements: means of disconnect, and means of overcurrent protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, but SURELY violated overcurrent protection.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:51:03 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
Per gfre's post, we now know what code the present install does violate.
And that's that there can be no more than 6 service disconnects and they
must be grouped close by. So, unless the pool panel is near the existing
outside disconnect, it fails that test.

This is nitpicking and might or might not get past an inspector.

But the way this is wired, with no upstream overcurrent protection, it is technically a feeder circuit up to the pool, where the branch circuits start.

They ARE grouped, and there are no more than 6 of them. Technically I think they are okay on this point.

Your point about wiring them hot is a good one.

What they need to do to fix this is install a combination overcurrent protection and disconnect means back at the first panel.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:51:03 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
It
sounds like what happened in your case is that the new electricians determined
that because the service went under the house, that qualified as "entering
the house", which would require a disconnect near that point and that
they could not rely on the main panel one because it was too far away.

The more typical case is a meter on the outside, service conductors enter
the building near there, main panel inside has the disconnect. You have
maybe ~6ft of service conductors between the meter and panel. The disconnect
is the main breaker in the panel. The conductors between meter and panel
don't have overcurrent protection. AFAIK that has been and continues to
be code compliant. And AFAIK, outside, you can run those service conductors,

Ah. Now I remember.

No, the new electricians determined there was more than 10 feet between meter and panel. Under 10 feet, no protection required; over 10 feet, had to add the protection.

Wouldn't that apply to the pool as well? none of that feeder is protected.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:59:44 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:51:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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.

I'm not sure we're in agreement yet.

I think you are quoting:
**********
The structure disconnecting means can consist of no more than six switches (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures for each supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [225.34], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22].
***************

Instead, look at Fig 1 he
http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/branch-circuits-part-1

What we have in the pool area seems to be a branch circuit that is NOT connected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and connected directly to the feeder circuit.


The line to the pool panel is not a branch circuit. A branch circuit
would be the individual circuits after the pool panel that run the
pool pump, the pool lights, etc, ie each separate breaker serves one.
If you install the
pool panel like the original installers tried to install it, it's a second
main panel and the line serving it is the service conductor. More than one main panel is permitted.


I don't seen how that can meet code.

As it is, it very likely doesn't meet code, for the reason Gfre cited.
He stated that all disconnects have to be grouped together. You cited
the relevant code section too. If the pool
panel is near the other outside disconnect, then it could be code compliant..
More likely it's a good distance away and hence not code compliant.


Even if it does it is dumb.

There are two separate requirements: means of disconnect, and means of overcurrent protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, but SURELY violated overcurrent protection.


You ignored my explanation and example of similar *service conductors* that
also have no overcurrent protection, because none is required by code.
Simple example is the millions of homes
where the meter is outside, then service conductors run from the meter to
the main panel in a basement, garage, utility room, etc. Between the meter
and the panel, there is no overcurrent protection. It's the same in that
regard to running the service conductors to the pool panel, it's a
second main panel. And so far, the only code violation that I see is the
one Gfre cited. And that one is only a violation if the pool panel is
located away from the other outside disconnect, (which it probably is).

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:26:53 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:51:03 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
It
sounds like what happened in your case is that the new electricians determined
that because the service went under the house, that qualified as "entering
the house", which would require a disconnect near that point and that
they could not rely on the main panel one because it was too far away.

The more typical case is a meter on the outside, service conductors enter
the building near there, main panel inside has the disconnect. You have
maybe ~6ft of service conductors between the meter and panel. The disconnect
is the main breaker in the panel. The conductors between meter and panel
don't have overcurrent protection. AFAIK that has been and continues to
be code compliant. And AFAIK, outside, you can run those service conductors,

Ah. Now I remember.

No, the new electricians determined there was more than 10 feet between meter and panel. Under 10 feet, no protection required; over 10 feet, had to add the protection.

Wouldn't that apply to the pool as well? none of that feeder is protected.

Except that I don't believe the 10ft rule exists, at least in NEC.
I think the code just says something to the effect that the service disconnect
needs to be as close as possible to where the service conductors enter the building. That 10 ft rule could be the local interpretation of close.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:05:15 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:51:03 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
Per gfre's post, we now know what code the present install does violate.
And that's that there can be no more than 6 service disconnects and they
must be grouped close by. So, unless the pool panel is near the existing
outside disconnect, it fails that test.

This is nitpicking and might or might not get past an inspector.


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.



But the way this is wired, with no upstream overcurrent protection, it is technically a feeder circuit up to the pool, where the branch circuits start.


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.



They ARE grouped, and there are no more than 6 of them. Technically I think they are okay on this point.


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.





Your point about wiring them hot is a good one.

What they need to do to fix this is install a combination overcurrent protection and disconnect means back at the first panel.

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.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:16:27 -0800 (PST), TimR
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:31:45 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
And again, if it's an NEC code violation to have two main panels
like this is wired, I'd be happy to see the cite of the applicable
section.

I'm not a code expert. In my opinion it is not a code violation to have two panels.

It is a code violation to have a circuit not protected by a breaker.

If something goes wrong IN the pool area, it will trip one of the six breakers.

If something goes wrong in the line between the "main" panel and the pool area, there is nothing for it to trip. Well, eventually it will kick the electric companies fuse on the pole. But you REALLY do not want to wait for that to happen.

Last time we had this argument I looked up fault current. A 30 Amp breaker on a 200 Amp panel will trip pretty fast, you'll get a bolted fault current of 3-4000 amps but it's gone in less than a cycle. You don't have any breaker in this line, so you have to wait for the power company fuse to blow, and they can dump 20,000 Amps.

When we bought our house we had them upgrade the main panel. It did not have protection between the meter and panel, and that part of the circuit was under the house. It was grandfathered, but when we upgraded we had to supply an additional breaker after the meter but before the circuit. Code required it.

I really think this is a simple fix, the pool guys just put their wire on the supply side instead of the load side by mistake.
The pool guys were DEFINITELY not electricians to make that mistake.
You can guarantee there was no permit and no inspection either.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 12:05:11 -0800 (PST), TimR
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:51:03 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
Per gfre's post, we now know what code the present install does violate.
And that's that there can be no more than 6 service disconnects and they
must be grouped close by. So, unless the pool panel is near the existing
outside disconnect, it fails that test.

This is nitpicking and might or might not get past an inspector.

But the way this is wired, with no upstream overcurrent protection, it is technically a feeder circuit up to the pool, where the branch circuits start.

They ARE grouped, and there are no more than 6 of them. Technically I think they are okay on this point.

Your point about wiring them hot is a good one.

What they need to do to fix this is install a combination overcurrent protection and disconnect means back at the first panel.
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.

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 he http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/unders...es-feeder-taps

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:15:53 -0800 (PST), 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.

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.

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.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:36:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:59:44 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:51:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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.

I'm not sure we're in agreement yet.

I think you are quoting:
**********
The structure disconnecting means can consist of no more than six switches (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures for each supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [225.34], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22].
***************

Instead, look at Fig 1 he
http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/branch-circuits-part-1

What we have in the pool area seems to be a branch circuit that is NOT connected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and connected directly to the feeder circuit.


The line to the pool panel is not a branch circuit. A branch circuit
would be the individual circuits after the pool panel that run the
pool pump, the pool lights, etc, ie each separate breaker serves one.
If you install the
pool panel like the original installers tried to install it, it's a second
main panel and the line serving it is the service conductor. More than one main panel is permitted.


I don't seen how that can meet code.

As it is, it very likely doesn't meet code, for the reason Gfre cited.
He stated that all disconnects have to be grouped together. You cited
the relevant code section too. If the pool
panel is near the other outside disconnect, then it could be code compliant.
More likely it's a good distance away and hence not code compliant.


Even if it does it is dumb.

There are two separate requirements: means of disconnect, and means of overcurrent protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, but SURELY violated overcurrent protection.


You ignored my explanation and example of similar *service conductors* that
also have no overcurrent protection, because none is required by code.
Simple example is the millions of homes
where the meter is outside, then service conductors run from the meter to
the main panel in a basement, garage, utility room, etc. Between the meter
and the panel, there is no overcurrent protection. It's the same in that
regard to running the service conductors to the pool panel, it's a
second main panel. And so far, the only code violation that I see is the
one Gfre cited. And that one is only a violation if the pool panel is
located away from the other outside disconnect, (which it probably is).

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.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 17:25:36 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:16:27 -0800 (PST), TimR
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:31:45 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
And again, if it's an NEC code violation to have two main panels
like this is wired, I'd be happy to see the cite of the applicable
section.

I'm not a code expert. In my opinion it is not a code violation to have two panels.

It is a code violation to have a circuit not protected by a breaker.

If something goes wrong IN the pool area, it will trip one of the six breakers.

If something goes wrong in the line between the "main" panel and the pool area, there is nothing for it to trip. Well, eventually it will kick the electric companies fuse on the pole. But you REALLY do not want to wait for that to happen.

Last time we had this argument I looked up fault current. A 30 Amp breaker on a 200 Amp panel will trip pretty fast, you'll get a bolted fault current of 3-4000 amps but it's gone in less than a cycle. You don't have any breaker in this line, so you have to wait for the power company fuse to blow, and they can dump 20,000 Amps.

When we bought our house we had them upgrade the main panel. It did not have protection between the meter and panel, and that part of the circuit was under the house. It was grandfathered, but when we upgraded we had to supply an additional breaker after the meter but before the circuit. Code required it.

I really think this is a simple fix, the pool guys just put their wire on the supply side instead of the load side by mistake.
The pool guys were DEFINITELY not electricians to make that mistake.
You can guarantee there was no permit and no inspection either.

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.

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 pool 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 the 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 to 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 have 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 have one, I'm inclined to think you are fully compliant. Or if not, at least you are safe.

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.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 3:02:12 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:36:34 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:59:44 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:51:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:


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.

I'm not sure we're in agreement yet.

I think you are quoting:
**********
The structure disconnecting means can consist of no more than six switches (or circuit breakers) in a single enclosure, or separate enclosures for each supply permitted by 225.30. Group all disconnects in one location [225.34], and mark each one to indicate the loads served [110.22].
***************

Instead, look at Fig 1 he
http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/branch-circuits-part-1

What we have in the pool area seems to be a branch circuit that is NOT connected to the "final overcurrent device," but instead bypassed it and connected directly to the feeder circuit.


The line to the pool panel is not a branch circuit. A branch circuit
would be the individual circuits after the pool panel that run the
pool pump, the pool lights, etc, ie each separate breaker serves one.
If you install the
pool panel like the original installers tried to install it, it's a second
main panel and the line serving it is the service conductor. More than one main panel is permitted.


I don't seen how that can meet code.

As it is, it very likely doesn't meet code, for the reason Gfre cited.
He stated that all disconnects have to be grouped together. You cited
the relevant code section too. If the pool
panel is near the other outside disconnect, then it could be code compliant.
More likely it's a good distance away and hence not code compliant.


Even if it does it is dumb.

There are two separate requirements: means of disconnect, and means of overcurrent protection. This setup MAY have violated means of disconnect, but SURELY violated overcurrent protection.


You ignored my explanation and example of similar *service conductors* that
also have no overcurrent protection, because none is required by code.
Simple example is the millions of homes
where the meter is outside, then service conductors run from the meter to
the main panel in a basement, garage, utility room, etc. Between the meter
and the panel, there is no overcurrent protection. It's the same in that
regard to running the service conductors to the pool panel, it's a
second main panel. And so far, the only code violation that I see is the
one Gfre cited. And that one is only a violation if the pool panel is
located away from the other outside disconnect, (which it probably is).

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.

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?

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:51:46 AM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:15:53 -0800 (PST), 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.

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.

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 panel.
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?

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:16:12 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
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 panel.
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?

No, according to one of the links I posted earlier, that distance depends 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.

Provided those conditions are met overcurrent protection is not needed, I was wrong on that point.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:41:56 PM UTC-5, TimR wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:16:12 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
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 panel.
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?

No, according to one of the links I posted earlier, that distance depends 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 neither. 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.

On 12/31/2014 1:54 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

....

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.

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...

--

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:51:04 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
What links are those? You posted links to branch circuits and then
feeder circuits. *Service conductors* between the meter and the panel are neither. 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.


My understanding of the code is that any circuit between the meter area overcurrent device (and the OP says he has one) and the branch circuit overprotection device is by definition a feeder circuit. Feeder circuits are covered by Article 215.

If that is wrong then everything I've said is misguided. But all the definitions I could find online seem to indicate it is a feeder. The service conductor 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 circuit.

If I'm right all the rules for feeders apply to the run from the first disconnect 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.

It seems the only way I'm wrong is if entire run to the main panel is actually 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 conductor and feeder conductor is overcurrent protection. If it has, it is a feeder.

Now I'll quote the OP's original 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. " That whole run from that single breaker to the main panel in the garage is protected, therefore (to me) it looks like a feeder.

What am I missing?

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:16:37 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

(*) 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...

--

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.

On 12/31/2014 12:29 PM, TimR wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:16:37 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:

(*) 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...

....

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
bigbreaker, OR maxed out the capacity of the panel, or both.

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...

--

On 12/31/2014 12:26 PM, TimR wrote:
....

My understanding of the code is that any circuit between the meter
area overcurrent device (and the OP says he has one) and the branch
circuit overprotection device is by definition a feeder circuit.

That's ok...

....

If that is wrong then everything I've said is misguided. ...

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.

--

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:01:12 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 12/31/2014 12:26 PM, TimR wrote:
...

My understanding of the code is that any circuit between the meter
area overcurrent device (and the OP says he has one) and the branch
circuit overprotection device is by definition a feeder circuit.

That's ok...

...

If that is wrong then everything I've said is misguided. ...

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.

--

I was initially off badly. I thought the connections were before the disconnect 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 the 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 disconnects. Therefore the "main" breaker on the "main" panel will not disconnect the pool panel. But the upstream meter area breaker will.

Which makes sense - they shut that one off when they wired the pool, as opposed to pulling the meter.

Given that configuration, those look like feeder circuits to me. Could be wrong of course.

On 12/31/2014 1:12 PM, TimR wrote:
....

I know know there are two disconnects. There is one at the meter
outside the 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 disconnects. Therefore the "main" breaker on the
"main" panel will not disconnect the pool panel. But the upstream
meter areabreaker will.
....

Given that configuration, those look like feeder circuits to me. ...

Except that is _NOT_ the configuration as described by the OP...

From the OP's 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. The pool equipment panel has no "main"
breaker but just individual breakers for the different pool things.

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.

--