Double tapped main

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jsavino wrote:
Bob

By your explanation, are the two panels now main panels?
Or main and sub?


Boy I hate smart questions. ![icon_lol.gif](upload://zEgbBCXRskkCTwEux7Bi20ZySza.gif)

No actually I hate patched together services like this.

They would both have to be service panels and now you have 2 of the 6 service disconnects allowed.

Also this means both panels need to have bonded neutrals, it looks like the 100 amp panel in the picture is set up with an isolated neutral.

I think is safe to say this should be checked out by a reputable electrician.


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: jsavino
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I agree.



John Savino


HomeWorks Inspection Services, LLC


St. James, NY


631.379.4241

Originally Posted By: rwills
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



For the record, yes, the neutral in the sub, (I mean other) panel, was isolated.



Bob Wills - MAB Chairman


BW Inspection Services


Warminster, Pa.


http://www.bwinspections.com

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



You know the repair is quick and cheap.


Move a couple of the 15 amp 120 volt circuits over to the 100 amp panel so you can get space in the 200 amp panel for a 2 pole 100 amp breaker to feed the 100 amp panel.

I know this is beyond what you will tell the customer, the point is it would have cost almost nothing to do this right in the first place. ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: rwills
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob, yes I know, actually, the main panel had a blank spot in it on the right side if you look at the 1st picture, plus, there were blank spaces at the bottom, not visible in the picture. This proved to me that the owner or a “knowledgable buddy” probably did this!



Bob Wills - MAB Chairman


BW Inspection Services


Warminster, Pa.


http://www.bwinspections.com

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob


I strongly disagree. The conductors feeding the "sub" are unfused and are not allowed.

The disconnect 'must' be at the nearest point of entrance to the building.

Using the 1996 230.70(a).

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike Parks wrote:
Bob

I strongly disagree. The conductors feeding the "sub" are unfused and are not allowed.

The disconnect 'must' be at the nearest point of entrance to the building.

Using the 1996 230.70(a).

Mike P.


Mike I am sure in your area that is true but the area that this is located in must be like mine and allow exposed service conductors inside the structure.

From the Handbook, opinion not code.![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)
Quote:
No maximum distance is specified from the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means. The authority enforcing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision as to how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the main disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited overcurrent protection and, in the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials.
Some local jurisdictions have ordinances that allow service-entrance conductors to run within the building up to a specified length to terminate at the disconnecting means. The authority having jurisdiction may permit service conductors to bypass fuel storage tanks or gas meters and the like, permitting the service disconnecting means to be located in a readily accessible location. However, if the authority judges the distance as being excessive, the disconnecting means may be required to be located on the outside of the building or near the building at a readily accessible location that is not necessarily nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. See also 230.6 and Exhibit 230.15 for conductors considered to be outside a building.


The 200 amp service conductors to the original panel are unfused and exposed.

The 100 amp conductors are no different, in the state I live and RI I could do this as long as the panels where side by side, which they are.

Would I do this NO, could I do it is an area that already allows SE cable inside, yes I think so.

I fully understand that some areas do not let an inch of SE in the building, but the 200 amp SE is a give away that this is not one of those areas.


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Dave Nix
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Four reasons this would not pass inspection;


Quote:
2002 NEC
110.3

110.14 Electrical Connections.(A) Terminals. Connection of conductors to terminal parts shall ensure a thoroughly good connection without damaging the conductors and shall be made by means of pressure connectors (including set-screw type), solder lugs, or splices to flexible leads. Connection by means of wire-binding screws or studs and nuts that have upturned lugs or the equivalent shall be permitted for 10 AWG or smaller conductors.
Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

110.22 Identification of Disconnecting Means.
Each disconnecting means shall be legibly marked to indicate its purpose unless located and arranged so the purpose is evident. The marking shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

230.82 Equipment Connected to the Supply Side of Service Disconnect.



--
Dave Nix
Electrical Matters

Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike, Dave and Bob,


I am grateful for the knowledge and experience you (and a few others) bring to this board. I certainly feel that you are experts in this field even when you disagree ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif) . When you guys post quote from code books, my eyes get blurry and my head hurts

I previously stated that I felt there needed to be overcurrent protection for the wire feeding the 100A panel. It seems that Mike may agree.

So my question is this;

Will the "average" electrician look at my statement and tell my client that I'm full of schitt?

The double tap is obvious, but how much wire can safely be run without overcurrent protection? It isn't even protected by some type of conduit .


--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Dave I do not agree with your reference to 230.82.


You can have up to six service disconnects and the only possible way to do that is for them to be connected is to the Supply Side of the other service Service Disconnects.

110.22 I can fix with a sharpie. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Dave Nix
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jeff,


Quote:
There is no overcurrent protection provided for those wires traveling to the "secondary service panel."


I agree 100%

The NEC is a SAFETY code! If it doesn't line-up to code, it isn't safe.


--
Dave Nix
Electrical Matters

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob


Very seldom do I think that I beat you. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif) This is one of those times.

Please read 230.72(a) 1996. Might be a stretch.

Play ball?

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jpope wrote:

So my question is this;

Will the "average" electrician look at my statement and tell my client that I'm full of schitt?


No I do not think any decent electrician will say that the HI is full of it.



Quote:
The double tap is obvious, but how much wire can safely be run without overcurrent protection? It isn't even protected by some type of conduit ![icon_confused.gif](upload://qv5zppiN69qCk2Y6JzaFYhrff8S.gif)


It is up to the local AHJ, in the area I live about 5' or 6' is accepted, in other areas you will not see an inch of service conductor inside the building.

Obviously the less of it the better, and as an HI you should have a pretty good feel for what is 'normal' in your area.

I try to stay with what the NEC says and it is intentionally vague in this area if you believe the NEC handbook.

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Jeff


Use this post. And state that you are differing this to a local pro because there is not a concensus.

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike of course I will play I even had go and get my 1996 book, it turns out 1996 230-72(a) is the same as 2002


Quote:
230.72 Grouping of Disconnects.
(A) General. The two to six disconnects as permitted in 230.71 shall be grouped. Each disconnect shall be marked to indicate the load served.

Exception: One of the two to six service disconnecting means permitted in 230.71, where used only for a water pump also intended to provide fire protection, shall be permitted to be located remote from the other disconnecting means.


I do not see what your getting at, the marking?

The grouping? these panels look to be 2' or 3' apart I guess you could say they are to far apart.

Respectfully, Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob


No one ever marks them. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Jeff

IMHO I believe that the code wanted a main disconnect to the building. This could be six disconnects.

Again IMHO the first panel is feeding the second panel.

If this does not work---Bob--- is the breaker a approved splice?

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Okay, so here’s another, though not exactly the same (but kinda close.


400 ampere service to home. Single set of cables from meter pan. Enters home. Gets split in a openable distribution trough. Now, feeds go to separate service panels. Each panel rated for 200 amperes. Each panel wired as a prime. Each panel with a main disconnect. To boot, each panel mounted upside down. Each panel with AJH "approved" inspection sticker.

I may not like it, but I doubt that the configuration needs to be changed, in a real sense. Even the panels being upside down id a no no, but there it was, approved by the electrical inspector...

The feeds were split in the trough.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



So engrossed with my own smartness I forgot to look at the second panel.


What about the paralleled conductors? The grounded conductor and the equipment ground are bonded at the second panel. Why did he use a 4 wire to the second panel?

EDIT They may not be bonded. I can not tell if the panel is grounded.


Mike P.


Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe


There must be a disconnect outside or inside before the trough.

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Nope… no disco present.


Also, if a disconnect was present, then the panels in question would be wired as subs, with floating neutrals. They were wired as typical main service entry panels.

Again, approved by the AHJ, and in existence since 1984.

So, although this may be poor practice, the question is whether it is permitted. I believe it is.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."