Is this a violation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
The breakers are not in parallel, unless their load sides are connected together.

The equipment circuit drawing is probably referring to the location that needs to be used with a back-fed main breaker.

I was not referring to a "parallel breaker" per the NEC definition. I used the the more generic "breakers are in parallel" referring to the breakers being parallel on the line side. Since they are parallel on the line side, the main does not control the breakers below it. But I can see your confusion and I agree they probably meant that is where a backfed main should go due to the tie down location. The manufacturer should have been more specific in their language.
 
Last edited:

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
As an aside, you have your phases identified opposite on the two feeders...Red is A on one feeder and B on the other. I don't believe it's a Code issue, just seems odd.
 

nickelec

Senior Member
Location
US
So again we are all in agreeance no violation just unexperienced inspector . And also am I correct in stating 230. 90 which allows this installation as long as the sum of the breakers does not exceed the ampacity of the service entrance conductors

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

Jamesco

Senior Member
Location
Iowa
Occupation
Master Electrician
He definitely did, it's a serious problem here in NYC very under qualified inspectors.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

I would call the guy and suggest he may have look at what you have wrong. Just politely explain to him exactly what you have.
You'll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar.
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
So again we are all in agreeance no violation just unexperienced inspector . And also am I correct in stating 230. 90 which allows this installation as long as the sum of the breakers does not exceed the ampacity of the service entrance conductors

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

230.90 allows it even if the sum of the breakers exceeds the ampacity of the service entrance conductors.
 

nickelec

Senior Member
Location
US
I would agree with that but I usually the case and how I am but unless you're from New York City and have experienced these guys before it's very frustrating

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
post #1 and post #13, the panel diagram in post #13 shows AB-BA for breaker to bus, so why in #1 does the wiring on the breakers go Red-Black/Red-Black ? Should you not wire the breakers Red-Black/Black-Red ?

Same as mentioned in post #22...... I just missed #22.
 
Last edited:

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
As an aside, you have your phases identified opposite on the two feeders...Red is A on one feeder and B on the other. I don't believe it's a Code issue, just seems odd.

I noticed this as well, but decided not to say anything.

post #1 and post #13, the panel diagram in post #13 shows AB-BA for breaker to bus, so why in #1 does the wiring on the breakers go Red-Black/Red-Black ? Should you not wire the breakers Red-Black/Black-Red ?

Then I saw this post and Fiona has a point. So I was wrong. One half of it is correct.
 

102 Inspector

Senior Member
Location
N/E Indiana
Occupation
Inspector- All facets
Help me learn. Is the panel next to the one shown in the picture now a sub-panel and needs 4-wire with isolated grounding? Is the connector at the top of thepicture okay because of the concentric knock out or should there be a bonding bushing on that? Is there a main in the panel not shown, and should there be since I count 6 OCD in the picture. Alawys trying to learn so I do not create problems.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
The assumption is that the meter base has two sets of service entrance conductors, one feeding the panel shown, and one feeding the panel to the left of it. So there are now 3 service disconnects, one in the panel to the left, and two in the panel shown.

Cheers, Wayne
 

nickelec

Senior Member
Location
US
Wrong . There's only one set coming out of the meter base richlands on the bus in the switch shown one breaker is feeding the panel on the left which is a sub panel yes

And one breaker is feeding a sub panel on the second story

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Help me learn. Is the panel next to the one shown in the picture now a sub-panel and needs 4-wire with isolated grounding? Is the connector at the top of thepicture okay because of the concentric knock out or should there be a bonding bushing on that? Is there a main in the panel not shown, and should there be since I count 6 OCD in the picture. Alawys trying to learn so I do not create problems.

The panel to the left appears to be a subpanel so yes, the grounds and neutrals need to be separated. The panel shown is the main panel since it's the first panel past the meter. The six OCPD rule is per panel or group of panels all being parallel fed from the same source i.e. six throws can shut off all power. You can shut off the entire subpanel by switching off it's main breaker shown. It takes only two throws to shut off all power in this situation.

The bonding bushing I'm not sure about. The panel itself is properly grounded by the bonding bushing on the bottom. The top conduit is being used as a ground (since there is no grounding conductor) but the concentric knockout would probably make it a bad ground.
 
Last edited:

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
Wrong . There's only one set coming out of the meter base richlands on the bus in the switch shown one breaker is feeding the panel on the left which is a sub panel yes

And one breaker is feeding a sub panel on the second story

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Doesnt the service need one OCPD, or should I say, in between the service and feeder side. As-is don't you have service tap by using a bus'd panel w/ two breakers? The #6 diagram shows feeder taps?
 

nickelec

Senior Member
Location
US
Doesnt the service need one OCPD or disco, or should I say, in between the service and feeder side. As-is don't you have service tap by using a bus'd panel w/ two breakers? The #13 diagram shows feeder taps?
Im pretty sure your saying what the inspector is interrupting . If said conductors feeding the bus in that panel were feeders instead of SECs then I would agree it would be violation the tap rule. But since they are SEC 230.90 applies . And if I'm wrong someone will correct me

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
Definitely looks like a service tap and not a feeder tap. I can't make the call on violation or not, but I thought the service-to-feeder needed a single disco......?
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
Definitely looks like a service tap and not a feeder tap. I can't make the call on violation or not, but I thought the service-to-feeder needed a single disco......?
Nickelec said he was under the 2008 NEC. No issue with the two breakers. (Unless there is a local amendment.)
 

nickelec

Senior Member
Location
US
No Local amendment. But when did it change that you do need one breaker

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top