Is this a violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
jim dungar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
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
 
nickelec said:
He definitely did, it's a serious problem here in NYC very under qualified inspectors.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

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.
 
nickelec said:
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
Click to expand...

230.90 allows it even if the sum of the breakers exceeds the ampacity of the service entrance conductors.
 
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
 
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:
david luchini said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

FionaZuppa said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

Then I saw this post and Fiona has a point. So I was wrong. One half of it is correct.
 
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 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
 
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
 
102 Inspector said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
nickelec said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
FionaZuppa said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
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......?
 
FionaZuppa said:
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......?
Click to expand...
Nickelec said he was under the 2008 NEC. No issue with the two breakers. (Unless there is a local amendment.)
 
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