Same busbar

[joebell]

One of my colleagues called me yesterday with a question concerning a job he is on. He is opening up subpanels in an assisted living facility that is about 40+ years old and he is finding that the EGC's and neutrals are landed on the same busbar. The feeder neutral is insulated in a cable and there is an EGC that is terminated to a single lug mounted to the panel enclosure but the branch EGC's and neutrals are terminated on the same buss.

My question is, was this ever allowed by the NEC?

 

[TOOL_5150]

No, not on sub panels.

~Matt

 

[joebell]

No, not on sub panels.

~Matt

Thats what I thought too Matt, The "Building Engineer" aka facility manager is telling him that the installation is "Grandfathered" thats why I asked if it was legal back in the early 70's when the building was built.


Personally I can't stand when someone uses the "Grandfathered" excuse for hack work.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Thats what I thought too Matt, The "Building Engineer" aka facility manager is telling him that the installation is "Grandfathered" thats why I asked if it was legal back in the early 70's when the building was built.


Personally I can't stand when someone uses the "Grandfathered" excuse for hack work.

The building engineer should be made aware of the potential hazards that can arise from the termination of the EGC and the grounded conductor on the same terminal/enclosure after the first point of disconnect.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Was trying to remember was is not back in 1934 that parralled conductors were not allowed?

EDIT. PS IMHO safety issues are not to be grandfathered.

 

[brian john]

EDIT. PS IMHO safety issues are not to be grandfathered.

While that is common sense it does not make it mandatory or law.

 

[jxofaltrds]

From Ohio Codes: First is residential second is commercial.

From: http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/oh/st/b4v06/st_oh_st_b4v06_1_sec002_par006.htm?bu2=undefined
102.6 Existing structures.
The provisions of Section 115 shall control the alteration, repair, addition and change of occupancy of any existing structure.
The occupancy of any structure currently existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, provided the alleged occupancy can be shown to have existed and there are no orders of the building official pending, no evidence of fraud or no serious safety or sanitation hazard.
Buildings constructed in accordance with plans which have been approved prior to the effective date of this code are existing buildings.

From: http://publicecodes.citation.com/st...b2v07_1_sec009_par004.htm?bu=OH-P-2005-000004
109.4 Unsafe buildings. Structures or existing equipment that are unsafe or unsanitary due to inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, shall be deemed a serious hazard. Where a building is found to be a serious hazard , such hazard shall be eliminated or the building shall be vacated, and where such building, when vacated, remains a serious hazard, it shall be razed.

Is it fair to say that this condition is unsafe?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

From Ohio Codes: First is residential second is commercial.

From: http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/oh/st/b4v06/st_oh_st_b4v06_1_sec002_par006.htm?bu2=undefined
102.6 Existing structures.
The provisions of Section 115 shall control the alteration, repair, addition and change of occupancy of any existing structure.
The occupancy of any structure currently existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, provided the alleged occupancy can be shown to have existed and there are no orders of the building official pending, no evidence of fraud or no serious safety or sanitation hazard.
Buildings constructed in accordance with plans which have been approved prior to the effective date of this code are existing buildings.

From: http://publicecodes.citation.com/st...b2v07_1_sec009_par004.htm?bu=OH-P-2005-000004
109.4 Unsafe buildings. Structures or existing equipment that are unsafe or unsanitary due to inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life, shall be deemed a serious hazard. Where a building is found to be a serious hazard , such hazard shall be eliminated or the building shall be vacated, and where such building, when vacated, remains a serious hazard, it shall be razed.

Is it fair to say that this condition is unsafe?

NYS has similar wording in it's body of codes. This wording protects the consumer from prior work that is a safety hazard.

 

[brian john]

So every switchboard that is 480y/277 pre 1970 must be upgraded to GFP.

All houses must have GFCI and AFCI?

All work that was not completed under the most recent NEC could be consider unsafe? Other wise why was the code changed.

This is way to broad a section in you codes IMO.

 

[hurk27]

So every switchboard that is 480y/277 pre 1970 must be upgraded to GFP.

All houses must have GFCI and AFCI?

All work that was not completed under the most recent NEC could be consider unsafe? Other wise why was the code changed.

This is way to broad a section in you codes IMO.

To add:
Yea wonder why EPA and DOT don't use something like that to make all older vehicles brought up to todays standards:roll:

If it was installed per code at the time of installation, It stands

It is in the Constitution of the United States, "No Post Facto Laws Shall Ever Be Enacted"

Local laws can try to make all the laws they want, but if they conflict with the Federal laws, or the Constitution, they will be brought down in a court of law.

The question of the OP, was not to code at the time of the installation and as such is not protected by this.

 

[Cold Fusion]

The building engineer should be made aware of the potential hazards that can arise from the termination of the EGC and the grounded conductor on the same terminal/enclosure after the first point of disconnect.

PCB -
I completely agree this needs to be changed.

However, could you list some of the potential hazards?. And maybe give us some of the science behind these hazards?

cf

 

[hurk27]

PCB -
I completely agree this needs to be changed.

However, could you list some of the potential hazards?. And maybe give us some of the science behind these hazards?

cf

Ill try:
Current takes all paths,
Parallel neutral current will be on all the grounding paths.

Voltage drop in the neutral will be on all grounding, to an earth reference or water pipes.

Voltage drop would be high in the event of a line to neutral fault while someone was between a grounded item, and Earth reference or water pipe.

the lose of a neutral would place all the neutral current on the grounding. and make the above much more dangerous, and possibly allow the lost neutral condition go unnoticed for a long time till the grounding was lost.

 

[joebell]

Ill try:
Current takes all paths,
Parallel neutral current will be on all the grounding paths.

Voltage drop in the neutral will be on all grounding, to an earth reference or water pipes.

Voltage drop would be high in the event of a line to neutral fault while someone was between a grounded item, and Earth reference or water pipe.

the lose of a neutral would place all the neutral current on the grounding. and make the above much more dangerous, and possibly allow the lost neutral condition go unnoticed for a long time till the grounding was lost.

This seems to be exactly what happened at this building, people are getting a shock from the plumbing fixtures. A case of objectionable current is my guess.

 

[jxofaltrds]

"No Post Facto Laws Shall Ever Be Enacted"

"The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters."

"The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision."


http://www.answers.com/topic/ex-post-facto-law

 

[hurk27]

"No Post Facto Laws Shall Ever Be Enacted"

"The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters."

Hate to wake you up but,enforcment of building codes is the same laws as enforcment of traffic laws, crimnal laws, Etc...You can go to jail, you can be fined, just the same, 4th amendment rules as well as others apply just the same.

strike an inspector, and you will be charged with striking an officer of the law.

""The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision."


http://www.answers.com/topic/ex-post-facto-law

And who do you think adopts the codes and enforcment in your country, state, county, City, Or town? legislative power does.

codes are not adopted by judicial decision, thats for sure.

Judicial decision is just an interpitation of the law, it is not the law.

Don't put all your faith in a web answering site. ask a lawer.

 

[carlos cainas]

what is the bottom line then.if I go to a house and the oven only has 3 wires and so does the Dryer and Im doin a panel up-grade do I have to change thoes circut to 4 wires.

 

[cschmid]

LMAO now this is good.

enforcement of what?? inspector can not come in to the business to inspect anything unless he is contracted to do so and when he is there he can only inspect what he is contracted to do so if he see's something previously done wrong he could recommend changes on installations previously installed.

Who you gonna fine or punish?? do you have proof that the business forced the person doing the work to do it wrong, or that the maintenance person in charge or that is doing repairs did the work or was forced to??

The real issue is as a business person can you sell the truth and prove it on a bad section of wiring so as to secure the whole repair that is needed? Because this is how you stay in business.

 

[LarryFine]

what is the bottom line then.if I go to a house and the oven only has 3 wires and so does the Dryer and Im doin a panel up-grade do I have to change thoes circut to 4 wires.

Actually, you do if the panel they're supplied from is, or will become, a sub-panel, i.e., not contain the main disconnect.

 

[hurk27]

what is the bottom line then.if I go to a house and the oven only has 3 wires and so does the Dryer and Im doin a panel up-grade do I have to change thoes circut to 4 wires.

To expand upon what Larry is saying, is we can not make what was legal, illegal. and with 3-wire dryer or range circuits, they were never legal to be run to a sub panel, so if you have relocated a service and make the existing panel a sub panel, 3-wire dryer and range circuits would be against the code that was ineffect at the time it was installed, as well as the GECs, and the grounding and bonding in this sub panel, that is why I don't try to move a service just replace it if possible.

So if your keeping the panel as a service panel, then it's good to go.

 

[carlos cainas]

thanks for the info.our company allways had me run the new 4 wire circuts no matter what,so I figure the sellsman is doing a good job then.