Article 200.2 Issue

[wasasparky]

Fight this all the way...the neutral does not have to be carried past the service if it is not needed downstream...

Originally Posted by clausb

This same inspector's responses in the past according to this forum were that the feeders and circuits are not taps.

Feeders and Branch Circuits are generally not taps.

[kacper]

Originally Posted by clausb

I have searched the Forum site and found some reference to this issue back in July. Well here we are again, same issue, same inspector. Here is the details:

We have a project in construction at an industrial site in California where we are adding a production line. We had to install a new service entrance and all new distribution specifically to support this plastic bottle blowmolding process and utilities. We have the service installed and most of the feeders and circuits at this time. Most loads are 3 phase, 3 wire with ground.

My inspector is telling us that we need to pull a grounded conductor (neutral conductor) with EVERY three phase feeder and circuit, whether it is required or not. Wow. He cites 200.2. OK, I see that. But the exemptions cited by 200.2 such as 210.10 and 215.7 identify that ungrounded taps from a grounded system are acceptable. This same inspector's responses in the past according to this forum were that the feeders and circuits are not taps. And what do we do with the ungrounded conductors where they terminate in the 3 pole, 3 wire equipment? Just cap them.

I understand that this inspector disagrees with the way 200.2 is worded and is enforcing his interpretation in an effort to get others behind his cause. Well I do not agree that this fight should be carried on the backs of the customer trying to get a project built.

There was no follow-up on the previous thread regarding how that project was resolved. We are looking at a costly effort to re-pull ALL the wiring to add a grounded/neutral conductor and a costly hit to our project schedule.

I have looked at the exceptions and definitions (and lack of definition in the case of "TAP") and have not found a good way to argue this except for 210.10, 215.7 and appeal to him with 90.4 in that this is a safe installation without the capped off grounded conductor. If anything, the extra conductor abandoned in the conduit could constitute a hazard.

Appreciate any help and/or insight you all can provide.

Wonder How Did He Get His License?

[K8MHZ]

The code wants a grounded conductor brought in, so the EGC's can be tied on to it to

Don't you mean 'grounding' conductor?

[benaround]

Originally Posted by K8MHZ

Don't you mean 'grounding' conductor?

No, grounding conductors are not brought in with the service conductors, they are only

run after the first service disconnecting means. It is at this disconnecting means that the

" grounded service conductor " and the EGC's are tied together. If the grounded conductor

was not brought in with the service conductors, there would be no path for the EGC's to

carry the fault current to and trip the c.b.

[jckenner]

If you are havng a beef with an AHJ that's important to resolve in your favor, get an informal technical interpretation from the NEC. Go to the NEC website and look under member services and it explains the process. You can do it by phone or email, and an informal interpretation is generally mighty quick. It's an awesome member benefit. The AHJ can still think whatever they want because they are the AHJ, but in my experience people don't want to be hanging out there on their own without NFPA cover.

[macmikeman]

Another way to look at this is: Is the AHJ above and beyond the law? Would his argument stand up in a court of law? Will you suffer damages by delay or by having to put an unused conductor into your conduits? And lastly, is there an engineering stamp on the set of drawings your project is concerned with ? It would behoove the engineer to solve this problem for you if there is such a drawing submitted with his stamp.

[mcclary's electrical]

Originally Posted by K8MHZ

Don't you mean 'grounding' conductor?

His terminology was correct.

[LarryFine]

Originally Posted by macmikeman

Is the AHJ above and beyond the law?

Not in my opinion. I believe the NEC (and/or other adopted code) is as binding on the inspector as it is on the contractor.

I believe it's as illegal to fail something incorrectly as it is to pass something incorrectly, just as with vehicle inspections.

[Bryan Ferguson]

Take his article 200 and give him article 100, Premises Wiring

[Rockyd]

Talking to someone who is normally "in the know"said try leading the horse down this trail -

The answer lies in the text of 200.2. This section requires premise wiring systems to have a grounded conductor. A single branch circuit or feeder is not by itself a system.