200.2 & need for neutral conductor

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard S

Member
In a facility that has a 3 phase 4 wire service (277/480V) they have a new tool that only requires a 3 phase 3 wire 480v circuit (no neutral needed). The local AHJ is requiring a neutral be pulled because of 200.2 General
All premises wiring systems, other than circuits and systems exempted or prohibited by 210.10, 215.7, 250.21, 250.22, 250.162, 503.155, 517.63, 668.11, 668.21, and 690.41 Exception, shall have a grounded conductor that is identified in accordance with 200.6.

We've installed MCC's, UPS, tranformer feeds and other 3 phase 3 wire circuits off of services that are 3 phase 4 wire and did not pull a neutral and have NEVER had any comments or corrections. We always pull an EGC. Any comments or thoughts on this matter?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Richard S said:
Any comments or thoughts on this matter?

The inspector is mistaken.

That section requires premises wiring system to have a grounded conductor, it does not require that each feeder or branch circuit have a grounded conductor.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
The first exception, 210.10, is all you need. He's flat-out wrong.

The system requires a grounded conductor, not every circuit.


Added: I was scanning code sections, Bob.
 

nakulak

Senior Member
that's gotta be the most idiotic thing I ever heard. did you ask him what he thought you should do with the wire once it was there ?
 

Richard S

Member
nakulak said:
that's gotta be the most idiotic thing I ever heard. did you ask him what he thought you should do with the wire once it was there ?
We asked the same question and he said to "just cap them off." He said that he didn't necessary agree with the code, but since it was in there he had to enforce it. We mention 210.10 (that was also mentioned by Larry) and he said that applies to taps only. We use to have alot of respect for this inspector (very code oriented and knowlegeable), but this is ridiculous.
 

Awg-Dawg

Senior Member
Location
Dayton Ohio
Richard S said:
We use to have alot of respect for this inspector (very code oriented and knowlegeable), but this is ridiculous.

Don't give up on him yet. We all need a push in the right direction,as we all have tunnel vision to an extent.

Talk it out, you never know, he might even ask you for advice one day.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
don_resqcapt19 said:
But someone does.

Yes, of course, but many here assume that the 'someone' can be visited, or called.

That is not always the case, here I have to file (for a $fee) a complaint to the state and follow through with it. This is not going to fix the problem any time soon.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
Given that the inspector said
"just cap them off." He said that he didn't necessary agree with the code, but since it was in there he had to enforce it.

I wonder if he is confusing the new requirement for grounded conductors to be brought to switches? If he actually thinks that he is required to enforce a stupid rule, then he might be on side with trying to get a more reasonable interpretation handed down 'from above'.

-Jon
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
winnie said:
Given that the inspector said


I wonder if he is confusing the new requirement for grounded conductors to be brought to switches? .

-Jon

huh? where ??
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Augie, I think Jon is talking about 250.24(C).

Roger
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Well, maybe that's not what Jon was refering to.

Roger
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
Sorry for relying on hear-say.

I recall a significant amount of discussion about removing the exception in 404.2(A) (and I presume corresponding verbage elsewhere) that permits switch loops to be run without the neutral.

I don't know if this made the 2008 code, and it certainly doesn't apply here; I was simply wondering if the inspector in this cas was confusing this issue with the current install,

-Jon
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
The low-voltage industry has tried for years to require the presence of a grounded (neutral) circuit conductor in switch boxes.

They maintain it us unsafe for their techs to use the grounding (ground) in order to power some of the electronic switches & controllers they install.

The CMP has always responded that it is not the original installation that is unsafe (their words are 'design choice, not a safety issue'), but rather the installer of a device that requires a neutral to use the ground instead.

Not having a neutral available at a switch is not unsafe. Using the ground as a current-carrying conductor because there's no neutral available is what is unsafe.
 

teco

Senior Member
Location
Mass north shore
IMO I think if you go by 200.2 only he may have a case if you look up premises wiring systems in definitions. I have always got by with 215.7 if I didn't need to bring the grounded conductor with the ungrounded conductors.

mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top