seperating ground/nuetrals @ sub

[mayjong]

when did this requirement first enter the NEC?
i have a barn- started in 1980, inspected, but never finalled. it has recently been annexed into our jurisdiction. now the owner wants a final...
the sub has 1 bar, nuetrals and grounds landed.
i'm not sire what to do with this one, even if the requirement happened "after the fact" . the permit is a new one, for us...

 

[augie47]

I believe 2008 was the first Code where all new installs must have the separate equipment ground but even '08 has an exception for existing.
See 250.32

 

[e57]

My word - there sure have been a lot of 250.32 threads latley. I agree with the above.

 

[mayjong]

looks like my question was not clear.
i'm asking about the requirement to seperate grounds and nuetrals at a sub, to eliminateobjectionable current. 250.6 and when it was introduced
thanks!!!

 

[augie47]

sorry, from the original post I assumed the sub-panel was in a separate building, if so the exception to 250.32 would allow it under specific conditions. If the sub-panel is in the same building, I can see where separation was required in the 1993 Code but that's the earliest Code I have.

 

[scwirenut]

i think the real question is how many conductors is the feeder

 

[mayjong]

would that make a difference?
and why?
also- it does not meet the exception, there are multiple circuits.

 

[charlie b]

No connection to a grounding electrode shall be made to the grounded circuit conductor on the load side of the service disconnecting means, except . . . .

NEC 250.23a, 1965 edition. The exception has to do with two or more buildings supplied by a single service.

 

[mayjong]

thanks Charlie!!

 

[augie47]

would that make a difference?
and why?
also- it does not meet the exception, there are multiple circuits.

where does multiple circuits enter into the picture.
the exception I was referring to has nothing to do with multiple circuits
Exception: For existing premises wiring systems only, the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building or structure shall be permitted to be connected to the building or structure disconnecting means and to the grounding electrode(s) and shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment, structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded where all the requirements of (1), (2), and (3) are met:
(1) An equipment grounding conductor is not run with the supply to the building or structure.
(2) There are no continuous metallic paths bonded to the grounding system in each building or structure involved.
(3) Ground-fault protection of equipment has not been installed on the supply side of the feeder(s).
but then again, it only apples to sub-panels in a seperate building

 

[mayjong]

sorry again on the misunderstanding.it is a seperate structure, i am in the 05nec. that is not an exception (in the 05), it is 250.32 (B)(2).
anyway, there is a grounding conductor run with the supply so it won't work...

 

[Sierrasparky]

when did this requirement first enter the NEC?
i have a barn- started in 1980, inspected, but never finalled. it has recently been annexed into our jurisdiction. now the owner wants a final...
the sub has 1 bar, nuetrals and grounds landed.
i'm not sire what to do with this one, even if the requirement happened "after the fact" . the permit is a new one, for us...

I'm surprised they will let it be inspected by a older code.

 

[hurk27]

Most laws require the code in effect at the time when the permit was pulled, but I have never seen a permit kept open this long (39 years) Wow. around here they would have wrote it off after 2 years, we can get a extention after one year but the max is only one more year for hardship only.

I don't think installing a grounding bar and moving the EGCs to it is not to much to ask for.

We do many barns on a common service using a 320 meter with double lugs, by running from the extra set of lugs back into the ground to a barn/garage to a main breaker panel, treating it just like a service. much easier. since these are still service entrance conductors, its not a problem with the NEC.

 

[mayjong]

thanks, we will be inspecting to the current code, since it is a new permit for us. just wondering when it appeared. seems as though, since it is from the
80's , it was done incorrectly anyway...