Feeder question

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rotaryrocket

Member
Location
Monroe, WA
Perhaps someone can help me understand this. I recently did a panel change (strictly panel only, no feeders re-pulled) on a townhome, inspector wrote me up citing 250.32, stating that the EGC must be installed in the raceway.
The townhouse has a PVC conduit run to the service gear. The original feeders pulled through did not have the EGC pulled in the same raceway. The EGC was instead pulled through the building structure to the panel (bare copper #4). If this was good to do back in the early 80's, and I did not alter the feeders, why would this be a violation?
 
I would have cited 300.3(B) which requires all conductors associated with the circuit to be in the same raceway.
 
Rotaryrocket said:
Perhaps someone can help me understand this. I recently did a panel change (strictly panel only, no feeders re-pulled) on a townhome, inspector wrote me up citing 250.32, stating that the EGC must be installed in the raceway.
The townhouse has a PVC conduit run to the service gear. The original feeders pulled through did not have the EGC pulled in the same raceway. The EGC was instead pulled through the building structure to the panel (bare copper #4). If this was good to do back in the early 80's, and I did not alter the feeders, why would this be a violation?
Click to expand...
250.32 refers to Grounding Electrode Conductors at separate structures, not Equipment Grounding Conductors. It is typical to have GECs outside of conduit, not EGCs though. If the original install did not have an EGC pulled in the PVC then the inspector is correct but he is using the wrong reference.
 
Under the current code it's a violation so what was done thirty years ago does not really matter much.
 
ActionDave said:
250.32 refers to Grounding Electrode Conductors at separate structures, not Equipment Grounding Conductors. It is typical to have GECs outside of conduit, not EGCs though. If the original install did not have an EGC pulled in the PVC then the inspector is correct but he is using the wrong reference.
Click to expand...

The longer I think about it and read code references, I understand the call. When I talked to the inspector on the phone he stated it was a severe fire hazard which I just couldn't understand. Now he is going after the HOA to enforce this on the rest of the buildings in the development.
 
infinity said:
Under the current code it's a violation so what was done thirty years ago does not really matter much.
Click to expand...

You're from Jersey and you say this??? As long as it was compliant then (and I don't know for a fact it was) it's OK to leave it, at least in NJ.
 
I'll ask a follow-up question, When the new feeders are installed with the EGC in the raceway, do I need to delete the old EGC? Or should it remain on the ground bar as well?
 
infinity said:
Under the current code it's a violation so what was done thirty years ago does not really matter much.
Click to expand...
Rotaryrocket said:
Still, the question remains, why would this be a violation when the feeders were unaltered?
Click to expand...
Rotaryrocket said:
True, I have succumbed to the fact that the feeders should have been updated at the same time and included in the permitted work.
Click to expand...
Under former Code cycles, it was compliant to install a feeder to a separate structure and bond the grounded conductor to the separate structure GES and EGS.

Current Code makes an exception for the preceding fact. See 250.32 Exception No. 1.
 
Are you sure the #4 bare is an EGC and not the water bond or GEC for the unit?

Did the panel you replaced have a main breaker? Was the neutral bonded to the enclosure? Is there a breaker protecting this feeder at the metering equipment? Is the metering equipment in the same building or separate?

I agree that an EGC needs to installed with a feeder but I would not disconnect the #4 without investigating where it actually goes.
 
curt swartz said:
Are you sure the #4 bare is an EGC and not the water bond or GEC for the unit?

Did the panel you replaced have a main breaker? Was the neutral bonded to the enclosure? Is there a breaker protecting this feeder at the metering equipment? Is the metering equipment in the same building or separate?

I agree that an EGC needs to installed with a feeder but I would not disconnect the #4 without investigating where it actually goes.
Click to expand...

1. No, the panel was a main lug only.
2. Panel had isolated neutral and ground bars.
3. There is a breaker at the metering equipment.
4. The metering equipment is on the same building.
 
I just took care of this correction. With much diligence, I was able to get a fish tape through 4 90's and into a 12x12 enclosure that was installed in the adjacent units garage ceiling...imagine that. I would never thought that was permissive.
So I pulled in a new #4 through the conduit and closed things back up. I really don't even want to mention the 12x12 in the adjacent garage, the inspector is a nit picker...he also cited me for 110.11 "Deteriorating agents (remove inhibitor from other conductors and equipment)."
I am by no means a sloppy person, and I take pride in how things look even when you have to make a mess look good. But the only thing I could see was that he was calling me for having a dab of deox on the insulation of one of the conductors in the panel. Isn't the anti oxidant the opposite of a "deteriorating agent"?? I went to Ilsco's website but could find no mention of making sure the deox does not come in contact with the insulation of the conductor you are applying it to.
I'll find out Monday what he says about the corrections I made.
 
Smart $ said:
Being the inspector cited 250.32, it appears it is.

There's also a possibility the EGC referred to in the OP is actually the GEC.
Click to expand...

The inspector referred to it as the EGC in the citation.

I tried to upload pics for you guys to see but they are all too large files and I don't want to try to make them small enough to upload.

This is a 2 residence townhome with a 2 meter enclosure that has 200A feedthrough breakers for overcurrent protection.
The meter base has 4 total #4 copper stranded wires exiting the enclosure, two going to ground rods and the other two going to each residence.
I am making an assumption that these are also bonding the water pipe inside the structure on their way to the panel, but that is a guess, I didn't want to spend anymore time than necessary on this correction.
I am making this assumption because there are no other wires evident to cover the water bond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top