# Garage subpanel



## k2x (May 20, 2008)

An electrical contractor asked me to help him out on a Saturday with electric to a detached garage. I would mainly be digging the trench but though it was worth some experience. So he ran a triplex urd to the garage i think it was 2-2-2 and a 50 amp breaker at the main panel. Ground rod but no ground wire back to the main panel. The garage panel was set up for 240 volt with the neutrals on one bar and the grounds seperated but only going to the ground rod. I thought for sure this would fail inspection because of no ground going back to the main panel but it did not. The installation did failed for a few minor things but not the egc. 

Am I missing something ?? I've helped with other similar installations and we would always run 4 wires for something like this. 

Thanks in advance for any replies.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Check out the last sentence in 250.54.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

I am not a construction guy k2x, but I have always thought along the same lines. 250.54 is unclear to me Ken. This is the second time I have asked this. I thought this was unpermissable????


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

What the last sentence means is that you can't use just earth as a ground path. There's too much resistance, and if a fault were to occur, there may not be enough current flow to open a OCPD.


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

k2x said:


> ...
> Am I missing something ??....


Nope. It's the _inspector_ who missed it this time.:blink:


----------



## guschash (Jul 8, 2007)

Read 250.32(b) exception. I think this says that you can do it if it is existing and meets all the exceptions requirements.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

Hello 
This is my first post so please be easy on me.

Could I ask if this installation would fall under the 2008 or the 2005 cycle?


----------



## k2x (May 20, 2008)

jwelectric said:


> Hello
> This is my first post so please be easy on me.
> 
> Could I ask if this installation would fall under the 2008 or the 2005 cycle?


We would be under 2005 until Jan 1.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

k2x said:


> We would be under 2005 until Jan 1.


Then this is a compliant installation


----------



## k2x (May 20, 2008)

jwelectric said:


> Then this is a compliant installation


Wow, then I have alot to learn.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

k2x said:


> Wow, then I have alot to learn.


 
Maybe I didn't say all that should have been said concerning the 2005 verbiage
250.32(B)(2) Grounded Conductor. Where (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, and (3) ground-fault protection of equipment has not been installed on the supply side of the feeder(s), the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building or structure shall 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. The size of the grounded conductor shall not be smaller than the larger of either of the following: 
(1) That required by 220.61
(2) That required by 250.122

This was deleted in the 2008 code except for existing installations


----------



## acrwc10 (Jan 28, 2007)

Like Mike said under 05' this type of installation is ok if the exceptions are met. You would treat it like a service as far as bonding the neutral.


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

jwelectric said:


> Hello
> This is my first post so please be easy on me.
> 
> Could I ask if this installation would fall under the 2008 or the 2005 cycle?


 
Mike: Some of us know you well enough that you can take care of yourself. Welcome to the forum!


----------

