# Service rated transfer switch inspection



## active1 (Dec 29, 2009)

The inspectors claim does not make much sense to me.
But at the end of the day they want the 3 wire drier / ranges updates when the service is changed. Perhaps they have some local amendment stating that.
Worked in a few areas that required you to bring the entire structure up to current code with a service replacement.
That could include installing GFIs, adding counter top rec, interconnected smoke detectors, adding lighting in unfinished spaces, and other required rec. Really can be more work than the service.

Myself I would leave it on the HO.
Sorry your city unjustly wants additional code updating work done outside the scope.
That's an add.

Fighting the inspection department can turn ugly.
In corrupt areas like Vegas, even major casinos can be brought to their knees and bankrupted over stupid code disagreements.


----------



## Eastpoint (Feb 4, 2013)

Thank you active1

Your logical advice is well taken.

Fighting city hall, even if the fight is won, is often a Pyric victory.

I am learning (yes, even after 47 yrs in the business) that the requirement to upgrade is substantiated by the change in configuration of the previous main service panel. Technically, it is no longer service equipment, as defined and the exceptions of 250.140 do not confer.

I will lose this fight on strictly interpreted code language.

So, I will approach the homeowner and explain my estimate did not include replacement of existing branch circuit wiring and take it from there.

Wish me luck!


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

I got called on this too, though now I can't remember what the explanation was at the time. It was in Mass, and his explanation made sense, so I just do it now so I don't have to deal with it anymore.


----------



## Julius793 (Nov 29, 2011)

As far as I’m concerned when you separate the neutrals the oven or dryer get put on the neutral bus and no work has changed that it shouldn’t be grandfathered.


----------



## samgregger (Jan 23, 2013)

Could you just add a ground wire to the existing circuits rather than re-run them? (250.134 ex 1 / 250.130(C))


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

samgregger said:


> Could you just add a ground wire to the existing circuits rather than re-run them? (250.134 ex 1 / 250.130(C))


They already have a ground. They lack an insulated neutral.

I've not run into this for service rated generator transfer switches (it's sort of rare in resi), but I have run into this quite often when turning a service panel into a subpanel under other circumstances (mostly service upgrades that now required a meter-main due to distance from panel to meter). I more or less always planned on re-running range and dryer cables to 4-wire. Bummer you got dinged with this unexpectedly, but there won't be a next time, I'm sure. It'll all work out somehow. Education is expensive. It sucks breaking this type of news to a customer.


----------



## Eastpoint (Feb 4, 2013)

Thanks everyone for your responses.

This points out how much we all have to learn on an ongoing basis.

Technology changes the way we address conditions in our homes and businesses. As new products and devices come to market, I am sure more questions will arise and be addressed by regulatory authorities. It has been and always will be our responsibility as professionals to keep abreast of the changes.

I believe (after speaking with several AHJ's) that the exceptions in 250.140 are intended for this type of retrofit installation. However, the particular AHJ on the job interprets the exceptions differently. Perhaps the NEC code panels will address this issue in future code cycles. If not, it will be best to err on the side of strict interpretation. 

The downside though, will be that homeowners become loath to apply for building permits for fear of extra or unplanned expense.

This will not provide the safety and quality of workmanship we all strive to provide.

Balance, I believe, is key this era of fast paced changes.

Ken Johnson
Eastpoint Electric


----------



## readydave8 (Sep 20, 2009)

Eastpoint said:


> Thanks everyone for your responses.
> 
> This points out how much we all have to learn on an ongoing basis.
> 
> Technology changes the way we address conditions in our homes and businesses. As new products and devices come to market, I am sure more questions will arise and be addressed by regulatory authorities. It has been and always will be our responsibility as professionals to keep abreast of the changes.


I may not be completely understanding the situation

But didn't the service rated transfer switch make the main panel a subpanel?

And were 3/wire range and dryer circuits ever allowed to come from a subpanel?


----------



## lighterup (Jun 14, 2013)

why is the inspector calling this a "lighting panel"?

In my lingo it's now a sub panel and grounds & 
neutrals have to be isolated from each other
in that panel which was previously the main.

I can see why a 3 wire appliance circuit would now
need an egc unless the old wiring has 2 hots and 
an unsheathed ground.


----------



## Eastpoint (Feb 4, 2013)

Readydave8 and lighterup,

You have both made the same arguements I made when questioning the inspector's ruling.

The "lighting panel" reference was unknown to me and has no definintion or requirements listed in my copy of the 2011 NEC. I suspect the building department has coined this phrase to differentiate between a service main panel and a panel without a main breaker.

Be that as it may, after pleading my case, using the reasoning you both stated and by stating the intent and (4) requirements for exception under 250.140, I was summarily dismissed with "Bottom line, we are requiring rewire of the dryer and range circuits. You have 30 days to submit an appeal."

I have many friends and business acquaintances in the inspection field. I have reached out to them and they, to a man, have agreed that they would not reqire the change and that the exception applies.

They however, are not the AHJ on this particular installation.

Coincidentally, there was a regional meeting of building inspectors two days ago. No one represented the jurisdiction in which I find myself in violation. Curious, perhaps they prefer to go it alone or perhaps they already know everything and have nothing to share.

Ken Johnson
Eastpoint Electric


----------



## readydave8 (Sep 20, 2009)

(3)" . . .and the branch circuit originates at the service equipment"

yes I agree that the panel that previously housed first or main disconnect did not transform into a lighting panel

but it is now what we would call a subpanel?

so does the branch circuit originate at the service equipment?

I ask because, back when we ran 3 conductors to ranges and dryers, mobile homes would have 4/conductor. At the time I thought that was because grounds and neutrals were separated in mobile home panel, and assumed that same would apply to a subpanel in a house


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

At the time the code allowed 3 wire range and dryer receptacles (i believe the 93 book was the last one), they were only allowed in main panels, not sub panels. You turned the former main panel into a sub panel by relocating the main breaker into the transfer switch. The reason you couldn't use a 3 wire range/dryer feeder in a sub panel is the grounds and neutrals are separated in sub panels to prevent current flow on the ground wire. The bare wire in these feeders is a neutral, not a ground. "(Im)Properly terminated" in a sub panel, that bare wire belongs on the neutral bus.
If the feeds are difficult to replace and they don't need to be on the generator, you can tap the service ahead of the new main with a small main breaker panel adjacent the transfer switch and shift those feeders into there. Label the transfer switch "service disconnect 1 of 2" and the small panel "service disconnect 2 of 2"


----------



## Eastpoint (Feb 4, 2013)

Yes, there certainly is an arguement to be made regarding the objectionable currents present on the grounding conductor between the previous main service panel and the new main disconnect located in the ATS 18" away.

Typically and more often than not, these objectional currents are present in all services for varying lengths of service entrance conductors. Meter bases are fed from a utility service drop or service lateral from the load. side of the meter base a 3-wire service entrance cable. It is this short length of cable (from as little as 1-2 feet in a back to back installation to as much as 10 feet for installations in unusual arrangements) in which both ground faults AND grounded circuit conductor (neutral) currents flow. 

By moving the main bonding jumper to the ATS (essentially back to back with the previous main service panel), the main service panel did indeed become what is commonly referred to as a "sub-panel".

The length and accessability of the cable containing the objectionable currents were not increased.

I agree with the inspectors explaination of the condition. The exceptions in the code are intended for EXISTING installations to prevent expense out of line with improvements in safety. A sub panel installed 10,20,30 or more feet from the meter base and ATS would certainly be advised to include separate grounded and grounding conductors in both feeders and branch circuits.

The relative proximity of all the service equipment, in my and others opinions, should allow the 250.140 exception to apply. Especially, since the length of conductor carrying both fault and grounded currents is unchanged.

Ken Johnson
Eastpoint Electric


----------



## Eastpoint (Feb 4, 2013)

By the way,

The offending circuit was replaced with the required 4-wire branch circuit.

The customer, outraged by the added expense, derided this electrician as one who should have a more thorough knowledge of "county codes". My explaination that this installation had been previously accepted in all surrounding jurisdictions and that they would have been paying for the wiring upgrade regardless of whether it was done pre or post inspection, fell on deaf ears. To make matters worse, they also claimed that since I changed their receptacle outlet fro 3 to 4-wire, I was also on the hook for a new range cord and range rewire as I should have known all of this would be required to allow the intended use of their shiney new generator.

I ate the charge with a side resolve to never be caught again by such a violation. 

Education is indeed expensive.

May kharma raise it's inevitable head.

I will sleep well.

Ken Johnson
Eastpoint Electric


----------

