# Addition dilemma



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

I voted for F: Contact your AHJ.:whistling2:


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

do it correctly and replace the range circuit with a 4 wire cable.


----------



## user5941 (Mar 16, 2009)

If you have priced the range upgrade then do that. If not place the range grounded cunductor back on the grounded buss bar.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Replace with 4 wire.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

It has nothing to do with the fact that it came out of the main panel vs. a sub-panel. It has to do with the fact that it used to be legal to have a 3 conductor, but now it is supposed to be a 4 conductor. I would ask the AHJ though like 480 said, because I wouldn't want to change it to 4 wire if I didn't have to.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

EVEN WHEN it was legal to feed a range or dryer with 3-wire SE cable, it was NEVER legal to use 3-wire SE out of a subpanel. To tape up (or heat shrink) the bare neutral in the SE cable would be an attempt to comply with an old code that NEVER EXISTED. 

What I'd do it either replace the range cable with 4-wire OR tap onto it and extend it over to the new service panel. The second option is not exactly compliant today, but would at least comply with the old codes related to feeding a range with 3-wire SE cable.


----------



## blueheels2 (Apr 22, 2009)

Replace with 4 wire and hit them with an extra.


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> EVEN WHEN it was legal to feed a range or dryer with 3-wire SE cable, it was NEVER legal to use 3-wire SE out of a subpanel. To tape up (or heat shrink) the bare neutral in the SE cable would be an attempt to comply with an old code that NEVER EXISTED....


Ahhh ... but therein lies the dilemma. IF that range (or dryer for that matter) had been wired with romex, that contains an insulated neutral conductor, then it would have been acceptable even fed from a sub-panel. So, from a safety point of view, what is the difference here?



> ....
> What I'd do it either replace the range cable with 4-wire OR tap onto it and extend it over to the new service panel. The second option is not exactly compliant today, but would at least comply with the old codes related to feeding a range with 3-wire SE cable.


OK, taking this a step further. We have a conduit that connects the new main outside panel with the old (now sub-)panel. In it will be the 4 feeder wires required for a complaint installation. I should be able to install 3 additional conductors in that conduit to "extend" the circuit to the service panel; OR I could install a 2nd piece of SE cable from the old panel out to the new panel. I would end up with 3 wirenuts in the old panel, with the circuit breaker for that circuit outside in the service panel. 

How is this any more safe than simply leaving that circuit in the existing panel?


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

kbsparky said:


> Ahhh ... but therein lies the dilemma. IF that range (or dryer for that matter) had been wired with romex, that contains an insulated neutral conductor, then it would have been acceptable even fed from a sub-panel. So, from a safety point of view, what is the difference circuit outside in the service panel.


it was NEVER legal to feed a range or dryer, ungrounded, from a subpanel. Romex or SE.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> it was NEVER legal to feed a range or dryer, ungrounded, from a subpanel. Romex or SE.



They're grounded when you use a 3 wire. They just don't have a seperate grounded conductor.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

steelersman said:


> They're grounded when you use a 3 wire. They just don't have a seperate grounded conductor.


Nope! A range or dryer that is fed with three conductors is ungrounded!


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Shunk is 100% correct. Do it right, you will feel better about it in the morning.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

I have wired hundreds of stoves using 8/2 seu and many dryers using 10/3 plain which had black, red, and white conductor

The neutral was bonded to the frame with a strap

That was the accepted way around here in the 70's until the code changed to 4/wire

But *NEVER* from a sub-panel.. what Marc is talking about


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Black4Truck said:


> I have wired hundreds of stoves using 8/2 seu and many dryers using 10/3 plain which had black, red, and white conductor
> 
> The neutral was bonded to the frame with a strap
> 
> ...


You are 100% correct, but it was NEVER legal to pull that kind of circuit from a subpanel.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

(Going on gut and poor memory)

Once you alter that ckt (extend),Does it not have to come into current compliance?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

leland said:


> (Going on gut and poor memory)
> 
> Once you alter that ckt (extend),Does it not have to come into current compliance?


No.. existing wire is grandfathered unless changing to sup-panel


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> Nope! A range or dryer that is fed with three conductors is ungrounded!


Please explain how it's ungrounded when the bare conductor is connected to ground. I already know why it's inferior to 4 wire since the 3 wire method makes the frame of the appliance have current flow through it. But it is still grounded.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

steelersman said:


> Please explain how it's ungrounded when the bare conductor is connected to ground. I already know why it's inferior to 4 wire since the 3 wire method makes the frame of the appliance have current flow through it. But it is still grounded.


You seriously asking this question? :blink:

What you're sorta saying is that it would be okay to jumper the neutral to ground on each and every receptacle in the house.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

steelersman said:


> Please explain how it's ungrounded when the bare conductor is connected to ground. I already know why it's inferior to 4 wire since the 3 wire method makes the frame of the appliance have current flow through it. But it is still grounded.


That bare conductor you talk about is an UNINSULATED NEUTRAL... not a ground. It happens to be jumpered to the chassis at the appliance.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> You seriously asking this question? :blink:
> 
> What you're sorta saying is that it would be okay to jumper the neutral to ground on each and every receptacle in the house.


Yes I'm seriously asking the question. I understand that it's wrong and unsafe to have parallel paths for neutral current. I'm simply saying that the 3 wire circuit is still grounded nonetheless. It's connected to earth ground and to the centerpoint of the POCO transformer or neutral. You said that it isn't grounded. If I'm wrong in saying that it is grounded then explain.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> That bare conductor you talk about is an UNINSULATED NEUTRAL... not a ground. It happens to be jumpered to the chassis at the appliance.



I understand that. BUT....the only difference is that it will have current on it, and an EGC won't. BUT....it's still grounded.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

steelersman said:


> I understand that. BUT....the only difference is that it will have current on it, and an EGC won't. BUT....it's still grounded.


If you insist.....

(some people are hopeless)

I think we're splitting frog hairs here. Yeah, it's referenced to earth ground at at least one end, but it's not an EGC.


----------



## steelersman (Mar 15, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> (some people are hopeless)


Yeah I know. There are all types of people. I'm glad I'm one of the hopeful ones instead of one of the hopeless ones. :thumbup:


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> it was NEVER legal to feed a range or dryer, ungrounded, from a subpanel. Romex or SE.


Guess again.

From the 1993 NEC:



> *250-60(c)*The grounded conductor is insulated; _*or*_ the grounded conductor is uninsulated _and_ part of a Type SE service-entrance cable_ and_ the branch circuit originates at the service equipment._ (emphasis added)_


Note that subsection (c) is divided into 2 parts, separated by semi-colon punctuation. One part allows for an insulated neutral conductor the origin of which is not specified. The second part allows for an uninsulated conductor _provided_: 1) it was part of a SE cable ... *and*... 2) it originated from the service equipment. The service equipment requirement only applied to the SE cable! If the service equipment requirement applied to both, then there would have been a comma inserted after the word "cable" to make that part of the sentence operative for both conditions.

I maintain that it was legal at that time to install a 3-wire range or dryer receptacle even from a sub-panel if one used a cable assembly that included an insulated conductor as stipulated in this section of the _Code._


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

kbsparky said:


> Guess again.
> 
> From the 1993 NEC:
> 
> ...


Is a subpanel considered service equipment?:whistling2:


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Actually, the term "sub-panel" does not appear in the _Code_. But as I understand things, what we call a sub-panel is not the same as "service equipment"


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Let me restructure that paragraph a bit for clarity



_*250-60(c)*_

Two cable types approved:

1) _*The grounded conductor is insulated;*_
-OR-
2)_* the grounded conductor is uninsulated and part of a Type SE service-entrance cable *_

Place that circuit must originate, regardless of what cable type it is:

A)_* and the branch circuit originates at the service equipment. *_

There was NEVER any provision for an ungrounded range or dryer circuit to originate at anything other than the service panel. A subpanel is not a service panel. You could have used ungrounded romex or type SE cable in the past, but it was never allowed to come out of a subpanel.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

kbsparky said:


> Guess again.
> 
> From the 1993 NEC:
> 
> ...


Even though NEC doesn't say "subpanel" , there's only one service on this structure. That's the one that has POCO on one side. The rest are subpanels, not service panels.


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> Let me restructure that paragraph a bit for clarity
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to disagree with you on this. I have seen many installations where ungrounded "romex" was used in places like apartment buildings feeding 3-wire range and dryer outlets. I asked the inspectors about this, and it was pointed out that 250-60(c) allowed this, since they did not use SE cable for the circuit. 

You are attempting to restructure that section of the Code differently than it was published. You have no grammatical basis to apply the restrictions given to SE cable to other methods contained within that section. 

IF you still don't believe me, then I invite you to get out your 2008 Handbook, and read what they have to say about this matter. You will find the text on page 252 in the explanations given on section 250.140(3):



> Prior to the 1996 _Code_, use of the grounded circuit conductor as a grounding conductor _was permitted for all installations_. In many instances, the wiring method was service-entrance cable with an uninsulated neutral conductor covered by the cable jacket.* Where SE cable was used to supply ranges and dryers, the branch circuit was required to originate at the service equipment*...


 The requirement to originate from the Service equipment ONLY applied to instances where SE cable was used.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

kbsparky said:


> We are on a project where an addition is being built on the end of a house. The meter box will have to be moved, as it will be enclosed by the addition.
> 
> So, we have placed a meter/main box on the outside of the addition, and are installing a feeder conduit back to the existing panel, making it a sub-panel.
> 
> ...


You made my point for me beautifully, while trying to disagree.:whistling2:


----------

