Bad gen-set install

[goldstar]

You have to land the white on the neutral bus, it is current carrying, but it is also the EGC for a three wire range circuit where permitted.

But the circuit must originate in service equipment.

Check out the exception to 250.140 that tells us where a 3 wire range circuit is permitted. Condition 3 of the exception says the circuit must originate at service equipment. So if you convert your existing service panel to a sub panel when installing a service rated ATS, you can no longer supply the existing 3 wire range circuit from that panel.

With respect to it not being considered a service panel, I don't see it that way. That original main breaker panel is still your service panel. Even though you left the main breaker in it (with a service rated ATS in front of it) and separated the EGC's and neutrals, the only purpose the existing main breaker serves at that point is as a disconnect means. It might as well be a molded case switch. It would be no different than having a main breaker disconnect nippled into a meter enclosure and SER leaving that to feed a main lug panel on the opposite side of the house. You'd have to feed your range, etc. out of that panel. You can't wire it back to the disconnect. So, if the original installer used SER cable to feed the range then you would already have moved the EGC to the ground bar.

When inspectors start failing you for this then it's all over. You might as well pack up your tools and open a 7-11. It's hard enough convincing a HO to part with $10K plus for their new gen set, now we have to try and convince them that we'll have to rip open walls and ceilings so that we can replace the wiring to their electric ranges, ovens and dryers? Irrespective of what the Code says in this case you'll have a hard time selling this one IMHO. I can envision numerous complaints at town council meetings and possibly law suits. I think it's a far stretch to fail a contractor for chicken s**t stuff like this.

Just my opinion.

 

[jes25]

If the original installer set up the Main Panel as a sub panel he would have fed the range with a four wire. I don't believe the code ever allowed a range to be fed with three wire out of panels where the neutral and ground are not bonded together - aka a sub panel.

I have been cited for this issue on a situation where I had to convert the old main panel into a sub panel because of general alterations to the house, but never for a gen set situation. I don't really see the difference, but I'm glad they aren't writing it up. And I don't see it as a much of a hazard either.

 

[kwired]

With respect to it not being considered a service panel, I don't see it that way. That original main breaker panel is still your service panel. Even though you left the main breaker in it (with a service rated ATS in front of it) and separated the EGC's and neutrals, the only purpose the existing main breaker serves at that point is as a disconnect means. It might as well be a molded case switch. It would be no different than having a main breaker disconnect nippled into a meter enclosure and SER leaving that to feed a main lug panel on the opposite side of the house. You'd have to feed your range, etc. out of that panel. You can't wire it back to the disconnect. So, if the original installer used SER cable to feed the range then you would already have moved the EGC to the ground bar.

When inspectors start failing you for this then it's all over. You might as well pack up your tools and open a 7-11. It's hard enough convincing a HO to part with $10K plus for their new gen set, now we have to try and convince them that we'll have to rip open walls and ceilings so that we can replace the wiring to their electric ranges, ovens and dryers? Irrespective of what the Code says in this case you'll have a hard time selling this one IMHO. I can envision numerous complaints at town council meetings and possibly law suits. I think it's a far stretch to fail a contractor for chicken s**t stuff like this.

Just my opinion.

I understand what you are saying, but all the chicken s**t stuff is what gets people, and it is not just 3 vs 4 wire range circuits.

I'm sure you possibly run into other 3 wire feeders that should have been 4 wire feeders, those were likely never compliant, where the range at one time was, a little tough to decide just where to be lenient and where not to be as an installer or inspector when the code is pretty clear on what is required - not trying to shoot you down, just telling you what it says.

You can call this panel whatever you want. NEC does not really have a name for it, and NEC does not use the term "service panel" either. They do use the term "service equipment". Once you installed the new service rated ATS you changed the location of the "service equipment" everything downstream now becomes feeders or branch circuits and there is no more service equipment when downstream.

Rules for ranges and dryers changed about 17 years ago, and we still have people that can't buy into the (new?) rules I guess.:angel:

 

[goldstar]

I hear what you're saying and I do understand it. I just get ticked off when inspectors start off finding reasons to fail a job rather than find reasons to pass it. If the only remedy in this case is to install new wiring I think there has to be some modification to the NEC or some local regulation that would allow you to pass an inspection.

 

[AllCircuitsElectrical]

The problem with that is if the mechanical disconnect is disconnecting service conductors, you have other code violations, your transfer switch is still connected to service conductors which it is not rated to connect to. We need to establish where the service equipment ends before we get into where to separate the grounded and grounding conductors.

Bottom line is you are not likely to find a listed transfer switch that is suitable for use as service equipment, that does not contain a service overcurrent protection device.

There are POCO provided transfer switches around here that are a meter and double throw switch in one unit, no overcurrent devices. But I don't think they are listed either, POCO can install them but contractors following NEC can not.

How it has be explained to me ... is that the actual ATS transfer switch is the same either way ... but its about the "DISCONNECT" .... so you can have a ATS non service rated .. but would need to add a seperate " Disconnect Switch" in that location ...and it would be perfectly legal .... now price takes over and it is much more cost effective to buy the "SERVICE RATED DISCONNECT" .. both labor and cost of the equipment.

the theroy explained had to do with the grouping of disconnects .. the non service rated ATS is a disconnect but not MANUAL ... no way to walk up and disconnect .. ie .. home owner or fire company

 

[kwired]

How it has be explained to me ... is that the actual ATS transfer switch is the same either way ... but its about the "DISCONNECT" .... so you can have a ATS non service rated .. but would need to add a seperate " Disconnect Switch" in that location ...and it would be perfectly legal .... now price takes over and it is much more cost effective to buy the "SERVICE RATED DISCONNECT" .. both labor and cost of the equipment.

the theroy explained had to do with the grouping of disconnects .. the non service rated ATS is a disconnect but not MANUAL ... no way to walk up and disconnect .. ie .. home owner or fire company

If an ATS is going to also serve as the "service disconnecting means" It would require a manual method of disconnecting from service conductors.

 

[AllCircuitsElectrical]

If an ATS is going to also serve as the "service disconnecting means" It would require a manual method of disconnecting from service conductors.

I believe that is what i said ..LOL .. it just does NOT need to be intergral .. can be a switch beside the ATS ....to accomplish the same thing.

 

[kwired]

I believe that is what i said ..LOL .. it just does NOT need to be intergral .. can be a switch beside the ATS ....to accomplish the same thing.

If the switch is not integral to the ATS, then the ATS is probably not a listed service disconnect. Possible but not likely, especially 200 amp or less units.

 

[AllCircuitsElectrical]

I agree .. I thought that the discussion turned more toward "where" the service is/was. So the ATS is a disconnect .. period. IMHO ...

now wether is has an internal " disconnect" ( that can be manually operated ) or one is added beside the ATS that becomes the "service" disconnect and that would be where the ground is connected and anything after that would be a subpanel needed to be wired with 4 wire and grounds and nuetral seperated ..is how I have been taught.

 

[curt swartz]

The NEC only requires a 3-wire range or dryer circuit to orininate from the servcie panel if type SE cable is used with a bare neutral conductor. If an insulated neutral is used it can originate from any panel.

 

[AllCircuitsElectrical]

The NEC only requires a 3-wire range or dryer circuit to orininate from the servcie panel if type SE cable is used with a bare neutral conductor. If an insulated neutral is used it can originate from any panel.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=140012&p=1338568#post1338568

so " exception #3 " the "service equipment" .....:lol: ....

and u must meet ALL the requirements ... all 4 of them

 

[curt swartz]

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=140012&p=1338568#post1338568

so " exception #3 " the "service equipment" .....:lol: ....

and u must meet ALL the requirements ... all 4 of them

Please read #3 again. It says the grounded conductor must be insulated OR it can be bare if it originates from the service equipment.

An insulated neutral is not required to originate from the service equipment.

 

[goldstar]

Please read #3 again. It says the grounded conductor must be insulated OR it can be bare if it originates from the service equipment.

An insulated neutral is not required to originate from the service equipment.

Not sure how this thread took a turn down this road but I believe it was when Jes25 posed this question

On a related note: What about 3 wire range and dryer circuits that come out of the main panel; wouldn't those need to be changed to 4 wire when installing the service rated ATS?

Now I suppose, in a technical sense, he could be right but from a practical point of view I don't see how a homewowner can be forced to change the wiring in his house just because he's now installed a gen set with a service rated ATS. Irrespective of whether an over-current disconnect or a service rated ATS is installed ahead of an existing main breaker panel, there is no way to terminate an SEU cabled branch circuit in any other place than that existing main breaker panel.

So, the choices posed by this situation now become a) force the homeowner to have the circuit(s) rewired with a 4-wire cabling system or b) tell the homeowner he cannot have a gen set installed because he will be faced with an NEC code violation if he does. Unless States step in and adopt their own codes amending or allowing this I see wierd things happening. People are already ticked off because they are faced with having to spend $$ to have a back-up a power system installed and we come along and pose this situation to them. Yes, we want to be Code compliant but we're supposed to be out there encouraging people to part with a buck not scaring them away.

I've said this before in this Forum and I'll say it again - I'm a proponent of the third party inspection process. I have no problem getting my work inspected by the AHJ. But there are numerous inspectors that are active or lurk here. Please don't give them any more unnecessary ammunition than they already have to fail a job. It might end up costing you a lot more than just the permit fee.

Just my opinion

 

[hotwire1955]

Not sure how this thread took a turn down this road but I believe it was when Jes25 posed this question Now I suppose, in a technical sense, he could be right but from a practical point of view I don't see how a homewowner can be forced to change the wiring in his house just because he's now installed a gen set with a service rated ATS. Irrespective of whether an over-current disconnect or a service rated ATS is installed ahead of an existing main breaker panel, there is no way to terminate an SEU cabled branch circuit in any other place than that existing main breaker panel.

So, the choices posed by this situation now become a) force the homeowner to have the circuit(s) rewired with a 4-wire cabling system or b) tell the homeowner he cannot have a gen set installed because he will be faced with an NEC code violation if he does. Unless States step in and adopt their own codes amending or allowing this I see wierd things happening. People are already ticked off because they are faced with having to spend $$ to have a back-up a power system installed and we come along and pose this situation to them. Yes, we want to be Code compliant but we're supposed to be out there encouraging people to part with a buck not scaring them away.

I've said this before in this Forum and I'll say it again - I'm a proponent of the third party inspection process. I have no problem getting my work inspected by the AHJ. But there are numerous inspectors that are active or lurk here. Please don't give them any more unnecessary ammunition than they already have to fail a job. It might end up costing you a lot more than just the permit fee.

Just my opinion[/QUOTE I would rather learn from this forum what code violation could be cited prior to giving a price for an installation, then hoping that an Inspector may not notice that a job was in violation.If you fail a job for a code violation its on you and will cost you $ not the home owner

 

[goldstar]

I would rather learn from this forum what code violation could be cited prior to giving a price for an installation, then hoping that an Inspector may not notice that a job was in violation.If you fail a job for a code violation its on you and will cost you $ not the home owner

I'm not disagreeing with you. I value all the information we share here in this forum, irrespective of whether someone's opinion is wrong or right. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't think up chicken s**t reasons to flunk a job. While it's nice to come up with this new and exciting violation scenario why not also come up with logical a solution rather than having to rip open a customers ceiling to install a new cable(s) for their cooking appliances. Is changing the characteristics of the main breaker panel a scenario where someone is going to get injured because you didn't change the wire ? It's one thing if the panel is in the basement with an open ceiling and you have to run 10 or 15'. But, it's quite another if the panel is in the garage and you have to do some damage to get the wire in. Not to mention the added expense for your customer who didn't want to or could barely afford to spend $10K on a generator to begin with.

 

[kwired]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I value all the information we share here in this forum, irrespective of whether someone's opinion is wrong or right. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't think up chicken s**t reasons to flunk a job. While it's nice to come up with this new and exciting violation scenario why not also come up with logical a solution rather than having to rip open a customers ceiling to install a new cable(s) for their cooking appliances. Is changing the characteristics of the main breaker panel a scenario where someone is going to get injured because you didn't change the wire ? It's one thing if the panel is in the basement with an open ceiling and you have to run 10 or 15'. But, it's quite another if the panel is in the garage and you have to do some damage to get the wire in. Not to mention the added expense for your customer who didn't want to or could barely afford to spend $10K on a generator to begin with.

If something is a code violation, then there is likely some risk or hazard or it would not be a violation.

If an injury or death should result from your decision to do something a particular way what support do you get in a lawsuit for following your own rules? If you install to established codes and standards you have all kinds of supporting documents that can be used to determine what you did was considered by the trade to be the right thing. Codes are not supposed to care about cost.

A good professional will see this problem before quoting any pricing, and consider it in the price. If you are in a cut throat market, then you point out the problems, tell customer what hazards may exist if you don't fix the problems, and also mention that it should not pass inspections if left as is. Tell them exactly what they are getting for their money and why. Then pull permits for jobs that were awarded to someone that you know will not pull permits, that way the AHJ will have paperwork for the project and will come to the site at some point to clear that paperwork and will maybe catch someone doing work without permits. When angry customer confronts you, you can just claim that you thought you were doing the work, but they bailed out on you after you filed permits, but if the chosen contractor did things right there should have not been much problem.:happyyes:


If you go into the hospital for what should be a routine procedure and they run into complications, I would sure hope they deal with them and not just put you back together and hope for the best.

 

[AllCircuitsElectrical]

Please read #3 again. It says the grounded conductor must be insulated OR it can be bare if it originates from the service equipment.

An insulated neutral is not required to originate from the service equipment.

First ...

Exception: For existing branch-circuit installations only
where an equipment grounding conductor is not present in
the outlet or junction box, the frames of electric ranges,
wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units,
clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes that are part of
the circuit for these appliances shall be permitted to be
connected to the grounded circuit conductor if all the following
conditions are met.



then

(3) The grounded conductor is insulated, or the grounded
conductor is uninsulated and part of a Type SE serviceentrance
cable and the branch circuit originates at the
service equipment.

need to read the whole sentence ....

 

[goldstar]

If something is a code violation, then there is likely some risk or hazard or it would not be a violation.

Understood. Please tell me what risk or hazard might occur in this scenario.

If an injury or death should result from your decision to do something a particular way what support do you get in a lawsuit for following your own rules? If you install to established codes and standards you have all kinds of supporting documents that can be used to determine what you did was considered by the trade to be the right thing. Codes are not supposed to care about cost.

We're all going under the assumption that the SE cable installation in this scenario was code compliant when it was installed. All I'm saying is that adding a service rated ATS for a generator should not change that. You should be "grandfathered in" or there should be a State code (like a Rehab Code) that would allow you to leave the existing wiring in place.

A good professional will see this problem before quoting any pricing, and consider it in the price.

There's the first problem. I'm not a good professional !!!

If you are in a cut throat market, then you point out the problems, tell customer what hazards may exist if you don't fix the problems, and also mention that it should not pass inspections if left as is. Tell them exactly what they are getting for their money and why.

Good advice but you just lost the job. I'd bet a weeks pay that there are hundreds of inspectors out there that are either not aware of the possibility of a wiring scenario like this or they wouldn't even think to check for one.

Then pull permits for jobs that were awarded to someone that you know will not pull permits, that way the AHJ will have paperwork for the project and will come to the site at some point to clear that paperwork and will maybe catch someone doing work without permits. When angry customer confronts you, you can just claim that you thought you were doing the work, but they bailed out on you after you filed permits, but if the chosen contractor did things right there should have not been much problem.:happyyes:

That's how we ended up here in the first place.

If you go into the hospital for what should be a routine procedure and they run into complications, I would sure hope they deal with them and not just put you back together and hope for the best.

Good analogy !!! If I needed a heart transplant and also had a vascular problem I wouldn't expect the doctors to replace my heart and then (as long as I'm under the knife anyway) cut open the rest of my body at the same time to replace any veins they see fit to replace.

 

[kwired]

Understood. Please tell me what risk or hazard might occur in this scenario.

If the neutral conductor is also the equipment grounding conductor, you are placing the voltage drop on that neutral conductor on the equipment grounding conductor also. Same reason why we are required to separate neutral from equipment grounding conductor beyond service equipment in the first place. If there is a load on the conductor there will be voltage between said conductor as well as the appliance frame that is bonded to it and true ground. Most of the time this voltage is going to be negligible, but not necessarily all the time. NEC dropped the ball a long time ago when they decided it was acceptable to use neutral as an equipment grounding conductor for ranges and dryers is the way I see it, and it took nearly 60 years until they changed the rules to the way they should be.

I have seen older ranges that shock people separate and properly EGC would have prevented that. I have seen dryer with 4 wire cord installed but bonding jumper in appliance not removed, and when someone unplugged the dryer they burned up many things in the house because a feeder neutral was bad and the bonding jumper in the dryer was shunting all the neutral current of the feeder to the EGC. I run into three wire feeders quite often that were never compliant when initially installed.

As far as losing the job to someone that will do it wrong or take allowable exceptions wherever possible, sorry, &%$# happens, that is part of business. If you have to price your work that close, maybe you need to look into other markets. Why do you want to compete for every dime you make? Sell your services not your price. If price is only thing that matters to the customer then I don't really want to work for that customer, I will likely come out ahead passing on this job than losing money on it.

I will not say I have never connected a three wire range circuit to a non service panel, but at this point with what I know, I am less likely to do so, not only because of code but I just don't see it as the correct way to do things.

 

[goldstar]

If the neutral conductor is also the equipment grounding conductor, you are placing the voltage drop on that neutral conductor on the equipment grounding conductor also. Same reason why we are required to separate neutral from equipment grounding conductor beyond service equipment in the first place. If there is a load on the conductor there will be voltage between said conductor as well as the appliance frame that is bonded to it and true ground. Most of the time this voltage is going to be negligible, but not necessarily all the time. NEC dropped the ball a long time ago when they decided it was acceptable to use neutral as an equipment grounding conductor for ranges and dryers is the way I see it, and it took nearly 60 years until they changed the rules to the way they should be.

I agree and I would obviously never install a new appliance in this manner. However, we're talking about an installation that has been in for many years and we've made assumptions that it was installed properly from the outset and that gaining ceiling access to replace wiring would be a hardship. Having said that, I'll restate what I said in an earlier post, that if it were a matter of replacing several feet of wire in an open basement to correct this anomaly I would do so.

I have seen older ranges that shock people separate and properly EGC would have prevented that. I have seen dryer with 4 wire cord installed but bonding jumper in appliance not removed, and when someone unplugged the dryer they burned up many things in the house because a feeder neutral was bad and the bonding jumper in the dryer was shunting all the neutral current of the feeder to the EGC. I run into three wire feeders quite often that were never compliant when initially installed.

Again I agree.

As far as losing the job to someone that will do it wrong or take allowable exceptions wherever possible, sorry, &%$# happens, that is part of business. If you have to price your work that close, maybe you need to look into other markets. Why do you want to compete for every dime you make? Sell your services not your price. If price is only thing that matters to the customer then I don't really want to work for that customer, I will likely come out ahead passing on this job than losing money on it.

I will not say I have never connected a three wire range circuit to a non service panel, but at this point with what I know, I am less likely to do so, not only because of code but I just don't see it as the correct way to do things.

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as a "bottom feeder". I don't like to lose jobs (especially in the current economy) but I've walked away from more jobs than I can count. That's one of the reasons I posted the photos originally. This is typical of the type of job that I normally wouldn't take. Here's a HO that was looking to save a few $$ and it's now going to cost several $K's to correct it. The only reason I'm in there to begin with is because I'm working for a GC who is remodeling the basement and has to move the ATS.

Anyway, my whole point is that there should be some way to take those "allowable exceptions" if possible and under certain circumstances. If the installation was wrong to begin with (like the one in my OP) then it has to be corrected and/or made safe. However, if the installation was, in fact, code compliant in the beginning there should be some method by which it could still be considered code compliant under certain circumstances. If it was a hazard from the beginning then it should be fixed - period. Changing the characteristics of the main breaker panel, IMHO, may change the NEC compliancy (in a technical sense) but it doesn't make an originally good installation a hazard.

BTW, and IMHO mfr.'s of 240V kitchen appliances should be forced to take that 240V and internally re-manufacture voltages they require for digital displays, etc. Paying a few $$ more up front will cut down on the cost of wire up front and avoid situations like this one in the rear (no pun intended).

Great discussion. Technically speaking, I know you're right but I thought I put up a good argument.