2020 NEC Equipment Ground for Ranges and Dryers Receptacle Replacement (Need Clarification)

[kwired]

He says that if there was an intention to allow cord and plug 250.140 would have used the words outlet, receptacle outlets, and junction boxes.

this is the article violation I received:

250.138 Cord-and-Plug-Connected Equipment.

Non–current-carrying metal parts of cord-and-plug-connected equipment, if required to be connected to an equipment grounding conductor, shall be connected by one of the methods in 250.138(A) or (B).
(A) By Means of an Equipment Grounding Conductor.



By means of an equipment grounding conductor run with the power supply conductors in a cable assembly or flexible cord properly terminated in a grounding-type attachment plug with one fixed grounding contact.
Exception:
The grounding contacting pole of grounding-type plug-in ground-fault circuit interrupters shall be permitted to be of the movable, self-restoring type on circuits operating at not over 150 volts between any two conductors or over 150 volts between any conductor and ground.

(B) By Means of a Separate Flexible Wire or Strap.



By means of a separate flexible wire or strap, insulated or bare, connected to an equipment grounding conductor, and protected as well as practicable against physical damage, where part of equipment.

250.140 references 250.138 for the purposes of cord and plug which would require a receptacle outlet. There are no EGC exceptions for receptacle outlets.

You are allowed an outlet according to 250.140, and 250.134 states that you may have it fixed or hard-wired which will use an outlet but not a receptacle. Once you put a receptacle on the outlet for cord and plug you must reference 250.138 for the receptacle. There’s no EGC exception in that article. 250.140 only states outlet and junction boxes. If it was the intention of the code to allow a receptacle, 250.140 would have specifically used the words outlet, receptacle outlets and junction boxes.

please refer to your NEC 2020 Code and find me a specific article that conflicts this.

I think he is reading into this too hard.

I still feel the code permits (with conditions) using the grounded conductor of the supply circuit to bond frames of ranges and dryers. That code basically ends at the receptacle when one is present. The appliance is listed to be connected with said 3 wire cord and plug. If no receptacle then code ends at the termination compartment of the appliance.

 

[wwhitney]

I see your logic, but it is not worded that way, 250.140 exception states outlet. My AHJ says an outlet with a receptacle has to be identified in the nec as a receptacle.

That's just false. The word "outlet" includes receptacle outlets and non-receptacle outlets. The NEC uses the phrase "receptacle outlet" when it wants to limit the scope to outlets with receptacles, but the plain word "outlet" does not limit the scope to outlets without receptacles.

He also says there wouldn’t be a reference in 250.140 to 250.134 and 250.138 if an outlet and receptacle outlet was the same thing.

It's the opposite. 250.140 refers to both 250.134 (equipment fastened in place) and 250.138 (cord-and-plug-connected equipment), and that shows that 250.140 covers both cases. If 250.140 were restricted to equipment fastened in place, it wouldn't reference 250.138 at all.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

You are allowed an outlet according to 250.140, and 250.134 states that you may have it fixed or hard-wired which will use an outlet but not a receptacle. Once you put a receptacle on the outlet for cord and plug you must reference 250.138 for the receptacle.

A receptacle is an outlet so what is the issue? I see language here that doesn't exist in the NEC.

 

[wwhitney]

Once you put a receptacle on the outlet for cord and plug you must reference 250.138 for the receptacle.

That is true, and if you stop reading there, it would appear to be a violation. But because 250.140 references 250.138, 250.140 Exception provides an exception to 250.138.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

He says that if there was an intention to allow cord and plug 250.140 would have used the words outlet, receptacle outlets, and junction boxes.

As commented, this is incorrect. To see an example of the language the NEC uses when it wishes to reference outlets that are not receptacle outlets, see 210.19(A)(4) Exception 1(c), where it says "outlets, other than receptacle outlets,"

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

He says that if there was an intention to allow cord and plug 250.140 would have used the words outlet, receptacle outlets, and junction boxes.

As commented, this is incorrect. To see an example of the language the NEC uses when it wishes to reference outlets that are not receptacle outlets, see 210.19(A)(4) Exception 1(c), where it says "outlets, other than receptacle outlets,"

Cheers, Wayne

I agree he is incorrect, the lack of the words receptacle outlet does not suddenly make a receptacle not an outlet. Using the two terms outlet and receptacle outlet is redundant and not necessary unless you do not understand the definition of an outlet.

 

[tortuga]

So we all agree the AHJ is dead wrong, thats saying something.

The funny thing is were talking about a range neutral that perhaps just runs a 40 watt bulb and a clock.
I have yet to find a modern appliance that uses the 120V leg for heating.
Most dryers do use the same motors for gas and electric so they are 120V.
With all the legacy 3 wire ranges and dryers out there I think we need to somehow push appliance manufacturers to make just '240V' ranges and dryers.
Then we could simply install a 6-50 or 6-30 on all these old systems and be done with the legacy neutral as EGC.

 

[ramsy]

Half of my service calls for power failures discover open-neutral messenger cables at the power pole, service drop, mast, or burnt terminals behind the meter.

These loose neutrals are also found in home-run outlets of shared neutral MWBC circuits, are smoking 120v appliances, and energize neutral-bond frames of grandfathered 240v electric dryer's & ranges.

Anyone who discourages this potential hazard has empirical cause for electrocution concerns. 250.140 Exception is perhaps the most lethal wiring adopted into law.

If there was ever an appropriate time for correction, to remove neutral-bonded frames, it's during inspections, especially with remodel and wiring modifications.

Without the higher authority of stamped plans showing otherwise, the AHJ choice of code interpretation is final per 90.4.

In my empirical observation, any allowance for this exception with fixed hardwiring fails to abate the hazard.

 

[tortuga]

While I agree these old range / dryer circuits are a hazard, (where I work SOP is to convert them to 4 wire).
I think the correct way for the AHJ to deal with it is to amend the code locally, not twist the code to say what it does not.
And I think the manufacturers should quit using the neutral on a range at minimum.

 

[infinity]

I think the correct way for the AHJ to deal with it is to amend the code locally, not twist the code to say what it does not.

Unless granted that power by a higher up no one should be making up their own code rules. If you don't like something in the NEC there is a process to get it changed.

 

[tortuga]

If you don't like something in the NEC..

Were not discussing my opinons its the OP's AHJ

 

[infinity]

Were not discussing my opinons its the OP's AHJ

Sorry about that, it sounded like I was referring to you but I was referring to the inspector who is make up his own rules. I agree with what you're saying.

 

[ramsy]

While I agree these old range / dryer circuits are a hazard, (where I work SOP is to convert them to 4 wire).
I think the correct way for the AHJ to deal with it is to amend the code locally, not twist the code to say what it does not.
And I think the manufacturers should quit using the neutral on a range at minimum.

With little to no electrical-trade experience, code proposals would burden combination or general inspectors, already lost within the cross references of the National Exceptions Code (NEC).

AHJ's have become the perfect specimen of how improvisation compensates for missing information fragmented across NFPA-70 references & exceptions. Its just like reading this forum topic from post #1. Reasonable people overwhelmed by information overload are asking for details already posted earlier in the discussion.

We must turn to scientific study, that would use Micky Mouse to better demonstrate the hazard of 250.140 Exception. Since electronic Rat Zappers have already been deemed Humane, a YouTube style demonstration would start with a critique of neutral connections that typically came loose over 20 yrs of invoices; from normal wear & tear, device replacement, remodel wiring, and aerial cables simply blowing in the wind.

With clamp meters measuring both lines, and cheese whiz smeared along bottom of appliance, one voltage probe would be affixed to typical North American 240v appliance with neutral-bonded frame, and the other voltage probe affixed to Micky. When neutral wire comes loose at any point along the branch circuit, the hungry mouse would be let loose on concrete floor.

As Micky sniffed out the cheese, a wiring-diagram illustration would show how loose neutrals allow the path of electricity to travel thru objects that bridge the gap between energized appliance frames and concrete floors, metal pipes, or other appliances. As the hungry mouse licks cheese off energized appliance, voltage & current readings would be shown.

As Micky Mouse is shocked, jumps away, or smokes, the camera moves to Goofy with a proud expression, dressed up like a remodel contractor in a knuckle-head hard hat, thumping on a code book. The code section of NFPA-70 250.140 (Exception) would be shown.

As other characters put Micky on the gurney, administer CPR & defibrillator, and take him away in the ambulance, Mini Mouse would be shown proudly admiring her new remodel cabinets, tile, counter tops & Goofy's handy work, but getting awfully close to touching those neutral-bonded appliances.

The story ends with Mini Mouse shrieking after learning insurance adjusters denied the casualty claim for Micky Mouse, and foreclosed on Mini Mouses house to pay Micky's medical bills. Even though Goofy followed the code, he didn't have Workman's Comp. insurance for his helper, so he changed corporate names and was never seen again.

The moral of the story would teach people how to identify the existing hazardous outlets & wiring used by North American 240v appliances, and the simplest remedies, including replacing appliances with European 50/60Hz 230v versions that use 2 hot legs + EGC.

 

[kwired]

So we all agree the AHJ is dead wrong, thats saying something.

The funny thing is were talking about a range neutral that perhaps just runs a 40 watt bulb and a clock.
I have yet to find a modern appliance that uses the 120V leg for heating.
Most dryers do use the same motors for gas and electric so they are 120V.
With all the legacy 3 wire ranges and dryers out there I think we need to somehow push appliance manufacturers to make just '240V' ranges and dryers.
Then we could simply install a 6-50 or 6-30 on all these old systems and be done with the legacy neutral as EGC.
View attachment 2559120

Then you sort of in violation on existing installations where only conductor available to use for grounding has white insulation.

 

[kwired]

Half of my service calls for power failures discover open-neutral messenger cables at the power pole, service drop, mast, or burnt terminals behind the meter.

These loose neutrals are also found in home-run outlets of shared neutral MWBC circuits, are smoking 120v appliances, and energize neutral-bond frames of grandfathered 240v electric dryer's & ranges.

Anyone who discourages this potential hazard has empirical cause for electrocution concerns. 250.140 Exception is perhaps the most lethal wiring adopted into law.

If there was ever an appropriate time for correction, to remove neutral-bonded frames, it's during inspections, especially with remodel and wiring modifications.

Without the higher authority of stamped plans showing otherwise, the AHJ choice of code interpretation is final per 90.4.

In my empirical observation, any allowance for this exception with fixed hardwiring fails to abate the hazard.

Separate EGC still connects the grounded service conductor and wouldn't really make much difference for energized range and dryer frames if the open neutral were ahead of service disconnect.

 

[kwired]

With little to no electrical-trade experience, code proposals would burden combination or general inspectors, already lost within the cross references of the National Exceptions Code (NEC).

AHJ's have become the perfect specimen of how improvisation compensates for missing information fragmented across NFPA-70 references & exceptions. Its just like reading this forum topic from post #1. Reasonable people overwhelmed by information overload are asking for details already posted earlier in the discussion.

We must turn to scientific study, that would use Micky Mouse to better demonstrate the hazard of 250.140 Exception. Since electronic Rat Zappers have already been deemed Humane, a YouTube style demonstration would start with a critique of neutral connections that typically came loose over 20 yrs of invoices; from normal wear & tear, device replacement, remodel wiring, and aerial cables simply blowing in the wind.

With clamp meters measuring both lines, and cheese whiz smeared along bottom of appliance, one voltage probe would be affixed to typical North American 240v appliance with neutral-bonded frame, and the other voltage probe affixed to Micky. When neutral wire comes loose at any point along the branch circuit, the hungry mouse would be let loose on concrete floor.

As Micky sniffed out the cheese, a wiring-diagram illustration would show how loose neutrals allow the path of electricity to travel thru objects that bridge the gap between energized appliance frames and concrete floors, metal pipes, or other appliances. As the hungry mouse licks cheese off energized appliance, voltage & current readings would be shown.

As Micky Mouse is shocked, jumps away, or smokes, the camera moves to Goofy with a proud expression, dressed up like a remodel contractor in a knuckle-head hard hat, thumping on a code book. The code section of NFPA-70 250.140 (Exception) would be shown.

As other characters put Micky on the gurney, administer CPR & defibrillator, and take him away in the ambulance, Mini Mouse would be shown proudly admiring her new remodel cabinets, tile, counter tops & Goofy's handy work, but getting awfully close to touching those neutral-bonded appliances.

The story ends with Mini Mouse shrieking after learning insurance adjusters denied the casualty claim for Micky Mouse, and foreclosed on Mini Mouses house to pay Micky's medical bills. Even though Goofy followed the code, he didn't have Workman's Comp. insurance for his helper, so he changed corporate names and was never seen again.

The moral of the story would teach people how to identify the existing hazardous outlets & wiring used by North American 240v appliances, and the simplest remedies, including replacing appliances with European 50/60Hz 230v versions that use 2 hot legs + EGC.

One flaw there, you know how many times I seen energized wiring damaged by mice (even on 480 volt systems) yet find no dead mice in the vicinity? Even direct buried underground conductors where they are going to be in contact with earth. The few times I have found a dead mouse they were laying on a terminal or other exposed component where they likely contacted with their feet. Anything they had chewed on they always get away, I'm guessing teeth are better insulated than feet.

 

[kwired]

While I agree these old range / dryer circuits are a hazard, (where I work SOP is to convert them to 4 wire).
I think the correct way for the AHJ to deal with it is to amend the code locally, not twist the code to say what it does not.
And I think the manufacturers should quit using the neutral on a range at minimum.

I think you need to change listing requirements to make that happen.

 

[LarryFine]

And I think the manufacturers should quit using the neutral on a range at minimum.

I think you need to change listing requirements to make that happen.

We would also need 240v light bulbs.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Half of my service calls for power failures discover open-neutral messenger cables at the power pole, service drop, mast, or burnt terminals behind the meter.

These loose neutrals are also found in home-run outlets of shared neutral MWBC circuits, are smoking 120v appliances, and energize neutral-bond frames of grandfathered 240v electric dryer's & ranges.

Anyone who discourages this potential hazard has empirical cause for electrocution concerns. 250.140 Exception is perhaps the most lethal wiring adopted into law.

If there was ever an appropriate time for correction, to remove neutral-bonded frames, it's during inspections, especially with remodel and wiring modifications.

Without the higher authority of stamped plans showing otherwise, the AHJ choice of code interpretation is final per 90.4.

In my empirical observation, any allowance for this exception with fixed hardwiring fails to abate the hazard.

Yet it took many code cycles to provide enough technical substantiation to prohibit this method for new circuits. Part of the reason was that the technical substantiations were not able cite real world problems.

Remember that the exception only applies to circuits that were installed prior local adoption of the 1999 code. Any circuits installed after that code was adopted are required to have both a grounding and a grounded conductor.

 

[tortuga]

All good points and thank you guys for taking my idea seriously.

The more I think about it, its got to be so they can use the same electronics / lights in gas or electric models.
But lots of electronic power supplies can handle 100-277V these days.

I think you need to change listing requirements to make that happen.

This sure needs to be looked into,
but I have seen ranges that dont have anything terminated on the neutral block.

We would also need 240v light bulbs.

They do make a E14 base bulb thats used in 240V ovens and microwaves:

https://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/prof/conventional-lamps-and-tubes/incandescent-lamps/domestic-appliances/appliance-oven-tubular/924196244440_NA/product

These days they probably have some hi temp LED oven lights anyways.


Just think for a second about how much #8/3 WG is pulled every year in new homes.
No new oven / range / stove uses that #8 neutral at over 2 amps, if at all.