Adding a separate ground wire for dryer.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coppersmith

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
I know there must be an existing post on this subject, but I can't find it so bear with me.

I have a client with a three wire dryer recep. Due the wall construction it's not possible to get a 10/3 NM over there to change it to a 4-wire recep (without massive demo). The dryer is sitting right next to the water heater which is properly wired with 10/2 NM.

Can I tap the WH ground wire and run it over to the 4-wire dryer recep? (code reference please)

Can I ground using the water pipe of the washer? (code reference please) I have to check, but i believe the house has all copper piping.
 
Coppersmith said:
I know there must be an existing post on this subject, but I can't find it so bear with me.

I have a client with a three wire dryer recep. Due the wall construction it's not possible to get a 10/3 NM over there to change it to a 4-wire recep (without massive demo). The dryer is sitting right next to the water heater which is properly wired with 10/2 NM.

Can I tap the WH ground wire and run it over to the 4-wire dryer recep? (code reference please)

Can I ground using the water pipe of the washer? (code reference please) I have to check, but i believe the house has all copper piping.
Click to expand...
Do you need to change it to 4 wire? Did you move the receptacle or extend the supply end of the circuit? Was fed from service panel and it got converted to feeder supplied panel?
 
Little Bill said:
no - 250.132(C)
Click to expand...
(2014) 250.130(C)(4) explicitly allows using the 10/2 NM EGC if it originates in the same panel as the dryer receptacle circuit. And 300.3(B)(2) allows running the grounding conductor outside of the cable serving the dryer receptacle in accordance with 250.130(C) for "certain existing installations."

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
(2014) 250.130(C)(4) explicitly allows using the 10/2 NM EGC if it originates in the same panel as the dryer receptacle circuit. And 300.3(B)(2) allows running the grounding conductor outside of the cable serving the dryer receptacle in accordance with 250.130(C) for "certain existing installations."

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

That would be correct if under the 2014 and later. We are under the 2008 (for now) and that's what I was referencing.
 
kwired said:
Do you need to change it to 4 wire? Did you move the receptacle or extend the supply end of the circuit? Was fed from service panel and it got converted to feeder supplied panel?
Click to expand...

We are doing a service change with an upgrade from 100 to 200 amps. The AHJ requires dryer and range wiring be brought up to current code unless change is same size. The house appears to have been recently rewired except for the dryer circuit.

Little Bill said:
That would be correct if under the 2014 and later. We are under the 2008 (for now) and that's what I was referencing.
Click to expand...

We are under 2014.
 
wwhitney said:
(2014) 250.130(C)(4) explicitly allows using the 10/2 NM EGC if it originates in the same panel as the dryer receptacle circuit. And 300.3(B)(2) allows running the grounding conductor outside of the cable serving the dryer receptacle in accordance with 250.130(C) for "certain existing installations."
Click to expand...

Thank you, this appears to be what I need. I'm unclear if 300.3(B)(2) is saying the EGC has to be next to the cable or raceway (on the outside) or if the EGC can take an entirely different route. In my case, the EGC would be running horizontally from WH to dryer whereas the circuit for both of these are vertical from the ceiling. Also does the EGC have to be protected with conduit or inside the wall or can I run it on the surface of the wall unprotected?
 
Coppersmith said:
We are doing a service change with an upgrade from 100 to 200 amps. The AHJ requires dryer and range wiring be brought up to current code unless change is same size. The house appears to have been recently rewired except for the dryer circuit.



We are under 2014.
Click to expand...

Unless the exception for 250.140 has been changed for the 2014 code cycle, or the conditions are not met, your inspector is incorrect in forcing those circuits to be upgraded.
 
JFletcher said:
Unless the exception for 250.140 has been changed for the 2014 code cycle, or the conditions are not met, your inspector is incorrect in forcing those circuits to be upgraded.
Click to expand...
I agree NEC doesn't require the change - but I think he is saying they have a local rule that says it must be changed if the service is upgraded. IMO, dumb rule. NEC allowing these three wire circuits (at least as long as they did) was dumb as well though. This is a little like buying an older car but a local authority says you must equip it with current model year required safety features or you can't drive it on a public road.
 
electrofelon said:
He might want to see if this is actually a local amendment vs something the inspector "wants"
Click to expand...

Agreed. And kwired, could be, tho many use AHJ and inspector interchangeably when they really arent. I see nothing wrong with using three wire ranges and dryers, within the provision of 250.140. There are literally millions of homes that have them installed, with aluminum wire SE cable) at that, with no problems.

Here, if you move the receptacle, it is no longer "existing", and then you don't meet 250.140. Changing a main panel into a subpanel would require a 4 wire feed to both ranges and dryers.

Unless, like electrofelon wrote, this is a local amendment in the original posters area, I would definitely fight this one.
 
kwired said:
I agree NEC doesn't require the change - but I think he is saying they have a local rule that says it must be changed if the service is upgraded. IMO, dumb rule. NEC allowing these three wire circuits (at least as long as they did) was dumb as well though. This is a little like buying an older car but a local authority says you must equip it with current model year required safety features or you can't drive it on a public road.
Click to expand...

electrofelon said:
He might want to see if this is actually a local amendment vs something the inspector "wants"
Click to expand...

JFletcher said:
Agreed. And kwired, could be, tho many use AHJ and inspector interchangeably when they really arent. I see nothing wrong with using three wire ranges and dryers, within the provision of 250.140. There are literally millions of homes that have them installed, with aluminum wire SE cable) at that, with no problems.

Here, if you move the receptacle, it is no longer "existing", and then you don't meet 250.140. Changing a main panel into a subpanel would require a 4 wire feed to both ranges and dryers.

Unless, like electrofelon wrote, this is a local amendment in the original posters area, I would definitely fight this one.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a local rule. I've never actually spoken to the chief electrical inspector about it, but multiple underlings have said this is true. I think I will have to call and ask the chief just to be sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top