Am I required to replace this range circuit?

[fishin' electrician]

Well, there's a first time for everything. I did a service change today where the old service cable ran about 20' horizontally along the outside of the house. Being unsightly, the customer OK'd the extra cost of meter/main combo and interior feeder installation. When it came time to reconnect the range circuit, I realized that it is only a 3-wire (copper, SE cable) branch circuit. For the time being, I insulated the bare conductor with white tape and connected it to the neutral bus. Am I required to change this over to a 4-wire, even though it is outside the scope of my contracted work? All opinions appreciated.

 

[hurk27]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

If it was existing I would note it in your contract and leave a line for the home owner to sign off on it if they don't wan't to pay for the up grade to the range circuit. But many ranges were wired like this and have never caused a problem but the neutral should be insulated.
I dont think we are required to do anything that we are not going to be paid for. and as long as we report any dangerous electrical equipment it is up to the person paying the bill to make the judgment call. just think of how many old houses we might see driving down a street and see many violations but there is no law that could make us just repaire them even though we know about them. and when we do work on a house all we can do somtimes is inform the payer, it's his money so it would be his choice as the have it repaired or not. If he don't want to pay it dont get fixed. Remember this is a free country we are not slaves.
try to take your car into a shop to have your oil changed but have bad brakes too if they let you know that your brakes are bad and you say that ok I'll fix them do you think you could go back and sue them when you have an accident? I dont think so as it put the burden back on the payer.

 

[fishin' electrician]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Thanks for your comments hurk. The problem here is that it was code compliant before my service change, but since I changed the location of the service equipment, it is now a violation. No?

 

[electricman2]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

If the 3 wire range circuit was existing and was code compliant, the NEC does not require you to change it to a 4 wire. However the local AHJ may require it.

 

[hbiss]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Around here it's if you touch it you have to bring it up to code. We recently upgraded a commercial service with a new larger main breaker panel and meter pans. Because we replaced the SE to the existing disconnect for the second floor tenant from the new meter pan we had to move the disconnect because of improper clearance.

I would say that in your case it is up to the AHJ.

 

[gwz2]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

I agree with Fishin's second post.

It was code compliant until the up-grade.

Apparently the range is not supplied from the Service Equipment now. It is now supplied by a branch circuit of a feeder supplied source.

Now it is a violation and need to be corrected.

As a side note, where is the Service grounding system ( 250.24(A) ) at now, the Service equipment or the feeder panelboard?

gwz2

 

[Guest]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Not to hijack the thread, but two car stories come to mind:

1. When you took your vehicle to Sears for a specific auto repair, they would make a note of any additional repairs they felt were warranted. Sears got sued for making these suggestions for extra work. Sears lost.

2. A girl at my high school took her car in for an oil change at the dealer. They told her she needed new brakes but she declined. That night she went down the steepest street in town and lost her brakes. Her car soared hundreds of feet and she died. Her family sued the dealer for negligence. The dealer lost.

In both cases I disagree with the outcome of the lawsuits. I feel both Sears and the Dealer were acting in good faith when they suggested repairs.

Personally I would rather disclose things and get sued, then not disclose them and get sued. At least if I disclose known issues I can have a chance at making it safe for the end user. I side with Sears, and I side with the dealer. They did what was morally required, even if it put them in legal or civil Jeopardy!

 

[big jim]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Pretty much, in both cases, bleeding heart juries went after the deep pockets. "Somebody should pay!!!" This country seems to have lost the concept of individual responsibility. I've run across a few contractors who run bare - no insurance. No insurance, no possibility of a large recovery, no lawyers will work on contigency, no suits. Hell of a way to have to run a country.

 

[iwire]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

I never think about lawsuits, I do the best job I can and follow the codes.

Fishin'

Find out if your area adopted article 80 of the NEC.

If it did you are not required to change this range feed.

80.9 Application.

(B)Existing Installations.
Existing electrical installations that do not comply with the provisions of this Code shall be permitted to be continued in use unless the authority having jurisdiction determines that the lack of conformity with this Code presents an imminent danger to occupants. Where changes are required for correction of hazards, a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance, depending on the degree of the hazard.

(C) Additions, Alterations, or Repairs.
Additions, alterations, or repairs to any building, structure, or premises shall conform to that required of a new building without requiring the existing building to comply with all the requirements of this Code. Additions, alterations, installations, or repairs shall not cause an existing building to become unsafe or to adversely affect the performance of the building as determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Electrical wiring added to an existing service, feeder, or branch circuit shall not result in an installation that violates the provisions of the Code in force at the time the additions are made.

My State has not adopted article 80 but has rules that are pretty much identical to these.

Your state probably has adopted article 80 or has rules like it.

You pretty much have to have something that says what was allowed before is allowed to remain.

If not there would be no stopping a building official from forcing the entire re-wiring of all old work.

JMO, Bob

 

[fishin' electrician]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts.


Bob,

In CT, we are still on the '99 so no Art. 80.

Originally posted by gwz2:
As a side note, where is the Service grounding system ( 250.24(A) ) at now, the Service equipment or the feeder panelboard?

gwz2

All GEC's land at the meter/main combo.

 

[gwz2]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Bob,
On the Art 80.9 issue, If I read correctly, the range was properly wired from the Service Equipment. ( a 3 wire system ).
I do not know if it was 'ever' permitted to be a 3 wire system from other than Service Equipment.

Now the range is feed from a panelboard which is not Service Equipment. ( which would have required a 4 wire system if originally from non
Service Equipment ).

See NEC 2002, 250.140 and compare to NEC 1990 250-61(c) as an example.

I look at this as a violation.

The inspector needs to see the installation and can at least see what is installed today.

Our Bldg Comm has asked for the inspectors not to issue permits until visiting the site.

Something like this situation may or may-not have been noted in a pre permit site visit. Most like NOT.

gwz2

 

[earlydean]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Here in CT, the State Building Inspector (after consulting with NFPA) has come up with a way to achieve compliance. The old SEU is terminated in a PVC J-box close to the new sub-panel location. A four wire cable is fed to the j-box and connected to the SEU. The ground is not connected to anything. The neutral is connected to the covered shield. Seems strange to me, but I guess it does satisify the letter of the code. See 250.140. Existing portions are not any less safe than before. The new portions are safer.

 

[bthielen]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

In the machinery business that I am in, we find that the issue of liability is a very complicated one except for one small detail. We are always held accountable, period.

I am on our product safety committee and our attorney put it this way. If a customer removes a guard and then gets hurt, the guard was not adequate. In other words, if the guard was removed, juries and judges tend to side with the idea that it was too inconvenient and therefore, a hazard in itself. Go figure!! As an OEM we are held responsible to protect people from themselves. This is our society today. "I am not at fault!" "Someone else is responsible!"

Signing off does not release us from liability. The only hope we have is that it can reduce our liability because then we have record that we did in fact inform our customer of the situation and our customer refused to comply. The legal system however, doesn't back this entirely. We are held responsible to refuse the contract if our customer won't upgrade, or accept some level of responsibility.

At this point, we must decide what level of risk we are willing to assume as a company.

Bob

 

[iwire]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Originally posted by gwz2:
Now the range is feed from a panelboard which is not Service Equipment.

Bob

 

[tonyi]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

I see this issue in apartment reworks all the time. More common with 2nd floor units. 1st floors tend more to be service fed.

Disc to 100A sub, sub feeds stove with 3-wire SE.

sigh - all too common

 

[hurk27]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Now I see why.
Since there is SE cable feeding this receptacle it has to come from the main service panel if it were a cable that had an insulated neutral it would of been fine to leave it as grandfathard even though there was no EGC in the cable. But the key word is insulated neutral

250.140 Frames of Ranges and Clothes Dryers.
This section shall apply to existing branch-circuit installations only. New branch-circuit installations shall comply with 250.134 and 250.138. 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 grounded in the manner specified by 250.134 or 250.138; or, except for mobile homes and recreational vehicles, shall be permitted to be grounded to the grounded circuit conductor if all the following conditions are met. (1) The supply circuit is 120/240-volt, single-phase, 3-wire; or 208Y/120-volt derived from a 3-phase, 4-wire, wye-connected system.
(2) The grounded conductor is not smaller than 10 AWG copper or 8 AWG aluminum. (3) 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. (4) Grounding contacts of receptacles furnished as part of the equipment are bonded to the equipment.

 

[pierre]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Fishin

OOPS!!! You have sort of put yourself in a spot. You suggested the change of service location/conductors, so now you have a definite violation. We cannot see everything, and in our daily rush to get through life, we make mistakes.
Try being forthright with the customer and see if they understand and will pay for the change of the range cable/receptacle.
It is very honorable that you are even contemplating this thought, now just do it.
Good Luck!!

Pierre

 

[tonyi]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

See dryer hookups with 10-2 Romex hanging off subs too. No insulated neutral, and often its that old stuff with the undersized gnd that's about a #14.

 

[frijdoc]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

I'm curious...why change the bare wire ( ground conductor) with the application of white tape to a "dedicated" neutral? Presuming this range circiut is rated at greater than 20 amps and there by disqualifying the SE jacket as an acceptable ground conductor,I believe this action has had an undesirable effect.
But hey, I'm just a dopey refrigeration guy, so what do I know....

 

[electricman2]

Re: Am I required to replace this range circuit?

Now I'm curious. Since when do we have a 20A limit on the uninsulated conductor in SE cable?