Bad gen-set install

[kwired]

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.

I like the idea of internal transformers to derive controls, and I think some of that does happen. I have also seen very basic ranges that have a neutral terminal, just to be "standard" but don't actually have any load connected to it.

I think this has been a good discussion.

 

[kwired]

forum won't let me see next page again

 

[kwired]

still won't let me see next page:rant:

that time it did.

 

[jes25]

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.


Just my opinion

Yea, I'm sorry if I took the thread down an undesirable path, but I'd like to put in my two cents on some of the issues raised.

1) This is not just a technical conversation. I've been failed for reworking a service panel to a sub-panel myself when a 3 wire dryer was involved. And the company I currently work company does a ton of gen installs and there is a number of inspectors that cite this problem.

2) There is a easy solution to this problem . Just recommend the 16 circuit Generac prewired loadcenter with ATS. Or at least offer it as an option.

3) As far as being grandfathered in, I don't think it was ever code to run a 3 wire SEU from subpanel. So it would have been a violation in 1970 or whatever too. If it was never code to do that I don't see how it could be grandfathered.

 

[Little Bill]

3) As far as being grandfathered in, I don't think it was ever code to run a 3 wire SEU from subpanel. So it would have been a violation in 1970 or whatever too. If it was never code to do that I don't see how it could be grandfathered.

It has always been ok to run a 3-wire to a dryer from a subpanel as long as the neutral was insulated. Code says uninsulated wire (grounded) has to run from the service panel.

 

[jumper]

It has always been ok to run a 3-wire to a dryer from a subpanel as long as the neutral was insulated. Code says uninsulated wire (grounded) has to run from the service panel.

Bill, I disagree. I do not interpret this section as allowing such.

250.140 Exception, condition (3)

(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.

 

[curt swartz]

Bill, I disagree. I do not interpret this section as allowing such.

250.140 Exception, condition (3)

(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.

There are 2 options in Exception 3.
Option 1 the grounded conductor must be insulated.
Option 2 the grounded conductor can be the bare conductor of a type SE cable if the circuit originates from the servcie equipment.

You are not required to comply with both.

Before the 96 NEC I had never seen 4-wire range or dryer receptacles. Most supply houses didn't even stock them.

 

[kwired]

Before the 96 NEC I had never seen 4-wire range or dryer receptacles. Most supply houses didn't even stock them.

They were required in mobile homes before then.

Same 50 amp receptacle was also used for supplying RV's and a few other applications, the 30 amp receptacle maybe was rare to see outside of a dryer in a mobile home.

 

[goldstar]

3) As far as being grandfathered in, I don't think it was ever code to run a 3 wire SEU from subpanel. So it would have been a violation in 1970 or whatever too. If it was never code to do that I don't see how it could be grandfathered.

The problem posed was that the main breaker panel was just that - a main breaker (or service) panel before we installed the (service rated) whole house ATS. If SEU cable was originally run to an appliance from this panel the general consensus is that you are now in violation.

2) There is a easy solution to this problem . Just recommend the 16 circuit Generac prewired loadcenter with ATS. Or at least offer it as an option.

Good recommendation.

 

[jumper]

It has always been ok to run a 3-wire to a dryer from a subpanel as long as the neutral was insulated. Code says uninsulated wire (grounded) has to run from the service panel.

There are 2 options in Exception 3.
Option 1 the grounded conductor must be insulated.
Option 2 the grounded conductor can be the bare conductor of a type SE cable if the circuit originates from the servcie equipment.

You are not required to comply with both.

Before the 96 NEC I had never seen 4-wire range or dryer receptacles. Most supply houses didn't even stock them.

I stand corrected. I have always, mistakenly it seems, applied the service entrance requirement to both insulated and uninsulated.

That one comma in that section makes a big difference.