Do I need an EGC at Stove Subpanel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DragonElectric

Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Engineer
I am working on my house that was built in 1940 and was flagged by the Home Inspector as not meeting code the Stove Hookup and the purchasers want it fixed.

At some point in time before I owned the home, there was a Subpanel (Ancient Square D QO, Main Lug, probably installed in the 1960s) installed dedicated to a Cooktop and Oven. The Oven was a plug in and wired to a 2 Pole breaker in the subpanel. The Cooktop was wired to a dedicated two pole breaker as well. When the Cooktop failed about a decade ago, I changed the oven and cooktop out to a traditional combined range. The current Stove is three wire with the Neutral and Ground bonded at the stove.

The Subpanel is fed from a Dedicated (2) Pole 60A Breaker in the Main Panel. The Main Panel was installed in 1989 (200A Cutler Hammer, CH) and has Inspection Sticker approving service from the township attached. The Subpanel is fed with an SE Cable (2 Hots and a Concentric Neutral), WITHOUT a EGC (Ground) or Ground bus.

My understanding was that prior to 1996, Stoves and Ranges were acceptable to be on a three wire circuit. What I don't know is if this same provision applied to a Subpanel dedicated to the stove and this would be grandfathered.

I understand that if I am installing a subpanel today that it needs a dedicated EGC and 4 Wires going to it... L1, L2, N, G and the Neutral and Ground bus are only bonded in one place.

What are my options here?

Option #1 - Tell them to pound sand. The current setup was approved multiple times in the past by the AHJ and is grandfathered and code is not retroactive. These buyers have been a nightmare so far (their contingency on their current home fell through once extending closing, their lawyer is real pushy and wants me to remediate any code issues from the inspection report or provide a 30K bond for them to handle! If I agree they will be going to town on the upgrades in the home, wiping out any profit).

Option #2 - Install an EGC back to the Main Panel or another accessible location? Would this be allowed as an exception to NEC 250 for an existing circuit without and EGC. I probably could find a path to route a #10 AWG EGC, but it will not follow the same route at the phase and neutral conductors due to accessibility.

Option #3 - Re-Pull a 4 Wire Service from Main Panel. This is not an easy task since the cables are buried in walls/ceilings. This is a multiple thousands of dollars fix and very intrusive.

Option #4 - Convert to gas! I say this jokingly but it would cost less money to buy a new gas range and extend the gas service from my heater the the range area then Option #3.

Thanks for any insight. I am always amazed at the level of knowledge here on this site.
 
Welcome to the forum.

A sub-panel within the same building has required a 4-wire feeder almost forever, unless there is zero line-to-neutral load.

I suggest Option #5: remove the sub-panel completely, converting the feeder to a branch circuit supplying the new range.

Also, there is no legal obligation for sellers to follow buyers' home-inspection recommendations; to that end, Option #1.
 
Thanks for the replies. I am thinking the Sub Panel has to go, it is not really being used anymore. It might have been approved in the past but it was a non standard approval at best.

I guess there could be a 5th option, though not clear if this would be acceptable either...

Scrap the Sub Panel (its not needed anymore for only one breaker), install a Junction Box and splice the SE cable to a 6/3 cable and re-feed the stove outlet. Swap the breaker out for a 50A at the main panel.

I still have the problem that there is no EGC which I could pull separately.
 
I vote for option three. I would leave the existing cabling in place and run new the easiest way I could.

I would think you could run NM or UF down into crawl space or the basement without too much trouble.
 
DragonElectric said:
Thanks for the replies. I am thinking the Sub Panel has to go, it is not really being used anymore. It might have been approved in the past but it was a non standard approval at best.

I guess there could be a 5th option, though not clear if this would be acceptable either...

Scrap the Sub Panel (its not needed anymore for only one breaker), install a Junction Box and splice the SE cable to a 6/3 cable and re-feed the stove outlet. Swap the breaker out for a 50A at the main panel.

I still have the problem that there is no EGC which I could pull separately.
Click to expand...
Cannot connect a 6/3 to the 6/2 SE. If you're going so far as pulling 6/3 part way just pull the whole distance and do it right.
Being an engineer doesn't qualify you necessarily to do your own electrical work, any more than an electrician has all the skills to engineer. Sounds as if you are in need of someone that has "practical hands on" experience to at least review or supervise the installation.
 
It was never code compliant in first place, at same time a HI inspection is not the same thing as an inspection that ultimately grants occupancy. It is nothing more than a report card of the condition of things in the home, which can be used for buyer/negotiation purposes. Even if said deficiency isn't really a concern to purchaser, depending on what it is maybe can increase insurance premiums so something they may still need to consider how to handle it.

Bottom line is the problem been exposed, you are under no obligation to correct it, you can if you want, you can offer to sell for lower price than you were asking and leave it as is, the buyer can offer you a lower price, some other buyer can come in and take it as is at the price you wanted. Totally up to you and any buyer what to do with it.

No different than buying a used car, there is very likely going to be things that are no longer in same condition as when the car was brand new, seller has no obligation to make them like new again if they don't want to, buyer can take it as is, at asking price, offer lower price, demand it be brought to their liking or pass altogether.
 
Thanks for the replies. I reached out to another old school electrician friend and he turned a potential lightbulb on the situation. I was looking at this as a Subpanel, but he said that Breakers were most likely being used as the local disconnecting means for the original oven (plug in but not readily accessible) and Cooktop (hardwired) since the Main Panel is remote.

I think I am just going to label it a "Dedicated Stove Disconnect, No Additional Loads Allowed" and call it a day on the Home Inspection item. There is only a single breaker in the panel now feeding the outlet which is about 3 feet away.
 
readydave8 said:
Whether subpanel or disconnect, how are you grounding the enclosure?
Click to expand...

Since it is a Main Lug Panel, it has an installed bonding screw between the neutral bar and enclosure.

I am leaning towards just pulling a new 6/3 to a 4 Wire receptacle and just biting the bullet. Not an easy run but it can be done with opening up the wall in a few places.
 
DragonElectric said:
Since it is a Main Lug Panel, it has an installed bonding screw between the neutral bar and enclosure.
Click to expand...
Just replace (or gut) the box so it's only a J-box, and the 3-wire feed may remain.

By the way, a main-lug panel would normally not have the enclosure bonded to the grounded conductor.
 
LarryFine said:
Just replace (or gut) the box so it's only a J-box, and the 3-wire feed may remain.

By the way, a main-lug panel would normally not have the enclosure bonded to the grounded conductor.
Click to expand...
Since 3 branch circuits to stoves and other appliances are no longer allowed under NEC, can you extend or modify them? In this case you are taking a 3 wire feeder and creating a new 3 wire branch circuit, which is no longer code compliant.
 
robertd said:
Since 3 branch circuits to stoves and other appliances are no longer allowed under NEC, can you extend or modify them? In this case you are taking a 3 wire feeder and creating a new 3 wire branch circuit, which is no longer code compliant.
Click to expand...
In my opinion,, this would not be creating a new anything. It would be converting what always was an improper feeder to a grandfathered-as-existing proper branch circuit.
 
I do not see what the issue is with Larry's suggestion, this would be the best route as you are eliminating the pathways of objectionable current, I think your best bet is to do a J-box and change the breaker in main panel as Larry stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top