Re using SE cable to feed sub panel.

[skindalooch]

Is it permissable to re use an existing feeder for a sub panel that is currently #4 AL SE cable (2 insulated conductors with an un insulated concentric wire)? It is an older installation and the main panel is in the garage. The sub panel is located in the basement of the main dwelling unit. The 2 buildings are separated by a breezeway. It would be alot of damage to finihes of the house to install a new ser or other suitable 4 wire cable. I need to replace both the main and the sub panel as they have fuses as ocp and the homeowners insurance wants replaced. Would it be permissable to install an isolated bar for the neutrals in the sub panel and install a ground bar in the can bonded to a cu water pipe or a new rod electrode? Im not sure when or if the existing installation ever met requirements of NEC or if it can be grandfathered.

 

[jumper]

IMO, no. Opinions may vary.

 

[Smart $]

Well I'm of the varying opinion... but based on Code :lol:

250.32 Buildings or Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s)
or Branch Circuit(s).

(B) Grounded Systems.

(1) Supplied by a Feeder or Branch Circuit. An equipment
grounding conductor, as described in 250.118, shall
be run with the supply conductors and be connected to the
building or structure disconnecting means and to the
grounding electrode(s). The equipment grounding conductor
shall be used for grounding or bonding of equipment,
structures, or frames required to be grounded or bonded.
The equipment grounding conductor shall be sized in accordance
with 250.122. Any installed grounded conductor
shall not be connected to the equipment grounding conductor
or to the grounding electrode(s).

Exception: For installations made in compliance with previous
editions of this Code that permitted such connection,
the grounded conductor run with the supply to the building
or structure shall be permitted to serve as the ground-fault
return path if all of the following requirements continue to
be met:
(1) An equipment grounding conductor is not run with the
supply to the building or structure.
(2) There are no continuous metallic paths bonded to the
grounding system in each building or structure involved.
(3) Ground-fault protection of equipment has not been installed
on the supply side of the feeder(s).
If the grounded conductor is used for grounding in accordance
with the provision of this exception, the size of the
grounded conductor shall not be smaller than the larger of
either of the following:
(1) That required by 220.61
(2) That required by 250.122

 

[GoldDigger]

Well I'm of the varying opinion... but based on Code :lol:

The point of contention, IMHO, will be whether the fact that the wires were there and used for service allows them to be used as feeders when the direction is reversed.
The wires are existing. The feeder, arguably, is not.
I am of several opinions concurrently on this one and am willing to argue for whichever side pays me more.

And, no, twice what I am already getting is not more.

 

[Smart $]

The point of contention, IMHO, will be whether the fact that the wires were there and used for service allows them to be used as feeders when the direction is reversed.
The wires are existing. The feeder, arguably, is not.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here in reversal of direction. I did not gather from the OP the SE cable was previously service conductors, or that the house previously supplied the garage.

I am of several opinions concurrently on this one and am willing to argue for whichever side pays me more.

And, no, twice what I am already getting is not more.

Okay... I'll pay you much, much, much more.

 

[GoldDigger]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here in reversal of direction. I did not gather from the OP the SE cable was previously service conductors, or that the house previously supplied the garage.

I was reading too quickly.
But there is still some room for argument when you replace both termination points of a run of wire.

Our museum is fortunate to have in its collection George Washington's original hatchet, the one used to chop down the cherry tree.
Of course it has undergone some repairs over the years. The handle has been replaced five time and the head was replaced twice.

 

[Smart $]

I was reading too quickly.
But there is still some room for argument when you replace both termination points of a run of wire.

I don't see anything in the exception where changing equipment at either or both ends negates permission as long as the conditional requirements are met.

 

[jumper]

I will change my answer to maybe:

MW definition of breezeway:: a roofed often open passage connecting two buildings (as a house and garage) or halves of a building

Depends if the AHJ accepts this or says the breezeway connection makes the house and garage a common structure.

 

[iwire]

There are also local rules to consider, for instance NJ has the rehab code which might allow it, MA has 'rule 3' which might allow regardless of the NEC.

 

[growler]

There are also local rules to consider, for instance NJ has the rehab code which might allow it, MA has 'rule 3' which might allow regardless of the NEC.

In this county they may let you use the SE cable if you can show that it's cost prohibitive to change it out.

They don't really nail it down as to amount so each case is different. Also it would need to be permitted as a repair and not an up-grade.

If they plan to sell the house then a home inspector catches it and they have a new problem ( with them it's just opinion ).

 

[petersonra]

IMO you are just asking for trouble longer term.

None of us really believe this is "right", but the cost to do it right it makes us all want to figure some way around right that is at least plausibly in compliance.

I think your best bet is to tell the customer the truth and that the right way is to just replace it but you might be able to convince the inspection authority that there is possibly another way that might comply.

You really want to reuse SE cable that is as old as it is with new boxes anyway?

BTW, if the breezeway connects the garage to the house with any kind of structural connection IMO it is a single structure.

 

[skindalooch]

Thanks all for replying. My feeling is that it should be replaced, but I assume that at some point in time this installation was in compliance. And the fact is there were no problems in regards to it and simply changing the type of OCP from fuses to circuit breakers will not affect the existing condition negatively.