Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?

Perce

Just put 3 wire pigtails on your appliances and get on with life.

--
Steve Barker





"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside the
existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so, what
gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?

Perce

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?

Perce


Yes it would be OK, but it's not necessary. (a #10 wire should be
adequate for both if you do it anyway) You should not have to replace
the old wiring, but that kind of depends on whether the existing neutral
wire is insulated.

Bob

On 06/06/07 01:04 am zxcvbob wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be
OK according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor
alongside the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin
ones? If so, what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be
replaced?

Yes it would be OK, but it's not necessary. (a #10 wire should be
adequate for both if you do it anyway) You should not have to replace
the old wiring, but that kind of depends on whether the existing neutral
wire is insulated.

I realize that it's not *required*, but I was thinking that since our
new range comes without a cord, I might as well buy a 4-wire one and
upgrade the house wiring at the same time. And I assume that the Code
change was motivated by safety considerations, not just a desire to sell
more copper.

Perce

In article , zxcvbob wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?

Yes it would be OK,

No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

but it's not necessary.

That's true. Code permits connecting new appliances to *existing* 3-wire
circuits, but prohibits installing *new* 3-wire circuits for this purpose.

If it were me, though, and it wasn't too much effort or expense, I'd pull new
4-wire cable.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?

Yes it would be OK,

No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]


Except for a few feet of EMT where the wiring for the dryer outlet come
down the wall* (and I could easily get a new ground wire in at the top
end to connect to a 4-pin outlet), there are no raceways: the existing
wiring comes out of the panel (which is surface mounted, so I could
easily run the ground wires out through the same knockout/clamp) and is
stapled to the underside of the joists.

*And it's just occurred to me that running Romex in conduit probably
wasn't kosher either. I wasn't the one who did it.


but it's not necessary.

That's true. Code permits connecting new appliances to *existing* 3-wire
circuits, but prohibits installing *new* 3-wire circuits for this purpose.

If it were me, though, and it wasn't too much effort or expense, I'd pull new
4-wire cable.


That's what I'm trying to decide. Each run is approx. 15ft. What gauge
should be used? -- either for a separate ground wire or for whole new
wiring runs.

Perce

On Jun 6, 9:20 am, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?
Yes it would be OK,
No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

Except for a few feet of EMT where the wiring for the dryer outlet come
down the wall* (and I could easily get a new ground wire in at the top
end to connect to a 4-pin outlet), there are no raceways: the existing
wiring comes out of the panel (which is surface mounted, so I could
easily run the ground wires out through the same knockout/clamp) and is
stapled to the underside of the joists.

*And it's just occurred to me that running Romex in conduit probably
wasn't kosher either. I wasn't the one who did it.

but it's not necessary.
That's true. Code permits connecting new appliances to *existing* 3-wire
circuits, but prohibits installing *new* 3-wire circuits for this purpose.

If it were me, though, and it wasn't too much effort or expense, I'd pull new
4-wire cable.

That's what I'm trying to decide. Each run is approx. 15ft. What gauge
should be used? -- either for a separate ground wire or for whole new
wiring runs.

I may be wrong, but I thought there were provisions for retrofit to
allow for the addition of the ground to existing wiring, Doug?

Myself, even if it weren't _strictly_ NEC, I'd be comfortable w/
adding the ground to the cable and securing it well to the cable every
so often so it can't be easily separated nor confused w/ some other
cable. Of course, that runs future risk that if try to sell some anal
inspector could force you to fix it at the time. Overall, my choice
would undoubtedly be to simply continue w/ the 3-wire service unless
was rewiring whole house or another major wiring upgrade project
anyway.

As for wire size, 10 ga is certainly the norm for the service. What
to use is whatever is adequate for the breaker for the existing
circuit. I'm not familiar enough w/ the 4-wire code requirements to
know if it allows for the "one size under" or not, but for 15-ft of
#10 I'd use the full size irrespective.

--

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?

Yes it would be OK,

No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]


Except for a few feet of EMT where the wiring for the dryer outlet come
down the wall* (and I could easily get a new ground wire in at the top
end to connect to a 4-pin outlet), there are no raceways: the existing
wiring comes out of the panel (which is surface mounted, so I could
easily run the ground wires out through the same knockout/clamp) and is
stapled to the underside of the joists.

Doesn't matter, it still doesn't meet Code. Note the word "cable" in the part
I cited. It absolutely is a Code violation to run another conductor
of the same circuit alongside the existing cable.

Moreover, the NEC no longer permits the use of uninsulated neutrals, which is
what you have in the existing cable. It met Code at the time it was installed,
but if you modify the circuit, you're required to bring it up to *current*
Code -- and that requires the neutral to be insulated. You can't achieve that
with the cable you have now.

*And it's just occurred to me that running Romex in conduit probably
wasn't kosher either. I wasn't the one who did it.

Despite repeated posts in this ng from certain individuals who claim that Code
doesn't permit Romex (technically, NM cable) in conduit, it's actually
perfectly fine for above-ground installations.


but it's not necessary.

That's true. Code permits connecting new appliances to *existing* 3-wire
circuits, but prohibits installing *new* 3-wire circuits for this purpose.

If it were me, though, and it wasn't too much effort or expense, I'd pull new
4-wire cable.


That's what I'm trying to decide. Each run is approx. 15ft. What gauge
should be used? -- either for a separate ground wire or for whole new
wiring runs.

Gauge depends on amperage. For 30A, you need 10-ga copper; for 40A or 50A,
8-ga.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , zxcvbob wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?
Yes it would be OK,

No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

but it's not necessary.




There's an exception that allows an equipment ground to run separately
when upgrading old work. I can't quote the article number cuz I loaned
out my code book.

Bob

In article om, dpb wrote:

I may be wrong, but I thought there were provisions for retrofit to
allow for the addition of the ground to existing wiring, Doug?

That was discussed here a few months ago, and IIRC someone posted a Code
citation showing that is incorrect.

And even if it were permitted, he still has another problem: the existing
Romex cable uses the uninsulated wire as the neutral. This [probably] met Code
at the time of installation, but it doesn't meet it now. As long as the
circuit is left alone, it's compliant -- but when it's modified, it needs to
be brought into compliance with Code in effect at the time of modification.
And that means an insulated neutral which he doesn't have.

Myself, even if it weren't _strictly_ NEC, I'd be comfortable w/
adding the ground to the cable and securing it well to the cable every
so often so it can't be easily separated nor confused w/ some other
cable. Of course, that runs future risk that if try to sell some anal
inspector could force you to fix it at the time. Overall, my choice
would undoubtedly be to simply continue w/ the 3-wire service unless
was rewiring whole house or another major wiring upgrade project
anyway.

As for wire size, 10 ga is certainly the norm for the service.

Not so fast there. He said "range and dryer". 10ga is fine for most
dryers, but it is probably NOT adequate for an electric range.

What
to use is whatever is adequate for the breaker for the existing
circuit.

Not correct.

What to use is whatever is correct for the current ratings of the existing
appliances. You are assuming that the existing conductors and breakers are
properly sized to the appliances. Probably a valid assumption, I grant you,
but an assumption nonetheless, and one which ought to be verified.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article om, dpb wrote:
I may be wrong, but I thought there were provisions for retrofit to
allow for the addition of the ground to existing wiring, Doug?

That was discussed here a few months ago, and IIRC someone posted a Code
citation showing that is incorrect.



I looked it up on Google from where I posted the information about 5
years ago. It's section 250-50:

"For replacement of nongrounding-type receptacles with grounding-type
receptacles and for branch circuit extensions only in existing
installations that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the
branch circuit, the grounding conductor of a grounding-type receptacle
outlet shall be permitted to be grounded to any accessible point on the
grounding electrode system as described in Section 250-81."

Of course it's possible that this has changes since 2001. (But I doubt
it because it makes too much sense. Without this exception, people
would just leave things ungrounded.) HTH :-)

Bob

In article om, dpb wrote:

I'm not familiar enough w/ the 4-wire code requirements to
know if it allows for the "one size under" or not, but for 15-ft of
#10 I'd use the full size irrespective.

The grounding conductor is allowed to be smaller than the hot and neutral
conductors for circuits at 40A and higher. Below that, the minimum size for
the grounding conductor is the same as the minimum size for the hot and
neutral. [2005 NEC, Table 250.122]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?
Yes it would be OK,
No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

305-I is underground (buried). You want 300.3-B.


Except for a few feet of EMT where the wiring for the dryer outlet come
down the wall* (and I could easily get a new ground wire in at the top
end to connect to a 4-pin outlet), there are no raceways: the existing
wiring comes out of the panel (which is surface mounted, so I could
easily run the ground wires out through the same knockout/clamp) and is
stapled to the underside of the joists.

Doesn't matter, it still doesn't meet Code. Note the word "cable" in the part
I cited. It absolutely is a Code violation to run another conductor
of the same circuit alongside the existing cable.

There is an exception in 300.3-B. Separate grounding conductors can be
run for receptacles on existing ungrounded circuits (or extensions of
existing ungrounded circuits), connected as in 250.130-C.


Moreover, the NEC no longer permits the use of uninsulated neutrals, which is
what you have in the existing cable. It met Code at the time it was installed,
but if you modify the circuit, you're required to bring it up to *current*
Code -- and that requires the neutral to be insulated. You can't achieve that
with the cable you have now.

I agree that the uninsulated neutral is a fatal problem, so to speak.

*And it's just occurred to me that running Romex in conduit probably
wasn't kosher either. I wasn't the one who did it.

Despite repeated posts in this ng from certain individuals who claim that Code
doesn't permit Romex (technically, NM cable) in conduit, it's actually
perfectly fine for above-ground installations.

It is a common practice to run Romex down a wall in EMT to protect it.


but it's not necessary.
That's true. Code permits connecting new appliances to *existing* 3-wire
circuits, but prohibits installing *new* 3-wire circuits for this purpose.

If it were me, though, and it wasn't too much effort or expense, I'd pull new
4-wire cable.

That's what I'm trying to decide. Each run is approx. 15ft. What gauge
should be used? -- either for a separate ground wire or for whole new
wiring runs.

Gauge depends on amperage. For 30A, you need 10-ga copper; for 40A or 50A,
8-ga.


Grounding conductors are sized from 250.122. #10 is OK for up to a 60A
circuit.

---
bud--

In article , zxcvbob wrote:

There's an exception that allows an equipment ground to run separately
when upgrading old work. I can't quote the article number cuz I loaned
out my code book.

250.130(C). It's pretty narrowly drawn, but might apply here.

Just the same, what the OP proposes still doesn't meet Code due to an
uninsulated neutral. Probably met Code at the time of installation, but won't
meet it now, which it needs to if the circuit is modified.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?
Yes it would be OK,
No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

305-I is underground (buried). You want 300.3-B.

Of course, "305-I" is not what I wrote. Look again.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , zxcvbob wrote:

There's an exception that allows an equipment ground to run separately
when upgrading old work. I can't quote the article number cuz I loaned
out my code book.

250.130(C). It's pretty narrowly drawn, but might apply here.

Just the same, what the OP proposes still doesn't meet Code due to an
uninsulated neutral. Probably met Code at the time of installation, but won't
meet it now, which it needs to if the circuit is modified.



I agree about the uninsulated neutral (I even mentioned that earlier.)
My old house had SE cable for range, then at some point they put in a
gas range and just rerouted the old range cable to the dryer (and
refused it at 30A.)

I think OP should just leave everything alone and use a 3-wire circuit.
He could also leave the wiring alone and separate the ground from the
neutral at the dryer (remove the bonding strap and run a separate ground
wire from the frame back to the panel box.) That way he gets the
equipment ground he wants without altering the wiring.

Bob

On 06/06/07 11:58 am zxcvbob wrote:

I think OP should just leave everything alone and use a 3-wire circuit.
He could also leave the wiring alone and separate the ground from the
neutral at the dryer (remove the bonding strap and run a separate ground
wire from the frame back to the panel box.) That way he gets the
equipment ground he wants without altering the wiring.


The new range was just delivered, and the delivery guy said, "We've got
a 3-wire cord here if you want it" (I hadn't ordered or paid for it), so
I accepted their kind offer.

Perce (OP)

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 06/06/07 11:58 am zxcvbob wrote:

I think OP should just leave everything alone and use a 3-wire circuit.
He could also leave the wiring alone and separate the ground from the
neutral at the dryer (remove the bonding strap and run a separate ground
wire from the frame back to the panel box.) That way he gets the
equipment ground he wants without altering the wiring.


The new range was just delivered, and the delivery guy said, "We've got
a 3-wire cord here if you want it" (I hadn't ordered or paid for it), so
I accepted their kind offer.

That's certainly the simplest.

If it turns out that the power requirements of the new range exceed the
capacity of the existing circuit, Code requires that the new circuit be
4-wire.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 06/06/07 11:58 am zxcvbob wrote:

I think OP should just leave everything alone and use a 3-wire circuit.
He could also leave the wiring alone and separate the ground from the
neutral at the dryer (remove the bonding strap and run a separate ground
wire from the frame back to the panel box.) That way he gets the
equipment ground he wants without altering the wiring.


The new range was just delivered, and the delivery guy said, "We've got
a 3-wire cord here if you want it" (I hadn't ordered or paid for it), so
I accepted their kind offer.

That's certainly the simplest.

Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Thank God you are back on the medicine. Welcome back to the land of the
sane.
(Why didn't my filter block you? Did you change your email address?)

In article , "Toller" wrote:

(Why didn't my filter block you? Did you change your email address?)

I haven't changed anything, Wade. This isn't the first time you've lied about
having killfiled me.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?
Yes it would be OK,

No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same
raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

305-I is underground (buried). You want 300.3-B.

Of course, "305-I" is not what I wrote. Look again.


Sorry - my fingers didn't type what I told them to. Should have said
300.5-I - which is underground (buried). 300.3-B is appropriate.

--
bud--

In article , Bud-- wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Bud--
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 06/06/07 08:05 am Doug Miller wrote:

Our house has 3-conductor wiring for the range and dryer. Would it be
OK
according to the NEC to run an additional (green) conductor alongside
the existing wiring and replace the receptacles by 4-pin ones? If so,
what gauge? Or would the existing wiring have to be replaced?
Yes it would be OK,

No, it's not. All conductors for a circuit are required to be in the same

raceway or cable. [2005 NEC, Article 300.5(I)]

305-I is underground (buried). You want 300.3-B.

Of course, "305-I" is not what I wrote. Look again.


Sorry - my fingers didn't type what I told them to. Should have said
300.5-I - which is underground (buried). 300.3-B is appropriate.

You're right, my fault -- same provision, but a different part of the Code.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.