14 ga. on 20 or 30 a circuit

[Smart $]

I am sure your not going to change you position and neither will I so, I think it is time to just let this drop.

Agreed :wink:

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I am sure your not going to change you position and neither will I so, I think it is time to just let this drop.

There are so many experts on this forum.... I was hoping we might drag a few more of them into this but oh well..

Ryan thank you for posting your opinion.

 

[M. D.]

I think we can all agree that this particular area of the NEC could use a little work :smile:

It is somewhat comforting to know that ,..... we are not alone
http://www.diychatroom.com/f18/mixing-12-14-wire-conduit-42497/index4/

 

[dejeud]

I'll respectfully disagree:

1: There's plenty uses for 90C rated conductors. Very handy when derating for number of wires.

2: The note for the 15/20/30 on #14, #12 and #10 says unless specifically permitted elsewhere. 210.24 specifically permits #14 for taps. We all know what taps are and NEC doesn't have a limitation of what should be considered taps. That's what it is, that's how I'm reading it.

I've run across many many people and especially inspectors who try to use certain logics or chasing their tails regarding things they think might be wrong. I've worked in some jobs where the peninsulars of the kitchen where twice as long than a regular kitchen. I've heard arguments that being such a long counter people will put appliances on it, etc.

There is very few if any uses for a 90C rated conductor, so lets leave that out.

As is yours:-?:-?:-?
There is no riddle at hand...there is a specific code rule that says you can use the #18 zip cord on that circuit. We are talking code rules here and in the absence of a very specific rule that gives a higher overcurrent protection for the #14, you can't use it on a 20 amp circuit. There are a number of specific rules that permit that...there just isn't one for the case in this thread.

I am sure your not going to change you position and neither will I so, I think it is time to just let this drop.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I'll respectfully disagree:

1: There's plenty uses for 90C rated conductors. Very handy when derating for number of wires.

That's fine, but after the derating the conductor will no longer have an ampacity of at least 15 amps and could not be used for the purposes in the exception to 210.19(A)(4). It would be a rare installation where a conductor smaller than #14 can be used at its 90C ampacity and that was the point of my comment.

2: The note for the 15/20/30 on #14, #12 and #10 says unless specifically permitted elsewhere. 210.24 specifically permits #14 for taps. We all know what taps are and NEC doesn't have a limitation of what should be considered taps. That's what it is, that's how I'm reading it.

That isn't what the rule says. 210.24 plays no part in this as it is not mentioned in 240.4(E) or (G).

(D) Small Conductors. Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G), the overcurrent protection shall not exceed that required by (D)(1) through (D)(7) after any correction factors for ambient temperature and number of conductors have been applied.

 

[Smart $]

That's fine, but after the derating the conductor will no longer have an ampacity of at least 15 amps and could not be used for the purposes in the exception to 210.19(A)(4). It would be a rare installation where a conductor smaller than #14 can be used at its 90C ampacity and that was the point of my comment.

But coincident with the point of your comment you are inadvertently implying there is no purpose for 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1. Branch circuit conductors no smaller than 14 AWG and sufficient ampacity for the loads served is covered in the basic rule. If the Exception is somehow to limit the derating of a branch circuit tap conductor to 15A and 20A respectively, I'd think it would be more prudent to just state it in an obvious manner...

That isn't what the rule says. 210.24 plays no part in this as it is not mentioned in 240.4(E) or (G).

210.24, through its Table, permits a 14 AWG tap conductor for receptacles other than those for 210.11(C)(1( and '(2) on a 20A rated circuit. I realize it also refers to 210.19, -.20, and -.21 for specific requirements, and 210.20(B) takes one to 240.4... so I have to ask, why would 210.24 say yes, if you are going end up having 240.4 say no...

The preceding two issues are indicative of the lapses I see in your logic :-?

Please enlighten us with some examples of a 14 AWG tap conductor on a 20a-rated branch circuit...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But coincident with the point of your comment you are inadvertently implying there is no purpose for 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1. Branch circuit conductors no smaller than 14 AWG and sufficient ampacity for the loads served is covered in the basic rule. If the Exception is somehow to limit the derating of a branch circuit tap conductor to 15A and 20A respectively, I'd think it would be more prudent to just state it in an obvious manner...

The main rules in 210.19 only apply to the actual branch circuit conductors. The only parts of 210.19 that apply to "tap" conductors are in the exceptions, and the only place you find any relief from 210.4(D) is in the exceptions. The exception to 210.19(A)(4) does not apply to a tap conductor that feeds a receptacle.

210.24, through its Table, permits a 14 AWG tap conductor for receptacles other than those for 210.11(C)(1( and '(2) on a 20A rated circuit. I realize it also refers to 210.19, -.20, and -.21 for specific requirements, and 210.20(B) takes one to 240.4... so I have to ask, why would 210.24 say yes, if you are going end up having 240.4 say no...

There are specific permissions in the exceptions to the main rules in 210.19 for the overcurrent protection of tap conductors. There just isn't one for the issue of this thread.

The preceding two issues are indicative of the lapses I see in your logic :-?

And I see no indication of any logic in your statements!

Please enlighten us with some examples of a 14 AWG tap conductor on a 20a-rated branch circuit...

All of the items listed in (a) through (e) in exception #1 to 210.19(A)(4).

 

[Smart $]

I thought we were going to drop this

I will drop this again after the following summary of my position, provided you do not post again rehashing what you have already wrote....

There is no specific basic rule which excludes tap conductors from consideration under the basic rule of 210.19. As far as I'm concerned, Exception No. 1 is there only to permit an alternative or different option that would otherwise not be compliant with the basic rule, which is by the NEC style manual the very purpose of an exception.

240.4(D) states "unless specifically permitted in 240(E)... the overcurrent protection shall not exceed..." the following. 240.4(E) states, "Tap conductors shall be permitted to be protected against overcurrent in accordance with the following [redirect]". Upon a conductor being a branch circuit tap conductor under 240.4(E), the "specifically permitted in 240(E)" of 240.4(D) is satisfied. There is no stipulation which says specificity is carried through to the redirected issues of 240.4(E), as "in accordance" means it only has to comply with the basic rule. That is to say, 240.4(E) does not say "as specifically permitted in" the redirects which follow.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I thought we were going to drop this

I will drop this again after the following summary of my position, provided you do not post again rehashing what you have already wrote....

There is no specific basic rule which excludes tap conductors from consideration under the basic rule of 210.19. As far as I'm concerned, Exception No. 1 is there only to permit an alternative or different option that would otherwise not be compliant with the basic rule, which is by the NEC style manual the very purpose of an exception.

240.4(D) states "unless specifically permitted in 240(E)... the overcurrent protection shall not exceed..." the following. 240.4(E) states, "Tap conductors shall be permitted to be protected against overcurrent in accordance with the following [redirect]". Upon a conductor being a branch circuit tap conductor under 240.4(E), the "specifically permitted in 240(E)" of 240.4(D) is satisfied. There is no stipulation which says specificity is carried through to the redirected issues of 240.4(E), as "in accordance" means it only has to comply with the basic rule. That is to say, 240.4(E) does not say "as specifically permitted in" the redirects which follow.

Why should you get the last word?????

As far as me making another comment after I agreed to drop the discussion with you, that comment was not directed to you and was a specific response to another post that quoted one of my posts.

It will forever remain my position that the main parts of 210.19 do not have anything to do with the overcurrent protection of the conductors in question and the only provisions to use a larger OCPD than is permitted in 240.4(D) are found in the exceptions in section 210.19

 

[Smart $]

Why should you get the last word?????

As far as me making another comment after I agreed to drop the discussion with you, that comment was not directed to you and was a specific response to another post that quoted one of my posts.

It will forever remain my position that the main parts of 210.19 do not have anything to do with the overcurrent protection of the conductors in question and the only provisions to use a larger OCPD than is permitted in 240.4(D) are found in the exceptions in section 210.19

...and I posted again to bring 210.24 to the floor, which you and I had not done before.

but...I'll let you get the last word on the matter

 

[M. D.]

quick someone lock it!!:smile:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

don't do this without talking with your AHJ

don't do this without talking with your AHJ

This has been a long discussion and has not really come to a solid code conclusion. If you want to use a #14 tap for a receptacle on a 20 amp branch circuit, you really should check with your AHJ first. On the job, he or she will resolve this issue for you...it won't be left unresolved like it is here on the forum.

This would a be a good section for 2014 proposals, assuming that there are no changes in these rules in the 2011 code. Even if the proposals would be rejected, we would have panel comments that would address the issue.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The following is a proposal for the 1999 code.

(Log #1914) 2- 139 - (210-20, Exception No. 3-(New)): Reject
SUBMITTER: Nicholas T. Abbatiello, Spencerport, NY

RECOMMENDATION: Add Exception No.3 for No. 14 AWG tap conductors, not exceeding six inches in length, from branch circuit conductors to receptacles in 20 ampere multioutlet branch circuits covered by Section 210-21 (b)(3).

SUBSTANTIATION: The tap conductor ampacity would be limited by load due to its connection to the 15A rated receptacle. By permitting the use of No. 14AWG taps to feed the 15A receptacles in 20A multioutlet branch Circuit, receptacles with "push in" terminals can be used. Once the 20 ampere receptacles were available that accepted No. 12 AWG conductors, but are no longer available. The main branch circuit current would still be handled by the properly sized No. 12 AWG conductors.
PANEL ACTION: Reject.

PANEL STATEMENT: A 15A duplex receptacle is evaluated for 20A of current through tile strap and as such is suitable for use on a 20A circuit. The 15A rating on the receptacle is indicative of the receptacle configuration and limits the connection to only 15A attachment plugs. This is prohibited by Section 210-19(c), Exception No. 1 c. in the present Code.

NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 12 VOTE ON PANEL ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 12

The following is the text of 210-19(c), Exception #1 from the 1996 code that is referenced in the last sentence of the panel statement for proposal 2-139.

(c) Other Loads. Branch-circuit conductors supplying loads other than cooking appliances as covered in (b) above and as listed in Section 210-2 shall have an ampacity sufficient for the loads served and shall not. be smaller than No. 14.
Exception No.1: Tap conductors for such loads shall have an ampacity not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40 amperes and not less than 20 for circuits rated at 40 or 50 amperes and only where these tap conductors supply any of the following loads:
a. Individual lampholders or fixtures with taps extending not longer
than 18 inches (457 mm) beyond any portion of the lampholder or fixture.
b.A fixture having tap conductors as provided in Section 410-67.
c.Individual outlets with taps not over 18 inches (457 mm) long.
d.Infrared lamp industrial heating appliances.
e. Nonheating leads of de-icing and snow-melting cables and mats.
om the 1996 code.

 

[M. D.]

Don , thank you for the digging ,.. was that available on line??

 

[justin59]

I apologize if I'm bringing up what somebody else already has, I haven't had a chance to keep up. But 210.19 (A)(4)(c) prohibits using #14 pigtails for recpetacles on a 20 amp ckt.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don , thank you for the digging ,.. was that available on line??

Not that I know of, I scanned it from my paper copy. I have electronic copies starting with the 2002 code cycle and paper copies starting with the 84 code cycle. The electronic copies from 2002 on are available here.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

But 210.19 (A)(4)(c) prohibits using #14 pigtails for recpetacles on a 20 amp ckt.

Actually that is one of the main points of the discussion here...we all don't agree that 210.19(A)(4), Exception #1(c) actually prohibits that. Please read the complete thread.

 

[George Stolz]

Please read the complete thread.

All 118 posts?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

All 118 posts?

No, all 119:grin:.

 

[justin59]

Actually that is one of the main points of the discussion here...we all don't agree that 210.19(A)(4), Exception #1(c) actually prohibits that. Please read the complete thread.

Thats why i apologized ahead of time. I kept up through the 1st two pages a while back. Then I had to look this up for myself the other day because the a/v contractor on the job I'm on wanted me to hook up 2 20amp receps with #12 tails coming off of them to a 30 amp ckt. I remembered this thread and decided to voice my opinion without reading over 100 posts. So again I apologize.