14 gauge travellers

[Dennis Alwon]

Fear! Fear is a great deterrent. :grin: So the company says "We're afraid you're going to come along later and see a 12 ga. conductor in the panel and mistakenly increase the size of the breaker to 20 amps, so we're going to put some fear into you by way of unnecessary manipulation thereby frightening you into compliance/submission when you already comply." :-? :-?

I think this is a very realistic fear. I can tell you that many times in my past I have changed panels out only to mark the 240 v circuits. I assumed the #12 wires were 20 amp and the #14 gauge 15 amps. I have also come across an entire panel with 20 amp sp with plenty of 15 amp home runs.

The fact is carelessness is rampant in the industry. Sometimes we moving faster than we think. Not a bad idea to label it but I have to ask why the op was running 14 gauge travellers on a seemingly 20 amp circuit.

 

[stickboy1375]

I assumed the #12 wires were 20 amp and the #14 gauge 15 amps.

Look and label before dismantling is my MO when doing a service change.

 

[iwire]

I I can tell you that many times in my past I have changed panels out only to mark the 240 v circuits. I assumed the #12 wires were 20 amp and the #14 gauge 15 amps.

That is a very poor choice on your part and any fault is 100% on you and not the original installer.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

That is a very poor choice on your part and any fault is 100% on you and not the original installer.

I realize that and that is why I am saying it happens esp to many of us in our younger days. The label is not a bad idea. I realize my sins---Mea Cupa, Mea Cupa. :smile:

 

[iwire]

I realize that and that is why I am saying it happens esp to many of us in our younger days. The label is not a bad idea. I realize my sins---Mea Cupa, Mea Cupa. :smile:

I was taught by the first guy I worked for to do it as you describe, once you think on it you realize what a poor practice that is.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I was taught by the first guy I worked for to do it as you describe, once you think on it you realize what a poor practice that is.

Agreed ....

 

[peter d]

I was taught by the first guy I worked for to do it as you describe, once you think on it you realize what a poor practice that is.

Poor practice? Absolutely 100% it is. But I'm not seeing the danger if an errant #14 (unknown to the person doing the service change) lands on a 20 amp breaker.

After all, we can't open walls and track everything down on a service change. We can fix the obvious stuff and should fix it if it's obvious, but I don't consider it a great danger if happens accidentally.

 

[peter d]

I'll just add that there are times when I'm grateful that the NEC is very conservative and has lots of "fudge factor" built into it, for situations that we can't always control (like changing a service and not realizing there are #14's tapped off of 20 amp circuits buried in walls.

 

[iwire]

Poor practice? Absolutely 100% it is. But I'm not seeing the danger if an errant #14 (unknown to the person doing the service change) lands on a 20 amp breaker.

Pete, I don't give a crap about the lack of safety hazard, as a professional I should exercise reasonable care in not creating new violations.

No I am not going to open every box in the building to check all the circuits. But it is reasonable to expect that if the circuit was correctly protected when I started it is when I leave. All it takes is marking what you remove.

 

[peter d]

Pete, I don't give a crap about the lack of safety hazard, as a professional I should exercise reasonable care in not creating new violations.

Did I actually say that I would intentionally create new violations? If you can find that statement for me, please let me know. I'm not advocating shortcuts, so I think you're taking it the wrong way. Every service change that I do I mark every wire and check where it goes, but I'm not perfect. This becomes even more of an issue in old buildings where multiple people (electricians, handymen, DIY's, etc) have had their hands in the electrical work. All I'm saying is we can do what we can do, but sometimes there are things we can't fix because they are impossible to fix.

 

[iwire]

Did I actually say that I would intentionally create new violations?

Well no one had said anything about bringing everything into compliance either.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Bob said a bad word.....:grin:

 

[winnie]

I see no problem with an inspection company providing the _additional service_ of adding suitable labeling that exceeds the NEC requirement. I wonder if it is also the policy to tag any circuit increased in size because of derating, or conductors protected at more than their 'normal' ampacity because they supply loads where this is acceptable (eg. motor or welder loads)? I wonder if all the individuals working in the panel to add these labels qualified to work in the panel?

But it is IMHO quite inappropriate that this tag is used to imply a _defect_ that the EC should be required to fix.

-Jon

 

[wbalsam1]

I see no problem with an inspection company providing the _additional service_ of adding suitable labeling that exceeds the NEC requirement. ...................

But it is IMHO quite inappropriate that this tag is used to imply a _defect_ that the EC should be required to fix.

-Jon

I truly do not believe the tag is used to imply a defect, but rather to call attention by special note that what may appear to be a circuit comprised of 12 gauge conductor is not the actual condition. The actual condition is noted on the tag. The tag is not a red tag (violation) but simply a tag indicating that a condition exists within the wiring methods that is of special concern to the company underwriting the circuit. An installer could easily replace the CB with a 20 amp CB without taking the time to investigate all of the switch boxes, etc., to determine any changes in wire gauge.

 

[480sparky]

Poor practice? Absolutely 100% it is. But I'm not seeing the danger if an errant #14 (unknown to the person doing the service change) lands on a 20 amp breaker.

After all, we can't open walls and track everything down on a service change. We can fix the obvious stuff and should fix it if it's obvious, but I don't consider it a great danger if happens accidentally.

Whenever I do a service upgrade, the circuits I KNOW are protected properly are on the right-size breakers. This usually is because I install those circuits myself during the upgrade. AC, dryer, water heater, range, SABCs, Baths, etc. What's left of the original GP circuits I always put on 15s regardless of the wire size. I've never had a problem with any tripping.

 

[MF Dagger]

So why was it wired in 12? I agree it's legal but why upsize the wire for only part of the run. Especially in a house.

 

[480sparky]

So why was it wired in 12? I agree it's legal but why upsize the wire for only part of the run. Especially in a house.

I would call it 'it's what I have on the truck'.

 

[wbalsam1]

So why was it wired in 12? I agree it's legal but why upsize the wire for only part of the run. Especially in a house.

I think that what happened in this example cited by the poster is the same that occassionally is detected around here: The entire circuit is run in 12 wire with only the travellers run in 14 wire. Then the circuit is protected at 20 amps. There is a meme* around here that it's OK to down-size the wire for travellers. There are very few practicing this old meme*, but enough to keep inspectors on their toes.:smile:
Rooting out these old trade-related memes* can be quite a lot of work.

(*meme...pronounced "meem".....A meme is any permanent pattern of information or material produced by an act of human intentionality)

 

[speedypetey]

wbalsam1, I certainly hope you do not work for the NYBFU.

The practice you describe sounds fine...as a suggestion. You following company rules is one thing. You TRYING to enforce a made up code is another thing entirely.
What if I don't comply? Do you fail the whole job? On WHAT grounds? You have NO written code to enforce other than the whim of the owner. It's not like there is even a vague code that could be misinterpreted to require this.

Again, I don't disagree that a tag stating that there is a smaller wire as part of the circuit is a bad idea. It's just making up a rule that your clients are supposed to follow is NOT a good thing.

If I were put in this situation I would have to wonder what other things this guy was making up that I would need to comply with to get a green tag.
I would also look to one of the other several approved third party inspection angencies in my area.

 

[wbalsam1]

wbalsam1, I certainly hope you do not work for the NYBFU.

Been there, done that. Got a Tee shirt. Senior Inspector. Worked there 9 years. Got all the way up to a heaping $23,000 and a car. More than 1 bird in the nest to feed so I had to move on. Great job for a retired person. :smile:

The practice you describe sounds fine...as a suggestion. You following company rules is one thing.

I'm required to follow company rules as a term of employment. Not only inspection agencies develop policies, but pocos, too. Can you think of poco policies you have to follow in order to get a service energized? I can. Policies cover subjects of mutual interest to the parties involved. An underwriter has an interest in cooperating with the parties just like the poco does. A poco not only requires compliance with codes but also with it's specifications. They reserve the right to deny service, just as an underwriter reserves the right to nullify an inspection contract if it's policies are not adhered to.

You TRYING to enforce a made up code is another thing entirely.
What if I don't comply? Do you fail the whole job? On WHAT grounds? You have NO written code to enforce other than the whim of the owner. It's not like there is even a vague code that could be misinterpreted to require this.

1st of all, I'm not trying to enforce a made up code. It's not a code, it is a term of an agreement between two contracting parties. It's a company policy. The question "If you don't comply" doesn't apply since it's the inspector that tags the circuit. You do not have to do a thing. You actually do comply with the code and you're not being cited. Why would I fail the whole job? :-? This is an unrealistic, alarmist-type question. To your statement that I have NO code to enforce....I'm not enforcing code, but rather a policy. When a power company tells you "no grounding electrode conductor in their meter", do you disobey them because it's not in the NEC? Of course not. You have come to realize that there are rules as well as regulations.

Again, I don't disagree that a tag stating that there is a smaller wire as part of the circuit is a bad idea. It's just making up a rule that your clients are supposed to follow is NOT a good thing.

Here we disagree. Read insurance policies, power company schedules and spec books, and note that companies all over the place reserve the right to challenge the work when rules and regs are suspect.

If I were put in this situation I would have to wonder what other things this guy was making up that I would need to comply with to get a green tag.

Here you really mean 'what other policies does this inspection agency have'?

I would also look to one of the other several approved third party inspection angencies in my area.

You certainly reserve the right to choose your inspection agency from those that have been approved in your community. I personally like the extra touch of someone looking out for the installation long after their client has gone. If something goes wrong, usually attorneys like to invite not only the inspector to the accident scene, but also the installer. This is a case where a written record (stored in a safe place) of such a document could come in handy.