240.3 (D)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mark w smith

Member
Location
Kansas
I work as an Inspector in the Mid-west. I carry Master (Block) Electrical License and worked in the trade since the late 80?s. As I was taught and interpret, 240.3 (D), would not allow the use of a 14g conductor as a switch leg (general lighting- residential) on a 12g, 20 amp circuit. It would be permitted if the 12g conductor was protected by a 15 amp breaker.
Several Electrical Contractors are using 240.3 (E) which in turns refers you to 210.19 (C) & (D), which is a type ?O? in the 2002 edition, the actual section would be 210.19 (A) (4), ?Other Loads?. That section?s vagueness would indicate their practice to be acceptable.
I would appreciate any comments on this.
Thank you
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

Vague or not this practice is not supported by the NEC. It is a violation to use #14 as a switch leg on a 20 amp CB. 210.19(A)(4) refers to "other loads", a switch is not a load.
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

Is this a mulioutlet branch circuit?
If yes , this is a clear violation 210.19.

If not 410.67 would allow up to a 6 foot tap from a fixture to an outlet box ,provided the conductors are in a suitable raceway or type AC or MC cable.
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

Thank you for your response(s). It will be interesting to see how many others will put their two cents in. I will be off work tomorrow because of the holiday, but I try to check this tomorrow afternoon.


Marc this is a residential lighting load being fed off a 20 amp circuit for general purpose receptacles.

Thanks again
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

210.19(A)(4), exception N0 1 has length resistrictions, including 410.67.
Basically as I read this, it is for fixtures that are installed separately of the outlet box that supplies them, with a restriction of 18" - 72".
The actual switchleg will be required to be the ckt rating size.
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

probably few folks on this forum are older than me, and dirt, but does anyone recall this ever being allowed. its a practice that sure has a hard time dying in these parts.
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

At this time I would say all of us agree. I would like to see more comments, so if anyone who reads this would post their views.....

I'll check this through the evening then I won't be available until tomorrow evening.

Thanks for taking the time to post your interpretations.

[ November 10, 2005, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: mark w smith ]
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

Why would they even want to do this ? What could they save ? The risk is just not worth it.Some day additional loads might get added .Or that switch might get wire nutted to keep it hot to feed some other addition.NO NO NO.Either breaker at 15 or run #12
 
Re: 240.3 (D)

Sometimes things get taken out of text, soon it becomes common practice. The code is what it is and we live and die by the way we interpret it.

and to answer your question I think the bottom dollar always play into it. especially when 12/2g's at (appr) $250 per 1000'!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top