Re-using Old Home Runs

Status
Not open for further replies.
benaround said:
Mkgrady, The code says what it says. It says ( for what ever code cycle your using) that

if you are going to install something, these are the rules. For example: it doesn't say it's ok

to reuse nm with a full size egc, it says 15a, 20a, and 30a branch circuits shall have an

egc the same size as the circuit conductors. So. to install a code compliant 15,20, or 30a

device, that circuit must have an egc the same size as the circuit conductors, by extending

a circuit ( 15,20,30) with an egc smaller than the circuit conductors a code violation has

been made. I hope this helps what your looking for.
Click to expand...

But the extension has a full size EGC, and the old romex does meet code. If it was against the code for the existing circuit to be there it would have to be removed. Boy would that keep us busy!

I'm not saying anybody is wrong. I just don't think the code is clear one way or the other. Plus most things in the code make sense and this doesn't to me. If all circuits above 30 amps can have a smaller EGC and function properly, I assume they will also function properly at 30 amps and below.
 
mkgrady said:
But the extension has a full size EGC, and the old romex does meet code. If it was against the code for the existing circuit to be there it would have to be removed. Boy would that keep us busy!.
Click to expand...

That wire does not comply with the current code ,.. it is allowed to stay in use.

mkgrady said:
I'm not saying anybody is wrong. I just don't think the code is clear one way or the other. Plus most things in the code make sense and this doesn't to me. ......
Click to expand...

I'm not sure AFCI makes sense to me , or island receptacle outlets.
 
No, the extention does not have a full size ground, the ground starts at the panel not in

the romex cable. Other cables ,like #6 nm have been tested with the ground they have, it

was when they tested the small ground on romex that it got up sized.
 
wirebender said:
You understand that a new outlet must be supplied with a full size EGC, right?

So if the EGC starts out under sized at the panel and the only place it is full size is at the wire you added how can you say the outlet is supplied with a full size EGC?.
Click to expand...

It's not. The code doesn't say the outlet must be supplied with a full size EGC. 250.122 is for the size of EGC's for new wire. It is silent on EGC's on existing wire.

It doesn't say a new EGC can not be connected to an existing EGC that is smaller. Of course if it did I would have an answer to my question.

Because I believe the existing EGC will perform the intended function it is not illogical to me that the two can be connected together.

I'm getting ready to cave on my position but I'm hoping someone sees my logic and comes to the rescue soon.
 
mkgrady said:
I really just want to understand what the code requires when circuits are extended from these old cables.
Click to expand...

I am also from MA I agree with M. D.s interpretation of MA rule 3 and the NEC.

If you install a new receptacle outlet it must have a full size EGC back to the source. There is no exception for this.

Will an electrical inspector let it slide, ya sure they might.
 
they used to backwrap the undersized grounds and clamp over the ground wrap and then install a 2 prong receptacle device. Now, if you remove the device and unwrap the undersized ground and then install a 3 pronged receptacle - is that legal?
or would you need to install a GFI instead?

I've unwraped and terminated on the 3 prong device - right or wrong - I've done it.


- I agree that you cannot extent an undersized ground with a full sized ground and have it be a legal installation. Again - I've probably done it before though.
 
iwire said:
I am also from MA I agree with M. D.s interpretation of MA rule 3 and the NEC.

If you install a new receptacle outlet it must have a full size EGC back to the source. There is no exception for this.

Will an electrical inspector let it slide, ya sure they might.
Click to expand...

When I read Rule #3 I don't see what you mean. To me it says the opposite. Not clearly, but I do see it the opposite way.

I don't want it to slide by. If it doesn't meet code I will not do it.

I'm surprised nobody sees my point of view on this. I'm starting to think nobody will. If that happens I will give up and open up the walls to run new cable.
 
Mkgrady

In reading your posts, it sounds like you are allowing confusion to permit you to install a violation.

Whether you have confusion or not, it is a violation.
So, just put that thought into your head and realize it is not permitted and move on.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Mkgrady

In reading your posts, it sounds like you are allowing confusion to permit you to install a violation.

Whether you have confusion or not, it is a violation.
So, just put that thought into your head and realize it is not permitted and move on.
Click to expand...

I don't feel confused. I just don't see it the way you and others do. I haven't read any group of words from here or the code book that tell me I can't do what I'm asking about.

I have already said I will not do it if it is a violation. I respect the opinions of many on this board but I won't blindly accept that something is prohibited until I see the words in the code or it at least makes sense to me.

On the other hand, I am hearby giving up on this thread (I promise) unless someone jumps in and supports my position, I am going to run new home runs. Thanks to everybody for the responses.
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Or the inspector could site rule #1 of the Mass code as the installation could be considered NOT reasonably safe to persons and property because the reduced equipment grounding conductor of the existing branch circuit would not provide a sufficient low-impedance path for ground fault current of the new installation that would be connected to it.
Click to expand...
if the smaller ground wire is a concern then I would just use GFCI breakers on the circuits in question.
 
M. D. said:
No it wouldn't ,.. let's say the original wire has not been stapled with insulated staples but has a full size GC ,.. the lack of proper stapling would not preclude from using the original wire .
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the un-insulated romex staples that I've used all my life and that the supply houses sell isn't legal to use on romex? Who or where does it say that the staples have to be insulated? Silly I say!!
 
I would have to say that if you want to follow the code to the tee then I agree with the popular opinion that it would be a violation to add onto the undersized ground. I don't think it is a very big deal though to do what you were hoping to do. But you say that you want to abide by the code then you need new homeruns.
 
steelersman said:
So are you saying that the un-insulated romex staples that I've used all my life and that the supply houses sell isn't legal to use on romex? Who or where does it say that the staples have to be insulated? Silly I say!!
Click to expand...

You see here in Massachusetts ,..the NEC is not good enough,.. we have to have are own

from our 334.30

....Where staples are used for cable sizes smaller than 8 AWG conductors, they shall be of the insulated type, or listed noninsulated staples driven by staple guns shall be permitted....
Click to expand...


I assumed that 50 +- years ago they would not of had listed staples installed from staple guns
 
Mkgrady how does the installation proposed comply with 250.4(A)(5) ??

The wire intended for this is no longer considered as being able to safely carry the fault current likely to be imposed on it...

just because it once was,. does not mean it will always be acceptable to use a 14 ground for a twenty amp wiring. Your wiring must meet today's code not one of 40-50 years ago ...

That wire is not recognized as an effective ground-fault current path for your application .. I know you are having a hard time seeing this . I'm just trying a different angle ..
 
homeruns to kitchen

homeruns to kitchen

I have to admit that I have NEVER done a kitchen remodel that I did not run new homerun(s) to. I always have atleast 4 circuits to a kitchen....Fridge, micro, 2 countertop. Then add lighting, dishwasher, disposal, etc, etc. If the existing wiring is old enough to have a reduced sized ground, then I would be fairly certain you would need to add new circuit(s) anyway. HO just spent $15k-$70k on a new kitchen, I don't want a call about breakers tripping or anything else.

good luck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top