It is a common practice in the area im in mostly rural to use 14 wire for the switchlegs off of a 20 amp # 12 circuit. I believe section 240-4d and 210-19c prohibit this yet all the electricians in this area say I am misinterping this. please let me know of your take on this subject.To everyone who has replied on any questions thanks every answer is a help to look at how different people percieve each question.
Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
- Thread starter pak
- Start date
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
Your question would imply that the rural areas have an AHJ that has adopted the 2002 NEC.
It is my interpretation for residential that #12 (or even larger) can be used on a 15-amp circuit, but #14 cannot be used on a 20-amp circuit. This may not include fixture connectors or whips-- as they are usually a smaller AWG and UL listed for that.
Also, I'm wondering if any of these rural applications involve any "farm" exemptions.
Your question would imply that the rural areas have an AHJ that has adopted the 2002 NEC.
It is my interpretation for residential that #12 (or even larger) can be used on a 15-amp circuit, but #14 cannot be used on a 20-amp circuit. This may not include fixture connectors or whips-- as they are usually a smaller AWG and UL listed for that.
Also, I'm wondering if any of these rural applications involve any "farm" exemptions.
hbiss
EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
- Location
- Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
- Occupation
- EC
Re: Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
240.4(D) says that overcurrent protection shall not exceed 15 amperes for 14 AWG. Unless the 12 AWG wire is over current protected for 15 amps I don't see what the question is. Not a matter of interpretation, I don't see how it could be any clearer.
240.4(D) says that overcurrent protection shall not exceed 15 amperes for 14 AWG. Unless the 12 AWG wire is over current protected for 15 amps I don't see what the question is. Not a matter of interpretation, I don't see how it could be any clearer.
Re: Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
There's an exception for lamp wiring, not to exceed Xinches IIRC, going to go find it now. Just like you guys to make me put my shoes back on and go get my book outta the truck at this hour =P.
Anyway, exceptions for fixture leads are just a footnote, it is definately a violation to run the switch-legs in anything smaller than #12.
There's an exception for lamp wiring, not to exceed Xinches IIRC, going to go find it now. Just like you guys to make me put my shoes back on and go get my book outta the truck at this hour =P.
Anyway, exceptions for fixture leads are just a footnote, it is definately a violation to run the switch-legs in anything smaller than #12.
Re: Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
Ok what's going on here is people being deliberately obtuse and trying to interpret a switch-leg as a "fixture wire", which it is patently not. 240.5(2) allows fixture wire on a 20A circuit as small as #18, and as long as 50 feet.
They may also wish to call this a tap, which may be as small as #14 (table 210.24) but is limited in length by 210.19(4) and 410.67. The switch leg length surely exceeds those limits, and is by definition a branch circuit conductor and not a tap.
That's a bit messy but it's late, IMO the whole thing is just bad business, unless you're feeding a motor load, there's no earthly reason to run conductors that do not meet or exceed the ampacity of the OCPD.
Ok what's going on here is people being deliberately obtuse and trying to interpret a switch-leg as a "fixture wire", which it is patently not. 240.5(2) allows fixture wire on a 20A circuit as small as #18, and as long as 50 feet.
They may also wish to call this a tap, which may be as small as #14 (table 210.24) but is limited in length by 210.19(4) and 410.67. The switch leg length surely exceeds those limits, and is by definition a branch circuit conductor and not a tap.
That's a bit messy but it's late, IMO the whole thing is just bad business, unless you're feeding a motor load, there's no earthly reason to run conductors that do not meet or exceed the ampacity of the OCPD.
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
Fixture wire types are listed in table 402.3. The type of conductors listed in 402.3 are not the type that are used in the wiring methods found in Chapter 3.
Chapter 3 wiring methods are the required method of wiring switch legs to luminaires (fixtures)from the switching device. These wiring methods have overcurrent protection requirements that are found in 240.3(D)Small Conductors. Which states that 14 AWG Copper or 12AWG Aluminum are REQUIRED to be protected with no more than a 15 ampere rated protective device. There are some other parts of the code that permit different protection ratings, but not for switch legs.
240.21(B) Feeder Taps.
As the bold print spells out, these are feeder taps, not for branch circuit wiring methods.
Don't forget to look at 210.19, especially 210.19(D) and the exception.
Pierre
Fixture wire types are listed in table 402.3. The type of conductors listed in 402.3 are not the type that are used in the wiring methods found in Chapter 3.
Chapter 3 wiring methods are the required method of wiring switch legs to luminaires (fixtures)from the switching device. These wiring methods have overcurrent protection requirements that are found in 240.3(D)Small Conductors. Which states that 14 AWG Copper or 12AWG Aluminum are REQUIRED to be protected with no more than a 15 ampere rated protective device. There are some other parts of the code that permit different protection ratings, but not for switch legs.
240.21(B) Feeder Taps.
As the bold print spells out, these are feeder taps, not for branch circuit wiring methods.
Don't forget to look at 210.19, especially 210.19(D) and the exception.
Pierre
Re: Use of #14 romex for swithlegs on #12 twenty amp circui
Correct Pierre, I was just trying to demonstrate, albeit hurriedly, that not only is the wiring in question not a ficture wire or a tap, but that it would be in violation even if it was. Just going at it from both ends.
Correct Pierre, I was just trying to demonstrate, albeit hurriedly, that not only is the wiring in question not a ficture wire or a tap, but that it would be in violation even if it was. Just going at it from both ends.
- Status