Gretings I am sure we have discussed this before... I am of the opinion that 2 wire NM travelers for 3way & 4 way switching are not allowed by the NEC. I am hanging my hat on 300.3B. However, could 300.3B3 allow the use of 2 wire NM cable for 3 way systems? If so, was this a change from previous codes? I have a contractor that did all 3 & 4 ways with 14-2 NM travelers. I red tagged citing 300.3B. I expect him to contest this, and he probably will argue that 300.3B3 allows this method. I do not believe that it does allow this, just looking for opinions/ reinforcement. I do not want to have him change this if somehow it meets minimum code. Thanks Rick
300.3B states all conductors to be in the same cable, unless otherwise permitted by 300.3B 1-4. 90.5B (permissive rules) need the use of the twerms "shall be permitted", & "shall nmot be required". I do not see where this is specifically permitted. Rick
#87240 - 02/06/0412:18 PMRe: 2 wire travelers, again
Rick, 300.3(B)(3) is the specific permission. With nonmetallic raceways or cables all of the circuit conductors are not required to be in the same raceway or cable as long as 300.20 is complied with for metallic boxes. There are no metallic boxes in this installation so there is no violation. Don
#87241 - 02/06/0401:49 PMRe: 2 wire travelers, again
Assuming all cables for the run are in very close proximity to one another between plastic boxes, IMO there are no concerns about eddy currents or EMF. The intent of requiring all conductors to be together is to eliminate the EMF, this is met by running both cables side-by-side between boxes. What difference is there in this from running four conductors and a ground in PVC?
#87243 - 02/08/0409:41 AMRe: 2 wire travelers, again