On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:25:30 -0500, RBM wrote:

On 1/15/2012 2:20 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message
...

But that's my point. "Hopefully" seems like a risky thing to base the
wiring on. It was obvious that prior work was not compliant, so why
would the electrician simply assume that the correct wire sizes were
.used?

I'd be concerned with the possibilty that, let's say, 12g was used at
the panel but is connected to 14g in a nearby junction box or
something like that.

If it was a neat installation I'd have more confidence, but this panel
was such a mess, with obvious violations, that I'd have to suspect
violations outside the box.

I guess my main concern was the broadcasting of the practice as if the
wire size is all you ever have to be concerned with. It just struck me
as a dangerous assumption, especially in the sloppy conditions in
which the assumption was made.

It all boiles down to how much time and money is to be spent. The breaker
box can be changed in a few hours. To check out the whole house may take a
day or two. The job description was to change the box, not check out all
the wiring in the house.

It would be up to the home owner to determin if all the wiring should be
checked out at a much larger cost, after finding a code violation or two
with the instalation.



That's it in a nutshell. The service is one job. If, while doing the
service the electrician has reason to suspect rube wiring in other areas
of the house, he'll bring his suspicions to the home owner, with
suggestions for how to proceed.
And simply not connect the "rube" circuit if he deams it dangerous.