2011 Code Change Article 404 (C)

[Strathead]

Just learned about this one. I see some major pitfalls here. Please review the wording of this section. If someone else here has an electronic copy please paste it so that others don;t have to go to the text.

Basically a single pole switch location would be pretty straight up. What about locations with 3 way and/or 4 way switches. Residential would be especially difficult. It is obvious to me that from now on, in commercial you might as well stub up conduit at all switches to avoid complications. But Say you have a set of 3 way switches. Location one. Do you run a 2 wire carrying hot and neutral, and a 2 wire carrying the two travelers. If so, then go to the second location. Would you need to intercept the travelers at the same location that the switch leg terminates so that you could reconfigure later on? This switch outlet my not even be capable of being energized with a hot leg, so why bring a neutral down to it? The section does state "the grounded conductor for the controlled lighting circuit shall be provided at the switch location." So do you bring down a 2 wire for travelers and 2 wire for switch leg and neutral, or do you suppose they only mean for you to bring a neutral to the first box? This, of course would not make sense to me, because, the purpose of facilitating occupancy sensors (OCC) could quite possibly require OCC's in both switch box locations. I won;t evn get in to the problem with 4 way switches, or if you have multiple circuits, 3 way switches and ganged switches in one box. WHAT A MESS!

 

[raider1]

Here is the text of 404.2(C)

(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Where switches
control lighting loads supplied by a grounded general purpose
branch circuit, the grounded circuit conductor for the controlled
lighting circuit shall be provided at the switch location.
Exception: The grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted
to be omitted from the switch enclosure where either
of the following conditions in (1) or (2) apply:
(1) Conductors for switches controlling lighting loads enter
the box through a raceway. The raceway shall have
suffıcient cross-sectional area to accommodate the extension
of the grounded circuit conductor of the lighting
circuit to the switch location whether or not the
conductors in the raceway are required to be increased
in size to comply with 310.15(B)(3)(a).
(2) Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting
loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is
open at the top or bottom on the same floor level, or
through a wall, floor, or ceiling that is unfinished on
one side.

Chris

 

[iceworm]

This is not my area of expertise so please don't laugh too hard at the dumb questions. I do mostly heavy industrial. But the issue has come up. My take on the code section is the NEC wants a neutral at all switch locations.

... I see some major pitfalls here. ... It is obvious to me that from now on, in commercial you might as well stub up conduit at all switches to avoid complications. ...

For commercial why wouldn't you just go ahead and run the neutral to all switch location? Is it a case of the extra dollars losing the bid? If so, what do the specs say? Or do the specs typically not address the issue? If the specs don't typically address the issue why not send and RFI? That way all are biding to the same spec.

... What about locations with 3 way and/or 4 way switches. Residential would be especially difficult. ...

The only residential I do is my own DIY - so I am definitely not the wizard here. I bought a roll of 4 conductor as well as the usual roll of 3 conductor. The thought did not occur to me to not run the neutral to all switch locations. Again, is this an issue of losing the bid over the cost of the extra wire cause the other contractors will not bother to follow the code? If so what is the AHJ saying about that?

I'm not seeing the pitfalls here.

ice

 

[Strathead]

This is not my area of expertise so please don't laugh too hard at the dumb questions. I do mostly heavy industrial. But the issue has come up. My take on the code section is the NEC wants a neutral at all switch locations.


For commercial why wouldn't you just go ahead and run the neutral to all switch location? Is it a case of the extra dollars losing the bid? If so, what do the specs say? Or do the specs typically not address the issue? If the specs don't typically address the issue why not send and RFI? That way all are biding to the same spec.


The only residential I do is my own DIY - so I am definitely not the wizard here. I bought a roll of 4 conductor as well as the usual roll of 3 conductor. The thought did not occur to me to not run the neutral to all switch locations. Again, is this an issue of losing the bid over the cost of the extra wire cause the other contractors will not bother to follow the code? If so what is the AHJ saying about that?

I'm not seeing the pitfalls here.

ice

First, if you run conduit, where the conductor can be pulled later, you don't need to install the neutral, that is why I made that statement. I find that it is usually less costly to simplify instructions than to do the cheapest things.

Regarding residential. I was not aware that they made 4 wire type NM cable, unless you are mistakenly counting the grounding wire. As such a hot - neutral - traveler 1 - traveler 2 - bare ground can not be provided with Romex.

 

[Jljohnson]

The residential solution for 3-ways and 4-ways is fairly simple, just forces a particular wiring method to be used...
1) Hot and N to the 1st 3-way box
2) 3-wire NM to the 2nd 3-way box, stopping at all 4-way boxes along the way. Send travelers on red and balck, N on white
3) Switch leg to load MUST come from 2nd 3-way box

In reality what this code change does is eliminate the abilty to do a "dead end" 3-way, unless you use the 4-conductor NM cable ( and yes, they do make it)

 

[K8MHZ]

Regarding residential. I was not aware that they made 4 wire type NM cable, unless you are mistakenly counting the grounding wire. As such a hot - neutral - traveler 1 - traveler 2 - bare ground can not be provided with Romex.

You can now get NM with 2 hots, 2 neutrals and one ground.

 

[iceworm]

First, if you run conduit, where the conductor can be pulled later, you don't need to install the neutral, that is why I made that statement. I find that it is usually less costly to simplify instructions than to do the cheapest things....

So , you do run the neutral? Or you don't and put in the conduit? I can't tell which you are advocating.

...I was not aware that they made 4 wire type NM cable, unless you are mistakenly counting the grounding wire....

Ahhhh - How to answer? Well, when i counted the ground wire, I uhhh, counted it as a ...
....
....
.....
....
ground wire

iceworm

 

[paul]

It's a waste of copper.

 

[jwelectric]

What about locations with 3 way and/or 4 way switches.

404.2 Switch Connections. (A) Three-Way and Four-Way Switches. Three-way and four-way switches shall be wired so that all switching is done only in the ungrounded circuit conductor. Where in metal raceways or metal-armored cables, wiring between switches and outlets shall be in accordance with 300.20(A).

Exception: Switch loops shall not require a grounded conductor.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Mike,
Since that exception has been in the code for many cycles prior to the 2011 rule in 404.2(C), is it really intended to over ride the new rule?

CMP9 says that exception has nothing to do with the new rule. The following is from the panel statement for proposal 9-76 for the 2014 code that was issued to the panel members for balloting.

The submitter does not understand the function of 404.2(A) Exception. It does not conflict with and it
actually has nothing whatsoever to do with 404.2(C). This exception is an exception to the second sentence of 404.2(A),
requiring compliance with 300.20(A). This Article 300 provision generally requires the grounded conductor to run with
associated ungrounded circuit conductors so as to avoid inductive heating. In the case of switch loops the current going
to and from the switch location is necessarily equal, and therefore running the neutral to the switch has no bearing on
whether the worthwhile objectives of 300.20(A) are met. ...

The proposal was to delete the exception to 404.2(A) because it conflicts with the rule in 404.2(C) and was rejected.

 

[paul]

It looks as though the code is turning into a design manual, all because a few electricians were upset that there was no grounded conductor in the switch box to make their life easier. :happysad:

 

[mike7330]

It looks as though the code is turning into a design manual, all because a few electricians were upset that there was no grounded conductor in the switch box to make their life easier. :happysad:

"all because a few electricians" You mean "all because a few handymen like to use the ground as the grounding conductor we need this change"

I alway like to tell handymen IF IT LIGHTS, ITS GOT TO BE RIGHT

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It looks as though the code is turning into a design manual, all because a few electricians were upset that there was no grounded conductor in the switch box to make their life easier. :happysad:

"all because a few electricians" You mean "all because a few handymen like to use the ground as the grounding conductor we need this change"

I alway like to tell handymen IF IT LIGHTS, ITS GOT TO BE RIGHT

This requirement had nothing to do with electricians or handymen. The only reason for the rule is the fact that UL was pemitting the manufacuter's of electronic switching devices to use the EGC as a grounded conductor. They permitted up to 0.05mA per device of grounded conductor current to run on the EGC. This created a safety hazard for someone working on the EGC as when you open it, it is just like an open neutral and you can get shocked.
UL told the NFPA that they would not change the listing standard to prohibit grounded conductor current on the EGC unless the NEC required a grounded conductor at the swtich box.

 

[Strathead]

So , you do run the neutral? Or you don't and put in the conduit? I can't tell which you are advocating.

Since the 2011 code has not been implemented in this area yet and, as I indicated in the OP, I just discov ered this code change, I have not yet, had to direct work of this sort on a project. I will need to assess the situation fully, but I think that I will likely tell my electricians to stub a conduit out for switch locations and alleviate the concern. I noticed a discussion in the thread about 3 way switch location exception, but there seems to be a question of interpretation. I would be more concerned with these locations than a single switch spot. Over the years I have certainly seen enough confusion with multi way switching to justify any concern with making it even more complicated.

Ahhhh - How to answer? Well, when i counted the ground wire, I uhhh, counted it as a ...
ground wire

iceworm

You comment leads me to believe you were offended! I am sorry, but I have seen enough posts here about things I consider routine, that someone msitakenly calling a black white bare romex (NM) a three wire does not seem that impossible. Especially when it is counted in an SO cord just to help create confusion. Add to that, my expertise (or at least experieince) is in Commercial and institutional electrical construction, so I don't have intimate familiarity with NM cable. A great electrician with an industrial maintenance background may very well make this minor error. Again, sorry if I offended.

 

[cosmo]

I was just wondering if I could use a no-neutral motion sensor in an existing switch location? Do I have to go back and run a neutral to satisfy the 2011 Code?

 

[jtinge]

Motion sensors without a dedicated grounded (neutral) wire connection utilize the EGC as the neutral return path. While I don't see an explicit prohibition in the NEC that prohibits the installation of these motion sensors at switch locations without a neutral wire connection, it is clear to me that the intent of the 2011 code change is that a neutral wire be provided to switch locations where a motion sensor is planned to be installed, whether it's an existing switch location or not. I am in total agreement with other forum comments that state that the EGC should not be used as the neutral connection for motion sensors due to the safety implications. I am sympathetic, however, to the argument that existing switch locations may not have been sized to accommodate the addition of a neutral wire (low probability with conduit fed switch legs, in my opinion) or that the cost of labor to add the neutral wire to the switch location will negate the payback for installing the motion sensors. For a project that may retrofitting a large number of switches to motion sensors in a large bldg, the additional labor cost can be large; however, the addition of a large number of motion sensors will add a significantly amount of neutral current to the EGC's, which in my opinion is a safety issue that trumps the installation cost issue for adding the additional neutral wire. I don't believe the EGC should be used as neutral conductor for existing switch locations that can accommodate the addition of the neutral wire in the existing conduit.