Another 2011 code change-Neutrals

[Pierre C Belarge]

"Section 200.8 Neutral Conductors
Proposal 5-49 Log No. 3644
(New) Neutral conductors shall not be permitted to be used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or for more than one set of un-grounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code.
This new rule generally prohibits neutrals from being used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or one set of feeder conduc-tors. No rules actually and specifically prohibited the use of common neutral conductors in other cases."

Remember, this has not become code yet, but may be close to being so.

 

[ibew441dc]

"Section 200.8 Neutral Conductors
Proposal 5-49 Log No. 3644
(New) Neutral conductors shall not be permitted to be used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or for more than one set of un-grounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code.
This new rule generally prohibits neutrals from being used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or one set of feeder conduc-tors. No rules actually and specifically prohibited the use of common neutral conductors in other cases."

Remember, this has not become code yet, but may be close to being so.

It sounds good?

 

[chris kennedy]

No rules actually and specifically prohibited the use of common neutral conductors in other cases."

Not needed IMO, Tbl. 310.16 and 240.4(D) already prohibit this and 215.4 permits this.

 

[iwire]

Not needed IMO, Tbl. 310.16 and 240.4(D) already prohibit this and 215.4 permits this.

I disagree that either 310.16 or 240.4(D) prohibit running for example a single 10 AWG as the grounded conductor for two 15 amp circuits on the same phase.

 

[chris kennedy]

I disagree that either 310.16 or 240.4(D) prohibit running for example a single 10 AWG as the grounded conductor for two 15 amp circuits on the same phase.

Ah yes, this has been discussed before, good point. Thinking outside of the box.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That is one of my proposals as a part of my effort to get rid of code rules that try to use the term "shall be permitted" to prohibit other methods.

3. Proposal (include proposed new wording, or identification of wording to be deleted):
200.x Common Neutral Conductors. Common neutral conductors shall not be used unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this code.

4. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Proposal:
It appears that CMP 2 is attempting to prohibit the use of common neutral conductors by specifically permitting them in 215.4(A) and 225.7(B). There is no reasonable reading of the words ?shall be permitted? that can lead the code user to the conclusion that these words actually prohibit the use of common neutral conductors in other cases. The act of specifically permitting something in no way prohibits something else. Section 3.1.2 in the NEC Style Manual says that the words ?shall be permitted? are to be used to permit an alternate installation method. The words ?shall not? are required to be used to prohibit an installation method per 3.1.1 of the Style Manual. This change will make the wording in 215.4 and 225.7 comply with the style manual rules. Also the prohibition of the use of common neutrals should rest with CMP 5 as they have control of Article 200, Use and Identification of Grounded Conductors and not with CMPs 2 and 4.

 

[TOOL_5150]

"Section 200.8 Neutral Conductors
Proposal 5-49 Log No. 3644
(New) Neutral conductors shall not be permitted to be used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or for more than one set of un-grounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code.
This new rule generally prohibits neutrals from being used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or one set of feeder conduc-tors. No rules actually and specifically prohibited the use of common neutral conductors in other cases."

Remember, this has not become code yet, but may be close to being so.

So that would prohibit running 3 #14s and 1 #6 noodle?

Not that I have done that, but whats the point of not allowing it? I belive in 2008, if you were to do that, those 3 circuits would need a handle tie, correct?

~Matt

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Matt
I believe what it is saying is that more than 1-set, such as 6 ungrounded conductors sharing 1 grounded conductor, would not be permitted.

 

[480sparky]

Matt
I believe what it is saying is that more than 1-set, such as 6 ungrounded conductors sharing 1 grounded conductor, would not be permitted.

I guess I've never even heard of anyone doing that. Never even considered it a possibility.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I disagree that either 310.16 or 240.4(D) prohibit running for example a single 10 AWG as the grounded conductor for two 15 amp circuits on the same phase.

What would be the use of that. I don't think I ever would use that type of install.

 

[infinity]

"Section 200.8 Neutral Conductors
Proposal 5-49 Log No. 3644
(New) Neutral conductors shall not be permitted to be used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or for more than one set of un-grounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code.
This new rule generally prohibits neutrals from being used for more than one multiwire branch circuit or one set of feeder conduc-tors. No rules actually and specifically prohibited the use of common neutral conductors in other cases."

Remember, this has not become code yet, but may be close to being so.

The way this is worded it still wouldn't prohibit two or more circuits on the same phase from sharing a neutral since they wouldn't be MWBC's by definition.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The way this is worded it still wouldn't prohibit two or more circuits on the same phase from sharing a neutral since they wouldn't be MWBC's by definition.

Proposal 5-49 is my proposal (see post 6), and it said nothing about multiwire circuits. I don't think the NFPA "Regulations Governing Committee Projects" would permit the CMP to make that much of a change. I don't see that action as being any one of the actions that the CMP can take.

4.3.5.1 Technical Committee Action on Proposals. The TC shall
act on all current Proposals and on appropriate matters not processed
in a previous Report, such as Comments held and Tentative
Interim Amendments. The TC shall act on each Proposal by:
(a) Accepting the Proposal
(b) Rejecting the Proposal
(c) Accepting the Proposal in principle but with changes in
the proposed wording
(d) Accepting the Proposal in part
(e) Accepting the Proposal in principle in part but with
changes in the proposed wording of the part

In conjunction with proposal 5-49 I intended to submit a proposal with a definition of "common neutral" as the term is currently used in 2 articles, however I must have neglected to send it in with my other proposals as I don't see it in the on line "raw" proposals.

Common Neutral. A neutral conductor used in a circuit with two or more ungrounded conductors having no potential between them.

 

[JohnJ0906]

I guess I've never even heard of anyone doing that. Never even considered it a possibility.

It's permitted in 225.7. I guess it can be used for exterior lighting. I've never seen it done though.

 

[infinity]

Proposal 5-49 is my proposal (see post 6), and it said nothing about multiwire circuits. I don't think the NFPA "Regulations Governing Committee Projects" would permit the CMP to make that much of a change. I don't see that action as being any one of the actions that the CMP can take.
In conjunction with proposal 5-49 I intended to submit a proposal with a definition of "common neutral" as the term is currently used in 2 articles, however I must have neglected to send it in with my other proposals as I don't see it in the on line "raw" proposals.

Don, I'm confused. I was commenting on the quote that Pierre had in the OP. Is that your proposal?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, I'm confused. I was commenting on the quote that Pierre had in the OP. Is that your proposal?

According to the proposals published on the NFPA site, 5-49 (log 3644) is mine and I have posted the text of what I sent to the NFPA in post #6. Pierre is quoting from the results of that proposal as published in the May 09 Electrical Contractor Magazine. The results as shown their do not match my intent. My intent was to clear up the issue of a common grounded conductor being used with more than one ungrounded conductor of the same phase.