disconnect switch color marking

[GoldDigger]

It seems simple and clear to me that if you are required to indicate phase and voltage and you choose to use color to do so, then any time you swap two line conductors anywhere except where they connect to the load equipment (e.g. at the peckerhead) then you are required to tape (or retape) the downstream wires to preserve that phase identification.

I agree that as a practical matter you may have good reasons not to swap at the peckerhead and it may be anywhere from annoying to impractical to retape. But that does not change the letter of the code.

jumper: You appear state in your first response that it would actually be a violation to retape the downstream wires. I must disagree. The color for A must remain the color for A even though at some point in the circuit you have swapped A and B. That means that the downstream color must change.
If that is not what you meant, then it may be some confusion about which of the OP's questions you answered, i.e. was it "Is the electrician right?" or "Should the colors be corrected?"?

 

[infinity]

It seems simple and clear to me that if you are required to indicate phase and voltage and you choose to use color to do so, then any time you swap two line conductors anywhere except where they connect to the load equipment (e.g. at the peckerhead) then you are required to tape (or retape) the downstream wires to preserve that phase identification.

I agree that as a practical matter you may have good reasons not to swap at the peckerhead and it may be anywhere from annoying to impractical to retape. But that does not change the letter of the code.

Yes it's required but in my experience no one ever does it. If I open a starter or disconnect switch and see B-Y-O instead of B-O-Y I know why the colors are changed. Electrically it doesn't really make any difference, as my teacher once said "the wire doesn't know it's color".

 

[jumper]

jumper: You appear state in your first response that it would actually be a violation to retape the downstream wires. I must disagree. The color for A must remain the color for A even though at some point in the circuit you have swapped A and B. That means that the downstream color must change.
If that is not what you meant, then it may be some confusion about which of the OP's questions you answered, i.e. was it "Is the electrician right?" or "Should the colors be corrected?"?

Colors should be corrected.

I looked back at what I actually wrote and made another post trying to clarify that.

What I meant to say and what I wrote were two different things.

I was trying to say that if the rotation is ABC, and you swap to ACB, and then putting tape on conductors to reflect ABC is wrong. Unfortunately, it did not come out that way.:ashamed1:

I posted later a pic. If wiring is ABC and motor is 123, then any changes need to reflect that correctly.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Nothing in 210.5 says you can't. We are talking about a 3ph AC motor here.

It is still a branch circuit and if there is more than one voltage system in the building, the conductors must be identified by phase and voltage all the way to the motor. Under the 2017 code, in buildings with more than one voltage system, the motor rotation must be changed at the motor junction box. Note that this is a new issue with the 2017 code. In the 2014 code, Article 210 did not apply to motor circuits. The scope of 210 was changed in the 2017 and now that Article applies to motor circuits.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

From 2014 NEC 210.5(C)(1):

To me that says if there is more then one nominal voltage system, you must identify each branch circuit conductor to designate which phase and system it goes with. ...

In the 2014, 210.5 does not apply to motor circuit conductors, in fact nothing in Article 210 applies to motor circuit conductors. This changes with the 2017 code.
From the 2014 code:

210.1 Scope. This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads, which are covered in Article 430. Provisions of this article and Article 430 apply to branch circuits with combination loads.

From the 2017 code:

210.1 Scope. This article provides the general requirements for branch circuits.

210.3 Other Articles for Specific-Purpose Branch Circuits. Table 210.3 lists references for specific equipment and applications not located in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 that amend or supplement the requirements of this article.

While 210.3 in the 2017 permits Article 430 to modify Article 210, there is nothing in 430 that modifies 210.5.

 

[kwired]

In the 2014, 210.5 does not apply to motor circuit conductors, in fact nothing in Article 210 applies to motor circuit conductors. This changes with the 2017 code.
From the 2014 code:

From the 2017 code:

While 210.3 in the 2017 permits Article 430 to modify Article 210, there is nothing in 430 that modifies 210.5.

I knew it didn't really matter but forgot why, thanks I did know that at one time, though now that 2017 is in effect I guess I can forget it again.:blink:

 

[jumper]

It is still a branch circuit and if there is more than one voltage system in the building, the conductors must be identified by phase and voltage all the way to the motor. Under the 2017 code, in buildings with more than one voltage system, the motor rotation must be changed at the motor junction box. Note that this is a new issue with the 2017 code. In the 2014 code, Article 210 did not apply to motor circuits. The scope of 210 was changed in the 2017 and now that Article applies to motor circuits.

Weird.

I actually always thought it was not legit but overlooked/ ignored all these years.

I was wrong.

Now, 2017 strangely enough makes me correct.:blink:

I hate the NEC......

 

[infinity]

Weird.

I actually always thought it was not legit but overlooked/ ignored all these years.

I was wrong.

Now, 2017 strangely enough makes me correct.:blink:

I hate the NEC......

With the 2017 do you think that this was intentional?

 

[jumper]

With the 2017 do you think that this was intentional?

I have no idea, gimme a few. I will go check the PI.

 

[jumper]

With the 2017 do you think that this was intentional?

Terror View!!!:rant:

Okay, I got this panel statement:

The text of 210.1 was revised to recognize the expansion of branch circuit requirements outside of Article 210 by deleting the reference to motors and motor loads. Specific purpose branch circuit requirements in other articles are identified in Table 210.2.

 

[kwired]

With the 2017 do you think that this was intentional?

Intentionally done to confuse Jumper??

 

[jumper]

Intentionally done to confuse Jumper??

Pretty much a perpetual state of mind for me......

 

[Groelect]

I agree with Jamesco for confidence there often a lot more work to do it at the peckerhead


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jamesco]

It is still a branch circuit and if there is more than one voltage system in the building, the conductors must be identified by phase and voltage all the way to the motor. Under the 2017 code, in buildings with more than one voltage system, the motor rotation must be changed at the motor junction box. Note that this is a new issue with the 2017 code. In the 2014 code, Article 210 did not apply to motor circuits. The scope of 210 was changed in the 2017 and now that Article applies to motor circuits.

Hopefully AHJs across the country will see how ridiculous the 2017 change is and will amend the new language. Anyone that opens a motor disconnect switch can plainly see the tape markings on the load side of the ungrounded conductors. The important thing is the colors on one end of the ungrounded conductors, at the disconnect switch, match the other end of the conductors at the pecker head of the motor. Its not like the 3 ungrounded conductors leave the motor pecker head and continue on to feed something else.

As for changing motor rotation at the motor that could be/would be labor intensive. Just change the tape markings on both ends of the 2 conductors reversed at the disconnect. Even then it adds labor cost to the job.

>>

NEC code changes:

I was surprised how many times the wording of the definition of a Separately Derived System, (Art 100), has been changed since at least the NEC 2002 code edition.

2005 NEC (All new wording)
Separately Derived Power System. A premise wiring system whose power is derived from a source of electric energy or equipment other than a service. Such systems have no direct electrical connection, including a solidly connected grounded circuit conductor, to supply conductors originating in another system.

No change for 2008.


2011 NEC
Separately Derived Power System. A premise wiring system whose power is derived from a source of electric energy or equipment other than a service. Such systems have no direct connection from circuit conductors of one system to the circuit conductors of another system, other than connections through the earth, metal enclosures, metallic raceways, or equipment grounding conductors.



2014 NEC (All new wording)
Separately Derived System. An electrical source, other than a service, having no direct connection(s) to circuit conductors of any other electrical source other than those established by grounding and bonding connections.

I don't know if it was changed in 2017.

---

 

[kwired]

Hopefully AHJs across the country will see how ridiculous the 2017 change is and will amend the new language. Anyone that opens a motor disconnect switch can plainly see the tape markings on the load side of the ungrounded conductors. The important thing is the colors on one end of the ungrounded conductors, at the disconnect switch, match the other end of the conductors at the pecker head of the motor. Its not like the 3 ungrounded conductors leave the motor pecker head and continue on to feed something else.

As for changing motor rotation at the motor that could be/would be labor intensive. Just change the tape markings on both ends of the 2 conductors reversed at the disconnect. Even then it adds labor cost to the job.

My thoughts, I have never cared about which lead is "A, B, C" at the motor, only what rotation is at three phase motors.

The motor don't care if A is connected to T1 or not. It only cares what the relationship is rotation wise among all three leads.

Kind of applies to any three phase three wire load - if no neutral is present, you typically really don't care which lead is A, B or C.

Single phase motor (line to line) on a three phase source - if I only have two of the "phase" leads at the motor, so what, phase balancing doesn't come into play at the motor, we consider these sort of things back at panelboards, switchboards, MCC's etc.

Multiwire circuits (including services and feeders) is where you may care a little more about which line is which at times.

 

[Jamesco]

My thoughts, I have never cared about which lead is "A, B, C" at the motor, only what rotation is at three phase motors.

The motor don't care if A is connected to T1 or not. It only cares what the relationship is rotation wise among all three leads.

Kind of applies to any three phase three wire load - if no neutral is present, you typically really don't care which lead is A, B or C.

Single phase motor (line to line) on a three phase source - if I only have two of the "phase" leads at the motor, so what, phase balancing doesn't come into play at the motor, we consider these sort of things back at panelboards, switchboards, MCC's etc.

Multiwire circuits (including services and feeders) is where you may care a little more about which line is which at times.

Who in their right mind would open up a pecker head on a motor without pulling the disconnect? And if the disconnect is not insight, wouldn't tag and lockout the switch open.

Sometimes I think some of the people that write the NEC have too much idle time on their hands.

 

[kwired]

Who in their right mind would open up a pecker head on a motor without pulling the disconnect? And if the disconnect is not insight, wouldn't tag and lockout the switch open.

Sometimes I think some of the people that write the NEC have too much idle time on their hands.

Sometimes they don't have a grasp on reality either. Lots of code requirements been added in last 25 years that are sometimes good design criteria, but shouldn't be code requirements as that design criteria isn't always as critical to every installation.

Even simple two wire 120 volt motor circuit - the motor don't care if the grounded conductor is white or not and typically doesn't need specific "polarity" like a screw shell lamp socket does, but code thinks this conductor must be white (or gray) anyway.

Any idiot that doesn't know better can still get a good shock from an open circuited neutral conductor, just because it is supposed to be the grounded conductor doesn't mean it is always safe to touch. So as you said turn off and lock off the supply before opening it up in the first place, or better yet let someone that knows what they are doing work on it.

 

[George Stolz]

Any idiot that doesn't know better can still get a good shock from an open circuited neutral conductor, just because it is supposed to be the grounded conductor doesn't mean it is always safe to touch.

I have always taught that the explicit instructions to always mark a grounded conductor in it's certain ways versus the more lax marking requirements of ungrounded conductors likely originated to warn of the heightened latent danger of the grounded wire; but mostly to gain a reputation as a nonconformist.

 

[ActionDave]

but mostly to gain a reputation as a nonconformist.

Well for sure you are a nonconformist. The way the all the handyman world sees it is, "That one's black, it's bad, that one's red, it's bad, that one's white, it won't shock me." What's even worse is fully half of the electrical world sees it the same way.

 

[jumper]

Well for sure you are a nonconformist. The way the all the handyman world sees it is, "That one's black, it's bad, that one's red, it's bad, that one's white, it won't shock me." What's even worse is fully half of the electrical world sees it the same way.

Rumor has it that the white one is good because it is connected to a ground rod.

Must be true, I saw it on the internet.