- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
I believe 310.12(C) has been revised in the 2005 NEC, but the revision would not affect this proposal.
[ November 17, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
- Thread starter rbalex
- Start date
- Status
[ November 17, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
250.119 has been revised in the 2005. It places limitations on the color green to grounding and bonding conductors only. It does not require a green GEC, which it shouldn't, but it does require breen or bare for an EGC, which it does. In my opinion, this has eliminated the need for the above proposal, unless I am missing something.
250.119 has been revised in the 2005. It places limitations on the color green to grounding and bonding conductors only. It does not require a green GEC, which it shouldn't, but it does require breen or bare for an EGC, which it does. In my opinion, this has eliminated the need for the above proposal, unless I am missing something.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Great. In that case, I think I might propose getting rid of 310.12 altogether. It's now redundant and still retains the possiblity of future conflict if "identification" is in the body of the conductor application Articles.
[ November 17, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
Great. In that case, I think I might propose getting rid of 310.12 altogether.
It's now redundant and still retains the possiblity of future conflict if "identification" is in the body of the conductor application Articles.[ November 17, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
I like that idea that Bob.
I like that idea that Bob.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
From the 2005 NEC:
310.12 Conductor Identification.
(A) Grounded Conductors. Insulated or covered grounded conductors shall be identified in accordance with 200.6.
(B) Equipment Grounding Conductors. Equipment grounding conductors shall be in accordance with 250.119.
(C) Ungrounded Conductors. Conductors that are intended for use as ungrounded conductors, whether used as a single conductor or in multiconductor cables, shall be finished to be clearly distinguishable from grounded and grounding conductors. Distinguishing markings shall not conflict in any manner with the surface markings required by 310.11(B)(1). Branch-circuit ungrounded conductors shall be identified in accordance with 210.5(C). Feeders shall be identified in accordance with 215.12.
Exception: Conductor identification shall be permitted in accordance with 200.7.
From the 2005 NEC:
310.12 Conductor Identification.
(A) Grounded Conductors. Insulated or covered grounded conductors shall be identified in accordance with 200.6.
(B) Equipment Grounding Conductors. Equipment grounding conductors shall be in accordance with 250.119.
(C) Ungrounded Conductors. Conductors that are intended for use as ungrounded conductors, whether used as a single conductor or in multiconductor cables, shall be finished to be clearly distinguishable from grounded and grounding conductors. Distinguishing markings shall not conflict in any manner with the surface markings required by 310.11(B)(1). Branch-circuit ungrounded conductors shall be identified in accordance with 210.5(C). Feeders shall be identified in accordance with 215.12.
Exception: Conductor identification shall be permitted in accordance with 200.7.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
I like it Bob (I was trying to find a good reason to pick it apart though), I think it is a good proposal.
I like it Bob (I was trying to find a good reason to pick it apart though), I think it is a good proposal.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Revised Substantiation. I think I'll create an alternate proposal in another thread.
Revised Substantiation.
I'm now in something of a quandary. My real preference would be to delete 310.12 altogether.
I think I'll create an alternate proposal in another thread.
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Bob: The new version of 250.119 now prohibits the use of green for anything but grounding and bonding conductors. I'll try to post the new text tonight when I get home
Bob: The new version of 250.119 now prohibits the use of green for anything but grounding and bonding conductors. I'll try to post the new text tonight when I get home
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors. Unless required elsewhere in this Code, equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare, covered, or insulated. Individually covered or insulated equipment grounding conductors shall have a continuous outer finish that is either green or green with one or more yellow stripes except as permitted in this section. Conductors with insulation or individual covering that is green, green with one or more yellow stripes, or otherwise identified as permitted by this section shall not be used for ungrounded or grounded circuit conductors.
The italics are mine, that seems pretty clear to me. It sure is nice to have access to the electronic version.
250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors. Unless required elsewhere in this Code, equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare, covered, or insulated. Individually covered or insulated equipment grounding conductors shall have a continuous outer finish that is either green or green with one or more yellow stripes except as permitted in this section. Conductors with insulation or individual covering that is green, green with one or more yellow stripes, or otherwise identified as permitted by this section shall not be used for ungrounded or grounded circuit conductors.
The italics are mine, that seems pretty clear to me. It sure is nice to have access to the electronic version.
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
The new text makes it illegal to have a bare grounded conductor now.
Charlie: I wish I had the electronic version, but I have to wait until February for the handbook CD to come out.
The new text makes it illegal to have a bare grounded conductor now.
Charlie: I wish I had the electronic version, but I have to wait until February for the handbook CD to come out.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Actually, I am a member of the NFPA and can look things up on line. One of the things I have online access is the full text of NFPA 70.
Actually, I am a member of the NFPA and can look things up on line. One of the things I have online access is the full text of NFPA 70.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
By the way, 230.41 has not changed. Bare grounded conductors on the line side of the service disconnecting means is still permitted.
By the way, 230.41 has not changed. Bare grounded conductors on the line side of the service disconnecting means is still permitted.
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
rbalex:
Conductor reidentification is used in many sections in the NEC, grounded conductor, high leg identifcation, eq grn conductor, the requirements are slightly different. What about a common reidentification section in Art 110?
rbalex:
Conductor reidentification is used in many sections in the NEC, grounded conductor, high leg identifcation, eq grn conductor, the requirements are slightly different. What about a common reidentification section in Art 110?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Charlie,
The new rule in 250.119 would prohibit the use of a bare grounded conductor. Bare is permitted to be used to identify the grounding conductor and therefore cannot be used for any other purpose. This does create a conflict with conductors installed under 230.41. Look at the wording for 250.119 that was passed in the ROP.
Don
[ December 12, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
Charlie,
The new rule in 250.119 would prohibit the use of a bare grounded conductor. Bare is permitted to be used to identify the grounding conductor and therefore cannot be used for any other purpose. This does create a conflict with conductors installed under 230.41. Look at the wording for 250.119 that was passed in the ROP.
The original wording would have prohibited bare or green GECs and bonding conductors. The wording in the 2005 code effectively bans the use of bare grounded conductors. See ROC 5-196
Don
[ December 12, 2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Don, I can't agree with you. If this is as you are interpreting it, why would the proposal to disallow a bare messenger to be used as a current carrying conductor be defeated? Additionally, it can be argued that the bare grounded conductor is also the grounding conductor on the line side of the service equipment. I know that my argument is weak but I don't believe the intent was to disallow the bare neutral for service entrance.
Don, I can't agree with you. If this is as you are interpreting it, why would the proposal to disallow a bare messenger to be used as a current carrying conductor be defeated? Additionally, it can be argued that the bare grounded conductor is also the grounding conductor on the line side of the service equipment. I know that my argument is weak but I don't believe the intent was to disallow the bare neutral for service entrance.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Charlie,
I agree that it was not the intent of the change to prevent the use of bare grounded conductors, but I believe it is the effect of the change. If the original wording would have stood as shown in the draft, then GECs would have to be other than bare or green. That was the point of my comment 5-197. The acceptance of comment 5-196 permitted bare and green GECs, but in my opinion the final wording prohibits the use of bare grounded conductors.
Charlie,
I agree that it was not the intent of the change to prevent the use of bare grounded conductors, but I believe it is the effect of the change. If the original wording would have stood as shown in the draft, then GECs would have to be other than bare or green. That was the point of my comment 5-197. The acceptance of comment 5-196 permitted bare and green GECs, but in my opinion the final wording prohibits the use of bare grounded conductors.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
It looks like a series of coordinated Proposals may be beneficial. I'll work on them in the next few weeks and we'll see how they fly. I'll definitely need assistance on how they may affect the residential sector.
In the mean time, if we feel any other "identification" issues need addressing, add them to this thread. I'll try to incorporate them in the final, if appropriate.
The TCC does an incredible (and very tough) job, but I feel the occasional "unintended consequence" gets through. The revised 250.119 may be one of them; although in this case, CMP5 has general jurisdiction over both grounded and grounding conductors.
It looks like a series of coordinated Proposals may be beneficial. I'll work on them in the next few weeks and we'll see how they fly. I'll definitely need assistance on how they may affect the residential sector.
In the mean time, if we feel any other "identification" issues need addressing, add them to this thread. I'll try to incorporate them in the final, if appropriate.
The TCC does an incredible (and very tough) job, but I feel the occasional "unintended consequence" gets through. The revised 250.119 may be one of them; although in this case, CMP5 has general jurisdiction over both grounded and grounding conductors.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: Identification of Ungrounded Conductors
Even in 310--but having them scattered hither thither and yon across the whole code doesn't make sense. What colors do we deal with? High leg, Ungrounded, Grounded, Grounding, B.O.Y., Black-Red-Blue...any others? Wouldn't it make sense to delete the high-leg reference in 110, move it to 310, give it a little company? Even adding BRB and BOY as an FPN would be good for reference, IMO.
- Status