Insulated GEC Identification

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

What about white??

200.7 Use of Insulation of a White or Gray Color or with Three Continuous White Stripes.
(A) General. The following shall be used only for the grounded circuit conductor, unless otherwise permitted in 200.7(B) and 200.7(C):
(1) A conductor with continuous white or gray covering
(2) A conductor with three continuous white stripes on other than green insulation
(3) A marking of white or gray color at the termination
Click to expand...
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Dave, if CA is using a cycle before 2002, (I believe they are) gray can be used for the GEC or an ungrounded conductor as far as the NEC is concerned.

BTW, I hope you're over being P.O.ed :D

Roger
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Originally posted by benaround:
Ryan,

I do not see any mention of a GEC in 250.119 ,did I miss it? My point was it says Green for EGC,not GEC,so by putting green tape on a GEC ,are you violating the code ??

We always seek the 'edge' here at MH forum.
Click to expand...
The reason you didn't see it is because it is not there. By it not being there, it can be used. Remember that the style of the NEC is tell you what you cannot do, not what you can do.
If you tape a GEC green, have you violated 250.119? No.
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Ryan,
It appears to me that CMP5 thinks that a GEC is a grouding conductor.
5-196 Log #385 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( 250.119 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dan Leaf Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
Comment on Proposal No: 5-220
Recommendation: Revise last sentence:
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 be used only as an equipment bonding conductor.
Exception: Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted to be identified in accordance with this section.
Substantiation: Since this section encompasses individual covered conductors, they should be covered by the proposal. Many installers employ green covering, marking, or stripping for grounding electrode conductors, though not required or prohibited by present Code, which provides a degree of identification from circuit conductors, especially where installed with other conductors in the same raceway or enclosure. Though this section relates to equipment grounding (bonding) conductors the wording appears applicable as a general rule.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Revise 250.119 to read as follows:
?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.?
Sections 250.119(A), (B), and (C) to remain unchanged.
Panel Statement: This meets the submitters intent. The prohibition against the use of green for any conductor other than an EGC is too broad. It prohibits the use of green for all grounding conductors other than EGC, such as GEC, intersystem-bonding conductor, etc.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Click to expand...
________________________________________________________________
5-197 Log #1233 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( 250.119 )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere Ottawa, IL
Comment on Proposal No: 5-220
Recommendation: Panel should accept in principle and add the words ?or as a grounding electrode conductor? at the end of the proposed new sentence.
Substantiation: The wording as submitted reserves both the color green and any other type of identification permitted in this section for exclusive use as identification for equipment grounding conductors. The use of ?bare? conductors is permitted as a means of identification for equipment grounding conductors and, therefore, if the proposed section becomes part of the code, ?bare? conductors would no longer be permitted to be used as grounding electrode conductors.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 5-196.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Click to expand...
Don
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

As much as I hate to say it, I disagree with CMP 5 on this one. A grounding conductor is a defined term. Conductors such as "intersystem-bonding conductors" don't meet the definition.
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

The statement that Don has bolded is quite a bold statement...no pun intended;)

I think that much thought may not have been put into the statement.


I agree with Ryan that 250.119 has in a haphazard way tried to clear up the fact that prior to the 2005 NEC cycle, technically using green colored conductor for a GEC would be a violation. They could have worded it somewhat more clear.

Sam - what cycle code are you referencing? IF prior to the 2005, technically green would be a violation.


Grounding conductor...
Grounding electrode conductor...
I have always had a hard time trying to discern between the two types of conductors and the definitions in the NEC. It seems that every book that tries to describe this skirts the issue or makes it even harder to understand.

Maybe someone can help here alittle with the exact meanings.
Ryan, I do not see how you were able to describe the function of a grounding conductor as being responsible for the connection to the "supplementary electrodes".
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Ryan,
As much as I hate to say it, I disagree with CMP 5 on this one.
Click to expand...
You can't :D :D They are the ultimate AHJ on this issue and have published a statement on it. You'll will have to address this with a 2011 proposal
Don
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Pierre,
Sam - what cycle code are you referencing? IF prior to the 2005, technically green would be a violation.
Click to expand...
Under what code section would that be a violation in the 2002 code?
Don
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

In the 2002 NEC, 250.119 specifically uses the term EGC. In the 2005 the last sentence of 250.119 uses different language. I understand this was changed/added to allow for the GEC to also be permitted to be identified as green.
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Pierre,
In the 2002 code, 250.119 has no restrictions on the use of green for purposes other than as an EGC. It just requires that EGCs be identified by the color green. You can actually make a case, under the 2002 code, that if all of your EGCs were bare, then you could use green as an ungrounded conductor. The big point of the change for the 2005 code was to reserve green for grounding conductors only.
Don
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

George,
A statement is good to beat over someone's head, but the NFPA isn't the ultimate AHJ.
Click to expand...
Actually the courts are the final AHJ, but if a NEC case would go to court, the court would rely heavily on the intent of the rule and just like when they look to the legislative history of any law, they would look to the ROPs and ROCs as the legislative history of the NEC rules.
Don
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Originally posted by sandsnow: I have a hard time seeing how a GEC does not meet the definition of grounding conductor in ART. 100.
What am I not seeing???
Click to expand...
I am having a hard time understanding why there even is a definition for "Conductor, Grounding."
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is a wire that runs from the service panel to the grounding electrode. That wire is called the "grounding electrode conductor," not the "grounding conductor."</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are wires that run from the external metal parts of equipment to the ground bar at the main panel. They are called "equipment grounding conductors," not "grounding conductors."</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So where would there be a wire that fits the definition of "grounding conductor," if that wire is not a GEC and not an EGC? Under what circumstances do you run a wire from a piece of equipment to a ground rod, or from a neutral wire to a ground rod? If you can answer that question, Larry, and I cannot, then I think it will answer your question as well. Good luck.
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Originally posted by charlie b:
So where would there be a wire that fits the definition of "grounding conductor," if that wire is not a GEC and not an EGC? Under what circumstances do you run a wire from a piece of equipment to a ground rod, or from a neutral wire to a ground rod? If you can answer that question, Larry, and I cannot, then I think it will answer your question as well. Good luck.
Click to expand...
At a supplementary electrode.

[ December 01, 2005, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Paul, I did phase tape it to make him happy. I generally do anyway.

Pierre, I see you're already enjoying a debate on the code cycle. :D I'm using 2002. I haven't yet heard that Ca.'s adopted it though.

Yesterday I asked him for a code reference and today when he signed off he said "good catch on that EGC code". One less code being incorrectly enforced in the world.

I liked him a lot more today than I did yesterday, he's not so bad. I was thinking last night that I hope he doesn't visit the forum, I was a little rough on him. :D
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

Originally posted by charlie b:
Under what circumstances do you run a wire from a piece of equipment to a ground rod, or from a neutral wire to a ground rod? If you can answer that question, Larry, and I cannot, then I think it will answer your question as well. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Ok, Ryan answered the first one.
The second, never to a neutral "wire"; but to a neutral buss from a ground rod or other electrode - all the time.

The definition does not say neutral wire. It says:
A conductor used to connect equipment or the grounded circuit of a wiring system to a grounding electrode or electrode.

Isn't the neutral buss in a service panel the grounded circuit conductor??? Of course it's not grounded until you run the conductor from the ground electrode to it, but to me that's just semantics.

There are different types of grounding conductors covered under the broad term of Grounding Conductor. Just like there are diferent types of outlets covered under the broad term of outlets.

Sorry I'm just not gettin' it. :confused:
 
Re: Insulated GEC Identification

I agree with Don and his effort to change the grounding language to bonding, at least to some degree, I think we have a difference of opinion somewhere on it.

I think that everything on the electrode side of MBJ ought to be called "gounding". And everything on the other side called "bonding".

If that's done then you can drop the word "equipment", it's no longer needed. That's one of the points where Don disagrees with me as I recall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top