NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE 2023 - Section 200.4(C) Public Input

[letgomywago]

I was on a job that had trace colors for the neutrals in the specifications, Colored Conduit(s) per service usage.
Nothing exposed, Inspector openly stated why aren't all jobs like this...

It is a public institution, and the Architect/ Engineer wasted the County's money, JMO!

On a massive job or something where there is a maintenance contract afterwards I do feel this would be usefull. On smaller facilities I don't think it would. The flip side is that eventually a large enough facility will have in-house electricians and they will know and change with what's on hand so unless things are strict all you can ask for is general code compliance in those.

 

[cadpoint]

It is a ~ 30' X 30' square. I completely understand for larger and more complex facilities.
It had existing colored circuit boxes per service.

 

[retirede]

On a massive job or something where there is a maintenance contract afterwards I do feel this would be usefull.

Still a design decision that doesn’t belong in the NEC.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

In my example, the GFCI would not sense the crossed grounded conductor until the hallway light was turned on. The bathroom GFCI already had the power on.

And your example was from older GFCIs...the ones available for the last 8 years or so have the neutral ground fault detection circuit.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

On a massive job or something where there is a maintenance contract afterwards I do feel this would be usefull. On smaller facilities I don't think it would. The flip side is that eventually a large enough facility will have in-house electricians and they will know and change with what's on hand so unless things are strict all you can ask for is general code compliance in those.

Nothing prevents the designer or installer from doing this now...it is a design issue and not a code issue and there is no valid reason to make it a code rule.
However, even now, the identification currently required by 200.4(B) does everything this proposed PI wants to do. Any time there is more than one neutral conductor in an enclosure, it must be identified as to the circuit or physically bundled with the associated ungrounded conductor(s).

 

[mtnelect]

And your example was from older GFCIs...the ones available for the last 8 years or so have the neutral ground fault detection circuit.

The UL update is monitoring for grounded to grounding, my amendment is for grounded to grounded of different circuits.

 

[wwhitney]

The UL update is monitoring for grounded to grounding, my amendment is grounded to grounded.

But as explained, electrically the monitoring for a downstream fault grounded to grounding will also pick up a downstream fault grounded to another circuit's grounded.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The UL update is monitoring for grounded to grounding, my amendment is for grounded to grounded of different circuits.

The circuit specified in UL cannot tell the difference, so it actually monitors for both conditions.

 

[Todd0x1]

That's a little overboard. Is it good design? Yes. Should it be in the building code? No.

Lets say it is adopted. What's the next progression, require striped color neutrals to match all phase conductors? Then after that, continuously printed circuit numbers on all circuit conductors? Perhaps prohibit splices between the panel and first device, then only single circuit conductors in a cable, raceway, or box after the first device so neutrals don't get mixed up?

 

[roger]

Well, I happen to think having to carry more materials on the truck is good for the economy.