NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE 2023 - Section 200.6(A)

[mtnelect]

The grounded conductor(s) of a ground-fault circuit shall be identified at time of installation with the corresponding circuit number, at all terminations, connections, and splice points.
I talked to Don about this PL previously and he felt that it was unnecessary, so I was going to delete it. But after careful thought I will keep it, because GFCI deserve special consideration.

 

[xformer]

The grounded conductor(s) of a ground-fault circuit shall be identified at time of installation with the corresponding circuit number, at all terminations, connections, and splice points.
I talked to Don about this PL previously and he felt that it was unnecessary, so I was going to delete it. But after careful thought I will keep it, because GFCI deserve special consideration.

I would re-word to read the following...
The grounded conductor(s) of a ground-fault protected circuit....

 

[mtnelect]

I would re-word to read the following...
The grounded conductor(s) of a ground-fault protected circuit....

Good suggestion.

 

[mtnelect]

Added the word "Protected".

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Necessary or not, it does not belong in that section. That section only applies to how a conductor that is used as a grounded conductor must be identified.

It would belong in 200.4(B). It remains my opinion that the requirements in that section very adequately cover the issue.
How does the language in 200.4(B) not already cover this?

(B) Multiple Circuits.
Where more than one neutral conductor associated with different circuits is in an enclosure, grounded circuit conductors of each circuit shall be identified or grouped to correspond with the ungrounded circuit conductor(s) by wire markers, cable ties, or similar means in at least one location within the enclosure.

If it is your opinion that only a circuit number should be permitted for this identification, you need to make your PI to 200.4(B).

I would be willing to be that the PI to add language to 200.6 will be resolved as not within the scope of that section. That is the identification of a conductor as a grounded conductor.

Note "resolved" is the NFPA's politically correct way of saying "rejected". It appears they think the term "rejected" may hurt someone's feelings.

 

[tom baker]

Submit it and see what the comments are

 

[mtnelect]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my PL.
The reason I decided to keep the PL, was because it would be limited to GFCI only. No other grounded wiring would be affected by this PL.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my PL.
The reason I decided to keep the PL, was because it would be limited to GFCI only. No other grounded wiring would be affected by this PL.

Like I said, needed or not, it does not belong in that section.

 

[mtnelect]

Like I said, needed or not, it does not belong in that section.

I did some research into the NFPA Handbook. Section 200.4 "This section specifies that an individual neutral conductor be provided for each two-wire and multi-wire branch circuits and unless a common or shared neutral is permitted elsewhere in this code". Section 200.6 "The general rule of 200.6(A) requires insulated conductors 6 AWG or smaller to be white or gray for their entire length where they are used as grounded conductors".

Section 200.4 limits the use of a neutral to one branch circuit, which is more specific to my PL than Section 200.6. So, I will take your advice and change it to Section 200.4(C). I am creating a new sub-section to address GFCI specifically.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I did some research into the NFPA Handbook. Section 200.4 "This section specifies that an individual neutral conductor be provided for each two-wire and multi-wire branch circuits and unless a common or shared neutral is permitted elsewhere in this code". Section 200.6 "The general rule of 200.6(A) requires insulated conductors 6 AWG or smaller to be white or gray for their entire length where they are used as grounded conductors".

Section 200.4 limits the use of a neutral to one branch circuit, which is more specific to my PL than Section 200.6. So, I will take your advice and change it to Section 200.4(C). I am creating a new sub-section to address GFCI specifically.

More of a chance there, but still think 200.4(B) covers the issue. If you are seeing issues in the field, either they were installed before 200.4(B) was put in the code (first appeared in the 2014 code) or the code rule was not followed. If it is the latter, another rule will not change anything.

Also the information in the handbook is not anything other than paid staff opinion. It has no more validity than a comment posted here.The best place to research is the old proposals and comments.

 

[mtnelect]

I did some research into the NFPA Handbook. Section 200.4 "This section specifies that an individual neutral conductor be provided for each two-wire and multi-wire branch circuits and unless a common or shared neutral is permitted elsewhere in this code". Section 200.6 "The general rule of 200.6(A) requires insulated conductors 6 AWG or smaller to be white or gray for their entire length where they are used as grounded conductors".

Section 200.4 limits the use of a neutral to one branch circuit, which is more specific to my PL than Section 200.6. So, I will take your advice and change it to Section 200.4(C). I am creating a new sub-section to address GFCI specifically.

 

[mtnelect]

My first encounter with "Phantom" tripping was around 1993, on a service call. The customer was having issues with a bathroom GFCI. It would trip without cause randomly. As "Murphy's Law" would have it, the last junction box is where I found the hallway neutral crossed with the bathroom neutral. Only when the hallway light was turned on, would the bathroom GFCI trip.

Now, with harmonics created by electrical controlled motor circuits etc. it's a more sophisticated problem, but still should be addressed. Today you will usually find it on remodeling projects where they installed a new GFCI breaker to an old existing circuit.

 

[retirede]

One needs to ask - is the purpose of the NEC to ensure electrical safety, or to make it easier for electricians to troubleshoot problems?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

My first encounter with "Phantom" tripping was around 1993, on a service call. The customer was having issues with a bathroom GFCI. It would trip without cause randomly. As "Murphy's Law" would have it, the last junction box is where I found the hallway neutral crossed with the bathroom neutral. Only when the hallway light was turned on, would the bathroom GFCI trip.

Now, with harmonics created by electrical controlled motor circuits etc. it's a more sophisticated problem, but still should be addressed. Today you will usually find it on remodeling projects where they installed a new GFCI breaker to an old existing circuit.

So you have never seen an issue where the installation has complied with 200.4(B)? If that is the case, there is no need to make a code change.

 

[mtnelect]

So you have never seen an issue where the installation has complied with 200.4(B)? If that is the case, there is no need to make a code change.

If the installation complied with 200.4(B) you would never have noticed. It's only when you have a problem.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If the installation complied with 200.4(B) you would never have noticed. It's only when you have a problem.

My point was that you mentioned remolding projects and 200.4(B) is a fairly new rule...first appearing in the 2014 code. You will have to cite me real world documented issues that have occurred after the 2014 code was enforced in the area where the project was installed. If I was on the CMP, without such documentation, my vote would be to resolve.

 

[jaggedben]

If you are seeing issues in the field, either they were installed before 200.4(B) was put in the code (first appeared in the 2014 code) or the code rule was not followed. If it is the latter, another rule will not change anything.
...

This. ^

In my opinion the code does not need to change, but it needs to be enforced.

'The corresponding circuit number' is not helpful or meaningfully enforceable language. What number is that? The conventional 1 is top left and 2 is top right? Okay, but what if I move a circuit, do I have to renumber wires? What if someone installs the panel upside down so that 1 is bottom right? What if two circuits from different panels, but having the same number in each panel, are brought into the same jbox or gutter? This language does not achieve your aim and may be counterproductive to it. The current language allows various methods while giving the AHJ leeway to say something isn't adequate in any situation where it's truly not enough.

Retirede, Grouping is a safety issue because when done properly it substantially reduces the risk of shock or arc flash when troubleshooting or re-wiring circuits. In many cases the neutral for a circuit can't be fully positively identified without lifting the neutral which exposes you to those risks if you got the wrong one despite your best efforts. Or, it requires de-energizing a lot more stuff than what you actually need to work on, which electricians naturally don't do because of inconvenience or cost to the client.

 

[mtnelect]

This. ^

In my opinion the code does not need to change, but it needs to be enforced.

'The corresponding circuit number' is not helpful or meaningfully enforceable language. What number is that? The conventional 1 is top left and 2 is top right? Okay, but what if I move a circuit, do I have to renumber wires? What if someone installs the panel upside down so that 1 is bottom right? What if two circuits from different panels, but having the same number in each panel, are brought into the same jbox or gutter? This language does not achieve your aim and may be counterproductive to it. The current language allows various methods while giving the AHJ leeway to say something isn't adequate in any situation where it's truly not enough.

Retirede, Grouping is a safety issue because when done properly it substantially reduces the risk of shock or arc flash when troubleshooting or re-wiring circuits. In many cases the neutral for a circuit can't be fully positively identified without lifting the neutral which exposes you to those risks if you got the wrong one despite your best efforts. Or, it requires de-energizing a lot more stuff than what you actually need to work on, which electricians naturally don't do because of inconvenience or cost to the client.

Thank you for taking the time for your remarks, which are very much appreciated and with others on this forum. Especially Don's.

I joined this forum on June 1, 2003 and didn't contribute much since I was busy contracting. But now that I am doing "Insulting" work I have more time on my hands.

Since the time period for submitting PI closes in September, I still have time to get it right. At this point, I have made 10 changes.

If I could get the identification method right, I think it could work. Just like 480/277 you have gray, how about another color for GFCI/AFCI ?

And, to answer Don's question on justification for this change, it's this forum where many GFCI/AFCI question have been asked, with too few answers.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thank you for taking the time for your remarks, which are very much appreciated and with others on this forum. Especially Don's.

I joined this forum on June 1, 2003 and didn't contribute much since I was busy contracting. But now that I am doing "Insulting" work I have more time on my hands.

Since the time period for submitting PI closes in September, I still have time to get it right. At this point, I have made 10 changes.

If I could get the identification method right, I think it could work. Just like 480/277 you have gray, how about another color for GFCI/AFCI ?

And, to answer Don's question on justification for this change, it's this forum where many GFCI/AFCI question have been asked, with too few answers.

There is nothing in the code that requires gray for the 480Y/277 volt neutral. The code permits either white or gray for any grounded conductor.
The only time all of the grounded conductors in a building, no matter what the voltage may be, are required to be separately identified is where grounded conductors of two different voltage systems are in the same raceway or enclosure.

 

[mtnelect]

Don, on your suggestion of doing research on this PI, I found this on Southwire Website. So, this could be a way to identify GFCI/AFCI with the white with Red stripe.