NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE - 2023 Public Input, Correction #5

[mtnelect]

200.6(A)(9) All grounded conductors shall be identified with their circuit numbers at each junction box to prevent the overloading of grounded conductors and the "Phantom" tripping of AFCI/GFCI caused by crossed grounded conductors. All markings shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

 

[petersonra]

this kind of thing is nuts. if the electricians who are doing the wiring do not know enough to not be crossing the grounded conductors they should have their licenses revoked and someone competent should be hired to do the work in their place.

 

[mtnelect]

this kind of thing is nuts. if the electricians who are doing the wiring do not know enough to not be crossing the grounded conductors they should have their licenses revoked and someone competent should be hired to do the work in their place.

This is the most common question posed on this forum. Why is my AFCI/GFCI always tripping ?
This was never a problem until these devices were required in the code.
I don't think I would call an electrician incompetent, just unaware of the problem.

 

[roger]

The definition of "Qualified Person" comes to mind.

 

[ActionDave]

The problem with AFCIs nuisance tripping is not caused by crossed neutrals.

 

[mtnelect]

The problem with AFCIs nuisance tripping is not caused by crossed neutrals.

Thank you ... I was referring to combination AFCI/GFCI breakers. I will remove the reference to AFCI and just mention GFCI breakers.

 

[kec]

The problem with AFCIs nuisance tripping is not caused by crossed neutrals.

The key word here is [nuisance]

 

[ActionDave]

Well if there happens to be a crossed neutral problem that gets sorted out quickly.

 

[curt swartz]

200.6(A)(9) All grounded conductors shall be identified with their circuit numbers at each junction box to prevent the overloading of grounded conductors and the "Phantom" tripping of AFCI/GFCI caused by crossed grounded conductors. All markings shall be of sufficient durability to withstand the environment involved.

Have you ever done any real wiring or just HVAC work?

For engineered commercial work the circuit numbers will frequently be known. For residential and smaller commercial projects the circuit numbers get figured out when the panels get made up at the end of the project. Not when the wiring get pulled.

Requiring numbers on the conductors is nonsense.

 

[mtnelect]

Have you ever done any real wiring or just HVAC work?

For engineered commercial work the circuit numbers will frequently be known. For residential and smaller commercial projects the circuit numbers get figured out when the panels get made up at the end of the project. Not when the wiring get pulled.

Requiring numbers on the conductors is nonsense.

What I am proposing is the same requirements on grounded circuits as ungrounded circuits. Identification for Branch Circuits Section 210.5(C). With the introduction of GFCI, this has always been a problem on my service calls and this Forum.
I went through the Inside Wireman Apprenticeship at the IBEW Local 11, in 1974. Started my contracting business in 1976.

 

[letgomywago]

What I am proposing is the same requirements on grounded circuits as ungrounded circuits. Identification for Branch Circuits Section 210.5(C). With the introduction of GFCI, this has always been a problem on my service calls and this Forum.
I went through the Inside Wireman Apprenticeship at the IBEW Local 11, in 1974. Started my contracting business in 1976.

Then the lack of requirement makes you money.

Most times I have come across blue wirenut nuetrals it's in DIY or handy hack work. This wouldn't stop that. If it's from a job that was done by real electricians then they usually only have 1 or 2 spots messed up in a multigang with 3 ways. Again 20 min or so and all is well.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

200.4(B) already addresses this issue and there is ZERO need for an additional requirement.
There is nothing in 210.5(C) that requires circuit number type of identification. It only requires identification by phase and voltage.

 

[mtnelect]

What I am proposing is the same requirements on grounded circuits as ungrounded circuits. Identification for Branch Circuits Section 210.5(C). With the introduction of GFCI, this has always been a problem on my service calls and this Forum.
I went through the Inside Wireman Apprenticeship at the IBEW Local 11, in 1974. Started my contracting business in 1976.

200.4(B) already addresses this issue and there is ZERO need for an additional requirement.
There is nothing in 210.5(C) that requires circuit number type of identification. It only requires identification by phase and voltage.

What I am concerned about is that neutrals are not used for more than one branch circuit, or for more than one branch circuit, or for more than one set of ungrounded feeder conductors unless specifically elsewhere in this code.

 

[tortuga]

@mtnelect I think your intentions are golden, but from my experience with residential work in the state of California, I think the crux of your issue is the grand canyon sized "General B" contractor loop hole. Everyone in the electrical industry in CA would greatly benefit from a state law that requires anyone and everyone preforming an electrical installation to have a individual license for the scope of the install, not just the C10, and regardless of the amount of money that changes hands (EDIT: unless its one working on their own home) . I bet with that you would see this issue greatly reduced.

 

[mtnelect]

In real life ... crawling in the attic or under the house, this is a lot of fun. You find a junction box, pull the cover off. What do you see, a lot of wires. So you pick a couple of wires, and you are done.

 

[mtnelect]

@mtnelect I think your intentions are golden, but from my experience with residential work in the state of California, I think the crux of your issue is the grand canyon sized "General B" contractor loop hole. Everyone in the electrical industry in CA would greatly benefit from a state law that requires anyone and everyone preforming an electrical installation to have a individual license for the scope of the install, not just the C10, and regardless of the amount of money that changes hands (EDIT: unless its their own home) . I bet with that you would see this issue greatly reduced.

I really respect your well thought out comments !

 

[mtnelect]

This is a great forum that Mike Holt has taken the responsibility to launch. Mr. Holt has provided a forum for us in this industry to express our thoughts and made us stronger for it.

 

[jaggedben]

Well if there happens to be a crossed neutral problem that gets sorted out quickly.

Depends how old the house is.

 

[jaggedben]

@mtnelect I think your intentions are golden, but from my experience with residential work in the state of California, I think the crux of your issue is the grand canyon sized "General B" contractor loop hole. Everyone in the electrical industry in CA would greatly benefit from a state law that requires anyone and everyone preforming an electrical installation to have a individual license for the scope of the install, not just the C10, and regardless of the amount of money that changes hands (EDIT: unless its one working on their own home) . I bet with that you would see this issue greatly reduced.

I'd only be in favor of such a law if it included amnesty for anyone who has lately been doing electrical without certification for a C10, B, C46, etc. Right now the law and bureaucracy discourage being above-board. Heck, if the state would produce free video training courses for new hires like some manufacturers do for product certification, employers might actually see it as a benefit.

Also I've seen plenty of C10s doing awful hack work.

 

[tortuga]

I'd only be in favor of such a law if it included amnesty for anyone who has lately been doing electrical without certification for a C10, B, C46, etc.

I could see changing every reference of 'C10' in the law to "C7, C10 or C46" but I would stop short of general B.
You could also cut the OJT in 291.1(2) a little for the year it takes effect.