Neutrals with Trace - NEC 200.6(A)(4)

[DC26]

I have just had an inspector tell me my neutral conductors are not code compliant because they do not have a "continuous white outer finish." He hasn't failed my inspections yet but has asked for a code article to prove that the neutral conductors my crews have spent weeks pulling are code compliant.

Backstory:

I have been pulling #12 and #10 branch circuitry in an industrial/commercial setting, all in EMT. The building is part of a large campus and the owner is their own AHJ.

I pulled my 120/208v neutrals as white THHN conductors that came from the factory with either a black, red, or blue "trace" to help my electricians ensure that neutrals are not crossed. Though not a spec on this job, this "trace" has been a spec on other jobs and I've pulled neutrals like this for years. The actual wire is "Encore Wire" Superslick. I've installed wire like this in multiple jurisdictions and never had any pushback from inspectors.

NEC (2017 version) 200.6(A)(1) reads:
An insulated grounded conductor, #6 and smaller shall be identified by one of the following means:
(1) A continuous white outer finish.
(2) A continuous gray outer finish.
(3) Three continuous white or gray stripes along the conductor's entire length on other than green insulation.
(4) Wires that have their outer covering finished to show a white or gray color but have colored tracer threads in the braid identifying the source of manufacture shall be considered as meeting the provisions of this section.
(5) -- only applies to MI cable --
(6) -- only applies to photovoltaic installs --
(7) -- only applies to fixture wires --
(8) -- only applies to aerial cable --

I've attached a picture. My traces do not identify the source of manufacture. Is this wiring actually non-compliant? The intent of section 200.6 is to ensure consistent colors for neutrals so that future electricians can identify them by sight. My install does not violate that intent. Does it violate the letter of the Code? Maybe.

Has anyone else ever had an inspector come to them with this objection before? Is anyone aware of additional Code sections that provide for "traces" like these? Obviously I don't want to go back and replace thousands and thousands of feet of installed wire.

Thanks for helping a new poster.

 

[4x4dually]

That's the dangedest tracer I've ever seen on a wire. Seen longitudinal strip, spiral stripe, but never a marking like that. Not sure about code but that's just....weird.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't see that as what list item (4) is permitting.
The use of the markings on your wire is common, but not specifically permitted by the NEC. The closest the code has for that would be item (3) where the base color would be blue and it would have 3 continuous white or gray stripes.

For the record, I would approve that installation, but as I said, there is no specific code rule that permits it.

 

[mtnelect]

I have been advocating for identifying neutrals to prevent overloading and to reduce phantom tripping of AFCI / GFCI. Your method helps solve this problem of grabbing any neutral in a junction box. I am in the process of addressing this with the NFPA as a code requirement.

 

[jim dungar]

I don't see that as what list item (4) is permitting.
The use of the markings on your wire is common, but not specifically permitted by the NEC. The closest the code has for that would be item (3) where the base color would be blue and it would have 3 continuous white or gray stripes.

For the record, I would approve that installation, but as I said, there is no specific code rule that permits it.

I see this type of tracer as not needing to meet the NEC requirements for identifying a conductor. Its overall finish meets 200.6(A)(1) (1), the additional marks do not identify it as being some other than conductor than a neutral.

 

[RWC/NC.]

I have seen it, and having used similar basic configuration in Pacific Northwest, during the NFPA70/2008 code era, under the very same article/section 200.6(D)(2). We used grounding conductor (gray w/tracer for our 277v branch circuit lighting conductor(s) @ the data centers. And the AHJ (code Inforcement) having no problem w/the installation @ time. It's the only place (in time) can remember utilizing the situation as discribed.

 

[RWC/NC.]

I have seen it, and having used similar basic configuration in Pacific Northwest, during the NFPA70/2008 code era, under the very same article/section 200.6(D)(2). We used grounding conductor (gray w/tracer for our 277v branch circuit lighting conductor(s) @ the data centers. And the AHJ (code Inforcement) having no problem w/the installation @ time. It's the only place (in time) can remember utilizing the situation as discribed.

Got a typo above (small keyboard again) meant to say, "grounded conductor" "not grounding conductor"..!

 

[augie47]

Be a tough argument to win based on that Code Section.
I have not found a manufacturer that makes a conductor matching #3.
A few of our contractors use a conductor with a white insulation and 1 color stripe. The local inspectors have accepted it although it does not seem to actually meet Code (as I recall and earlier Code allowed that).
Like yours, it's a great method to match neutrals and phase conductors so the violation is overlooked,

 

[LarryFine]

In my opinion, the colored ticks on the wire do not interfere with it being continuously white, especially if they don't completely encircle the wire. Larger conductors can have white stripes instead of being completely white.

A few of our contractors use a conductor with a white insulation and 1 color stripe. The local inspectors have accepted it although it does not seem to actually meet Code

Then how do 14-2-2 and 12-2-2 NM get away with it?

 

[infinity]

I see this type of tracer as not needing to meet the NEC requirements for identifying a conductor. Its overall finish meets 200.6(A)(1) (1), the additional marks do not identify it as being some other than conductor than a neutral.

I think I agree because I'm confused. Is the issue the blue marks on the conductor insulation that is white?

 

[synchro]

I have just had an inspector tell me my neutral conductors are not code compliant because they do not have a "continuous white outer finish." He hasn't failed my inspections yet but has asked for a code article to prove that the neutral conductors my crews have spent weeks pulling are code compliant.

I've attached a picture. My traces do not identify the source of manufacture.

NEC (2017 version) 200.6(A)(1) reads:
An insulated grounded conductor, #6 and smaller shall be identified by one of the following means:
(1) A continuous white outer finish. ...

Do those blue marks completely encircle the wire? If they don't, then technically the conductor will still have a "continuous white outer finish" because those marks are not breaking the continuity of the white finish (because no part of the white finish is isolated from any other part).
If an exclusively white outer finish (except for printed labeling) is intended, than that could be spelled out more specifically in the code.

 

[4x4dually]

Do those blue marks completely encircle the wire? If they don't, then technically the conductor will still have a "continuous white outer finish" because those marks are not breaking the continuity of the white finish (because no part of the white finish is isolated from any other part).
If an exclusively white outer finish (except for printed labeling) is intended, than that could be spelled out more specifically in the code.

I agree, that technically, the white part is continuous, but what I just can't get over is the fact that some asshat wants to argue about it instead of passing an inspection. Will it functionally perform it's duty and be safe? Yes. Surely to God there is something worth while to argue over other than some marks on a wire. LOL

 

[kwired]

I think if you don't accept that as meeting 200.6(A)(1)(4) you are trying too hard to butcher the meaning of colored tracer threads. Where is there any specification on just exactly counts as the colored tracer thread? It says right in that section that even the manufacturer identification markings could even be considered the colored tracer thread, so black, blue, red...lettering with conductor type, size, manufacturer name, etc. and nothing else would be acceptable to identify it, many times we just get black lettering but if you had other colors of lettering it would be acceptable.

I have not found a manufacturer that makes a conductor matching #3.

They are out there in machine wiring, very likely can be ordered, just probably not enough demand to find stock that you can buy just one reel at a time from. You can special order just about anything, heck you could probably have your company name, phone number etc. put on them if you wanted to put in big enough order to make it worth the cost.

 

[DC26]

I agree, that technically, the white part is continuous, but what I just can't get over is the fact that some asshat wants to argue about it instead of passing an inspection. Will it functionally perform it's duty and be safe? Yes. Surely to God there is something worth while to argue over other than some marks on a wire. LOL

No, this guy would rather just fail me on a technicality - even though I think this is an install that exceeds the requirements of the code and gives the client a better install. He's an angry guy, in general, I think. Also angry at the GC specifically.

I'm just collateral damage.

 

[kwired]

No, this guy would rather just fail me on a technicality - even though I think this is an install that exceeds the requirements of the code and gives the client a better install. He's an angry guy, in general, I think. Also angry at the GC specifically.

I'm just collateral damage.

I'd challenge this to a higher authority, if possible. Some cases you don't have much choice as they don't really have someone above them that is qualified to make this sort of decision, like smaller municipal inspectors where it is basically one man that calls the shots when it comes to code enforcement. Only way around that is to have enough your peers to team up and go against him, or take it to a State AHJ - if there is one that can take some action on them.

If you consider to comply with his wishes just to keep the project going and your customer happy that is a financial decision you need to make, I'd still fight him on it after the fact unless maybe you don't expect to ever encounter him again on a job.

 

[jap]

This is a tough one.

If I read the requirements of the code section strictly for what it says, I can see where a white wire with a tracer (other than what is indicated) would not meet the requirements of 1, 2 or 3.

I don't completely understand #4.
What is a colored tracer in the braid?
That doesn't seem to be referring to the writing on the outer insulation by the manufacturer.

If you wanted to get technical with the rule, "any" writing on a conductors insulation that would impede on the "continuous" outer finish would be a code violation would it not?

JAP>

 

[4x4dually]

No, this guy would rather just fail me on a technicality - even though I think this is an install that exceeds the requirements of the code and gives the client a better install. He's an angry guy, in general, I think. Also angry at the GC specifically.

I'm just collateral damage.

That's a shame and not a good spot to be in. Hope you get it worked out with out too much extra effort.

 

[infinity]

Isn't this just a white conductor with blue marks on it? Saying this is not code compliant is moronic. I would reach out to the manufacturer have them explain how their product is code compliant.

 

[kwired]

This is a tough one.

If I read the requirements of the code section strictly for what it says, I can see where a white wire with a tracer (other than what is indicated) would not meet the requirements of 1, 2 or 3.

I don't completely understand #4.
What is a colored tracer in the braid?
That doesn't seem to be referring to the writing on the outer insulation by the manufacturer.

If you wanted to get technical with the rule, "any" writing on a conductors insulation that would impede on the "continuous" outer finish would be a code violation would it not?

JAP>

What is a "tracer"? seems to me could be anything from a continuous marking of some sort to something that repeats at a regular interval/pattern.

What OP utilized certainly would comply with that if that is correct.

(3) mentions continuous stripes - that to me is a tracer with a specific condition attached to it.

200.6(A) is all about identifying it as a grounded conductor and not about identifying which ungrounded conductor it may go with, that is why they want all white or gray to begin with yet allow additional markings for other identification reasons, or the three continuous white or gray stripes that are also mentioned.

Is also code compliant to run all white conductors and somehow identify each individual with field markings, so why not factory applied markings? Less margin for error with factory applied markings that repeat throughout the entire length of the conductor.

 

[jap]

What is a "tracer"? seems to me could be anything from a continuous marking of some sort to something that repeats at a regular interval/pattern.

What OP utilized certainly would comply with that if that is correct.

(3) mentions continuous stripes - that to me is a tracer with a specific condition attached to it.

200.6(A) is all about identifying it as a grounded conductor and not about identifying which ungrounded conductor it may go with, that is why they want all white or gray to begin with yet allow additional markings for other identification reasons, or the three continuous white or gray stripes that are also mentioned.

Is also code compliant to run all white conductors and somehow identify each individual with field markings, so why not factory applied markings? Less margin for error with factory applied markings that repeat throughout the entire length of the conductor.

The rule indicates a tracer in the "Braid".

The wire he is using is not a braided conductor.

JAP>