undergound wire dispute

[roadking19]

Please help in resolving a dispute amungst two new installaters. We are installing #6 and #8 copper wire rated for underground use. This wire is also being installed in pvc conduit and will be used to power street lights. We were given all green #6 and #8 copper wire and told to tape the two hots all the way through the system. The disagreement is I say we can not install all green colored wire and tape it. The other person says this is not a code violation and installed the green wire and tape the two hots. Who is correct and What is the Code number that enforces this. Thank you!

 

[jimwalker]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Its a poor choice and i dont think being its smaller than #4 that it can be reidentified

 

[wirenut1980]

Re: undergound wire dispute

First I believe this may not be covered under the NEC depending on where these lights get their power. Are the lights utility owned? In NEC, see 250.119, 310.12(C). In my opinion, technically it is legal according to the NEC to do what your co-worker is arguing if you use the right colored tape, but I also think that it is a bad idea.

 

[roadking19]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Thank you for answering. These lights are private (customer owned) fed from a utility transformer to a metered disconnect box. The utility does not own or maintain these lights. We were told the company we work for had an overstock of green wire and that's why we are using it. My partner is taping the ends with the correct colors and is doing so at each light and in the disconnect box as well. If he is right that's fine. I just don't want to have to pull all new wire becuase it is all green.
Thank you!

 

[apauling]

Re: undergound wire dispute

it is not considered all right. the wires must be #4 or larger to do that. imagine someone digging up the line thinking those were grounding conductors. hazardous!!!!!!!!!!!!

paul

 

[bphgravity]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Where are you guys coming up with this #4 or larger requirement? I don't see it in my code book. We are not talking about grounded conductors.

 

[apauling]

Re: undergound wire dispute

green wire is for grounding conductors.

don't know where my brain is right now, but it remembers reading that feeds smaller than 4 need to be identified along whole length.

it changed quite a while back.

paul

 

[bphgravity]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Originally posted by apauling:
...don't know where my brain is right now, but it remembers reading that feeds smaller than 4 need to be identified along whole length...

I believe that requirement is only for grounded conductors not ungrounded or grounding.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Seems as though we're thinking of 200.6(E), which seems to pertain to grounded conductors in multiconductor cables only. Individual conductors seem to follow the "termination" principle.

Bad design though. Free wire?

We were given all green #6 and #8 copper wire and told to tape the two hots all the way through the system.

One note of interest:

NEC-2005 310.12(C) Ungrounded Conductors. Conductors that are intended for use as ungrounded conductors, whether used as a single conductor or in multiconductor cables, shall be finished to be clearly distinguishable from grounded and grounding conductors. Distinguishing markings shall not conflict in any manner with the surface markings required by 310.11(B)(1). Branch-circuit ungrounded conductors shall be identified in accordance with 210.5(C). Feeders shall be identified in accordance with 215.12.

This bears a revision bar on the side, so I don't know what changed 2002-2005. But it still bears contemplation.

Taping a conductor the length of it would obscure the factory markings and violate code in 2005.

[ December 29, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[nvcape]

Re: undergound wire dispute

I believe the reason you wrote this is that you already know it's wrong. After you have left, what will the next person decide a green with maybe some black tape left on it is. Just say, that somehow, someone hooks this up to a surface signal box and somehow they energize the case and someone gets hurt. The lawyers will own you and your boss!

 

[physis]

Re: undergound wire dispute

As I recall it's grounded and grounding conductors colored for whole length.

I think this is legal.

But

This totally rubs me the wrong way and I don't care how you slice it. In my opinion it's completely unprofessional. This is just too all Willie-Nillie. So much for pride in this job.

 

[charlie]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Sam, it's more fun to argue with you than to agree with you. However, I agree with you completely.

 

[612278]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Hi guys-

Try this 310-12(c)

 

[roger]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Steve, 310.12(C) actually allows it, for example if your EGC was bare, (250.119) green would be distinguishable from it, and per the wording could be used for the ungrounded conductors.

Charlie, I also like to see you and Sam argue.

Roger

 

[guesseral]

Re: undergound wire dispute

I can't beleive that no where in the code, is it stated that a green conductor can't be used as an ungrounded conductor. This just isn't right!

 

[rbalex]

Re: undergound wire dispute

I think this breathes new life in this " Proposal ". I've reread the 2005 version of 250.119 and while it now retains "green" exclusively for grounding/bonding, it would still permit "reidentifying" a green conductor.

The Proposal will still need a bit of work. Prohibiting reidentification was a actually a goal of mine.

 

[physis]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Wise Guys

 

[eprice]

Re: undergound wire dispute

Well, since Charlie and Sam aren't going to argue, I'll have to present an alternate view on this

Use of the green conductors for a grounded conductor would be a violation of 200.6. I see nothing there that would allow reidentification of these green conductors discussed in this thread. Even if they were larger than #6, 200.6(B)would not allow reidentification of green conductors

Roger, you're right, if the EGCs were bare, green could be used for the ungrounded conductors (but not the grounded conductor). But I believe the EGCs will be green?

310.12(C) requires the ungrounded conductors to have a finish clearly distinguisable from grounded and grounding conductors. Since the EGCs will be green (I think), the ungrounded conductors need to be something else. The exception refers to 200.7 which allows reidentification of white or gray conductors under the right circumstances, but not green.