White as ungrounded conductor

[tomspark1]

If I read 200.7 (C) (1) correctly I can use white (or gray etc.) as an ungrounded as long as I follow these requirements. Done. But when I read on to number (2) I start seeing restrictions (as supply but not as a return conductor...) which is it? Is this a contradiction or am I missing something?
The reason I ask, I have another old timer on my job that wants to use the white in 12-3 mc as one of the travellers (out of habit I guess). I recall doing that as a helper but not in a long time. I don't want to stop him without being sure I'm right.

 

[LarryFine]

Tom, in my opinion, as a traveler, it would not be considered the returning wire. Here's my rationale:

If a switched wire returning to a load were white, a luminaire would have two white wires supplying it.

As long as the return wire was not white, someone replacing a luminaire would not face that possibility.

But yes, you still gotta re-color that wire. I'd recommend either a third color (like blue) or match the other traveler.

I personally prefer ink over tape. I like permanent markers like Sharpies, because you can get many colors.

 

[tomspark1]

Thanks for the quick answer Larry. Man I love this forum!
I agree with your logic completely and I've used that explanation about avoiding 2 white wires in a fixture before.
But playing Devil's advocate, I'm still wondering if there is a contradiction here. If I follow (1) technically, I'm still ok no matter which way I go. Maybe some different wording is needed. Don't have a copy of '08 yet so maybe it has been addressed.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Reasoning behind it is that if its always hot then less likely someone try to use it as a neutral,usually its not pushed by inspectors.What upsets me is the number of guys that will not remark it and inspectors dont seem to tag them so they keep doing it.Yes ink is best answer.

 

[wwhitney]

If I read 200.7 (C) (1) correctly I can use white (or gray etc.) as an ungrounded as long as I follow these requirements. Done. But when I read on to number (2) I start seeing restrictions (as supply but not as a return conductor...) which is it? Is this a contradiction or am I missing something?

I've never understood the point of 200.7(C)(2), as the permission it gives is a strict subset of the permission of 200.7(C)(1). So is 200.7(C)(2) intended as a restriction on the permission given in 200.7(C)(1)? It certainly doesn't read like that to me.

Yours, Wayne

 

[480sparky]

Reasoning behind it is that if its always hot then less likely someone try to use it as a neutral,usually its not pushed by inspectors.What upsets me is the number of guys that will not remark it and inspectors dont seem to tag them so they keep doing it.Yes ink is best answer.

That's because they're not up to date on the code. From 1975 to 1996, 200.7, Ex. 2 did not require the re-identification of the white.

 

[roger]

That's because they're not up to date on the code. From 1975 to 1996, 200.7, Ex. 2 did not require the re-identification of the white.

And IMO, re-identification is not necessary for qualified people, it is only necessary for the unqualified.

This is simply another example of dumbing down the code for those who have no business having their paws in the wiring.

Roger

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

And IMO, re-identification is not necessary for qualified people, it is only necessary for the unqualified.

This is simply another example of dumbing down the code for those who have no business having their paws in the wiring.

Roger

That kind of thinking is why its not being inforced.Fact is nec requires it.Do you just ignore what codes you dont think we need ? Yes in most cases its not needed but still should be done.

 

[roger]

Jim, even if it's being ignored and it makes you feel safer by doing it, then I say please, by all means do it.

Now let me ask you this, is it any safer to lift a wire under load that is being used as a neutral than it is to lift a wire under load being used as a hot?

Whatever your answer is, tell me why re-identifying a white wire is needed based on your answer.

Roger

 

[winnie]

So is 200.7(C)(2) intended as a restriction on the permission given in 200.7(C)(1)? It certainly doesn't read like that to me.

Many people read 200.7(C)(2) as an additional restriction on 200.7(C)(1), and feel that the white wire _must_ be used in the particular manner described in (C)(2).

I personally believe that (C)(2) is a historical artifact and is currently redundant with (C)(1).

As 480sparky notes, in previous versions of the code, (C)(1) and (C)(2) had complementary permissions; (C)(1) let you use a re-colored white conductor as an ungrounded conductor, without restriction of supply or return, and (C)(2) let you use a white conductor (without any sort of re-coloring) in switch loops only as the supply but not the return. Now both paragraphs require recoloring.

IMHO it is a good design choice to arrange things such that a white and a black conductor actually feed the light fixture; but that this is not a current code requirement; IMHO under current code a white and a _recolored white_ would meet code requirements.

-Jon

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Jim, even if it's being ignored and it makes you feel safer by doing it, then I say please, by all means do it.

Now let me ask you this, is it any safer to lift a wire under load that is being used as a neutral than it is to lift a wire under load being used as a hot?

Whatever your answer is, tell me why re-identifying a white wire is needed based on your answer.

Roger

Never ever open a neutral,for reasons we both know.Not marking white wires used as ungrounded to me is sloppy i dont give a --- type attitude.Seen this too often in residential where its a back swith.The guy making up the joints may not know what the guy running wanted.True he should not be there but reality says he will be.On service call work your butting the mans life in danger.He often has poor lighting and working conditions.If he sees a remarked wire you made life easy.Years ago we ran 4/0 4/0 2/0 alum. up the mast and did not mark neutral.Reason was any idiot would know the small one is neutral.Along came a new inspector and he started tagging.

For a long time i would go behind fixing unmarked ungrounded whites,but i finally gave up trying,too many guys like you that simply dont care.Yes you know why you ran it like that but next guy might not.Regardless of who or what the next guy is ,marking it might keep him from getting killed or hurt.

Many things in nec are stupid and often just a waste of t&m but still must be followed.

Nothing will change untill inspectors push this.

Should add i also see many guys running mc and run 12-3 to switch and cut out the white.I jump them over the waste.