2005 proposals - ECN Electrical Forums

How many sent in proposals for the 2005 NEC? I sent in about 175, but all but a few are related to my proposal to change the term "equipment grounding conductor" to "equipment bonding conductor".
Don

Equipment bonding conductor? Would you care you to elaborate a bit on the reasons for this proposal?

In my opinion too many code users automatically think of a connection to earth when they see the word grounding. The connection to earth plays a very small part in the safety of electrical systems. The primary function of the earth connetion is lightning protection. To be able to clear faults the equipment must be "bonded" to the grounded conductor via the equipment "bonding" conductor and the main bonding jumper. The conductor that we call "equipment grounding conductor" is never, in code compliant system connected directly to earth.
Don

Bravo! Don, it would greatly help in teaching others about the differences...

I have a feeling that "tradition" will prevail, however...

Once, a guy called T&B PT-70Ms (barrell crimps) "Bonding Crimps" and I've been calling them that ever since! I use them for EGCs instead of Greenies in order to save space and make the EGCs impractical for DIYs to open.

To answer the first Q:

I sent in two proposals. One to delete 210.12 (AFCIs, or is it 212.8?), and one to clarify that bathroom recepts to be above the counter or basin.

Something may come of the AFCIs with the flood of ROCs they're probably getting.

[This message has been edited by sparky66wv (edited 11-06-2002).]

Don:
BRAVO!!!! The toughest thing to explain is bonding. Good Luck! but, as 66 said "tradition will prevail"
John

Don,

Was it necessary to do so many? Does each occurrance require justification? I submitted a proposal having to do with the format of how Exceptions are listed throughout the Code, but only used one example. Should I have done more?

Bill

Bill,
I called the NFPA and they told me that I could do one for all of the ones in Article 250, but all of the other occurrences of "equipment grounding conductor" in the other Articles would require a separate proposals. My substantiation for the change was in my "global" Article 250 proposal, the substantiation for all of the other proposals just said; "this is a coordinating proposal to my proposal to change "equipment grounding conductor" to equipment bonding conductor" in Article 250.
I think that yours is a little different in that it is a style or format change and should be OK without separate proposals.
Don

Resqcapt19:

I see your point. It is indeed possible to have an "equipment ground" that is not in contact with the actual earth at any point, and still be perfectly safe. In this case it would serve as equipotential bonding only.

I don't like the term equipment grounding conductor, since it's meaning isn't intuitively clear.

How about "Protective conductor"? Then we could use "Protective bonding" to refer to an installation with "Protective conductors". (I.e. it is a "grounded" system, like almost all systems today)

"Protective earth" will then mean that the "Protective bonding" is in contact with earth. (We should take the chance to create a common terminology for all countries. US vs UK vs "Down under" vs Swedish terminology get me confused all the time...)

Oops! Missed the deadline! Heck, I'm still thinking in terms of the '99 code- and you expect me to think 2005?
Will there be another opening? Or, do I get to wait another three years?

A Q in another thread got me thinking... (Uh oh!)

What about swimming pool bonding? How would the NEC word the requirements differently to avoid confusion in this matter?

[Linked Image]

Don,

My proposal was returned today. Because it "deals with formatting and issues that are an NFPA staff function and responsibility" I guess that there are some suggestions that you cannot make?

Bill

Bill, what is their definition of NFPA staff function and responsibility?

Is this implying that any question or suggestion that they deem is above our heads,or threatning to them, is not to be considered? [Linked Image]

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 11-09-2002).]

Bill,
Maybe those rules are in the NEC style manual and cannot be changed by a proposal to the NEC itself. I don't think that the style manual can be changed by anyone except the NFPA, but am not sure.
Don

Don,

I was wondering that myself. It did state that they would take it into consideration though.

I did not know if it was something that could be proposed or not, but really thought it was a good idea and was looking forward to comments on it. Maybe you guys can tell me what you think as it will not make it to the ROPs;

Quote

Recommendation:
Indent Exceptions under 210.8(A)(2) and elsewhere in the NEC where the Exceptions pertain only to the List item directly above it.

Substantiation:
I believe that there could easily be some confusion here (and some other locations in the NEC) as to what (specifically) Exceptions are meant to apply to. According to 2.6.1 in the 2001 NEC Style Manual Exceptions shall immediately follow the main rule to which they apply. In this example (and others) the item before the Exception is a 'List Item' and by definition only an item necessary to complete a rule. (not the Rule itself) see 2.1.5.1 and Example following 2.1.5.3 in 2001 NEC Style Manual. Indenting Exceptions below specific list items that they apply to will ensure that it is not confused with other situations where Exceptions may apply to several List items above it, as in the Exceptions following 210.6(D)(2)FPN. I believe that this modification will help to clarify the document as a whole and be more consistant with basic principles of Composition and Outline structure.

Bill,
I think that your idea would help make it clear what the exceptions apply to. It is a good idea.
Don

Clarity is always appreciated, presumably condusive to the safety sought.

Bill, i remember the thread, and thought it prudent to inquire via ROP.

Howevere, is 'formating' a TCC function here?

[Linked Image]