ROP 6-13
ROP 6-13
Does the ROP below explain the new wording?
6-13 Log #3293d NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject
(310.10(E), 310.15(B)(7), 310.110(B), Table 400.4, 400.5(A), 400.23, 200.24,
400.31(B), 400.32, and 400.33)
________________________________________________________________
TCC Action: It was the action of the Correlating Committee that this
proposal be reported as ?Reject? to correlate with the action of Code-
Making Panel 5 on Proposal 5-3.
Submitter: Elliot Rappaport, Coconut Creek, FL
Recommendation: Replace the phrase ?equipment grounding conductor? with
the phrase ?equipment bonding conductor? in the Articles and Sections as
identified below. Replacement of ?grounding? or ?ground? when used
separately is covered in separate proposals.
Article 310: 310.10(E), (H)(2), (3), & (5); 310.15(B)(7); 310.110(B) & Title
Article 400: Table 400.4 Note 8, (2x); 400.5(A); 400.23 (3x), 400.24;
400.31(B) (3x), 400.32; 400.33 (2x)
Substantiation: This proposal is one of a series of proposals to replace,
throughout the Code, the term ?grounding? with ?bonding? where appropriate.
As used in the Code, ?grounding? is a well defined term and refers to
connecting to the earth or ground for any one of a number of reasons.
Similarly, ?bonding? is the connection of two bodies together to form a
continuous electrical path. The term ?equipment grounding conductor? has a
definite purpose that is not uniquely expressed in the term. As a result, there is
a misconception that ?grounding? will make a system safe. On the contrary,
connecting equipment to ground without providing the bonding connection
back to the source can make the equipment less safe.
The purpose of the ?equipment grounding conductor (EGC) is to provide a
low impedance path from a fault at equipment ?likely to become energized? to
the source of the electrical current (transformer, generator, etc,). If it is argued
that the purpose is to connect the equipment to ground, then the requirement of
250.4(A)(5) that ?the earth shall not be considered as an effective ground fault
path? would no longer be valid because fault current would then be intended to
flow to the ground (earth).
From the conductor sizing requirements of 250.122, and specifically
250.122(B), it is apparent that the purpose of the EGC is related to connection
(bonding) to the source of power rather than connection to ground. If the
principle purpose was the connection to ground, then the sizing requirements
would be less important since near equipotential conditions can be achieved
with much smaller conductors.
The fundamentals of these proposals are to clearly state that ?systems? are
?grounded? and ?equipment? is ?bonded?. The fact that the bonding conductor
may be grounded also is secondary to the primary function of bonding.
This proposal proposes changing the word ?grounding? to ?bonding?, where
appropriate, throughout the Code. It is clear that there are many places where
?grounding? is used to identify the connection to earth (grounding electrode
conductor) and ?grounding? should remain. Additionally, the expression
?EGC? should be changed to ?EBC?, ?equipment bonding conductor? for
consistency.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: Contingent upon the acceptance of the submitter?s related
material by CMP-5, CMP-6 would be in agreement with the concept of the
changes.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
Comment on Affirmative:
CLINE, S.: This changeover is long overdue. We of the ?older? generation
need to embrace this clarification of language and purpose for the sake of those
following us.
HUDDLESTON, JR., R.: The primary function of the conductor presently
defined as an ?equipment grounding conductor? is actually a bonding function.
The grounding electrode conductor grounds systems and equipment. Accepting
this change will help increase usability and understanding of the associated
requirements.
