Add FPN to 250.130(C)

[George Stolz]

How about adding a FPN to 250.130(C):

FPN: See 250.4(A)(5). The purpose of this equipment grounding conductor is to open an overcurrent protection device in the event of a fault.

Or something along these lines.

Honestly, IMO, from the outside looking in, this section appears to be concerned with "grounding" equipment, not "bonding" equipment. Something should be clarified.

For perspective, see 680.26(A)'s FPN. That little note speaks volumes. I believe something similar should be in 250.130(C).

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I think the use of fine print notes is slowly turning the NEC into the handbook. I would not vote for this one.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I too like FPN, but agree they proably should be left to another reference such as the handbook. I like it when the NEC FPN's references another resource such as the one's after 110.12 or 110.16 or when it reminds you of other applicable sections. They shouldn't be used to educate or train the reader what the purpose of the section is.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

Originally posted by bphgravity:
. They shouldn't be used to educate or train the reader what the purpose of the section is.

The FPNs usually seem to clarify things that are in great need of clarification. I vote they stay in unless they rewrite the code so the FPNs are no longer needed.

Personally, I think they should be required to put the prupose of the section into every section. Intent is an important part of understanding the code and with so much of it being so obscure, it just makes it harder and harder to understand.

 

[charlie]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

The intent of a FPN is to direct the user's attention to another standard or to something that is often missed. It is the intent of the Standards Council that the panels get rid of all the FPNs that they can. If it is to clarify a section then that section needs to be reworded.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

This problem will go away if the words "equipment grounding conductor" are replaced with "equipment bonding conductor".
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I forget what's going on with that, Don.

I understand you submitted a proposal for the 2005 cycle and it was rejected. What was the basis? I remember hearing snippets, but never really getting the full story.

I believe you're correct.

 

[charlie]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

Don's proposal was not rejected, it was held for the next cycle. The proposal effects the entire Code and a task force is looking into the ramifications before accepting the change. It is possible that some modifications will be made to the proposal to make it workable throughout the Code. In my opinion, it will make it through this cycle.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

It's something that needs to be done. If nothing else it will force the electrical community to deal with the fact that they are indeed two different functions that are almost totally unrelated.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

Charlie,
Actaully CMP 5 reported it as "accepted" but it was one vote short of the required 2/3s and the
TCC(not sure if it was TCC or someone else) changed it to "rejected".
Don

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

George,
My only point is that the use of the term grounding leads many to believe that the connection to earth is the most important safety connection...in my opinion the bonding back to the power source is the most important saftey connection.
Don

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

Don,

Amen to that! I agree 100%.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
George,
My only point is that the use of the term grounding leads many to believe that the connection to earth is the most important safety connection...in my opinion the bonding back to the power source is the most important saftey connection.
Don

I am coming to the conclusion that bonding is probably the only real "safety" connection and that grounding is really not that important from a safety stand point.

 

[charlie]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I am coming to the conclusion that bonding is probably the only real "safety" connection and that grounding is really not that important from a safety stand point.

I agree with you for the low voltage stuff (1 kV and lower). I don't agree with you when you are in the medium voltage range or higher (greater than 1 kV to 35 kV, high voltage is greater than 35 kV, but less than or equal to 230 kV).

 

[rbalex]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

One of my earliest Proposals (rejected) was simply to change the title of Art 250 to "Bonding and Grounding" to emphasize the importance of bonding. I can't remember the original Panel Statement and the TCD is buried too deep to look it up.

Apparently if I had switched the order it would have been accepted earlier.

My personal opinion about both older CMP5 and CMP16 (before the 2005 panel reformations) committees is they were dominated technically by telecommunications interests and many of the panel actions were based more on protecting "signal quality" than inherent safety issues.

 

[charlie]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

BOB, how can you say that members of a panel were protecting their own self interests; I just don't see how that could possibly happen.

 

[rbalex]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I have absolutely no problem with panel members protecting their own interests; it is a consensus standard after all. My problem is protecting them under the guise of "safety," rather than in industry performance standards.

As I've said before, MY interest as a design professional isn't generally represented and, despite declarations to the contrary [90.1(C)], the NEC is becoming more and more a "design specification."

 

[charlie]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I Agree.

 

[petersonra]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

I sort of like some of the "design specification" parts of the code. There is no reason not to codify certain accepted and well thought out practices, so that everyone does them the same way. this actually tends to make things safer in the long run, because you don't have a lot of different things people are unfamiliar with to work on.

on the other hand, i don't agree at all with the provisions designing equipment (like requiring GFCIs on vending machine cords). This seems like the camel's nose starting to enter the tent. this kind of thing ought to be in UL's court, and stay there.

 

[charlie]

Re: Add FPN to 250.130(C)

Bob, my group has decided to take the position that the NEC generally does not jump out of the wall and cover things that are connected to the building wiring system unless it is hard wired. In other words, we don't care about the type of plugs or protection is on a window AC but we do care about the circuit that feeds it. The same applies to extension cords and appliance cords. The list is endless so this is a good place to stop but I think you have our thoughts.