Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
________________________________________________________________
1-1 Log #989 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: Dorothy Kellogg, American Chemistry Council
Comment on Proposal No: 1-2
Recommendation: The Final Action should be accept.
Substantiation: The ACC continues to support Mr. Dobrowskyʼs proposal to
change the term “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding con-
ductor” throughout the National Electrical Code. The ACC believes that the
change will clarify the understanding of the term and the actual purpose of this
conductor as stated in the submitterʼs substantiation.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The TCC recognizes that CMP 5 has responsibility for
the resolution of this issue throughout the NEC and, at this time, CMP 5 has
held Comment 5-5 which would change “equipment grounding conductor” to
“equipment bonding conductor”.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
________________________________________________________________
1-2 Log #1161 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 1-2
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The TCC recognizes that CMP 5 has responsibility for
the resolution of this issue throughout the NEC and, at this time, CMP 5 has
held Comment 5-5 which would change “equipment grounding conductor” to
“equipment bonding conductor”.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
________________________________________________________________
1-3 Log #1166 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 1-2
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conduct) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
70-1
NFPA 70
Panel Statement: The TCC recognizes that CMP 5 has responsibility for
the resolution of this issue throughout the NEC and, at this time, CMP 5 has
held Comment 5-5 which would change “equipment grounding conductor” to
“equipment bonding conductor”.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
________________________________________________________________
1-4 Log #3662 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Thomas E. Trainor, City of San Diego
Comment on Proposal No: 1-2
Recommendation: I recommend that the panel reaffirm the original action to
accept this proposal.
Substantiation: The strongest argument in favor of this proposal is actually
found in the comments of one CMP-5 panel member explaining his negative
vote. His comment perfectly demonstrates the ongoing confusion regarding
bonding. In describing the use of “metallic raceways and cables”, the panel
member stated, “In some cases, all code requirements can be complied with
without utilizing any bonding”. This is clearly wrong.
There is no wiring method that can be installed without bonding. Bonding is
defined as “the permanent joining of metallic parts...” A stick of metal conduit
is a metallic part. A conduit fitting is a metallic part. Joining these two metallic
pieces properly is BONDING. The fact that even a knowledgeable member of
CMP-5 can make such an inaccurate statement demonstrates the real need for
changing the term “equipment grounding conductor”.
Visualize a metal box in an interior wall of a residence. When we connect
an equipment grounding conductor from this box to this service, are we really
“Grounding” this box – connecting it to earth to protect it from lighting or
inadvertent high voltage? Obviously not. We are BONDING this metal box to
the neutral at the service to create a low impedance path for fault current. And
how do we BOND this box? We install an equipment GROUNDING conduc-
tor. This simply does not make sense.
Grounding certainly serves an important purpose at the service equipment.
However, in the premises wiring system, most of what continues to be called
“grounding” is actually the requirement to create an effective fault-current path.
This path is created by BONDING all metallic parts together and to the service
neutral. The fact that this also connects metallic parts to earth is minor and,
in most cases, meaningless. The main function of the conductor that connects
a metallic part to the service neutral is to BOND the box to the neutral which
creates a low impedance path for fault current to return to the source. The
name of the conductor that is used for this purpose should accurately reflect its
purpose.
The long standing contradiction between the definition of “Grounding” in
Article 100 and the way the term is used in Article 250 is the basic cause for
the industry-wide misunderstanding of grounding and bonding. CMP-1 is to be
commended for addressing this issue and will do the electrical industry a great
service by supporting the term, “Equipment Bonding Conductor”.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The TCC recognizes that CMP 5 has responsibility for
the resolution of this issue throughout the NEC and, at this time, CMP 5 has
held Comment 5-5, which would change “equipment grounding conductor” to
“equipment bonding conductor”.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
________________________________________________________________
1-5 Log #2129a NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 1-2
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The TCC recognizes that CMP 5 has responsibility for
the resolution of this issue throughout the NEC and, at this time, CMP 5 has
held Comment 5-5 which would change “equipment grounding conductor” to
“equipment bonding conductor”.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
________________________________________________________________
2-1 Log #1160 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 2-2
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel disagrees with the submitterʼs substantiation.
CMP5 did not accept the overall approach to this proposal. There is insuf-
ficient substantiation that the misunderstanding or misuse of the terminology is
widespread or has resulted in unsafe installations. The use of the term “equip-
ment grounding conductor” is consistent with the definition in Article 100.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
________________________________________________________________
2-2 Log #1167 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 2-2
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
70-2
NFPA 70
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel statement on Comment 2-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
________________________________________________________________
2-3 Log #2129b NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 2-2
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel statement on Comment 2-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
________________________________________________________________
3-1 Log #1165 NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 3-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.” believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
noraml operations?” between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate- very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a Panel Meeting Action: Reject
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.” Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 3-1.
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding Number Eligible to Vote: 13
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When ________________________________________________________________
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making 4-1 Log #1164 NEC-P04 Final Action: Reject
grounding workable. ( Entire Document )
Panel Meeting Action: Reject ________________________________________________________________
Panel Statement: Changing the phrase “equipment grounding conductor” to Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
“equipment bonding conductor” is outside the jurisdiction of Panel 3 and must Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
be acted on by Panel 1 as a definition, and by Panel 5, which has jurisdiction Comment on Proposal No: 4-1
over that particular phrase. CMP 5 will drive this. The panel suggests that Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
TCC appoint an interim task group to provide direction for the 2008 cycle. ment bonding conductor.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
________________________________________________________________ word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
3-2 Log #1168 NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
( Entire Document ) of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
________________________________________________________________ our eyes to the truth.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
Comment on Proposal No: 3-1 hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
bonding conductor. Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured set down in the Code.”
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
be the most important change ever made in the NEC. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
Panel Meeting Action: Reject grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 3-1 imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
Number Eligible to Vote: 13 lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
________________________________________________________________ noraml operations?”
3-3 Log #2129c NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
( Entire Document ) rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
________________________________________________________________ equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Comment on Proposal No: 3-1 Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
Recommendation: Accept the proposal. to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con- NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup- grounding workable.
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan- Panel Meeting Action: Reject
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using Panel Statement: Changing the phrase “equipment grounding conductor” to
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are “equipment bonding conductor” is outside the jurisdiction of Panel 4 and must
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and be acted on by Panel 1 as a definition and by Panel 5, which has jurisdiction
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under- over that particular phrase.
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What Number Eligible to Vote: 10
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the ________________________________________________________________
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini- 4-2 Log #1169 NEC-P04 Final Action: Reject
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for ( Entire Document )
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers ________________________________________________________________
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002 Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica- Comment on Proposal No: 4-1
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal bonding conductor.
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con- Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding. but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con- grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal. Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 4-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10

70-3
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
_______________________________________________________________
4-3 Log #2129d NEC-P04 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 4-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 4-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
________________________________________________________________
5-1 Log #211 NEC-P05 Final Action: Hold
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: The Technical Correlating Committee will establish a Task Group
to explore the issues identified by Proposal 5-1 and Comment 5-1 and to
consider development of proposals for the 2008 NEC cycle to establish
consistent use of the terms “grounding” and “bonding” as discussed in
Proposal 5-1 and Comment 5-1.
Submitter: Glenn W. Zieseniss Crown Point, IN
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: The recommendation to change the term “equipment
grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding conductor” throughout the NEC
should have been accepted.
Substantiation: A descriptive designation of EGC and EBC is a necessity to
using the NEC effectively. I agree with the comments of Messers. Dobrowsky,
Johnston, Mello, Skuggevig, and White. In just the last 3 months, had reviewed
plans for 3 cell towers and equipment. Two of the plans specifically stated the
installation to be installed per the NEC and local codes, then went on to spe-
cifically have an Isolated ground rod for the Service Equipment and another
Isolated ground rod for the Telco (telephone) service to the building. The third
installation showed very well detail ground ring with all of the connections to
it and the Grounding Bar detail, then did not connect the Service Equipment to
the grounding ring which is only inches away. These plans were stamped by
Electrical Engineer(s).
Comments by some of the “Explanation of Negative”, such as “the terms
ground, grounding and equipment ground conductor have been used in the
NEC for years and are widely understood”. But it is not widely understood by
all electrical people!
Panel Meeting Action: Hold
The panel holds this comment and Proposal 5-1.
Panel Statement: This comment is held because it would propose something
that could not be properly handled within the time frame for processing the
Report on Comments.
70-4
NFPA 70
The discussions generated by Proposals 5-1 and 5-44 during the ROP stage
and continuing through the ROC stage indicate that the concept requires further
consideration. CMP 5 concludes that these discussions have identified that
there is meaningful purpose and a need to establish a consistent and proper use
of terminology related to grounding and bonding. The panel concludes that
the wide ranging impact of such a change throughout the NEC requires further
detailed study and development of a final resolution. CMP 5 believes the long-
term benefits of this concept will provide a significant benefit to the electrical
industry.
CMP 5 requests the Technical Correlating Committee to appoint a chair to
establish a task group to pursue the concepts introduced by Proposals 5-1 and
5-44. The task group should consist of a majority of CMP 5 members and rep-
resentatives from some of the other panels as well as incorporate representation
from the various organizations.
The task group should review the entire NEC for proper and consistent use
of terms, including related definitions, such as bond, bonding, bonded, ground,
grounded, ungrounded, grounding, and other definitions incorporating these
terms. The task group should be responsible for developing and submitting
proposals for the 2008 NEC to establish a consistent use of the terms and their
definitions.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: I support the CMP 5 action to hold this comment and request a
formation of a task group. There seems to be a general consensus on the panel
that the terms “grounding”, “grounded”, “bonding”, etc. are not always used
correctly and that, where used correctly, the implied requirement is not always
clear. A task group is needed to examine this issue and make proposals to rem-
edy these deficiencies.
My support of the action on this proposal to form a task group is not neces-
sarily an endorsement for a change of the term “equipment grounding conduc-
tor” to the term “equipment bonding conductor”. The task group should exam-
ine the issues involved in the use of these terms and recommend solutions.
While a proposal to change or redefine certain terms is a possible outcome of
its work, it is important that the task group be charged to start with a “clean
slate” and examine a range of options with consideration of terminology usage
in the NEC and in related documents such as product standards, industry stan-
dards, etc.
I believe this position accurately reflects the discussion at the meeting.
WHITE: EEI/EL&P supports this action and feels that the work of a Task
Group could improve usability of the NEC in regards to consistent use of ter-
minology for the concepts of grounding and bonding.
________________________________________________________________
5-3 Log #721 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Alan H. Nadon, City of Elkhart, IN
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: Reject this proposal.
Substantiation: The proposed change does not add clarity in proportion to the
chaos it will generate. The Code effectively handles the possible violation of
earth grounding when bonding is needed in 250.4(A)(4) and (5). The Code is
not intended as an instruction manual for untrained persons.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-4 Log #746 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Mark Shapiro Farmington Hills, MI
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: Reject the proposal.
Substantiation: The adoption of this proposal would create more confu-
sion than it corrected. Those who do not understand how to apply Article 250
will not be enlightened by this change. The most likely result would be to add
to the misunderstandings and sense of alienation from the code on the part of
those whom this proposal is intended to help.
This is not to deny that the proposal is technically correct. I am sure that I
am not the only person who intends to start explaining grounding and bonding,
using this term. But, the code is not a text book. It also doesnʼt work well as
an engineering manual.
But, for code purposes, the result would be an example of what is known
as “the law of unintended consequences”; the principle that a change that is
intended to make things easier, often results in making things harder and more
complex.
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-5 Log #758 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Michael J. Johnston Plano, TX
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: The panel should reconsider the initial action (as reflected
in the ROP) on this proposal. The initial action by various Panels at the ROP
meeting was to accept the proposal which is not reflected in the Report on
Proposals.
Hold for further study.
Substantiation: It was apparent in the initial stages of the 2005 NEC process
that there was considerable support from many panel representatives of this
proposal and concept to revise the terms currently used. The proposal gener-
ated varying views from many different individuals and groups. There were
very few comments by those opposed to such a revision that included any
technical reason why the revision should not move forward. There were many
comments about economic impact. These should not be considered as meaning-
ful reasons to discount viable efforts to improve the Code. Good Code for the
user has to be given consideration. This change was submitted to clarify terms
related to increased understandability and clarification of commonly misused
terms both in the current Code text and how they are being applied in the field.
I feel that this proposal has merit and long term benefits for the NEC deserves
further investigation. It is evident that Panel 5 is concerned with continuing the
work on the performance language that was accepted in the 2002 edition. This
proposed revision is consistent with those actions and the current wording of
250.4. The term grounded and the term bonding (bonded) are clearly defined in
Article 100 and mean two different things. The ground should not be related to
the effective fault current path as clearly evident by Panelʼs action on Proposals
5-52 and 5-54. These terms used in the rules of the Code should “mean what
they imply by definition” to be understandable and user friendly. The CEC
Part does use this very concept of bonding equipment together with an “equip-
ment bonding conductor” and then to ground. It is referred to as “bonding to
ground” which is what is being presently happening under the requirements of
the NEC. I feel this proposal and concept should be held for further study and
consideration.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-6 Log #998 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Noel Williams, Noel Williams Consulting
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: This proposal should be rejected.
Substantiation: Although the intent is admirable, this change will not fix the
supposed problem. In fact, changing the name of the equipment grounding
conductor will likely cause more problems than it will correct, including add-
ing to misunderstanding rather than improving understanding.
Section 250.4 now clearly spells out the issues addressed in Article 250. One
of these issues is grounding of equipment “to limit the voltage to ground” on
the equipment, an issue that is clearly related to reducing shock hazards. The
submitter is correct that by calling this a “grounding” conductor rather than a
“bonding” conductor, some people may miss its other important use: establish-
ing an effective ground fault current path. However, it is just as likely that
by calling it a bonding conductor, the equipment grounding function may be
missed. If the name of the equipment grounding conductor is to be changed, it
should be changed to reflect all the important uses of this conductor. A more
accurate name would be “equipment grounding and bonding conductor.”
The change, as proposed, is very far-reaching, but accomplishes little. The
problem is not in language, but in adequate training. This change will set
the current users of the code back significantly and trainers will still have to
explain that this new “equipment bonding conductor” must also still serve as
an “equipment grounding conductor” to meet the performance requirements of
250.4. They will also have to explain that on ungrounded systems it only func-
tions as an “equipment grounding conductor” until the second fault and only
then does it act like its name, “equipment bonding conductor” as explained in
250.4(B)(2) through (4).
I find the comments for rejecting this proposal by members of all panels
70-5
NFPA 70
much more persuasive than the comments that support accepting the proposal,
and I think the comments in favor of rejection should be more carefully consid-
ered by the panel.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-7 Log #1163 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-8 Log #1170 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
________________________________________________________________
5-9 Log #2129 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-10 Log #2401 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Charles Mello, Electro-Test, Inc.
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: The panel should reconsider the merits of this proposal.
The term “equipment grounding conductor” should be replaced by the term
“equipment bonding conductor” as proposed.
Substantiation: This issue has raised a number of discussions and a much
needed look at how the terms, ground, grounded, grounding, bond, bonded and
bonding with all the derivatives are in fact used throughout the Code. Even
with the reorganization of Article 250 in the 1999 cycle and the fine-tuning
done in the 2002 cycle, grounding (or bonding) still is extremely confusing to
the Code users. This is evidenced on a very regular basis while teaching this
subject to apprentices, seasoned veterans, engineers and many others associated
in the electrical industry.
The green wire does in fact serve both purposes, bonding and grounding,
but as indicated by the order just stated, the bonding is the more critical since
the conductor must be able to carry fault current for a sufficient time to clear
an overcurrent device. The proposal is admittedly a radical change, but it is
a change that is necessary, and now is just as good a time as any. There will
be arguments that this change will cause significant impact to manufactur-
ers, product standards, book authors and publishers, but even with this impact
understood, it needs to be done. Last cycle all of Chapter 3 was disassembled,
reconstructed, parallel numbering added and technical changes made. This had
the same effects on all of the industry, maybe even more so, and we are still
functioning, and most would have to admit for the better. The bottom line is
safety, and a clear understanding of the terminology used and use of the correct
terminology is a cornerstone to that understanding that leads to safe designs
and installations. Please see the attached photographs and graphic for but one
70-6
NFPA 70
example.
If the panel chooses not to go forward with this changes at this time, the panel
would be strongly encouraged to form a panel task force or support a TCC task
force dedicated to reviewing the use of all these terms and develop specific
proposals for consideration in the 2008 Code cycle.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-11 Log #3628 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dann Strube, Strube Consulting
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: Continue to reject this proposal.
Substantiation: With over thirty of experience in teaching NEC, I feel I am
qualified to address the issues involved with this proposal. It is true that many
in the industry have problems with the concept of grounding conductor vs.
grounded conductor. It is also true that many do not understand the fact that
equipment bonding jumper and an equipment grounding conductor are the
same thing except for length in most cases.
In spite of the fact that the words we use in Article 250 help to confuse
the user, the words in the code are not the real problem. The problems with
grounding are many. Some electricians just do not understand what is accom-
plished through grounding. The “fairy tales” also add to the problem. For some
reason, electricians seem to be more willing to buy Bubbaʼs fairy tale than they
are to the facts from the inspector.
Another problem lies in common language used in the field. Electricians tend
to call the neutral “Ground.” It is, after all, grounded in most cases. However,
when they go to the NEC they try to use grounding rules for this thing they call
“Ground” instead of grounded rules. Worse yet, they try to apply both sets of
rules.
A change in the code words is only change for the sake of change. The fairy
tale will still be there. Bubba will still be there and the neutral will still be
“Grounded.” The only cure for the problems encountered in grounding is
education, education and more education. Changing the words will not help
one bit. This is true with this proposal and also with other proposals to make
across the board change to the terms used in the code related to grounding.
With thirty plus years of teaching I like to think I have helped some get
the picture and hope those that did have passed it along to the young people
entering the trade. As I stated previously, education is the real answer. Word
changes will do nothing but make things worse.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
5-12 Log #3661 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Thomas E. Trainor, City of San Diego
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: I recommend that the panel accept this proposal.
Substantiation: The strongest argument in favor of this proposal is actually
found in the comments of one panel member explaining his negative vote. His
comment perfectly demonstrates the ongoing confusion regarding bonding. In
describing the use of “metallic raceways and cables”, the panel member stated,
“In some cases, all code requirements can be complied with without utilizing
any bonding”. This is clearly wrong.
There is no wiring method that can be installed without bonding. Bonding is
defined as “the permanent joining of metallic parts...” A stick of metal conduit
is a metallic part. A conduit fitting is a metallic part. Joining these two metallic
pieces properly is BONDING. The fact that even a knowledgeable member of
CMP-5 can make such an inaccurate statement demonstrates the real need for
changing the term “equipment grounding conductor”.
Visualize a metal box in an interior wall of a residence. When we connect
an equipment grounding conductor from this box to this service, are we really
“Grounding” this box – connecting it to earth to protect it from lighting or
inadvertent high voltage? Obviously not. We are BONDING this metal box to
the neutral at the service to create a low impedance path for fault current. And
how do we BOND this box? We install an equipment GROUNDING conduc-
tor. This simply does not make sense.
Grounding certainly serves an important purpose at the service equipment.
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
However, in the premises wiring system, most of what continues to be called grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
“grounding” is actually the requirement to create an effective fault-current path.be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
This path is created by BONDING all metallic parts together and to the service Panel Meeting Action: Reject
neutral. The fact that this also connects metallic parts to earth is minor and, Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 6-1.
in most cases, meaningless. The main function of the conductor that connects Number Eligible to Vote: 11
a metallic part to the service neutral is to BOND the box to the neutral which Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
creates a low impedance path for fault current to return to the source. The ________________________________________________________________
name of the conductor that is used for this purpose should accurately reflect its 6-3 Log #2129e NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject
purpose. ( Entire Document )
The long standing contradiction between the definition of “Grounding” in ________________________________________________________________
Article 100 and the way the term is used in Article 250 is the basic cause for Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
the industry-wide misunderstanding of grounding and bonding. CMP-5 is to be Comment on Proposal No: 6-1
commended for addressing this issue and will do the electrical industry a great Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
service by supporting the term, “Equipment Bonding Conductor”. Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
Panel Meeting Action: Reject ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
Panel Statement: The panel has determined that the concepts in Proposal 5-1 do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
require further study. See the panel action and statement on Comment 5-1. by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
Number Eligible to Vote: 16 port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16 guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
Comment on Affirmative: the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1. very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
________________________________________________________________ about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
6-1 Log #1162 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject this change is helpful.
( Entire Document ) Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
________________________________________________________________ hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1. tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
Comment on Proposal No: 6-1 instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip- NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
ment bonding conductor. tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close “ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
our eyes to the truth. ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise. believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective- amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
set down in the Code.” They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.” and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is Panel Meeting Action: Reject
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 6-1.
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their Number Eligible to Vote: 11
noraml operations?” Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such ________________________________________________________________
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a 7-1 Log #580 NEC-P07 Final Action: Accept
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.” ( Entire Document )
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding ________________________________________________________________
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code®
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning Comment on Proposal No: 7-2
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When Recommendation: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Proposal
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making 7-101.
grounding workable. Substantiation: This is a direction from the National Electrical Code
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Technical Correlating Committee in accordance with 3-4.2 and 3-4.3 of the
Panel Statement: CMP 6 is concerned with the physical aspects of conduc- Regulations Governing Committee Projects.
tors. CMP 5 has the primary responsibility for definitions and uses of ground- Panel Meeting Action: Accept
ing terminology. CMP 6 will reconsider this concept if and when CMP 5 makes Panel Statement: The panel agrees that the correct reference is NFPA 220.
the change from “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding Fine Print Notes 1 and 2 will remain as currently worded in the 2002 NEC.
conductor”. Also, see the panel action and statement on Comment 7-93.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11 Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
_______________________________________________________________ Vote Not Returned: 1 ANASTASI
6-2 Log #1171 NEC-P06 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document ) ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________ 7-2 Log #967 NEC-P07 Final Action: Reject
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors ( Entire Document )
Comment on Proposal No: 6-1 ________________________________________________________________
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
bonding conductor. Submitter: Dorothy Kellogg, American Chemistry Council
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians Comment on Proposal No: 7-1
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand Recommendation: The final panel action should be accept.
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured Substantiation: The ACC continues to support Mr. Dobrowskyʼs proposal to
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of change the term “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding con-
70-7
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
ductor” throughout the National Electrical Code. The ACC believes that the Panel Meeting Action: Reject
change will clarify the understanding of the term and the actual purpose of this Panel Statement: The panel agrees that there is confusion in the field sur-
conductor as stated in the submitterʼs substantiation. rounding these two terms and supports the concept of this change. However,
Panel Meeting Action: Reject the decision to use the terms “grounding” or “bonding” is the responsibility
Panel Statement: The panel agrees that there is confusion in the field sur- of Code-Making Panel 5. Code-Making Panel 7 requests that the Technical
rounding these two terms and supports the concept of this change. However, Correlating Committee appoint a Task Group to study the impact of such a
the decision to use the terms “grounding” or “bonding” is the responsibility change. Code-Making Panel 7 requests the opportunity to review any changes
of Code-Making Panel 5. Code-Making Panel 7 requests that the Technical of these terms that are under their purview.
Correlating Committee appoint a Task Group to study the impact of such a Number Eligible to Vote: 15
change. Code-Making Panel 7 requests the opportunity to review any changes Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
of these terms that are under their purview. Vote Not Returned: 1 ANASTASI
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 ________________________________________________________________
Vote Not Returned: 1 ANASTASI 7-5 Log #2129f NEC-P07 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
7-3 Log #1149 NEC-P07 Final Action: Reject Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
( Entire Document ) Comment on Proposal No: 7-1
________________________________________________________________ Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Submitter: John H. Stricklin Mtn. Home, ID Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
Comment on Proposal No: 7-1 ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip- do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
ment bonding conductor. by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
our eyes to the truth. about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became this change is helpful.
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise. hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective- tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
set down in the Code.” NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.” they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with “ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
noraml operations?” literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate- Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.” self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
grounding workable. very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
Panel Meeting Action: Reject disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Statement: The panel agrees that there is confusion in the field sur- Panel Meeting Action: Reject
rounding these two terms and supports the concept of this change. However, Panel Statement: The panel agrees that there is confusion in the field sur-
the decision to use the terms “grounding” or “bonding” is the responsibility rounding these two terms and supports the concept of this change. However,
of Code-Making Panel 5. Code-Making Panel 7 requests that the Technical the decision to use the terms “grounding” or “bonding” is the responsibility
Correlating Committee appoint a Task Group to study the impact of such a of Code-Making Panel 5. Code-Making Panel 7 requests that the Technical
change. Code-Making Panel 7 requests the opportunity to review any changes Correlating Committee appoint a Task Group to study the impact of such a
of these terms that are under their purview. change. Code-Making Panel 7 requests the opportunity to review any changes
Number Eligible to Vote: 15 of these terms that are under their purview.
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Vote Not Returned: 1 ANASTASI Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
Vote Not Returned: 1 ANASTASI
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
7-4 Log #1172 NEC-P07 Final Action: Reject 8-1 Log #955 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document ) ( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Comment on Proposal No: 7-1 Submitter: Dorothy Kellogg, American Chemistry Council
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment Comment on Proposal No: 8-1
bonding conductor. Recommendation: The Final Action should be accept.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians Substantiation: The ACC continues to support Mr. Dobrowskyʼs proposal to
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand change the term “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding con-
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured ductor” throughout the National Electrical Code. The ACC believes that the
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of change will clarify the understanding of the term and the actual purpose of this
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could conductor as stated in the submitterʼs substantiation.
be the most important change ever made in the NEC. Panel Meeting Action: Reject

70-8
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
Panel Statement: The panel continues to reject changing “equipment ground- ________________________________________________________________
ing conductor” to “equipment bonding conductor” throughout the NEC. A 8-4 Log #2129g NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject
generic change to the Code may not address any technical issues that may ( Entire Document )
exist. The submitter provided no additional technical information to substanti- ________________________________________________________________
ate the change. CMP 8 recommends that the TCC consider appointing a task Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
group, including members from CMP 8 and other panels, to review the techni- Comment on Proposal No: 8-1
cal issues. Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13 Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
________________________________________________________________ by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
8-2 Log #1150 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
( Entire Document ) guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
________________________________________________________________ the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
Submitter: John H. Stricklin Mtn. Home, ID very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
Comment on Proposal No: 8-1 have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip- stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
ment bonding conductor. about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical this change is helpful.
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
our eyes to the truth. NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise. described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective- ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
set down in the Code.” “ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.” literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
noraml operations?” The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate- and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.” disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding Panel Meeting Action: Reject
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present Panel Statement: See panel statement and action on Comment 8-1.
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning Number Eligible to Vote: 13
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable. (Note: The sequence no. 8-5 was not used)
Panel Meeting Action: Reject ____________________________________________________
Panel Statement: See panel statement and action on Comment 8-1. 9-1 Log #922 NEC-P09 Final Action: Reject
Number Eligible to Vote: 13 ( Entire Document )
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 ________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________ Submitter: Dorothy Kellogg, American Chemistry Council
8-3 Log #1173 NEC-P08 Final Action: Reject Comment on Proposal No: 9-1
( Entire Document ) Recommendation: As stated in the Explanation of Negative by Mr. Young,
________________________________________________________________ the panel should have voted to accept this proposal as it applies to articles
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors under the scope of Code-Making Panel 9.
Comment on Proposal No: 8-1 Substantiation: The terms “bonding” and “grounding” are often confused
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment with one another but describe two different concepts. The adoption of this
bonding conductor. proposal througout the code should improve the undrstandng of the concept of
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians bonding noncurrent carrying conductive parts together and of connection of an
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand electrical system to earth.
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured Panel Meeting Action: Reject
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of Panel Statement: CMP 9 agrees that CMP 5 has jurisdiction over this issue.
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could Currently, there is no clear consensus as defined by the NFPA Regulations
be the most important change ever made in the NEC. Governing Committee Projects in CMP 5 with regard to changing the terminol-
Panel Meeting Action: Reject ogy from equipment grounding conductor to equipment bonding conductor.
Panel Statement: See panel statement and action on Comment 8-1. Action taken by CMP 5 on this issue should be consistent throughout the NEC.
Number Eligible to Vote: 13 CMP 9 reaffirms its panel statement on Proposal 9-1 as published on page 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13 in the Report on Proposals.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

70-9
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
________________________________________________________________
9-2 Log #1151 NEC-P09 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John H. Stricklin Mtn. Home, ID
Comment on Proposal No: 9-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 9-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
________________________________________________________________
9-3 Log #1174 NEC-P09 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 9-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 9-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
________________________________________________________________
9-4 Log #2129h NEC-P09 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 9-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
70-10
NFPA 70
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 9-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
________________________________________________________________
10-1 Log #1152 NEC-P10 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 10-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: This comment and associated proposal is outside the pur-
view of Code-Making Panel 10, since the term does not exist in Articles 240
or 780.
Any task group action on this issue could have an indirect impact on Panel
10. Therefore, the panel requests their participation if a Technical Correlating
Committee task group is appointed on this issue.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
________________________________________________________________
10-2 Log #1175 NEC-P10 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 10-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: This comment and associated proposal is outside the pur-
view of Code-Making Panel 10, since the term does not exist in Articles 240
or 780.
Any task group action on this issue could have an indirect impact on Panel
10. Therefore, the panel requests their participation if a Technical Correlating
Committee task group is appointed on this issue.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
_______________________________________________________________
10-3 Log #2129i NEC-P10 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 10-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: This comment and associated proposal is outside the pur-
view of Code-Making Panel 10, since the term does not exist in Articles 240
or 780.
Any task group action on this issue could have an indirect impact on Panel
10. Therefore, the panel requests their participation if a Technical Correlating
Committee task group is appointed on this issue.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
70-11
NFPA 70
________________________________________________________________
11-1 Log #1148 NEC-P11 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John H. Stricklin Mtn. Home, ID
Comment on Proposal No: 11-15
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 11-2.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
_______________________________________________________________
11-2 Log #1176 NEC-P11 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 11-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The recommendation has not provided specific text and
does not meet the requirements of Section 4-5.5 of the NFPA Regulations
Governing Committee Projects. CMP-11 recommends that the Technical
Correlating Committee study this issue in a more comprehensive fashion.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
________________________________________________________________
11-3 Log #2129j NEC-P11 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 11-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002 Comment on Proposal No: 12-1
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding. word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 11-2.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
________________________________________________________________ manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
12-1 Log #925 NEC-P12 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________ protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
Note: Based on the Technical Correlating Committee action on Comment
5-1, the Technical Correlating Committee directs that Comment 12-1 be
reported as “Reject”.
Submitter: Dorothy Kellogg, American Chemistry Council
Comment on Proposal No: 12-1
Recommendation: The Final Action should be accept.
Substantiation: The ACC continues to support Mr. Dobrowskyʼs proposal to
change the term “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding con- Explanation of Negative:
ductor” throughout the National Electrical Code. The ACC believes that the
change will clarify the understanding of the term and the actual purpose of this
conductor as stated in the submitterʼs substantiation.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: Panel 12 is in favor of the change in wording and requests
participation in any task group that may be formed to study this issue.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 3
Explanation of Negative:
JANIKOWSKI: The term “equipment grounding conductor” has been
around and taught in trade schools, at seminars, and used in publications like
Soares from the beginning. Introducing a new definition could cause confu-
sion.
LOTTMANN: NEMA disagrees with the panel action. This proposal
has fostered significant debate in the code process. After considering all of
the debate, it is clear that the issue is one of education and not terminology. and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
Changing the term from “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment
bonding conductor” in no way changes the need for qualified persons and con- or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
tinuing education. The present terminology is well understood by those who
understand the purposes of grounding and bonding. The panel members and
the public need to consider the magnitude of the change compared to the ben-
efit. The change will create a nightmare of revisions and changes in terminol-
ogy across the entire electrical system. The benefit is practically nonexistent. participation in any task group that may be formed to study this issue.
PRICHARD: This comment should be Rejected. Code-Making Panel 5
has primary responsibility for definitions and uses of grounding terminology.
Code-Making Panel 5 has recommended the Technical Correlating Committee
appoint a Task Group to go through the entire code and make recommenda-
tions for changing “equipment grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding
conductor”.
NFPA 70
_______________________________________________________________
12-2 Log #1147 NEC-P12 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on the Technical Correlating Committee action on Comment
5-1, the Technical Correlating Committee directs that Comment 12-1 be
reported as “Reject”.
Submitter: John H. Stricklin Mtn. Home, ID
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: Panel 12 is in favor of the change in wording and requests
participation in any task group that may be formed to study this issue.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 3
JANIKOWSKI: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 12-1.
LOTTMANN: See my explanation of negative vote on Comment 12-1.
PRICHARD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 12-1.
_______________________________________________________________
12-3 Log #1177 NEC-P12 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on the Technical Correlating Committee action on Comment
5-1, the Technical Correlating Committee directs that Comment 12-1 be
reported as “Reject”.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 12-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: Panel 12 is in favor of the change in wording and requests
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 7 Negative: 3
Explanation of Negative:
JANIKOWSKI: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 12-1.
LOTTMANN: See my explanation of negative vote on Comment 12-1.
PRICHARD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 12-1.

70-12
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
_______________________________________________________________
12-3a Log #2129k NEC-P12
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: Based on the Technical Correlating Committee action on Comment
5-1, the Technical Correlating Committee directs that Comment 12-1 be
reported as “Reject”.
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 12-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: Panel 12 is in favor of the change in wording and requests
participation in any task group that may be formed to study this issue.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
JANIKOWSKI: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 12-1.
PRICHARD: See my Explanation of Negative Vote on Comment 12-1.
________________________________________________________________
13-1 Log #934 NEC-P13 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Action on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: Dorothy Kellogg, American Chemistry Council
Comment on Proposal No: 13-1
Recommendation: This proposal should be accepted. Change “equipment
grounding conductor” to “equipment bonding conductor” throughout the NEC.
Substantiation: NEC wide proposal to change “equipment grounding con-
ductor” to “equipment bonding conductor” where appropriate does clarify the
actual purpose of this conductor.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: Panel 5 is ultimately responsible for Article 250,
Grounding, and Panel 1 is responsible for Article 100, Definitions. This and
similar proposals recommending changing “equipment grounding conductor”
to “equipment bonding conductor” are not a simple change or straightforward
issue. Panel 13 would be amiss to make any changes with regard to grounding
terminology that would be in conflict with the actions of Panel 5 and Panel 1.
In addition, this recommendation and the original substantiation do not provide
any technical data or documentation to substantiate that the use of the present
term has led to unsafe installations. The existing evidence is quite the opposite
as substantiated by over 20 years of successful and safe installations.
Such a major change in the Code terminology must be based on an inad-
equacy with the present code. Safety records and history do not indicate such
70-13
NFPA 70
an inadequacy. Before any such change can be considered, all the issues must
be investigated to ensure clarity and to determine the overall impact, such as
the cost and the effect to industrial standards, product listings, listing standards,
engineering standards, and so forth. Panel 13 rejects changing this terminology
in our venue until such time as Panel 5 investigates and determines that this
change is necessary and desirable.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
________________________________________________________________
13-2 Log #1178 NEC-P13 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 13-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 13-1. The
panel recommends that the submitter provide the documentation to substantiate
the comment.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
________________________________________________________________
13-2a Log #2129l NEC-P13 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 13-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 13-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Abstain: 2
Comment on Affirmative:
STAFFORD: I agree with the panel actions and concur with the panel state-
ment for 13-1. However, my records do not indicate where this proposal was
acted upon by the panel.
WOOD: My records indicate that the panel did not act on this comment.
However, I agree with the panel action on Proposal 13-1, and the listed panel
action on Comment 13-2a.
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
Explanation of Abstention:
HORNBERGER: My records indicate that this comment was not acted upon
at the meeting. The comment was not distributed with the NFPA comment
mailing to the panel members, and is not listed in the comments available on
the Panel 13 or the public site.
KOVACIK: My notes do not indicate the panel discussed or acted on this
comment. As such, I cannot Accept or Reject the stated panel action.
________________________________________________________________
13-3 Log #1153 NEC-P13 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 13-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 13-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14
________________________________________________________________
14-1 Log #1154 NEC-P14 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 14-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
70-14
NFPA 70
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: CMP 14 understands that this is a global NEC issue and
needs to be resolved by the TCC with appropriate inputs from the affected
CMPs. CMP 5 appears to be the lead panel in this work effort.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 14 Abstain: 1
Explanation of Abstention:
WELDON: I am not sure what the intentions of this comment is, and, since I
was not at the meeting, I did not hear the panelʼs conversations concerning this
Comment. Therefore, I with to Abstain.
________________________________________________________________
14-2 Log #1179 NEC-P14 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 14-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: CMP 14 understands that this is a global NEC issue and
needs to be resolved by the TCC with appropriate inputs from the affected
CMPs. CMP 5 appears to be the lead panel in this work effort.
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
________________________________________________________________
14-2a Log #2129m NEC-P14 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 14-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences ________________________________________________________________
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was 15-2a Log #2129n NEC-P15 Final Action: Reject
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that ( Entire Document )
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends. ________________________________________________________________
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Panel Statement: CMP 14 understands that this is a global NEC issue and Comment on Proposal No: 15-1
needs to be resolved by the TCC with appropriate inputs from the affected Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
CMPs. CMP 5 appears to be the lead panel in this work effort. Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
Number Eligible to Vote: 15 ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
_______________________________________________________________ by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
15-1 Log #1155 NEC-P15 Final Action: Reject port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
( Entire Document ) guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
________________________________________________________________ the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1. very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
Comment on Proposal No: 15-1 stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip- about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
ment bonding conductor. this change is helpful.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
our eyes to the truth. tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise. ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective- doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as “ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
set down in the Code.” ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.” Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
noraml operations?” and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate- between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.” Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding Panel Statement: The panel continues to reject the proposal because it has
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present been referred to Panel 5, which has responsibility for grounding and bonding,
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning to ensure proper coordination of the terms “grounding” and “bonding” through-
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When out the Code.
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making Number Eligible to Vote: 12
grounding workable. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The panel continues to reject the proposal because it has ________________________________________________________________
been referred to Panel 5, which has responsibility for grounding and bonding, 16-1 Log #1156 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject
to ensure proper coordination of the terms “grounding” and “bonding” through- ( Entire Document )
out the Code. ________________________________________________________________
Number Eligible to Vote: 12 Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 16-1
________________________________________________________________ Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
15-2 Log #1180 NEC-P15 Final Action: Reject ment bonding conductor.
( Entire Document ) Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
________________________________________________________________ Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
Comment on Proposal No: 15-1 word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
bonding conductor. of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians our eyes to the truth.
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
be the most important change ever made in the NEC. ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
Panel Meeting Action: Reject book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
Panel Statement: The panel continues to reject the proposal because it has set down in the Code.”
been referred to Panel 5, which has responsibility for grounding and bonding, One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
to ensure proper coordination of the terms “grounding” and “bonding” through- and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
out the Code. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
Number Eligible to Vote: 12 grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12 imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
70-15
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate- Panel Statement: CMP 16 acknowledges that the terms “bonding” and
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such “grounding” may often be misused. However, the Code must continue to
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a maintain the distinction between bonding and grounding. The AC equipment
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.” grounding conductor is not a bonding conductor, but truly a grounding con-
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding ductor. Its function is to conduct fault currents, permitting operation of fault
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present overcurrent protection devices (i.e., circuit breakers) in the event of a phase-to-
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning ground (equipment frame) fault. The original proposal would impact a long-
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When standing, familiar term, likely resulting in confusion in the NEC community. A
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making particular safety problem has not been identified, and clarity is not improved
grounding workable. by the proposed change.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Panel Statement: See CMP 16 statement on Comment 16-2a. Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 ________________________________________________________________
17-1 Log #1157 NEC-P17 Final Action: Reject
________________________________________________________________ ( Entire Document )
16-2 Log #1181 NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject ________________________________________________________________
( Entire Document ) Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors Comment on Proposal No: 17-1
Comment on Proposal No: 16-1 Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment ment bonding conductor.
bonding conductor. Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
be the most important change ever made in the NEC. our eyes to the truth.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
Panel Statement: See CMP 16 statement on Comment 16-2a. hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
Number Eligible to Vote: 15 changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15 Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
________________________________________________________________ book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
16-2a Log #2129o NEC-P16 Final Action: Reject set down in the Code.”
( Entire Document ) One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
________________________________________________________________ and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
Comment on Proposal No: 16-1 grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
Recommendation: Accept the proposal. imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con- lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup- noraml operations?”
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan- Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under- Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
this change is helpful. protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini- grounding workable.
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for Panel Meeting Action: Reject
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers Panel Statement: CMP 5 has primary responsibility on this issue and has not
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002 yet reached a consensus. Therefore, CMP 17 continues to reject the proposal
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica- for the reasons given in the ROP.
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise Number Eligible to Vote: 9
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper ________________________________________________________________
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding. 17-2 Log #1182 NEC-P17 Final Action: Reject
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through ( Entire Document )
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con- ________________________________________________________________
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal. Comment on Proposal No: 17-1
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the bonding conductor.
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.” but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition? or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was Panel Meeting Action: Reject
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 17-1.
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends. Number Eligible to Vote: 9
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9

70-16
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA NFPA 70
________________________________________________________________ Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
17-2a Log #2129p NEC-P17 Final Action: Reject rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
( Entire Document ) equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
________________________________________________________________ manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
Comment on Proposal No: 17-1 to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
Recommendation: Accept the proposal. NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con- protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote grounding workable.
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup- Panel Meeting Action: Hold
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan- Panel Statement: The committee recognizes that there are multiple concepts
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using and ramifications involved with this global change. There is insufficient time
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are and data to properly evaluate the changes in a timely manner. The committee
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and recommends to the TCC that a task group be formed to address these issues
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under- throughout the Code.
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What Number Eligible to Vote: 10
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
this change is helpful.
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the ________________________________________________________________
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini- 18-2 Log #1183 NEC-P18 Final Action: Hold
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for ( Entire Document )
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers ________________________________________________________________
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002 Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica- Comment on Proposal No: 18-1
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal bonding conductor.
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con- Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding. but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con- grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal. Panel Meeting Action: Hold
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 18-1.
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the Number Eligible to Vote: 10
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.” ________________________________________________________________
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition? 18-2a Log #2129q NEC-P18 Final Action: Hold
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting ( Entire Document )
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences ________________________________________________________________
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that Comment on Proposal No: 18-1
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends. Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 17-1. ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
Number Eligible to Vote: 9 do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
________________________________________________________________ guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
18-1 Log #1158 NEC-P18 Final Action: Hold the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
( Entire Document ) very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
________________________________________________________________ have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1. stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
Comment on Proposal No: 18-1 this change is helpful.
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip- Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
ment bonding conductor. hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
our eyes to the truth. described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise. In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective- “ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
set down in the Code.” Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.” amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
noraml operations?”

70-17
Report on Comments — May 2004 Copyright, NFPA
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Hold
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 18-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 10
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
________________________________________________________________
19-1 Log #1159 NEC-P19 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Note: See Technical Correlating Committee Note on Comment 5-1.
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 19-1
Recommendation: Equipment grounding conductor to be changed to equip-
ment bonding conductor.
Substantiation: Eustace Soares stated in his book “Grounding Electrical
Distribution Systems for Safety”, if I were asked to describe what it is that is
responsible for the mystery in “Grounding” my answer could be given in ONE
word. That word would be TRADITION. Tradition has been the nemesis of
the progress of civilization for centuries. The only way we can fight the enemy
of tradition is to view the facts with an open mind and not let tradition close
our eyes to the truth.
TRADITION says we did something fifty years or more ago so we became
hide-bound (having an inflexible character) and continue to do it despite the
changes over the years, which dictate otherwise.
Eustace Soares states in the preface of his book on grounding, “The effective-
ness and safety of any system finally rests on the methods of installations. The
book covers pitfalls that must be avoided in order to comply with the rules as
set down in the Code.”
One of these pitfalls is to separate the differences between “Ground, grounded
and grounding” and “Bond, bonded, and bonding.”
Ground, grounded and grounding relate to “Electrical systems that are
grounded shall be connected to earth in a manner that will limit the voltage
imposed by lightning, line surges, or unintentional contact with higher-voltage
lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during normal operation.” Is
it not the power supplier that needs, “line surges, or unintentional contact with
higher-voltage lines and that will stabilize the voltage to earth during their
noraml operations?”
Bond, bonded, and bonding relate to “Non-current-carrying conductive mate-
rials enclosing electrical conductors or equipment, or forming part of such
equipment, shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a
manner that establishes an effective fault current path.”
Until the users of the National Electrial Code, change grounding and bonding
to what they really are and mean, nearly everyone that trys to use the present
NEC is always confused. Ground, grounded and grounding relate to lightning
protection. Bond, bonded, bonding relates to fault current protection. When
grounding and bonding are separated, that could be the first step in making
grounding workable.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The submitter has not provided sufficient substantiation to
validate that the proposed change to rename this conductor would clarify the
situation. Training, not changing terminology, may be the solution to proper
understanding of the NEC terms. CMP 19 understands that this is a global
NEC issue and needs to be resolved by the TCC with appropriate input from
the affected CMPs. CMP 5 appears to be the lead panel in this work effort.
Number Eligible to Vote: 8
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8
_______________________________________________________________
19-1a Log #2129r NEC-P19 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Paul Dobrowsky Holley, NY
Comment on Proposal No: 19-1
Recommendation: Accept the proposal.
Substantiation: I still believe changing the term equipment grounding con-
ductor (EGC) to equipment bonding conductor (EBC) remains the best thing to
do, and understand there is still much to do. Although the necessary 2/3 vote
by CMP5 was not achieved, a majority vote was, indicating that there is sup-
port for the change. Using the present term, one must “ignore” the actual lan-
guage. It is amazing how many individuals shared verbal comments that using
the proposed term is much clearer. These comments came from those that are
very experienced. Some indicate that the existing terms are acceptable and
have been used for many years. That doesnʼt make them correct, and to under-
stand the function and concept, one must actually ignore the definitions. What
about the new user of the NEC? We need to think of the future and whether
this change is helpful.
70-18
NFPA 70
Some have argued that a great expense will be incurred, but what about the
hidden expense of misunderstanding. If a FPN is included with the new defini-
tion (EBC) indicating that the term equipment grounding conductor was for
this purpose in past editions of the NEC, product standards and manufacturers
instructions can be changed as part of the normal revision process. In the 2002
NEC, the term “lighting fixture” was changed to “luminaire” with no indica-
tion of a tremendous expense to the industry. Retailers continue to advertise
they are selling lighting fixtures. In many applications, the device terminal
described as that intended for the connection of the equipment grounding con-
ductor actually is “grounded” using equipment bonding jumper. That jumper
doesnʼt get connected to ground; it completes the fault current path by bonding.
In many instances, the fault can be cleared with no current passing through
“ground.” Electricians will continue to connect the green colored or bare con-
ductor to the green device terminal regardless of whether the manufacturerʼs
literature describes it as an equipment grounding terminal.
Some have argued that there will be a fortune to be made in seminars. I
believe that this will be fairly easy to explain and will actually decrease the
amount of education necessary in the future because the terms will be more
self evident of what they are being used for. In 250.80 and 250.84 we provide
exceptions that “do not require elbows buried in the earth to be grounded.”
They are in the earth! Isnʼt that grounded by the definition?
The discussions related to the proposed concept have been very interesting
and enlightening and has already increased the awareness of the differences
between grounding and bonding. The true quality of many individuals was
very evident, and exemplifies the NEC process. Even those individuals that
disagree with this change continue to remain good friends.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See the panel action and statement on Comment 19-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 8
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8
________________________________________________________________
5-2 Log #720 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Alan H. Nadon, City of Elkhart, IN
Comment on Proposal No: 5-1
Recommendation: DO NOT change the term “equipment grounding conduc-
tor” to “equipment bonding conductor” throught the NEC.
Substantiation: The term “equipment grounding conductor” is understood
by qualified and trained users of the Code. The Code is not intended as an
instruction manual for untrained persons.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 5-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Comment on Affirmative:
BOKSINER: See my comment on affirmative on Comment 5-1.
________________________________________________________________
19-2 Log #1184 NEC-P19 Final Action: Reject
( Entire Document )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: John Stricklin, International Assoc. of Electrical Inspectors
Comment on Proposal No: 19-1
Recommendation: Change equipment grounding conductor to equipment
bonding conductor.
Substantiation: The NEC is supposed to be “THE BOOK” for electricians
and the users of electricity. The biggest part of the NEC is easy to understand
but “GROUNDING” is another subject. How many people have been injured
or killed, or had personal property destroyed by the misunderstanding of
grounding? This little three word (equipment bonding conductor) change could
be the most important change ever made in the NEC.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: See panel action and statement on Comment 19-1.
Number Eligible to Vote: 8
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 8