The Count Is In

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
I was just notified by the office of the NFPA Standards Council that roughly 3,600 proposals were submitted for the 2008 NEC. This does not represent the final number that will be included in the ROP, but just a rough number received before any review. :cool:
 
Re: The Count Is In

How many were submitted by forum members? I know that Ryan had about 200 and I had about 35.
Don
 
Re: The Count Is In

I tossed in a token submission. It's my first time. Next time around I hope to double or even triple my contributions.

Then again, my submission was related to an incorrect cross-reference. It is almost certain to be accepted. That would give me a batting average of 1000. Perhaps I should quit at the top of my game? :D
 
Re: The Count Is In

I submitted six. All fairly close to my heart. :D

I'm counting on the API to submit a Proposal that I can comment on (and hopefully support)to 110.9. As an individual, trying to get what I believe needs to be done has been an extremely frustrating experience. It's a complex issue and, bluntly, beyond the average AHJ's ability to understand - let alone rule on correctly. There needs to be an "engineering supervision" recognition. This has been API's problem since several of their NEC Task Force members are not technically engineers.

Anyway, I'm waiting to see the ROP on many issues. I feel more is often done at the "Comment Stage" when the debate is truly active.
 
Re: The Count Is In

Originally posted by rbalex:
I submitted six. All fairly close to my heart. :D There needs to be an "engineering supervision" recognition. This has been API's problem since several of their NEC Task Force members are not technically engineers.
Click to expand...
What?
 
Re: The Count Is In

Section 110.9 requires fault interrupting OCPDs to ??have an interrupting rating sufficient for the nominal circuit voltage and the current that is available at the line terminals of the equipment.?

Ordinarily this is a good idea. There are however, several distribution system configurations where the OCPD will never possibly have to interrupt ??the current that is available at the line terminals of the equipment? or the probability is literally so low as to be impossible.

The result is that some equipment must have an interrupting rating much higher than necessary- in some cases higher than is available.

This applies typically to large power distribution equipment; although it can apply to some forms of transfer switches.

API has been proposing changes to the text for several cycles now primarily because these distribution schemes are very common in refineries. CMP1 ultimately refers it to 90.4 and, as I said, it is ?beyond the average AHJ's ability to understand - let alone rule on correctly.? API, on the other hand, doesn?t want it to be an ?engineering supervision? issue. The bulk of the API NEC Task Force are engineers, although a few are ?operators.? However, many of them are not PEs and they believe an ?engineering supervision? clause would require PE certification of the design.
 
Re: The Count Is In

I can understand their concenr. having to pay PEs to stamp a common design everytime you use it is an unnecessary expense.

I am curious about what kind of power system could have more current available but no way to use it all in a short circuit condition. perhpas you coudl elaborate.
 
Re: The Count Is In

Of most interest to continuous process industries (like refineries) are secondary selective systems with normally-opened ties with make-before-break transfers and some forms of closed transition automatic transfer switches; however the phenomenon occurs on any loop-type distribution scheme. Because there are two or more sources of power, under certain conditions the available fault at the line side of the OCPD could be as much as two times what it would actually have to interrupt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top