It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:33 am



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: NFPA CSA not applicable to installations on ships
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 13
Location: Victoria British Columbia
:mad: Article 90 of the NFPA page 7 para 90.2 sub para B states that ths standard does not cover installation on ships, and water craft.

Does anyone know why and if there is a standard that does apply.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 28
Utility transmission systems also have the exception. The thought is there are instances where these systems can not always comply with NFPA 70 or NFPA 70E. Although my experience is they try to comply as best they can. With some installations, space is an issue which can cause conflicts with the standards.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:32 am 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 1880
Location: North Carolina
jimmorton wrote:
:mad: Article 90 of the NFPA page 7 para 90.2 sub para B states that ths standard does not cover installation on ships, and water craft.

Does anyone know why and if there is a standard that does apply.


This is in keeping with the structure that exists in the states.

Utilities, maritime, mining, and construction (to a degree) have distinctly separate regulatory requirements under U.S. regulations. For instance, ANSI C2 (NESC) is the rule set for utilities and has it's own associated OSHA regulations (1910.269). As a general rule, "mixing" causes all kinds of regulatory snafus. Thus it is a long standing practice that the NFPA 70 series (70 aka NEC equivalent to CEC, NFPA 70B, NFPA 70E) specifically exempt these other specialized areas. The one except that has a regulatory though not safety standard exception is that construction is distinctly different under regulatory codes but not under safety standards.

We do not by the way have a direct equivalent to M421, especially for surface mines. There are so many gaps in the MSHA (equivalent to OH&S's mining regulators) regulations that most mines adopt NEC & NFPA 70E as safety standards just to fill in the gaps that leave them open to interpretive arguments with inspectors without choosing a more restrictive consensus safety code.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:07 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:59 pm
Posts: 70
Location: Milwaukee WI
46 CFR Subchapter J

A quick search of US Coast Guard leads to 46 CFR Subchapter J.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5213/electrical.asp

The OP has a BC address, perhaps the Canadian Coast Guard has a similar document.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:17 am
Posts: 13
Location: Victoria British Columbia
Thanks Everyone, The info is great. It is difficult to get people, who work in the ships and dockyard to take the new regulations sirously when they state they do not pertain to ships.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883