It is currently Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:56 pm

Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: Second public inquiries posted
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:57 pm 
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:08 am
Posts: 2174
Location: North Carolina
1. Put NESC back into Annex D. For those of us above 15 kV, Lee method is not "conservative". The correct word is "ridiculous", although I'll except "over-estimates".
2. Delete Annex F. Best option would be to replace it with something workable. The 1st draft now refers to risk assessments in multiple places. Since Annex F is totally unworkable, it is better to give no guidance rather than bad guidance.
3. 130.7(C)(11) and (12) now require what used to be "H/RC 0" for everything. The issue is that now we have to require this from unqualified folks turning on light switches? Need to separate out cases where there is negligible chance of an arc flash vs. cases where there is a low hazard (unlikely to cause an injury even if it occurs).
4. Fix the "testing" requirement in 120 for testing for absence of voltage. Refers to ANSI/IEC/UL 61010 which is a safety standard for meter design but says nothing about testing for absence of voltage. Should be IEC 61243 or something equivalent.
5. Fix the exception in 130.2 to be readable.
6. Fix the DC arc flash section to include cases of <100 Volts (the typical case for DC). Right now it is kind of useless for the vast majority of DC concerns.

 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours

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:  
© 2019 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883