Disqus - Latest Comments for meby

Re: Grounding Versus Bonding Webinar:On-Demand

meby — Tue, 29 May 2012 09:19:35 -0000

We will be sending out a Letter of Attendeance to all of the people that particpated in this event.

Re: Cable bundler

meby — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:25:29 -0000

Click on the website link for this company, which is listed at the end of the product description above. Once on their website, click the Buy Now button in the left rail.

Re: How Low Can We Go?

meby — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:15:29 -0000

Here are some additional thoughts on this topic as submitted by one of our loyal readers.
___________

Dear Mr. Eby:

Your Industry Viewpoint, “How Low Can We Go?” was very well put. As a second-generation electrical contractor (second oldest commercial firm in Philadelphia), we found that several factors have to be added for the huge untapped retrofitting and upgrading market. They are:

1) Meaningful financial incentives to do a good job, and strong penalties for diluting original good design; substituting inferior products; performing shoddy workmanship; and lacking coordination, cooperation and communication throughout the entire construction team.
2) Codes and standards that recognize differences between contemporary construction methods and materials, and those used in older existing structures.
3) Knowledge of typical interstitial spaces in every older architectural style that can be used to insert and conceal modern mechanical/electrical systems for retention of original design and fabric.
4) Readily available basic education at every level for Youth, the Public, Professionals and Government to appreciate that successful Civilization contains both old and new, large and small buildings for better quality of life in living, work and entertainment.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, handsome, user-friendly properties were erected when labor was eager to work and material/equipment prices were affordable. New York’s Empire State Building, Rockefeller Center, Radio City Music Hall and the Waldorf Astoria Hotel are examples of such still-viable buildings. There are similar ones across the country. Such activities should be done NOW.

Developers and contractors should seize the moment for this win-win situation of jobs, tax revenues and PROFIT.

Sincerely,
Gersil N. Kay, IESNA
Conservation Ltg. Int’l Ltd.
Philadelphia PA

Re: Stumped by the Code? February 2011

meby — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 09:56:01 -0000

Approved wiring methods to be installed in cable tray systems are listed in Section 392.10 of the 2011 NEC.

Re: Commercial Electrical Load Calculations

meby — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:33:37 -0000

This article was originally published in 2004, therefore, the Code references noted throughout would tie back in to the 2002 version of the NEC.

Re: How To Use Belleville Washers Correctly

meby — Wed, 25 May 2011 10:08:16 -0000

Many of the older articles posted to our Web site do not include the graphics shown in the original print version of the article. The time and effort involved in trying to go back and post graphics to the site at this time would be quite involved. Unfortunately, we do not have the staffing level to tackle this task.

All new articles posted to the site include all their supporting graphics.

Re: Code Quiz

meby — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:33:13 -0000

Oops! Yes, there is a typo in this question. I just confirmed the error with the author. Here's what he had to say.

"Sorry about that. I thought one thing and wrote another. I meant 3-phase, 3-wire as it indicated in Section 250.24(C)(3). My apologies."

Thanks to those of you that pointed this out to us so quickly.

Re: Code Q&A

meby — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:35:36 -0000

Gerard,

Yes, you are correct. This Q&A item was based on the 2008 edition of the NEC.

Mike

Re: The Seven Deadly Misconceptions of Arc Flash Labeling

meby — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:02:50 -0000

Here's a very interesting exchange of thoughts between one of our readers and the author of this article.
___________

The authors of this article are trying to make an argument as to the necessity of meeting the requirements of Sec. 130.3© of the NFPA 70E. While they may feel they are making a valid argument, OSHA has already addressed this issue. The following is an excerpt from letter of clarification sent out by OSHA.

"November 14, 2006

Ms. Joanne B. Linhard
ORC Worldwide
1910 Sunderland Place, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Ms. Linhard:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) Directorate of Enforcement Programs (DEP) for an interpretation regarding OSHA's requirements and the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) 70E-2004, Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace. Your questions have been restated below for clarity. We apologize for the delay in our response.

Question 1: When work must be performed on energized electric equipment that is capable of exposing employees to arc-flash hazards, does OSHA require the marking of the electric equipment to warn qualified persons of potential electric arc-flash hazards — i.e., as required by NFPA 70E-2004?1

Reply: OSHA has no specific requirement for such marking. A requirement to mark equipment with flash hazard warnings was not included in the 1981 Subpart S revision. However, paragraph (e) of §1910.303 requires employers to mark electrical equipment with descriptive markings, including the equipment's voltage, current, wattage, or other ratings as necessary. OSHA believes that this information, along with the training requirements for qualified persons, will provide employees the necessary information to protect themselves from arc-flash hazards.

Additionally, in §1910.335(b), OSHA requires employers to use alerting techniques (safety signs and tags, barricades, and attendants) . . . to warn and protect employees from hazards which could cause injury due to electric shock, burns or failure of electric equipment parts. Although these Subpart S electrical provisions do not specifically require that electric equipment be marked to warn qualified persons of arc-flash hazards, §1910.335(b)(1) requires the use of safety signs, safety symbols, or accident prevention tags to warn employees about electrical hazards (e.g., electric-arc-flash hazards) which may endanger them as required by §1910.145"

I am providing this link (http://www.osha.gov/pls/osh... from the OSHA.GOV website so that you can verify this information yourself which contains the letter in its entirety.

This article has caused a great deal of confusion at our facility about our panel markings. As an OSHA VPP site we take safety very seriously and go above and beyond to make this a safe work place. When a respected publication such as yours implies we are not meeting OSHA requirements we take it very seriously. It has taken a fair amount of my time and effort to re-assure our employees that we are in compliance with current OSHA regulations.

I would agree that having available incident energy marked at every panel is a good recommendation and it is one we are working towards at our facility. To try and scare businesses toward this direction under threat of OSHA is, in my opinion, irresponsible. It would be appreciated if more due diligence is performed in future articles.

Thank you for your time.
Steven Frick
Electrical Engineer
_____________

Dear Mr. Frick,

I wanted to thank you for your feedback on my article. In the course of preparing a reply to your letter, I was shocked to see a sudden change by OSHA to a long-standing official OSHA Interpretation Letter - dated July 25, 2003, instituted by OSHA just days after the release of my article at the beginning of February. Below is an excerpt from this official letter with strike-through by OSHA on 2/7/11 of the text that served as a supporting basis of the article. (The online link to the complete text of the interpretation letter is http://www.osha.gov/pls/osh...

The third paragraph in the Answer to Question (2) had clearly stated that NFPA 70E can be used as evidence in OSHA enforcement actions as to whether an employer has acted responsibly with regard to safeguards for personal protection and personal protective equipment. This statement coupled with numerous citations by OSHA over the years concerning Inadequate Signage and Inadequate Safety Labeling was the basis for my contention that non-compliance of Section 130.3(C) of NFPA 70E-2009 could be cited as cause for an OSHA violation in the event of an electrical accident. Since OSHA no longer considers this statement OSHA policy as of 02/07/11, I must agree with the premise of your letter. However, I believe that we both agree that the arc flash labeling requirement of Section 130.3(C) of NFPA 70E-2009 is important to provide workers with sufficient information to select appropriate Personal Protective Equipment to safeguard them from serious injury in the event of an electrical accident.

I apologize for the confusion. Unfortunately, this change in OSHA policy on 02/07/11 was made days after the release of the EC&M article at the beginning of February.

Thank you again for the letter.
Frank Mercede

Excerpt from Offical OSHA Interpretation Letter - dated July 25, 2003

Question (2): I note that OSHA has not incorporated the personal protective equipment portions of NFPA 70E by reference in §1910.132 (personal protective equipment, general requirements) or §1910.335 (safeguards for personal protection). Does an employer have an obligation under the General Duty Clause to ensure that its own employees comply with personal protective equipment requirements in NFPA 70E?

Answer: [Please refer to November 14, 2006 letter to Ms. Joanne B. Linhard.]
This document was amended on 2/7/2011 to strike information that no longer reflects current OSHA policy. These next four paragraphs show the text that was stricken from the OSHA guidelines.

"These provisions are written in general terms, requiring, for example, that personal protective equipment be provided "where necessary by reason of hazards..." (§1910.132(a)), and requiring the employer to select equipment "that will protect the affected employee from the hazards...." (§1910.132(d)(1)). Also, §1910.132(c) requires the equipment to "be of safe design and construction for the work performed."

Similarly, §1910.335 contains requirements such as the provision and use of "electrical protective equipment that is appropriate for the specific parts of the body to be protected and the work to be performed (§1910.335(a)(i)).

Industry consensus standards, such as NFPA 70E, can be used by employers as guides to making the assessments and equipment selections required by the standard. Similarly, in OSHA enforcement actions, they can be used as evidence of whether the employer acted reasonably.

Under §1910.135, the employer must ensure that affected employees wear a protective helmet that meets either the applicable ANSI Z89.1 standard or a helmet that the employer demonstrates "to be equally effective." If an employer demonstrated that NFPA 70E contains criteria for protective helmets regarding protection against falling objects and electrical shock that is equal to or more stringent than the applicable ANSI Z89.1 standard, and a helmet met the NFPA 70E criteria, the employer could use that to demonstrate that the helmet is "equally effective."
______________

Mr. Mercede,

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I will have to admit that I was unaware of the letter dated July 25, 2003. This does fit into an anecdotal timeline I had passed on to me implying that with the 2004 version of the NFPA 70E OSHA felt the NFPA had overstepped its bounds, especially regarding Lock out/Tag out. That would have led to the November 14, 2006 letter which I was aware of. It must have been an oversight on OSHA’s part not to redact the July 25, 2003 letter earlier.
And yes, we do both agree that doing a full arc flash study and posting PPE requirements on each piece of equipment is a good idea. Our plants goal is to have this completed by the end of 2011.

Thank you again for addressing this and I do appreciate your timely reply.

Respectfully,
Steven Frick
Electrical Engineer

Re: Locating That Underground Cable Fault

meby — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:36:54 -0000

All new articles posted to the site include all their supporting graphics.

Re: The Basics of Bonding and Grounding Transformers

meby — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:03:27 -0000

Here's an interesting comment sent in to us by a reader, along with the author's reply.
__________

Photo 1 shows multiple conductors in a single lug, which to my understanding is not rated for multiple conductors. I see no mention of it in this article. Photo 2 has a three conductor lug, but appears to have four conductors terminated to it. Is this an oversight or am I missing something?
Harry Maines
Division 16, Inc.
_______

Mr. Maines,
You are correct. There are other violations shown in the photos that were not mentioned in the text of the article. For example, in Photo 2 the bare grounding electrode conductor has half its strands pulled back and taped to itself to allow the conductor to fit in the undersized lug mounted to the XO terminal. I did not mention all of the violations in the each of the photos because I had a defined amount of words to adhere to. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Very good catch! Thank you!
Duke W. Schamel, PE, LEED AP

Re: Code Quandaries, August 2010

meby — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:08:29 -0000

Andy,

I forwarded your question/comment on to Mike Holt. Here's his response.
_____________

Andy,

You are correct!. The answer I gave was not correct for the 2008 NEC. Since I’m in the middle of the 2011 NEC Code, I made a mistake and gave the answer based on the 2011 NEC, not the 2008 NEC. I’m sorry for the confusion.

Great catch!

Mike Holt

Re: Electric Vehicles are Coming

meby — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:41:46 -0000

Here's the link to the registration page for this On-Demand Webinar.
https://event.on24.com/even...

Re: Graybar opens new location in Washington

meby — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:38:39 -0000

The address for this particular distribution center is as follows:
21804 64th Ave. South, Kent, WA 98032. The phone number is (253) 872-5477.

Re: The Key to Figuring the Right Frame Size

meby — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:47:08 -0000

Benny,

Here's a reference page that might help answer your question.
http://www.motorsanddrives....

Mike

Re: Whats Wrong Here?

meby — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:41:09 -0000

Hi Dave!

Yes, the pictures we run in our e-newsletter (CodeWatch) are very small. However, once you link to this page you can see the full image (above). I think it's pretty clear what type of equipment we're looking at above.

Thanks for your post.

Mike

Re: The basics of solid state devices

meby — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:20:36 -0000

All new articles posted to the site include all their supporting graphics.

Re: Understanding Basic Fire Alarm Systems

meby — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:53:31 -0000

Reply to "ekmode" cquestion.

Here are some manufacturer Web site links that offer UL Listed fire alarm products/systems.
1) www.mircom.com
2) www.notifier.com
3) www.buildingtechnologies.si...
4) www.ge.com/security
5) www.simplexgrinnell.com

Re: Grounding and Bonding of Separately Derived AC Systems

meby — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:46:47 -0000

A reader sent this question to me and asked if I could post it for him.

"When can a differential relay be used on a transformers secondary conductors supplying a separately derived system?"

Can someone offer up a response?

Re: Power Factor, Capacitors, Harmonic Filters, and Resonance — Part 1

meby — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:23:33 -0000

I'm currently out of the office on vacation. I return to the office on Monday, January 4th.

Have a Happy Holiday Season!

Re: Power Factor, Capacitors, Harmonic Filters, and Resonance — Part 1

meby — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:22:45 -0000

I'm currently out of the office on vacation. I return to the office on Monday, January 4th.

Have a Happy Holiday Season!

Re: Code Quiz

meby — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:10:17 -0000

In reference to the color orange, I asked the author to provide a response. Here's his comment:

"230.56 applies only to service entrance conductors, not branch circuit conductors in 210.5(C)."

Re: Whats Wrong Here?

meby — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:05:22 -0000

Here's a comment I received from a reader.

I think the answer is potentially nothing.

The following conditions might apply to the example given:

A) There could be low voltage control wires attached to the refrigeration lines and obscured from view and thus not combined in the same conduit with the power conductors. Although, the common practice of zip-tying the low voltage to the refrigeration line set in an of itself might not meet NEC requirements for being fixed to the building structure rather than supported by other means. If one can't zip tie low voltage to the exterior of conduit or suspended ceiling support wires (for example, Ethernet cabling), I don't know why it would be OK to zip tie to refrigeration lines.

B) The control lines cabling could have been run with Class 1 wiring methods, and in so doing if 16 or 18 AWG with 600 volt insulation conductors were used then it would be just fine under the NEC.

C) Something I haven't thought of?

-- Glenn T. Remington, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Facilities Administration Buildings Operations Division

Re: Whats Wrong Here?

meby — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:00:23 -0000

Here's another comment I received from a reader.

I believe Joe Tedesco cited the wrong Code article in his explanation of what is wrong with the water pipe below the safety switches. Article 110.26(F) is quite specific as to what equipment has a required dedicated space; switchboards, panelboards, and motor control centers. Safety switches and wiring troughs are not covered by this Article. From the picture it does appear that the water piping is within the required working space of 110.26(A), which does apply to all equipment.

Which actually leads me to a Code question I have had for awhile. 110.26(A) applies to all equipment that is likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized. As pretty much any piece of equipment at some time might require a test for voltage, and a test for voltage must be done live, how is placing any electrical equipment (HVAC equipment, etc.) above a drop ceiling not a Code violation? As the framing members of a ceiling grid places a grounded piece of metal every 2 ft, how can 3 ft clearances be maintained? Doesn't there need to be an exception written into this Article of the Code?
-- Al Oster, Todd Industries Electrical Contractors, Inc.

Re: Whats Wrong Here?

meby — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:51:09 -0000

Here's another comment I received from a reader.

The first answer isn't correct, in my opinion, relative to the same Code reference given. Photo shown is a wiring trough and disconnect switches above water meter and piping. The first answer refers to NEC Section 110.26(F)(1)(a).
Section 110.26(F), Dedicated Equipment Space, refers to switchboards, panelboards, distribution boards, and motor control centers. Those items listed in this section of the Code shall be located in dedicated spaces and protected from damage. This section does not refer to disconnecting means or service equipment. If 110.26(F) doesn't list the equipment shown in the photo then why would the Code violation be based on 110.26(F)(1)(a)? I agree it is good engineering practice to maintain the clearance just don't agree this section of the Code prohibits the installation.

I have no objection to the second answer regarding 250.68(B).

-- Jim V. Rettberg, LEED AP, Associate, Peterson Associates P.A.