Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery (EEI-AAA)

Transcription

1 National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA Phone: Fax: TO: FROM: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery (EEI-AAA) Mark Cloutier, Staff Liaison DATE: May 10, 2016 SUBJECT: NFPA 79 First Draft TC Ballot Circulation The receipt due date of May 9, 2016 for the NFPA 79 ballot has passed. In accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards, the preliminary First Draft ballot results are attached for your review. These results include explanation of negative votes, abstentions and affirmative votes with comments. 28 Members Eligible to Vote 6 Ballots Not Returned (Boggs, Douglas, Kovacik, Mulherrin, Titus and Ziegeweid) If you wish to change your vote, the change must be received at NFPA prior to Tuesday, May 17, Members who did not returned a ballot may do so now. Ballots or changes may be made by going to the following link: NFPA Vote.net Ballot The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing the Development of NFPA Standards.

2 NFPA 79 FIRST DRAFT BALLOT CIRCULATION FR-1, Global Input, See FR-1 this is an improvment FR-16, Global Input, See FR-16? No Comment Page 1 of 41

3 FR-2, Global Input, See FR-2 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 improves clarity Page 2 of 41

4 Mark R. Hilbert I agree with using one term for the First Draft and choosing plainly visible over clearly visible as it is used in more than one location. However, from an inspection standpoint, only the term visible is necessary and plainly should be removed where used for the Second Draft. Having plainly before visible does not add clarity and is too subjective. When there is a visibility requirement within a section it must be judged based on the particular application. Using either plainly visible or clearly visible does not help with enforcing or interpreting a visibility requirement. It can only be judged on the specific application. If there are different interpretations of the visibility requirements within a section, then the section should be rewritten to more clearly identify the visibility requirement. FR-3, Section No , See FR-3 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee s action and that a task group is needed to establish any necessary comments to coordinate with the increase in the scope of the document from 600 to 1000 volts. This should include correlating Table 11.5 with Table (A) of the 2017 Edition of NFPA 70 (NEC). A task has been established to review the document and submit comments as necessary. Page 3 of 41

5 Improvment FR-4, Chapter 2, See FR-4 Affirmative with Comment 1 Negative 1 Keep at 600 volt. FR-19, New Section after 3.3.5, See FR-19 Page 4 of 41

6 Standardize FR-18, Section No , See FR-18 better to align with NEC Page 5 of 41

7 FR-20, New Section after 3.3.8, See FR-20 Affirmative 18 Negative 2 Palmer L. Hickman Paul Dobrowsky better clarity The 79 Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in NFPA 70E. I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC but am opposed to including the parenthetical note next to the term in Chapter 3. The committee voted to remove IEC parenthetical notes for the 2015 edition of NFPA 79 due to confusion. Although this situation is slightly different providing the wording in Annex A is sufficient. FR-6, Section No , See FR-6 Page 6 of 41

8 Clarity FR-57, New Section after , See FR-57 Clarity Page 7 of 41

9 FR-22, New Section after , See FR-22 Affirmative 18 Negative 1 Paul Dobrowsky Abstain 1 Palmer L. Hickman better clarity I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC but am opposed to including the parenthetical note next to the term in Chapter 3. The committee voted to remove IEC parenthetical notes for the 2015 edition of NFPA 79 due to confusion. Although this situation is slightly different providing the wording in Annex A is sufficient. The Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in NFPA 70E. FR-12, Section No , See FR-12 Page 8 of 41

10 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 Paul Dobrowsky Align with NEC Delete the term "socket" in (now ) and anywhere else it or plug/socket is used other than in Annex J. IEC parenthetical terms were agreed to be deleted in the 2015 revision of NFPA 79. FR-10, New Section after , See FR-10 Affirmative 17 Affirmative with Comment 4 Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee may want to review this and other definitions in 79. Page 9 of 41

11 Mark R. Hilbert Negative 1 Paul Dobrowsky I am supporting the addition of this definition at the First Draft stage as I believe that comments from the public would be beneficial. However, I currently disagree the proposed definition will add clarity or usability to the document as it does not consider all situations that could occur. When there is a visibility requirement within a section it must be judged based on the particular application. Using either plainly visible or clearly visible does not help with enforcing or interpreting a visibility requirement. Whether something is visible can only be judged on the specific application. If there are different interpretations of the visibility requirements within a section, then the section should be rewritten to more clearly identify the visibility requirement. Clarity I agree with being consistent but am unsure if the term "plainly" is helpful or even if defining it is helpful. The term "In sight From" is defined as being "visible" from and not more than 50 ft from" without the word "plainly". That seems to be sufficient. The concept needs to use the same wording but modifying the definition of "In sight From" would make it different from the NEC without a reason. Consider deleting the word "plainly" where used with "visible" throughout the standard. FR-13, Chapter 4 [Title Only], See FR-13 Page 10 of 41

12 Better FR-17, New Section after , See FR-17 Clarity Page 11 of 41

13 FR-14, Section No , See FR-14 Affirmative 17 Affirmative with Comment 3 William Brungs Negative 2 Paul Dobrowsky Jay Tamblingson Good addition Vote affirmative providing interlocks do not have to run through disconnect switch. The revision is not bad but does not go far enough. The committee statement is not consistent with the language in the section. All of the changes suggested in PI 155 should be accepted. An industrial machinery manufacturer cannot be expected to guess what other types of other equipment could be located near their industrial machine. The proposed text does not alter the requirement as indicated in the committee statement. The phrase "the equipment" is already understood to be that "of an industrial machine". Page 12 of 41

14 FR-15, Section No. 4.8, See FR-15 Affirmative 19 Negative 1 Daniel R. Neeser word smithing This should be further clarified as to the party responsible to ensure this is satisfied. This requirement is misleading since the point of supply is not well defined. This change could be interpreted to require the marking of the available fault current at downstream subpanels. The current requirement in requires: Where more than one incoming supply circuit is to be provided, the nameplate shall state the information in for each circuit. This would require each supply circuit industrial control panel to be marked with the SCCR and the current text of 4.8 would require the industrial control panel to be rated for the maximum available fault current. In addition, fault current should be changed to short-circuit current which is the term being used in the 2017 NEC. Page 13 of 41

15 FR-25, Chapter 5 [Title Only], See FR-25 Affirmative 17 Affirmative with Comment 4 Mark R. Hilbert good for Clarity I agree with the Committee s actions to revise the title and text of Chapter 5 to identify that Chapter 5 provides the requirements for the supply circuit disconnecting means and terminations of the machine. However, I believe that additional work must be done to really clarify what the supply circuit to a machine is. This will also assist with clarifying how to apply the interlocking requirements of I do not agree that just removing the term incoming alone is going to provide the necessary clarification as there will still be questions on what a supply circuit is. I recommend comments for replacing incoming with machine where applicable so it would read machine supply circuit and then providing a definition of machine supply circuit. as follows: Machine Supply Circuit. The conductors between the premises wiring and the machine disconnecting means or terminals. Replacing the term incoming with machine and including a definition as recommended will add clarity regarding what the machine supply circuit is. Daniel R. Neeser To correlate with change, revise 5.1 delete incoming and conductor. Revise delete incoming in 2 places. Revise delete incoming. Revise delete incoming. Revise delete incoming. Revise Page 14 of 41

16 Negative 1 Jay Tamblingson The proposed change gives the reader the impression that Chapter 5 has been reduced to cover only supply circuit terminations and disconnecting means. The existing title should be maintained as it more accurately reflects the topics including incoming supply terminal terminations, supply circuit disconnecting means, means for removal of power to prevent unexpected startup, and devices for disconnecting electrical equipment. In addition, the existing title more closely aligns with that in IEC and maintains harmonization. FR-24, Section No. 5.3, See FR-24 Affirmative 17 Affirmative with Comment 3 word Fixing Page 15 of 41

17 Mark R. Hilbert I agree with the Committee s actions to revise the text of Chapter 5 to clarify that Chapter 5 provides the requirements for the supply circuit to the machine, to correlate the exceptions for remote disconnecting means and to recognize new technology that uses covers instead of doors. It is just as important for a disconnecting means associated with a cover, as opposed to a door, to be provided with a means to be locked in the open position. However, I believe that additional work must be done in order to really clarify what the supply circuit to a machine is. I do not agree that just removing the term incoming alone is going to provide the necessary clarification as there will still be questions on what a supply circuit is. I recommend comments for replacing incoming with machine where applicable so it would read machine supply circuit and then providing a definition of machine supply circuit. as follows: Machine Supply Circuit. The conductors between the premises wiring and the machine disconnecting means or terminals. Replacing the term incoming with machine and including a definition as recommended will add clarity regarding what is the machine supply circuit. I do not agree with adding the exception to which removes the interlocking of the supply circuit disconnecting means with the control enclosure if it takes a tool to the control enclosure. This longstanding requirement provides a greater degree of safety and only applies to the disconnecting means for the supply circuit. The above suggested definition will clarify that. The requirement to include a safety sign in accordance with 16.2 is problematic as there is no guidance as to which of the eight different requirements in the section are to be complied with. Additionally, there is no direction as to what the sign should indicate. Negative 2 William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Sections & Page 16 of 41

18 Jay Tamblingson This FR should not be accepted for the following reasons: 1. The term incoming supply circuit is used in NEC Article 670 and should be retained for consistency. Removing the term "incoming" reduces clarity as it is intended to reference a supply originating from outside the electrical equipment of the machine. 2. The new exception to would permit on any size machine the substitution of the existing requirements for interlocking of the disconnect with the enclosure door by use of a door requiring tool access and a safety sign. No substantiation has been provided that shows how this change meets an equivalent control as the existing requirements" as expressed in the committee statement. The interlocking requirement should be maintained where practicable unless sufficient alternative measures are provided to ensure equivalent protection. FR-28, Chapter 6, See FR-28 Affirmative 18 Affirmative with Comment 3 OK simplified Page 17 of 41

19 Paul Dobrowsky The changes made are improvements but the concept in needs improvement. Insulated conductors by themselves are not protection from electric shock, that is why they need to be in cable assemblies, enclosures, or raceways. The concepts of Basic Insulation" and "Reinforced Insulation" should be added and possibly defined. Double Insulated and reinforced insulated live parts can be suitable for electric shock protection but basic insulation is not. The conductors in cable assemblies and in flexible cords although insulated should not be depended on for protection from electric shock by themselves. The conductors along with the outer covering or jacket can be suitable for protection from electric shock. These possible definitions are offered for consideration but there are probably better definitions in product standards. Basic Insulation. Material that provides a degree of protection from electric shock and short circuits. Reinforced Insulation. Material that provides protection suitable for contact by persons. Negative 1 Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee should review the use of basic and fault in this action and in the Article 100 definitions. In addition, all of 6.4 should be reviewed including, but not limited to, protection against shock. The Correlating Committee should also direct the NFPA 79 Technical Committee to reconsider its action related to what was added in where "Class 2 circuits, as covered in...article 725 of NFPA 70(NEC), shall be permitted to be used to provide protection from electric shock and other hazards." This is in conflict with the definition of Class 2 circuit in in the NEC, for example. Page 18 of 41

20 FR-65, Section No [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-65 Affirmative 17 Affirmative with Comment 4 Mark R. Hilbert Daniel R. Neeser Clarity This revision depends on the development of a new product standard. It may need to be removed for the Second Draft if the work is not complete as there will be no products for the applications. Add specific type and ahead of rating. Exception No. 2: Where the controller is an adjustable speed drive that is listed and marked Suitable for Output Conductor Protection, the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing the full-load current in Table with the drive s rated input current. The SCPD shall not exceed the "specific type and" rating marked on the adjustable speed drive or in the manufacturer s instructions. Additionally Table should be revised for time-delay fuses. There is no need to list RK1 and RK5 separately, nor add a note (3) for Class RK5. When motor controller are tested they are tested with Class RK5 limiter. There is not option to test with Class RK1 fuses. So the motor controllers are simply specified as listed with Class R fuses. Suggested change is below. Type of Application2 Fuse Class with Time Delay1 AC-2 AC-3 AC-4 R Note 3 - deleted Page 19 of 41

21 Negative 1 William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section Also, Exception 2 contains the word shall which dictates that the maximum rating of the designated SCPD MUST be determined by this method; the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing the full-load current in Table with the drive s rated input current. Exercising this method for determining the maximum rating should be a choice of the person implementing the NFPA79 standard, and not stated as a requirement, which is dictated by the word shall. Implementers of the NFPA79 standard may elect NOT to use Exception 2, thereby using the initial guidelines of Section FR-60, Section No , See FR-60 Affirmative 17 Affirmative with Comment 4 Better reff. Page 20 of 41

22 Paul Dobrowsky The following requirement was added to NEC for 2017 based on FR It seems that NFPA 79 should be consistent. "Industrial machinery with safety interlock circuits shall have surge protection installed." This is the committee statement: The study, Data Assessment for Electrical Surge Protective Devices commissioned by the Fire Protection Research Foundation, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA , provides results of a 2013 and 2014 survey of facility managers concerning surge damage. It shows that 26% had damage to safety interlocking systems on machines due to surges. These safety interlocking systems are in place to protect workers from interactions with the machinery. Additionally all equipment needs to be installed and used according to the manufacturer's instructions if listed. Additionally add a new section to Chapter 1, possibly as 1.7, to read as follows: Listed or Labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling. Mark R. Hilbert Negative 1 William Brungs This revision depends on the development of a new product standard. It may need to be removed for the Second Draft if the work is not complete as there will be no products for the applications. Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section Implementing this FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section Also, Exception 2 contains the word shall which dictates that the maximum rating of the designated SCPD MUST be determined by this method; the maximum rating of the designated SCPD shall be determined by replacing the full-load current in Table with the drive s rated input current. Exercising this method for determining the maximum rating should be a choice of the person implementing the NFPA79 standard, and not stated as a requirement, which is dictated by the word shall. Implementers of the NFPA79 standard may elect NOT to use Exception 2, thereby using the initial guidelines of Section Page 21 of 41

23 FR-27, Chapter 8 [Title Only], See FR-27 aline with NEC FR-66, Section No , See FR-66 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 good clarification Page 22 of 41

24 Paul Dobrowsky The wording in the requirement needs improvement and the committee statement does not use the correct terms. It might be better to use the existing concept and change the term "equipment grounding circuit" to equipment grounding conductor" Connections. Grounded conductors shall not be connected to equipment grounding conductors except at either the source or first disconnecting means of a grounded separately derived system. Additionally the phrase "equipment grounding circuit" needs to be changed to "equipment grounding conductor" and/or bonding jumper in Chapter 18 and anywhere else it appears. FR-29, Section No. 8.2, See FR-29 Affirmative 19 Negative 1 Jay Tamblingson alines with NEC. althoght maybe the old version was good enought The proposed text in appears to now be essentially redundant with and does not add clarity. The term "incoming" in is needed to differentiate that the terminal is related to a supply originating from outside the machine (see related ballot comments on FR-24). Page 23 of 41

25 FR-59, Section No , See FR-59 god for Safety FR-47, New Section after , See FR-47 Affirmative 18 Affirmative with Comment 3 No comment Page 24 of 41

26 Paul Dobrowsky Negative 1 Jay Tamblingson Suggest revising the sentence to read as follows: Stop functions shall be initiated by deenergization, not energization, of a device or as a command to a programmable logic controller (PLC), except for cycle stop commands (stop by energization), The new requirement is unclear as to the scope of stop commands it is intended to address and appears to limit the use of Safety PLC's for issuing of stop commands. Stopping by deenergization is presently mentioned in Annex H.2 as one component for minimizing the probability of control function failure. FR-48, Section No , See FR-48 Affirmative 19 Jim Couch clarity Arrangement of Operator Interface Devices. All start pushbuttons shall be mounted above or (left) next to their associated stop pushbuttons. Change verbiage from left to next. Many designers incorporate the stop pushbutton to be closer to the operator during normal operation. This is considered to be a safer practice for the operator. This will also bring NFPA closer in line with IEC as does not define to the left or right. Page 25 of 41

27 Negative 1 Additional discussion is needed to ensure the current safety technologies are not prohibited. FR-32, Section No , See FR-32 I am familur with this need FR-33, New Section after , See FR-33 Page 26 of 41

28 better safety FR-34, Section No , See FR-34 Fine Page 27 of 41

29 FR-35, Section No , See FR-35 Affirmative 18 Affirmative with Comment 4 Paul Dobrowsky OK Revise to allow the print pocket to be located elsewhere even if it is practical. Why make someone open an enclosure, possibly exposing themselves to hazards, if they need the documentation. It shall be permissible to place a pocket suitable for the environment outside the door of the control enclosure or compartment in a well-identified location. Mark R. Hilbert I am voting affirmative as I agree the revision adds clarity to the section. However, I disagree the existing text limits the use of a print pocket to just traditional prints. FR-49, Section No , See FR-49 Page 28 of 41

30 word smithing FR-55, New Section after , See FR-55 Affirmative 17 Negative 3 William Brungs good Conductors should be sized to the load of the motor or, when used with a variable frequency drive, sized to the maximum output of the drive Page 29 of 41

31 Daniel R. Neeser Jay Tamblingson The new requirement would permit reduction of conductor sizes in across the line motor circuits without any corresponding requirements in motor overload settings and/or size of branch short-circuit and ground fault protection to maintain conductor protection. For servo drive systems, the requirements in already address the concerns stated in the substantiation. The proposed new requirement permits reduction in motor circuit conductor sizing without additional new conductor overload and branch short circuit and ground fault protection rules for general individual-motor branch circuits. For servo motor systems, the change is unnecessary as already addresses the concerns expressed in the committee statement. FR-56, Section No , See FR-56 Better word Page 30 of 41

32 FR-36, New Section after , See FR-36 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 Mark R. Hilbert Clarity I am voting affirmative as I agree the addition of this language however, this is already covered in but as factory applied connectors that molded onto cables. Rather than adding another section a comment should be submitted to revise as follows: Factory-applied connectors and their associated wiring devices shall be permitted. Such connectors shall not be considered as splices or joints. Revising in this manner would address all types of factory-applied connectors, etc. without adding another section. FR-37, Section No , See FR-37 Page 31 of 41

33 good correction FR-39, Section No , See FR-39 Affirmative 18 Negative 2 Paul Dobrowsky OK I liked it the old way Removing Exception eliminates an important allowance. Replace Exception to read as follows: Exception No. 1. Circuits operating at less than 50 volts, that are not required to be grounded, shall be permitted to use conductors with green insulation or green with one or more yellow stripes for other than equipment grounding conductors. Page 32 of 41

34 Jay Tamblingson The current exception 1 should not be deleted as it is similar to Exception 1 of NEC which permits the use of green for other than equipment grounding. It would however, be recommended to have clear requirements contained in Chapter 8 to define where equipment grounding is not required. One possible example would be an exception to as follows: Exception: Equipment parts that are likely to become energized only by a conductor of a circuit operating at 50 volts or less shall not be required to be grounded. FR-40, Section No , See FR-40 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 Mark R. Hilbert alinement A task group has been created to review the Standard for the use of the term ducts and to develop comments to replace it with wiring channels or wireway as appropriate. Page 33 of 41

35 FR-41, Section No , See FR-41 Affirmative 19 Affirmative with Comment 3 Mark R. Hilbert Fine A task group has been created to review the Standard for the use of the term ducts and to develop comments to replace it with wiring channels or wireway as appropriate. FR-42, Section No , See FR-42 Page 34 of 41

36 Clarity FR-7, Section No , See FR-7 Correct FR-45, Section No , See FR-45 Page 35 of 41

37 Clarification FR-46, Section No , See FR-46 Affirmative 18 Paul Dobrowsky better Safety Add the following to Chapter 15 or Chapter 11. Presently the standard does not provide any direction for sizing motor controllers. Motor controllers shall be provided in accordance with Article 430, Part VII, of NFPA 70. Page 36 of 41

38 Negative 2 William Brungs Receptacles internal to the enclosure are only made accessible to authorized personnel if the enclosure has been opened. Provisions should be made within the standard where GFCI is not needed if the receptacle is marked as to acceptable connected equipment. I agree with the overall revision intent, but critical systems which cause a greater hazard when shut down, should be excluded from any GFCI requirement. FR-58, Section No , See FR-58 better clarity Page 37 of 41

39 FR-54, Section No. 17.2, See FR-54 Affirmative with Comment 1 Negative 1 we need to keep the lock out reff. FR-43, Section No. B.1, See FR-43 fine Page 38 of 41

40 FR-44, Section No. D.1, See FR-44 Fine FR-67, Section No. F.5.4, See FR-67 OK Page 39 of 41

41 FR-61, New Section after J.3, See FR-61 Clarity with CEMA FR-62, Section No. J.3, See FR-62 OK Some are coming? Page 40 of 41

42 FR-64, Chapter K, See FR-64 up date good Page 41 of 41