national fire protection association · 2016-05-10 · ziegeweid,barry boggs vote selection votes...
Post on 03-Jul-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
National Fire Protection Association
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471
Phone: 617-770-3000 • Fax: 617-770-0700 • www.nfpa.org
TO: Technical Committee on Electrical Equipment of Industrial Machinery (EEI-AAA)
FROM: 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, 2016. 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.
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes this is an improvment
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes ? No Comment
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
FR-16, Global Input, See FR-16
NFPA 79 FIRST DRAFT BALLOT CIRCULATION
FR-1, Global Input, See FR-1
Total Voted : 22
Page 1 of 41
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes improves clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
FR-2, Global Input, See FR-2
Total Voted : 22
Page 2 of 41
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.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
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 110.26(A) of
the 2017 Edition of NFPA 70 (NEC). A task has been established to review the document
and submit comments as necessary.
FR-3, Section No. 1.1.1, See FR-3
Total Voted : 22
Page 3 of 41
James B. Hayes Improvment
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 1
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 1
James B. Hayes Keep at 600 volt.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
FR-19, New Section after 3.3.5, See FR-19
Total Voted : 22
FR-4, Chapter 2, See FR-4
Total Voted : 22
Page 4 of 41
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Standardize
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes better to align with NEC
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-18, Section No. 3.3.5, See FR-18
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 5 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes better clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 2
Palmer L. Hickman The 79 Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in
NFPA 70E.
Paul Dobrowsky I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC 60204-1 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.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
FR-6, Section No. 3.3.19.4, See FR-6
Total Voted : 22
FR-20, New Section after 3.3.8, See FR-20
Page 6 of 41
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-57, New Section after 3.3.32, See FR-57
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 7 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes better clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 1
Paul Dobrowsky I am not opposed to changing the term to match what is in IEC 60204-1 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.
Abstain 1
Palmer L. Hickman The Technical Committee should consider using definitions consistent with those in NFPA
70E.
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
FR-12, Section No. 3.3.64.2, See FR-12
Total Voted : 22
FR-22, New Section after 3.3.42, See FR-22
Page 8 of 41
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes Align with NEC
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Paul Dobrowsky Delete the term "socket" in 3.3.91 (now 3.3.96) 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.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 4
Palmer L. Hickman The Correlating Committee may want to review this and other definitions in 79.
FR-10, New Section after 3.3.106, See FR-10
Total Voted : 22
Page 9 of 41
Mark R. Hilbert 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.
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 1
Paul Dobrowsky 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.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
FR-13, Chapter 4 [Title Only], See FR-13
Total Voted : 22
Page 10 of 41
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Better
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-17, New Section after 4.3.2.7, See FR-17
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 11 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes Good addition
Robert Gruendel Agreed
William Brungs Vote affirmative providing interlocks do not have to run through disconnect switch.
Negative 2
Paul Dobrowsky 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.
Jay Tamblingson 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".
Abstain 0
FR-14, Section No. 4.4.2, See FR-14
Total Voted : 22
Page 12 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes word smithing
Robert Gruendel This should be further clarified as to the party responsible to ensure this is satisfied.
Negative 1
Daniel R. Neeser 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 16.4.3 requires: Where more than one incoming
supply circuit is to be provided, the nameplate shall state the information in 16.4.1 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.
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 22
FR-15, Section No. 4.8, See FR-15
Page 13 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 4
James B. Hayes good for Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Mark R. Hilbert 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 6.2.4. 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 5.1.2 –
delete “incoming” in 2 places. Revise 5.1.4 – delete “incoming”. Revise 5.1.5 – delete
“incoming”. Revise 5.1.6 – delete “incoming”. Revise
FR-25, Chapter 5 [Title Only], See FR-25
Page 14 of 41
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 60204-1 and maintains harmonization.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes word Fixing
Robert Gruendel Agreed
FR-24, Section No. 5.3, See FR-24
Total Voted : 22
Page 15 of 41
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 5.3.1.4 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 66.1.2 & 66.1.3
Page 16 of 41
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 5.3.1.4 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.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes OK simplified
Robert Gruendel Agreed
FR-28, Chapter 6, See FR-28
Total Voted : 22
Page 17 of 41
Paul Dobrowsky The changes made are improvements but the concept in 6.2.1 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 6.4.1.2 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 725.2 in the NEC, for example.
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 22
Page 18 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 4
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Mark R. Hilbert 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.
Daniel R. Neeser 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 7.2.10.1 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 7.2.10.1 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 150 175 175 Note 3 - deleted
FR-65, Section No. 7.2.10.1 [Excluding any Sub-Sections], See FR-65
Page 19 of 41
Negative 1
William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section 430.130 Implementing this
FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section 31.1.3 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 7.2.10.1 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 7.2.10.1
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 4
James B. Hayes Better reff.
Robert Gruendel Agreed
FR-60, Section No. 7.2.10.4, See FR-60
Total Voted : 22
Page 20 of 41
Paul Dobrowsky The following requirement was added to NEC 670.6 for 2017 based on FR 3357. 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 02169-7471, 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 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.
Negative 1
William Brungs Implementing this FR will be in conflict with NFPA 70, Section 430.130 Implementing this
FR will be in conflict with UL 508A, Section 31.1.3 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 7.2.10.1 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 7.2.10.4
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 22
Page 21 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes aline with NEC
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes good clarification
Robert Gruendel Agreed
FR-66, Section No. 8.1.2, See FR-66
Total Voted : 22
FR-27, Chapter 8 [Title Only], See FR-27
Page 22 of 41
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" 8.1.2
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.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes alines with NEC . althoght maybe the old version was good enought
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 1
Jay Tamblingson The proposed text in 8.2.1 appears to now be essentially redundant with 8.2.1.2.1 and does
not add clarity. The term "incoming" in 8.2.1.3.1 is needed to differentiate that the
terminal is related to a supply originating from outside the machine (see related ballot
comments on FR-24).
Abstain 0
FR-29, Section No. 8.2, See FR-29
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 23 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes god for Safety
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes No comment
Robert Gruendel Agreed
FR-47, New Section after 9.2.5.3.2, See FR-47
Total Voted : 22
FR-59, Section No. 9.1.1.4, See FR-59
Page 24 of 41
Paul Dobrowsky Suggest revising the sentence to read as follows: Stop functions shall be initiated by de-
energization, not energization, of a device or as a command to a programmable logic
controller (PLC), except for cycle stop commands (stop by energization),
Negative 1
Jay Tamblingson 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 de-
energization is presently mentioned in Annex H.2 as one component for minimizing the
probability of control function failure.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes clarity
Jim Couch 10.1.6.2 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 60204-1 as 60204 does not define to the left or right.
FR-48, Section No. 10.1.6.2, See FR-48
Total Voted : 22
Page 25 of 41
Negative 1
Robert Gruendel Additional discussion is needed to ensure the current safety technologies are not
prohibited.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes I am familur with this need
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
FR-33, New Section after 11.2.1.9, See FR-33
Total Voted : 22
FR-32, Section No. 11.2.1.1, See FR-32
Total Voted : 22
Page 26 of 41
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes better safety
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Fine
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-34, Section No. 11.2.2.1, See FR-34
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 27 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 4
James B. Hayes OK
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Paul Dobrowsky Revise 11.4.8.1 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.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
FR-49, Section No. 12.5.2, See FR-49
Total Voted : 22
FR-35, Section No. 11.4.8, See FR-35
Page 28 of 41
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes word smithing
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 17
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes good
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 3
William Brungs 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
FR-55, New Section after 12.5.4, See FR-55
Total Voted : 22
Page 29 of 41
Daniel R. Neeser 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 19.3.2 already address the concerns stated in the
substantiation.
Jay Tamblingson 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 19.3.2 already addresses the concerns expressed in the committee
statement.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Better word
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 22
FR-56, Section No. 12.8.3, See FR-56
Total Voted : 22
Page 30 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Mark R. Hilbert I am voting affirmative as I agree the addition of this language however, this is already
covered in 13.2.1.3 but as “factory applied connectors that molded onto cables.” Rather
than adding another section a comment should be submitted to revise 13.2.1.3 as follows:
“Factory-applied connectors and their associated wiring devices shall be permitted. Such
connectors shall not be considered as splices or joints.” Revising 13.2.1.3 in this manner
would address all types of factory-applied connectors, etc. without adding another section.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
FR-37, Section No. 13.1.6.1, See FR-37
FR-36, New Section after 13.1.2.3, See FR-36
Total Voted : 22
Page 31 of 41
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes good correction
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes OK I liked it the old way
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 2
Paul Dobrowsky 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.
FR-39, Section No. 13.2.2.1, See FR-39
Total Voted : 22
Page 32 of 41
Jay Tamblingson The current exception 1 should not be deleted as it is similar to Exception 1 of NEC 250.119
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 8.2.1
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.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes alinement
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Mark R. Hilbert 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.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-40, Section No. 13.3.1, See FR-40
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 33 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 19
Affirmative with Comment 3
James B. Hayes Fine
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Mark R. Hilbert 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.
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
FR-42, Section No. 13.4.1, See FR-42
FR-41, Section No. 13.3.4, See FR-41
Total Voted : 22
Page 34 of 41
James B. Hayes Clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Correct
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
FR-45, Section No. 13.5.6, See FR-45
FR-7, Section No. 13.5.5.1, See FR-7
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 35 of 41
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Clarification
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 18
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes better Safety
Paul Dobrowsky 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.
FR-46, Section No. 15.1.1, See FR-46
Total Voted : 22
Page 36 of 41
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.
Robert Gruendel 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.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes better clarity
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-58, Section No. 16.2.4, See FR-58
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
Page 37 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 1
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 1
James B. Hayes we need to keep the lock out reff.
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes fine
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Total Voted : 22
FR-43, Section No. B.1, See FR-43
FR-54, Section No. 17.2, See FR-54
Total Voted : 22
Page 38 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Fine
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes OK
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-67, Section No. F.5.4, See FR-67
Total Voted : 22
FR-44, Section No. D.1, See FR-44
Total Voted : 22
Page 39 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes Clarity with CEMA
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes OK Some are coming ?
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-62, Section No. J.3, See FR-62
Total Voted : 22
Total Voted : 22
FR-61, New Section after J.3, See FR-61
Page 40 of 41
Eligible to Vote: 28
Not Returned : 6
Stephen W. Douglas,John R. Kovacik,J. B.
Titus,Sean Mulherrin,Stephen J.
Ziegeweid,Barry Boggs
Vote Selection Votes Comments
Affirmative 20
Affirmative with Comment 2
James B. Hayes up date good
Robert Gruendel Agreed
Negative 0
Abstain 0
FR-64, Chapter K, See FR-64
Total Voted : 22
Page 41 of 41
top related