Third Public Review Responses& Resolutions BSR E1.51, Portable Power Cable in Canada

Transcription

1 Third Public Review Responses& Resolutions BSR E1.51, Portable Power Cable in Canada Referenced document: BSR E x, The Selection, Installation, and Use of Single-Conductor Portable Power Feeder Cable Systems for Use at 600 Volts Nominal or Less for the Distribution of Electrical Energy in the Television, Film, Live Performance and Event Industries in Canada (document number EP/ r4a) ANSI public review period: 19 June through 3 August 2015 Question: Do you recommend that the standards committee accept BSR E X (document number EP/ r4a), as an American National Standard, that its requirements are reasonable, neither too lax nor onerous, and that it would not unreasonably negatively impact materially affected parties in the entertainment industry? Please indicate "Yes" (accept it), "Yes with comments," or "No with reasons" (don't accept it). Responses: Name Representing Yes Roger Dean (RD) R. Dean Lighting Ltd. X Yes with comments James Eade (JE) ABTT X Robert P. Harris (RPH) Skookumchuck Electrics Ltd./IATSE 891 X Ty Mellon Jr. (TM) Lex Products Corp. X Keith Woods (KW) IATSE 891 X Comments and reasons with resolutions in italics. (The resolutions were approved at the 23 October 2015 working group meeting.) # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 1 KW general Firstly, I have discovered I was incorrect in previous comments, and proposed resolutions in that the CEC uses a hyphen between single and pole in all references; as well as with single and conductor. I propose that this be changed whenever these words are used to reflect the usage of the CEC. Accept 2 KW Definitions Ampacity-this should only have the definition as stated in the CEC definitions. Therefore, the second sentence This rating changes with conditions of use. Should be struck from the definitions. Language explaining these conditions should be added to later sections of the document. Accept. Add an additional statement as an informative note. No with reasons 3 KW Definitions Ampere-the second sentence One ampere equals one coulomb per second. Should be struck as we would then need to define coulomb. [TSM note: Both "ampere" and "coulomb" can be found in a standard dictionary with the meanings used in this document; neither needs to be defined in E1.51.] Accept. page 1 EP/ r1

2 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 4 KW Definitions AHJ-rewrite as follows: The office, or individual, responsible for approving equipment; materials; and installations. [TSM note: "and" would require an AHJ to do all three; "or" would be a more permissive conjunction.] Accept as follows: The office or individual responsible for approving installations, and/or equipment and materials. 5 KW Definitions Authorized person-changes at the end as follows: authorized to do so by someone having the authority to give the such instruction or and authorization. Reject: Definition is per CEC, and can stand without change. 6 KW Definitions Conductor-rewrite as follows: a wire; cable; or other form of metal material; installed for the purpose of conveying electric electrical current from one piece of electrical equipment to another, or to ground. Reject: The wording is the same as the CEC. C est la meme chose de le CEC. 7 KW Definitions Connector-in the definition of wire connector add a comma between together and or Reject: Comma not necessary; per CEC definition. 8 KW Definitions Discconect-rewrite as follows: a device whereby the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from their source of supply (power) delete comma after device, and add power at the end. Accept as the following change: re-write to include full CEC definition: Disconnecting Means : A device, or group of devices, whereby the conductors of a circuit can be disconnected from their source of supply. 9 KW Definitions Feeder-add a comma after system, and before or portable. Reject. No comma is needed. See Chicago Manual of Style, KW Definitions Grounding electrode-as there is an actual CEC definition, the true CEC definition should be used, not this hybrid version. Rewrite to CEC definition: a buried metal water-piping system or metal object or device buried in, or driven into, the ground to which a grounding conductor is electrically and mechanically connected. a buried metal water-piping system or metal object or device buried in, or driven into, the ground to which a grounding conductor is electrically and mechanically connected. Accept. 11 KW Definitions Overcurrent device-rewrite with the proposed change:.opening an electric electrical circuit Reject: Also the same wording as the CEC Aussi la meme de le CEC. page 2 EP/ r1

3 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 12 KW Definitions Single pin-first off add the hyphen between single and pin. Secondly, the word generally should be removed from a). this should be rewritten as follows: a) a locking, one pin, outdoor usage approved connector rated up to 400 amperes, that is colour coded to designate phasing. (Refer to CEC Section 66); or [sic] Reject use of hyphen in the bolded definition; referencing an item and a system. Accept removal of generally. 13 KW Definitions Tails-rewrite Load Tails as below: Load Tails; single-conductor cables installed temporarily for the supply of power from a utility (power) source. Accept in principle: Change to: single-conductor cables installed temporarily for the supply of power from a power source. 14 KW Definitions Volt-. I recommend a rewrite to the definition below as it is easier to understand, and we really do not need to get into the technical aspects of coulombs and joules as was in the original definition. -unit of electromotive force, the difference of potential that would drive one ampere of current against one ohm resistance. Accept: Suggest add informative note: unit of emf (electromotive force); for grounded circuits, the measurement between any given live ungrounded part and any grounded part 15 KW Definitions Voltage-the original is a bit wordy, and confusing. Suggest rewrite to: the potential difference between two points expressed in volts. Can be referred to as nominal, or actual voltage. Actual voltage is measured as root-mean square (RMS). Reject: Change last sentence to read: Also the potential difference required at the point of use for a system and/or equipment to operate as designed. 16 KW suggest rewrite to: All electrical equipment (including cordsets) shall must be approved, and bear an approval, or certification, mark of from: Accept in part. Keep "shall"but change "of" to "from." 17 KW lose parenthesis at end of sentence Accept removal of quotation mark at end of sentence. page 3 EP/ r1

4 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 18 TM 3.2 The document as written has a construction requirement for equipment with single-pin connectors that require the installation of the connectors in a way contrary to the manufacturer s instructions. The most common type of single pole connectors, cam-type connectors are evaluated according to to C22.2 No and go through testing installed as manufacturer s instructions specify. From 3.2 of the document: 3.2 Panel or chassis mount single pin connectors shall be installed from the inside of enclosures with attaching fasteners adequately clear of any possible contact with terminals or busses The Leviton and Cooper cam-type connector installation instructions have the panel mount connectors installed on the outside of the panel. This document specifies that these connectors shall be installed on the inside of a panel, contrary to the instructions. Installing a cam-type connector in a manner not specified by manufacturer may compromise the rating of the device. For example, cam-type connectors are subject to environmental testing of Type 3R or greater. Installing them in a different manner may void the environmental rating of the device. Any text asking for the installation of single pole needs to remove references to installing cam connectors on the inside or outside of the enclosure. Alternate language that better falls in line with CSA C22.2 No would be: 3.2 Panel or chassis mount single pin connectors shall be installed per manufacturer s instructions. Verify that attaching fasteners adequately clear of any possible contact with terminals or busses during installation. Accept in principle: Panel or chassis mount single pin connectors shall be installed per manufacturer s instructions. Verify that attaching fasteners are adequately clear any contact with terminals or busses. 19 KW suggest rewrite to: All connection points that are not in use, shall must be covered with a an approved seal or cap. that is acceptable Reject: use CEC wording (2)(c) 20 RPH 3.5 "3.5 Feeder cables shall not penetrate walls, floors, windows, or ceilings, or be run through doors or traffic areas without additional protection from mechanical damage." This must be removed as it states the opposite of the code. There is no provision for additional protection in the quoted rule. Reject suggestion to remove the statement; requirement for additional protection is reasonable practice, and without this acceptance, utilization of sites or locations would be impossible. The code statement is directed at permanent installations. page 4 EP/ r1

5 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 21 JE 3.5 Clause 3.5: I'm not sure about Canadian fire/building codes, but consider adding a requirement for fire sealing around penetrations to remain intact as follows: 3.5 Feeder cables shall not penetrate walls, floors, windows, or ceilings, or be run through doors or traffic areas without additional protection from mechanical damage. (CE Code (3)). Any fire barriers or seals that are penetrated by such cables should be made good during use and after the cables are removed. Reject: regardless of conditions, one cannot penetrate a fire barrier with cable. 22 KW suggest new wording, change Wrong to incorrect in this section. Rewrite as follows: [sic. Nothing was written after "follows:" The next entry was for 5.2.] Reject: uses code wording. Plug-in connectors for single-conductor cables shall (a) be of a locking type; (b) incorporate a mechanical interlock to prevent wrong connections or be colourcoded; 23 KW Panel Assemblies-rewrite as follows: Multiple connectors per pole phase shall be are permitted. But, Wwhere multiple connectors per pole phase are provided, the second and all additional sets of input, ( supply, or line ),and all or output (load) connectors shall have: Reject: pole is appropriate for the phraseology employed. 24 KW Cable routing-shall is to be replaced by should. If it is not a direct reference to the Code, should is the word, not shall. No matter what is felt about this document, it cannot supersede, or put words in the mouth of the Code. On several occasions, just like this one, the word should has been used, not shall, and that should be the common denominator of this document. It is not the Code, and cannot, and never will carry the weight of the Code, and should therefore not pretend it can. Reject: the statement is not in conflict with the code. As a standard, the statement can reflect the best practice. 25 RPH 6.1 "6.1 Cable routing Cable routing shall be determined prior to commencement of any installation." The word shall is inappropriate here. The only time "shall" is allowable is when a relevant section of the CEC is being cited, as this body does not have the authority or jurisdiction to apply the word shall. In all other instances the word "should" is the only allowable choice, as this body is only able to create voluntary standards on it s own accord. This objection applies to the entire document, of which this clause is only one instance. As this document is riddled with the inappropriate use of the word shall, for brevity s sake I will not document all the other cases. This change will necessitate the committee to identify them in a comprehensive review, asking the question in each case, Is this citing the CEC or not?. If so the relevant code rule should be cited, or if not the word should must be inserted instead. Reject: see above (comment 24) page 5 EP/ r1

6 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 26 KW as I stated in the last comment review cycle, this is not what the Code states at all, and should be struck from the document. The section referenced, Sect is an and section, not an or section meaning all pieces of the puzzle must be accepted to meet the Code. One cannot take the language one wants to do what one wishes. STRIKE THIS SECTION! Accept in principle. Tap points used in a single conductor power distribution system that go from a higher ampacity conductor set to a lower ampacity conductor set shall have an appropriately sized overcurrent protective device at the tap point. Drop the code reference at the end of the sentence. 27 KW it feels safer to mark all frequencies in a system, no? suggest rewrite: When current is distributed at different supply frequencies in a portable power distribution system on one site, that system which is not 60Hz frequency shall bear prominent identification as to the supply frequency of the system. all branches of the system shall have the frequency identified. Accept. 28 KW Load-not very plainly written. Suggested rewrite: Unless an overcurrent device is specifically marked as 100% rated, all calculated loads, on current conductors, must not exceed 80% of the maximum load rating of the overcurrent device in use. Reject: change is not substantive. 29 KW Spare disconnects-replace shall with should. Not a requirement of the Code, and therefore does not need a shall designation. Reject.We intend that this document or parts of it will become part of the CEC, so "shall" is the correct word to use. 30 KW Number of interconnections. This is not specifically mentioned in the Code, and is not a requirement of the Code, so shall needs to be replaced by should Reject. We intend that this document or parts of it will become part of the CEC, so "shall" is the correct word to use. 31 KW replace shall with should. This is a should statement, not a shall statement as the inference is that there is no exceptions to the rules, if one uses should, then you can move on and discuss cable mats and other protection equipment. Shall does not allow the use of protection as it basically says, do not allow it to happen. Should gives the technician the latitude he, or she, needs to do the work required. Reject. We intend that this document or parts of it will become part of the CEC, so "shall" is the correct word to use. page 6 EP/ r1

7 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 32 KW System Ground-suggest the following rewrite: Any new system, such as a generator or transformer, All power systems, shall have it s the. Accept 33 KW new 2015 version of Sect states what is in the a), although it is wrong, and onerous and should be removed. Reject add Informative note: The purpose of grounding a generator in a remote location is to establish an equi-potential plane to eliminate step/touch potentials. The ground electrode should be installed as close as possible to the generator. In an existing building or urban environment the equi-potential plane has already been established because all system/service and equipment should already be bonded together and all system/service neutrals bonded to ground. In a rural setting, you are setting up the only equi-potential plane. 34 KW suggest the following rewrite for clarity: Where there is morn that one source of supply, such supply systems all power supplies in the system, shall have their grounds bonded together. Accept as follows: Where there is more than one source of supply, all systems shall be bonded together. 35 KW suggest adding the sentence Colloquially referred to as the ground line. Accept 36 KW suggest the following rewrites: Connection and disconnection to/from a utility all power sources shall be FPN Different jurisdictions have different requirements, therefore the statement si intended to cover the variables it is suggested to check with the local AHJ. Accept as rewritten. 37 KW should we add.., qualified, and where required, appropriately certified personnel after authorized to bring this in line with our resolutions from the last public review? Accept as rewritten: The authorized, qualified, and where required, appropriately certified personnel shall determine which loads will potentially create a safety hazard if shut down and shall take suitable precautionary actions. 38 KW add the word the should notify other users of the power Accept 39 KW the words non energized should replace de-energized in the second paragraph as de energized infers one has turned off the power, and in this instance the system has yet to be energized. Accept as follows: non-energized page 7 EP/ r1

8 # Commenter Clause Comment or reason & resolution 40 KW replace shall with should. Remove installed after have. each system shall should have installed Reject. We intend that this document or parts of it will become part of the CEC, so "shall" is the correct word to use. page 8 EP/ r1

9 Resolutions to 2 nd Public Review Responses BSR E1.51, Portable Power Cable in Canada Referenced document: BSR E x, The Selection, Installation, and Use of Singleconductor Portable Power Feeder Cable Systems for Use at 600 Volts Nominal or Less for the Distribution of Electrical Energy in the Television, Film, Live Performance and Event Industries in Canada (document number EP/ r3) ANSI public review period: 3 October through 17 November 2014 Question: Do you recommend that the standards committee accept BSR E X (document number EP/ r3), as an American National Standard, that its requirements are reasonable, neither too lax nor onerous, and that it would not unreasonably negatively impact materially affected parties in the entertainment industry? Please indicate "Yes" (accept it), "Yes with comments," or "No with reasons" (don't accept it). Name Company Yes Yes with comments No with reasons Comments only Jeffrey Harvey (JH) KIS Electric Ltd. X Tim Garrison (TG) IATSE 891 member X Phil Klapwyk (PK) (none listed) X Keith S Woods (KW) IATSE local 891 X Robert Scurrah (RS) (none listed) X Robert P. Harris (RH) IATSE local 891 X Sean Bygrave (SB) (none listed) X A note about duplicate comments and the work to resolve them: Three comments resolution sessions were conducted, with the participants from Toronto and the participants from Vancouver collaborating in the comment review by conference call. The dates were: December 22, 2014; January 16, 2015; and February 9, At the first meeting, Robert Harris and Keith Woods participated from Vancouver. In the two subsequent meetings, Keith spoke for and collaborated with Robert Harris and the other Vancouver commenters. Robert Harris stated that he had authored the objection comments, which others had totally or partially duplicated, and it was agreed that the duplicate objection comments would be struck, and only those that he had written would be addressed. Where objections and supporting comments from both Robert Harris and Keith Woods were substantially similar, consensus was achieved on the appropriate disposition of the relevant comment. Any substantial variants by the other Vancouver submitters were considered on their merits. page 1

10 Comments and reasons with proposed resolutions: Cmmnt # Clause Commenter Comment Resolution 1 General JH In conclusion, I must recommend that this document not be adopted without being substantially altered. Most importantly, I find that many of the clauses are onerous, that they would unreasonably negatively impact film and television workers in the performance of their jobs, and could substantially increase the cost of production without any significant safety benefit. I am also troubled by the way this document presents itself. First, while it quotes the CEC, it also paraphrases sections at it s convenience and then chooses to ignore code when it s inconvenient (as in the paralleling of cables). Second, while the ANSI standards that exceed the CEC are voluntary, the implication of the wording employed in this document is that they are compulsory (as in the frequent misuse of the word Shall instead of Should ). To make it clear, there should be some method of identifying what is recommended and what is required, and the document should state in the preamble that ANSI standards are voluntary. Third, there seems to be some sections that are for training purposes, as they appear to just present general knowledge for the workers. The combination of these three aspects make for a confusing presentation. It would be much clearer if they were either separated into 3 sections (CEC, ANSI Standards, and Training), or marked throughout as to what type of clause is being presented. This document lacks a clarity of purpose and scope, and fails to provide a useful document for me in my work in the industry. I cannot recommend it s adoption as it stands. Finally, I would like to note my qualifications. I have been employed in the Film Industry for over 20 years in the Lighting Department with IATSE 891 as a Lamp Operator, Setwireman, Generator Operator, Rigging Best Boy, and Rigging Gaffer. I have an Interprovincial Certification as an Electrician, licence contractor from the BC Safety Authority, and I am an ETCP Certified Electrician. Reject duplication of 2 while noting the work experience related does not offer any substantive comment to any technical content in the standard. page 2

11 2 general RH In conclusion, I must recommend that this document not be adopted without being substantially altered. Most importantly, I find that many of the clauses are onerous, that they would unreasonably negatively impact film and television workers in the performance of their jobs, and could substantially increase the cost of production without any significant safety benefit. I am also troubled by the way this document presents itself. First, while it quotes the CEC, it also paraphrases sections at it s convenience and then chooses to ignore code when it s inconvenient (as in the paralleling of cables). Second, while the ANSI standards that exceed the CEC are voluntary, the implication of the wording employed in this document is that they are compulsory (as in the frequent misuse of the word Shall instead of Should ). To make it clear, there should be some method of identifying what is recommended and what is required, and the document should state in the preamble that ANSI standards are voluntary. Third, there seems to be some sections that are for training purposes, as they appear to just present general knowledge for the workers. The combination of these three aspects make for a confusing presentation. It would be much clearer if they were either separated into 3 sections (CEC, ANSI Standards, and Training), or marked throughout as to what type of clause is being presented. This document lacks a clarity of purpose and scope, and fails to provide a useful document for me in my work in the industry. I cannot recommend it s adoption as it stands. Finally, I would like to note my qualifications. I have been employed in the Film Industry for over 17 years in the Lighting Department with IATSE 891 as a Lamp Operator, Setwireman, Generator Operator, Rigging Best Boy, and Rigging Gaffer. I have an Interprovincial Certification as an Electrician, with a B Level Field Safety Representative and a Full Entertainment Certification from the BC Safety Authority, and I am an ETCP Certified Electrician. 3 general SB In conclusion, I must recommend that this document not be adopted without being substantially altered. Most importantly, I find that many of the clauses are onerous, that they would accept: the document has been substantially altered. Reject: we have addressed the specifics of the shall vs. should in subsequent relevant comments. Regarding the document lacking clarity etc. we have Robert Harris now on our subcommittee so he accepts the document exists and by agreeing to participate on achieving consensus on the comments resolution panel gives defacto acceptance of the standard. Reject duplication of 2 while noting that the work experience related does not offer any substantive comment to any technical content in the standard. page 3

12 unreasonably negatively impact film and television workers in the performance of their jobs, and could substantially increase the cost of production without any significant safety benefit. I am also troubled by the way this document presents itself. First, while it quotes the CEC, it also paraphrases sections at it s convenience and then chooses to ignore code when it s inconvenient (as in the paralleling of cables). Second, while the ANSI standards that exceed the CEC are voluntary, the implication of the wording employed in this document is that they are compulsory (as in the frequent misuse of the word Shall instead of Should ). To make it clear, there should be some method of identifying what is recommended and what is required, and the document should state in the preamble that ANSI standards are voluntary. Third, there seems to be some sections that are for training purposes, as they appear to just present general knowledge for the workers. The combination of these three aspects make for a confusing presentation. It would be much clearer if they were either separated into 3 sections (CEC, ANSI Standards, and Training), or marked throughout as to what type of clause is being presented. This document lacks a clarity of purpose and scope, and fails to provide a useful document for me in my work in the industry. I cannot recommend it s adoption as it stands. Finally, I would like to note my qualifications. I have been employed in the Film Industry for over 17 years in the Lighting Department with IATSE 891 as a Lamp Operator, Setwireman, Generator Operator, Rigging Best Boy, and Rigging Gaffer. I have an Interprovincial Certification as an Electrician, with a B Level Field Safety Representative and a Full Entertainment Certification from the BC Safety Authority, and I am an ETCP Certified Electrician. 4 general RS I could not get a copy of the actual Adobe document that would allow changes therefore I have to use Word. This document, BSR E x, is being purposed as a voluntary set of standards for all of North America however some of the purposed standards are directly contrary to or are directly Accept in principal, this is to be a Canadian Standard and while there are no specifics given, the standard has been reviewed and revised as appropriate. Reject: we have addressed the specifics of the page 4

13 affected by the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC). As the code is law or regulation in Canada, a voluntary standard that is against or directly affected by the CEC cannot be followed in Canada, therefore cannot be "A North American" standard. I have attached my suggestions as a separate document and also included them below. Because this is to be a North American standard, obviously the CEC cannot over ride local codes in other jurisdictions that may have direct conflicts with the CEC, however I have treated the document specifically as pertaining to Canada. Other jurisdictions need to have direct input on their specific situation to standards but direct contradiction to the CEC cannot be allowed in Canada. I found that the use of the word "shall" is inappropriate in a voluntary document. ANSI standards may exceed the requirements of the CEC however there should be language or a method that shows what is recommended to exceed code and what is required by code. shall vs. should in subsequent relevant comments. Been dealt with in subsequent comments. Reject: Does not note specific instructions to code conflict. Specific issues have been dealt with in subsequent comments. Reject: the work experience related does not offer any substantive comment to any technical content in the standard. Reject: No specific comments however, we have dealt with the specific code comments in subsequent comments and the document has been altered from its initial form. There is also some issues I found with the specific instances where the proposed document actually contradicts the CEC. I have over 100,000 hours of work in theatre as an Theatre Lighting Electrician/Lighting Designer/Operator and since 2005, have worked as a member of IATSE 891 as Lamp Operator and in other areas and currently hold a FE (Full Entertainment Certification) BC Electrical License. This is not recognized outside of British Columbia but is specific to the entertainment industry here and regulated by the provincial government specifically in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code. In conclusion, I must recommend the document not be adopted in its present form. Many of the clauses are onerous in the performance of work by film and television workers with no significant improvement in safety and are directly contrary to the Canadian Electrical Code. They will also negatively affect the cost of production. The document needs clarification and page 5

14 correction from its present state. 5 general PK There are many more issues with the document as it presents. I believe that it needs substantial revision, more with an eye to practical application of the CEC across all jurisdictions in Canada. 6 general KW There should be no hyphen between single and conductor at any time in this document, as it is unnecessary grammatically. The same would apply for hyphens found between live and event. [TSM note: PLASA North America uses the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. In that, see clause 7.81 about compound modifiers.] 7 general KW Also, there is no standard as to whether the personnel are certified ; qualified ; or authourized. In my mind whenever discussing personnel, they should be qualified, and authorized. I suggest that this be done throughout the text wherever certified has been used, and to add authorized whenever adding, qualified. Reject: No specific comments to address. Reject: the document will reflect as it appears in the code book. single-conductor, Live Event Accept: Add 3 definitions as follows: Certified person: a holder of a valid certificate of qualification. Qualified person one familiar with the construction and operation of the apparatus and the hazards involved, Authorized person a qualified person who, in his or her duties or occupation, is obliged to approach or handle electrical equipment; or a person who, having been warned of the hazards involved, has been instructed or authorized to do so by someone having authority to give the instruction or authorization. 8 title JH "THE SELECTION, INSTALLATION, AND USE OF SINGLECONDUCTOR PORTABLE POWER FEEDER CABLE SYSTEMS FOR USE AT 600 VOLTS NOMINAL OR LESS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN THE TELEVISION, FILM, LIVE PERFORMANCE AND EVENT INDUSTRIES IN CANADA". Reject Duplication of 9 This should be changed to 750V from 600V, as that is the dividing line in the CEC between Low Voltage and High Voltage. Section 0- Voltage definitions 9 title RH THE SELECTION, INSTALLATION, AND USE OF SINGLE- CONDUCTOR PORTABLE POWER FEEDER CABLE SYSTEMS FOR USE AT 600 VOLTS NOMINAL OR LESS FOR THE Reject: Leave as originally stated, comments resolved. The cables and connectors involved are rated for 600V page 6

15 DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN THE TELEVISION, FILM, LIVE PERFORMANCE AND EVENT INDUSTRIES IN CANADA". This should be changed to 750V from 600V, as that is the dividing line in the CEC between Low Voltage and High Voltage. Section 0- Voltage definitions also needs to be changed in the Scope on page title SB THE SELECTION, INSTALLATION, AND USE OF SINGLE- CONDUCTOR PORTABLE POWER FEEDER CABLE SYSTEMS FOR USE AT 600 VOLTS NOMINAL OR LESS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN THE TELEVISION, FILM, LIVE PERFORMANCE AND EVENT INDUSTRIES IN CANADA". This should be changed to 750V from 600V, as that is the dividing line in the CEC between Low Voltage and High Voltage. Section 0- Voltage definitions also needs to be changed in the Scope on page title RS ".FEEDER CABLE SYSTEMS FOR USE AT 600 VOLTS NOMINAL. Reject Duplication of 9 Reject Duplication of 9 Change to 750 V from 600 V as per the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) Low Voltage versus High Voltage systems. Also Page 4 under scope again 600 V should be 750 V 12 title KW Delete January 16, 2015 Reject Duplication of 9 13 title KW The first paragraph of the Scope, and the title page should better reflect the language of CEC Section 66. The Scope should be revised, and read as follows: This standard covers the selection; installation; and safe use of single conductor portable power feeder cable systems used for amusement parks; midways; carnivals; and other events of a temporary nature held indoors; outdoors; or in tents; such as film and TV sets; TV remote broadcasting locations; home shows; live theatre; and travelling shows. The second paragraph of the Scope is acceptable, but hyphens Accepted Jan 16/15 This standard covers the selection; installation; and safe use of single conductor portable power feeder cable for events of a temporary nature. This includes but is not restricted to (a) amusement parks; (b) midways; (c) carnivals; (d) fairs; (e) film, television, and radio productions; (f) remote broadcasting and recording locations; (g) live performance and entertainment events; page 7

16 need to be removed for grammatical correctness. The title page could be the same, with the words this standard covers removed. (h) touring shows and productions; (i) concerts; (j) sporting events; (k) trade shows. Accept comment excepting "single-conductor" Reject: leave as stated 14 Scope JH This should be changed to 750V from 600V, as that is the dividing line in the CEC between Low Voltage and High Voltage. Section 0- Voltage definitions also needs to be changed in the Scope on page Scope SB This should be changed to 750V from 600V, as that is the dividing line in the CEC between Low Voltage and High Voltage. Section 0- Voltage definitions also needs to be changed in the Scope on page Scope RS ".FEEDER CABLE SYSTEMS FOR USE AT 600 VOLTS NOMINAL. Change to 750 V from 600 V as per the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) Low Voltage versus High Voltage systems. Also Page 4 under scope again 600 V should be 750 V 17 Scope KW Scope, and title page should be revised to reflect the low voltage language of the CEC, plus meet the British Columbia Full Entertainment certification language, which places the voltage at 750v, not 600v. In the definitions section of the CEC it describes low voltage as any voltage exceeding 30 V but not exceeding 750 V. 18 Scope KW The first paragraph of the Scope, and the title page should better reflect the language of CEC Section 66. The Scope should be revised, and read as follows: Reject Duplication of 9 Reject Duplication of 9 Reject Duplication of 9 Reject Duplication of 9 Reject Jan 16/15 Keith Woods (resolutions task group member) withdrew his comment. This standard covers the selection; installation; and safe use of single conductor portable power feeder cable page 8

17 systems used for amusement parks; midways; carnivals; and other events of a temporary nature held indoors; outdoors; or in tents; such as film and TV sets; TV remote broadcasting locations; home shows; live theatre; and travelling shows. The second paragraph of the Scope is acceptable, but hyphens need to be removed for grammatical correctness. The title page could be the same, with the words this standard covers removed. 19 Scope RH This should be changed to 750V from 600V, as that is the dividing line in the CEC between Low Voltage and High Voltage. Section 0- Voltage definitions also needs to be changed in the Scope on page Definitions Ampere 21 Definitions Authorized person KW KW The second sentence is unnecessary language. All the worker needs to know is what an ampere is, the scientific language is unnecessary. As we are dealing with some people who are new, or unknowing, of some of the ins and outs of the CEC and the work covered in this document, it might be good to add the following text from the CEC: Authorized person a qualified person who, in his or her duties or occupation, is obliged to approach or handle electrical equipment; or a person who, having been warned of the hazards involved, has been instructed or authorized to do so by someone having authority to give the instruction or authorization. Reject Duplication of 9 Reject Jan 16/15 Keith Woods (resolutions task group member) withdrew his comment. Reject. Leave as defined in the CE Code. See resolution for comment 7. Add the above language below the definition of an AHJ. 22 Definitions Bond (Bonded KW Bond (Bonded): connect (connected) by bonding to grounding conductor and electrode. Reject Jan 16/15 Keith Woods (resolutions task group member) withdrew his comment. 23 Definitions Certified person JH Definitions - "Certified person: a tradesperson, with a valid certificate of Qualification. This should be changed to! "Certified person: a person, with a See resolution for comment 7. page 9

18 valid certificate of qualification, recognized by the Appropriate Authority Having Jurisdiction". The reasons for the two changes are that (1) a certified person may not necessarily be A tradesperson, and (2) a certification from one jurisdiction may not be recognized in Another area. For example, the Full Entertainment Certification from BC is not Recognized in other Canadian provinces, and is not a Trade certificate (i.e., there is no Registered apprenticeship program for this) 24 Definitions Certified person RH Definitions - "Certified person: a tradesperson, with a valid certificate of qualification." This should be changed to: "Certified person: a person, with a valid certificate of qualification, recognized by the appropriate Authority Having Jurisdiction". The reasons for the two changes are that (1) a certified person may not necessarily be a tradesperson, and (2) a certification from one jurisdiction may not be recognized in another area. For example, the Full Entertainment Certification from BC is not recognized in other Canadian provinces, and is not a Trade certificate (ie, there is no registered apprenticeship program for this). See resolution for comment Definitions Certified person SB Definitions - "Certified person: a tradesperson, with a valid certificate of qualification." This should be changed to: "Certified person: a person, with a valid certificate of qualification, recognized by the appropriate Authority Having Jurisdiction". The reasons for the two changes are that (1) a certified person may not necessarily be a tradesperson, and (2) a certification from one jurisdiction may not be recognized in another area. For example, the Full Entertainment Certification from BC is not recognized in other Canadian provinces, and is not a Trade certificate (ie, there is no registered apprenticeship program for this). See resolution for comment Definitions Certified person KW Certified person is not a term used in the CEC, and therefore one needs to be more specific as to what, or who certifies this person. It should be reworded as below: See resolution for comment 7. page 10

19 27 Definitions Certified person 28 Definitions Cordset 29 Definitions Grounded 30 Definitions (System) Grounding conductor 31 Definitions Grounding system (new) RS KW KW KW KW Certified person: a person with a valid certificate of qualification recognized by the appropriate AHJ. Certified person may not be a tradesperson. I hold a Full Entertainment Certification recognized by and regulated by the British Columbia government. Therefore the definition should read similar to the below: "Certified person: a person with a valid certificate of qualification recognized by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)." Cordset-this needs to become 2 words Cord set, to meet the CEC text. [TSM note: See clause 7.79 of the Chicago Manual of Style. Possibly the CSA does not use the Chicago Manual of Style.] Grounded (neutral, identified) conductor should be revised to the text below: Grounded (neutral, identified) conductor: One current carrying conductor of a circuit that is intentionally bonded to the ground conductor at the power source to maintain a nominal voltage of 0 V to ground. This needs to be added to note that the conductor is bonded, not grounded, at the source, and only at the source. Also, no hyphen between current and carrying. (System) Grounding conductor-lose the word system, and revise as below: Grounding conductor: the conductor used to connect the service equipment; power system; or generator to the grounding electrode. We can clear up some things in the revision by adding the language below from the CEC. Add this below the definition of grounding. Grounding system all conductors, clamps, ground clips, ground plates or pipes, and ground electrodes by means of which the electrical installation is grounded. See resolution for comment 7. Accept: "Cord set" as per CEC. Accept as follows: Grounded (neutral, identified) conductor: One current carrying conductor of a service entrance, transformer or generator service is intentionally bonded to the ground conductor at the power source to maintain a nominal voltage of 0 V to ground. Accepted as follows: Grounded (neutral, identified) conductor: One current carrying conductor of a service entrance, transformer or generator service is intentionally bonded to the ground conductor at the power source to maintain a nominal voltage of 0 V to ground. Accepted as follows: Grounding system all conductors, clamps, ground plates or rods, and grounding electrodes used to ground the electrical installation. page 11

20 32 Definitions Single pin 33 Definitions Utility Sources 34 Definitions Multiple Connection Device 35 Administrati ve KW Single pin-the hyphen between single and conductor; locking and type; as well as colour and coded should be removed as they are not grammatically correct. Accept Jan 16/15 (review doc) KW Utility Sources- suggest rewrite to Utility Source(s) Accept Jan 16/15 KW JH Special Terminology-Multiple Connection Device-I am unsure what this device is, but it sounds rather sketchy, and dangerous. Need an explanation of this device, and how it works. "The permit shall be prominently displayed in an area Accessible to the AHJ in the vicinity of the central power distribution point. Accept: relocate from special terminology to definitions. Follow multi-connection device with "Special Terminology" Reject Jan 16/15 Comment withdrawn This should be changed to: "The permit shall be prominently displayed on site in an area accessible to the AHJ." The reason is that it is common for they re to be more than one power distribution point. Common practice in British Columbia is that the Lighting Trailer or truck for film & Television productions are where the permits are stored. Availability for the AHJ on site Is the important factor, not a specific place. 36 Administrati ve SB "The permit shall be prominently displayed in an area Accessible to the AHJ in the vicinity of the central power distribution point. Reject Jan 16/15 Comment withdrawn This should be changed to: "The permit shall be prominently displayed on site in an area accessible to the AHJ." The reason is that it is common for they re to be more than one power distribution point. Common practice in British Columbia is that the Lighting Trailer or truck for film & Television productions are where the permits are stored. Availability for the AHJ on site Is the important factor, not a specific place. 37 Administrati ve KW It seems to me that the second paragraph of the section needs revision. If one has several power sources on one site, it becomes onerous to have multiple copies attached to each power source, or genset. The AHJ will know if a permit has, or has not, been filed, so one can have a single copy in a safe, accessible Reject Jan 16/15 Comment withdrawn page 12

21 38 Administrati ve 39 Administrati ve RH RS place; the lighting truck on a film set would suffice. Suggest revision to the second paragraph to read as the following text: The permit shall be kept in an area that is easily accessible, on site, to present to the AHJ should he request it. The permit should be stored in a place that will protect it from environmental destruction. Administrative - "The permit shall be prominently displayed in an area accessible to the AHJ in the vicinity of the central power distribution point." This should be changed to: "The permit shall be prominently displayed on site in an area accessible to the AHJ." The reason is that it is common for there to be more than one power distribution point. Common practice in British Columbia is that the Lighting Trailer or truck for film & television productions are where the permits are stored. Availability for the AHJ on site is the important factor, not a specific place. Administrative Section referencing where the permit is displayed. Here in BC, there is often be more than one power distribution point on one set. The availability for the AHJ to access it is an important factor and the AHJ requests that it be available in a central location, usually the Lighting Truck or Trailer where it is properly protected from the elements and easily available KW suggest rewrite to: 1.1 Electrical equipment used in electrical in all installations shall be approved KW suggest rewrite to: 1.2 All electrical equipment (including cord sets) shall be approved, by and bear the mark of approval, or certification of from: KW 1.2 Single pin connectors should be renumbered to 1.3, and the word pin should not be capitalized. Reject Jan 16/15 Comment withdrawn Reject Jan 16/15 Comment withdrawn Accept and reword as follows: 1.1 Electrical equipment used in all installations shall be approved.. accept as follows: 1.2 All electrical equipment (including cord sets) shall be approved, and bear the mark of approval, or certification from: b) a special inspection (field approval) agency under SPE1000; and (c) such labels shall be affixed to the electrical equipment. accept: Single-pin connectors shall only be used on approved single conductor cables as per Table 11 and section 66 of the CE Code. page 13

22 KW The language regarding single setscrews, while the safer option should be rewritten as the CEC does allow their use in cam loc style connectors. Suggest the following rewrite: Single pole conductors should be terminated only to single conductor cable via crimp or double setscrew, as per the manufacturer s instructions. Although allowed by the CEC, single setscrew connectors do not create as secure a connection, and should not be used, if at all possible KW suggest rewrite to better reflect actual on the ground practices. Snow and ice do not present the same issues as submersion in water, and require other methods. 3.1 Appropriate methods should be taken to when standing water; snow; or icy conditions are present. If standing water is present connectors should be elevated to not allow submersion JH "Appropriate methods should be taken when standing water, snow, or Icy conditions are present. If these conditions are present, all cable connections should Be elevated to not allow submersion or exposure to these conditions. Single pole connectors should be terminated only to single conductor cable via crimp or double setscrew, as per manufacturer s instructions. Although allowed by some other standards, single setscrew connectors do not create as secure a connection, and should not be used, if at all possible. Accept as follows: 3.1 Where water, snow, or icy conditions are present, appropriate methods shall be used to prevent submersion of electrical equipment. Reject Duplicate of 44 This should be changed to: "3.1 Appropriate methods and caution should be taken when pooling water, snow, or icy Conditions are present. If pooling water is present, all cable connections should be Elevated to not allow submersion. The reason for this is that the original statement would cause onerous working Conditions that are not warranted. While pooling water is an active hazard, snow and ice In and of them do not present the same level of hazard RH "Appropriate methods should be taken when standing water, snow, or icy conditions are present. If these conditions are present, all cable connections should be elevated to not allow submersion or exposure to these conditions." Reject Duplicate of 44 This should be changed to: "3.1 Appropriate methods and caution should be taken when pooling water, snow, or icy conditions are present. If pooling water is present, all cable connections should page 14

23 be elevated to not allow submersion." The reason for this is that the original statement would cause onerous working conditions that are not warranted. While pooling water is an active hazard, snow and ice in and of themselves do not present the same level of hazard SB "Appropriate methods should be taken when standing water, snow, or Icy conditions are present. If these conditions are present, all cable connections should Be elevated to not allow submersion or exposure to these conditions. Reject Duplicate of 44 This should be changed to: "3.1 Appropriate methods and caution should be taken when pooling water, snow, or icy Conditions are present. If pooling water is present, all cable connections should be Elevated to not allow submersion. The reason for this is that the original statement would cause onerous working Conditions that are not warranted. While pooling water is an active hazard, snow and ice In and of them do not present the same level of hazard PK There is a difference in the hazard levels of water, snow and ice. As such, standing water is really the only active danger to interconnections. Current practice is to elevate and isolate from pooling water, but to allow contact with ice and snow. I concur that all three are hazards and must be monitored, however the methods appropriate for dealing with these dangers are different RS Section 3.1 referencing elevating cable connections. This statement would not have a noticeable improvement in safety and would be excessive and onerous for little gain. Snow and ice doesn't present the same level of hazard as standing water. Reject Duplicate of 44 Reject Duplicate of 44 Change to read: 3.1 When standing water, snow and icy conditions are present, appropriate methods and caution should be taken. When standing water is or could become present, cable connections should be elevated to not allow submersion page 15