Emergency systems in the CE Code

Emergency systems in the CE Code—food for thought & discussion
Section 46 of the CE Code, Part I governs installation, operation and maintenance of emergency systems. However, the scope of this section might be a bit confusing to some Code users.
by Ark Tsisserev, P. Eng.
Section 46 of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I governs installation, operation and maintenance of emergency systems. However, the scope of this section might be a bit confusing to some Code users. The scope states that rules of Section 46 apply “to emergency systems intended to supply power, in the event of failure of the normal power supply, where required by the National Building Code of Canada” (NBCC).
So, what does it practically mean? Does the scope of Section 46 cover, for example, emergency systems that will provide power to the computer network in a typical office building? How about parkade exhaust fans or emergency lighting in a high building? What about an elevator or a fire alarm system installed in a 4-storey condominium? And, to make it even more interesting, would this section cover electro-medical equipment installed in a dental clinic that is located in an office building, or electrical equipment in an operating room of a hospital? Are we ready for an answer? Not quite. In order to make this answer accurate and consistent, users of the CE Code must make a trip to the NBC of Canada. Appendix G of the CEC would be a helpful guide for such a tour.
Page 478 of the 19th edition of the CEC, Part I offers a very convenient cross-reference from Section 46 of the Code to the applicable articles of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). One of these cross-references is dedicated to the emergency power supply for building services (elevators, fire pumps, fans— Article 3.2.7.9. of the NBCC) and another, to the power supply for emergency lighting (Article 3.2.7.4.).
Respectively, page 477 of the CEC provides a reference from Section 32 to the NBCC emergency power supply requirements for fire alarm systems (Article 3.2.7.8.).Let’s check whether Appendix G provides any references to the NBCC in respect to a computer network in an office building? It does not appear to do so. What about any cross-references regarding the emergency power to electro-medical equipment in our dental office? The Code does not appear to be concerned with emergency power for this operation.
But would scope of Section 46 cover installation, operation and maintenance of emergency systems to supply power for the electrical equipment in a hospital operating room? Are such emergency systems required by the NBCC? The answer is a bit tricky, and we’ll come back to this subject later. So far, let’s take a look at which equipment must be provided with the emergency power by the requirements of the NBCC.
Subsection 3.2.7. of the NBCC will help us to unravel this mystery.
Article 3.2.7.4. of this subsection states that “an emergency power supply shall be provided to maintain the emergency lighting required by this Subsection from a power source such as batteries or generators that will continue to supply power in the event that the regular power supply to the building is interrupted.”
Article 3.2.7.8. requires that the emergency power for fire alarm systems must be supplied from “a generator, batteries or a combination of thereof.” And finally, Article 3.2.7.9. of the NBCC mandates that such emergency power source for the following equipment to be provided only by an emergency generator:
1. Every elevator serving storeys above the first floor in a building exceeding 36 m high;
2. Every elevator that is designated as fire fighters’ elevator. (See Article 3.2.6.5. of the NBCC for a detailed explanation of a criteria for fire fighters’ elevators);
3. Every electrically connected fire pump required in a building—to provide adequate water supply for fire fighting;
4. Smoke control fans (pressurization fans and fire dampers) required to maintain the air quality in high buildings;
5. Fans required for smoke venting (i.e., parkade exhaust fans in high buildings—that provide venting to aid fire fighting).
Now we can clearly verify our earlier questions against all conditions placed by the NBCC for the emergency power supply requirements to specific life and fire safety equipment.
It is clear now that the referenced computer network in a typical office building would not be required to be provided with the emergency power supply in accordance with the NBCC. However, in reality, many designers select the kVA rating of emergency generators so that they can carry this computer load in addition to the load of the required life safety equipment indicated in items 1 to 5 above.
Accordingly, an elevator installed in a 4-storey condominium, would not be required to be provided with an emergency power supplied by an emergency generator (it is not a high building), but a designer may want to choose this extra feature as an option.
We now know that an emergency generator would have to be installed—to supply an alternate power to the mentioned parkade exhaust fans in a high building. However, such alternate power source for the emergency lighting in the same high rise building would have to be derived from an emergency generator or from a battery. Thus, Section 46 would be applicable to the installation, operation and maintenance of such emergency equipment. Where unit equipment is utilized to provide this emergency power supply to the emergency lighting, such unit equipment must comply with the CSA Standard C22.2 No. 141. Where an emergency generator is required by the NBCC as the only alternate power source to a very specific life safety equipment (see provisions of Article 3.2.7.9.), such generator must meet all applicable conditions of the CSA Standard C282 (see Article 3.2.7.5 of the NBCC).
However, where such life safety equipment is installed in a hospital, the emergency generator supplying power to this equipment must conform to the CSA standard Z32. In addition to the requirements of the NBCC for emergency power to life and fire safety equipment this standard mandates an emergency power supply to the loads connected to the essential system branches (vital, delayed vital, conditional). These loads are prescribed by Table 8 of Z32.
Now we can respond to the earlier questions about a power supply for the electro-medical equipment in a dental office and electrical equipment in a hospital operating room. Z32 would require an emergency power supply from an emergency generator to essential system loads in a hospital operating room, but would not mandate such alternate power supply to the electro-medical equipment installed in a typical dental office.
Thus, when designers select power requirements of an emergency generator in a hospital, they take into account that all connected life and fire safety loads mandated by the NBCC must be provided with the emergency supply, and that all vital loads required with such supply by Z32 are connected to the emergency generator as well. Therefore, installation of the emergency systems in a hospital would certainly have to be done under provision of Section 46 of the CEC.
However, as usual, local regulatory bodies with jurisdictional responsibility for these multiple applications must be consulted in each individual case of installation.

CSA Requirements for GFCIs

ESFI Raises Awareness of New UL and CSA Requirements for GFCIs
Before the introduction of GFCIs, more than 700 people died from household electrocutions each year. As of 2001, that number has been reduced to 400 cases annually. This article discusses the new requirements for these life-saving devices.
by ESFI
To reduce electrically related deaths and injuries through public education, the Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI) has joined with the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to disseminate information on new requirements for ground-fault circuit interrupters. These new requirements offer a significant safety improvement for consumers.
The new requirements are being set by CSA and UL and apply to the harmonized standards, UL 943, Safety Standard for Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs) and CSA C22.2 No. 144.1, Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters.
Since the early 1970s, GFCIs have reduced household electrocutions by protecting residents from lethal currents. A GFCI is a wiring device that de-energizes a circuit when a current to ground could result in electric shock. The GFCI “interrupts” power before it reaches a level that would cause injury. The National Electrical Code requires GFCIs to be used in bathrooms, kitchens, garages, basements, crawlspaces, and outdoors. Similarly, the Canadian Electrical Code requires GFCIs to be used in many locations such as bathrooms, outdoors, basic care areas of hospitals, pools, spas, and hot tubs.
Before the introduction of GFCIs, more than 700 people died from household electrocutions each year. As of 2001, that number had been reduced to 400 cases annually. A 2001 field study from UL and NEMA, however, determined that a small but significant percent of GFCIs, particularly older ones, did not work after several years.
This created a demand for more stringent safety features that can alert users when a GFCI malfunctions.
The new UL and CSA requirements include:
• End of Life Provision: when a GFCI receptacle is incapable of passing its internal test function (it can no longer provide ground-fault protection) it will either a) render itself incapable of delivering power, or b) indicate by visual or audible means that the device must be replaced.
• Reverse Line-Load Miswire: a GFCI will deny power to the receptacle face if it is miswired.
In the USA, manufacturers must stop producing old versions of GFCIs on July 28, 2006, and must introduce new, redesigned GFCIs after that date. Distributors can sell and contractors can install old GFCIs until their supplies run out.
The UL revisions will not affect the NEC, which regulates installations, not products. In Canada, the selection of the effective date involves a process that has not yet been completed. Once this occurs, the effective date will be included in the Certification Notice announcing the 2006 edition of CSA Standard C22.2 No. 144.1. The CSA revisions will not affect the CE Code, which regulates installations, not products.
For more information about GFCIs or the new UL and CSA requirements, contact ESFI at (703) 841-3229 or visit www.esfi.org

Understanding the Canadian Electrical Safety Regulatory System

Understanding the Canadian Electrical Safety Regulatory System. Part II: Canadian Provinces and Territories
Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories are the legislated regulatory authorities for electrical safety in Canada. Under the Canadian Constitution there is a division of powers between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. The federal government has jurisdiction over areas such as defense and communications while the provinces and territories have jurisdictional authority over others such as education, health and electrical safety. As a result in Canada, you have 13 separate electrical safety regulatory authorities.
by CSA Group
Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories are the legislated regulatory authorities for electrical safety in Canada. Under the Canadian Constitution there is a division of powers between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. The federal government has jurisdiction over areas such as defense and communications while the provinces and territories have jurisdictional authority over others such as education, health and electrical safety. As a result in Canada, you have 13 separate electrical safety regulatory authorities.
Within each provincial or territorial jurisdiction, there is a self-contained electrical regulatory infrastructure with authority to independently set and enforce electrical safety standards. Regulatory decisions made within these jurisdictions are not subject to any national authority.
In practice however, despite 13 separate jurisdictions, the electrical regulatory systems across Canada are remarkably similar. This can be attributed to a history of strong participation by the electrical safety authorities, inspectors and chief inspectors of the Provinces/Territories, Municipalities and other agencies on key national electrical safety standards and advisory committees. These national committees include The Canadian Electrical Code Part I Committee (CEC Part I), The Regulatory Authority Committee (RAC), and The Canadian Advisory Council on Electrical Safety (CACES).
The close affiliation of the Chief Inspectors within these various bodies promotes discussion and encourages common solutions to electrical safety issues and jurisdictional matters. As a result, the regulatory environment across Canada is fairly uniform, and since statutes and regulations are similar, each jurisdiction adopts the Canadian Electrical Code with minimal amendments.
Provincial and Territorial Statutes (Acts)All electrical regulatory activities at the Provincial or Territorial level start with a Statute or Act. These establish the legal framework under which the electrical safety regulatory programs operate. Acts address requirements that typically establish the scope of legislation, the authority of Inspectors and Chief Inspectors, administration provisions, offences, penalties, and the authority to make regulations.
Amendments to Statutes or Acts are rare, and must be processed through the Provincial and Territorial legislative assemblies. This can be a fairly time-consuming process that can take in excess of a year or more to complete. A copy of each of the Electrical Safety Acts enforced in Canada are available on the web-site of each individual Province and Territory. For more information, visit: http://www.eagle.ca/~matink/themes/Provinces/province.html
Provincial and Territorial RegulationsRegulations fall under the authority of Statutes or Acts, but set out more specific requirements. A typical electrical safety regulation would cover equipment standards, qualification and licensing of installers, review of electrical designs, the issuing of permits, inspections, compliance procedures, utility connections, accident investigations, collection of fees and other various administrative rules.
Regulations are easier to amend than Acts. The Government in each Province and Territory typically has a committee of senior Ministers or Cabinet that can, with the recommendation of the electrical safety inspection experts, approve regulation changes without having to go through the legislative assemblies. This expediency may be necessary where there are technological advances or where an identified safety hazard needs to be corrected.
In addition to Provincial and Territorial regulations, some of the larger cities in Canada also regulate electrical safety through municipal by-laws. By-laws derive their authority from statutes similar to regulations, but tend to be less technical and more administrative in nature. For example, municipalities address issues such as local permit requirements, licensing fees, plan reviews, inspections and other administrative functions in addition to those delegated from the Provincial or Territorial level. It is unlikely that a municipal bylaw would amend a code, standard, or other technical document adopted or set by the Province or Territory.
Electrical Inspectors and Chief InspectorsAnother important function set out in regulations are the roles and duties of Electrical Inspectors and the Chief Electrical Inspector. Each Province and Territory, as well as some municipalities, have a Chief Electrical Inspector, or Chief Electrical Safety Administrator, if not by title, then at least by function.
The Chief Inspector is typically the senior policy and technical decision-maker concerning electrical safety, and serves as the Provincial or Territorial representative on the national electrical safety standards and advisory committees. Although his/her administrative functions may vary, the Chief Inspector is generally responsible for interpreting codes and standards and making associated rulings on their application. The Chief Inspector is also the authority to order unsafe equipment de-energized or removed from the marketplace and is the primary jurisdictional contact for electrical safety matters in his or her jurisdiction.
Development of Codes and Standards Canadian Electrical Code Part IEvery Province and Territory in Canada adopts and enforces the same installation code, CSA Standard C22.1, the Canadian Electrical Code Part I. (CEC Part I). Some Provinces and Territories also make amendments to the CEC prior to adoption.
Electrical Safety Regulatory authorities are very active in the development of the CEC Part I. Every Province and Territory in Canada as well as three major Canadian municipalities (Winnipeg. Calgary and Vancouver) are represented on the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I Committee. The Chair of the CEC Part I Committee, is elected by the membership and appointed by the Standards Policy Board for a renewable 3-year term. Each Part I Section Sub-Committee has one or more electrical Inspector members, and in some cases, an Inspector or Chief Inspector is the Chair of the subcommittee. In this respect, the electrical safety regulators can be influential during the process of developing Canada’s electrical safety standards.
Within the CSA/CEC structure there is the Regulatory Authority Committee (RAC) made up of Provincial and Territorial Chief Electrical Inspectors. This committee has the authority to evaluate and return proposed amendments of the Code to the CEC Part I Committee if they deem the provision is unenforceable or legally unworkable. However, although the RAC may return a proposal, it must also provide alternate wording that would preserve the intent of the original proposal with more legislatively compatible wording. This ensures that the CEC Part I, which is eventually incorporated into each Canadian jurisdiction’s regulation, is developed and formatted in a way that will make it legally suitable for enforcement across Canada. Through this development mechanism, the CEC is more likely to meet the needs of all jurisdictions, less likely to be amended by a Province or Territory and promotes uniform acceptance. It should also be noted that the CEC, Part I deals only with electrical installations. Requirements or specifications regarding the design for construction of products or electrical equipment are explained in the CEC Code Part II, a separate set of standards also published by the Canadian Standards Association. This ensures that equipment installed in conjunction with the CEC Part I will be compatible and safe to use under the installation rules.
Another area addressed under Provincial/Territorial electrical safety regulations is the acceptance of certification organizations. Certification organizations must be accepted under each Provincial/Territorial regulation before their certification marks are recognized in those jurisdictions. Typically, Provincial/Territorial regulations will state that no electrical equipment can be used, offered for sale or otherwise distributed unless it has been certified by an acceptable certification organization.
An acceptable certification organization is usually defined as an organization that has been accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). Under the SCC accreditation criteria the certification organization is required to apply a small "c" indicator adjacent to their registered certification mark to indicate that the product complies with a standard that is compatible with the CEC. There is an exception where the certification organization’s mark clearly indicates Canadian standards, such as CSA International’s mark. The accreditation agreement also requires certification organizations to have a recall procedure in place to ensure unsafe products are removed from the marketplace in a timely manner.
Enforcement of the CECA mix of Provincial/Territorial governments, municipal governments, quasi-government agencies, electric utilities and, in some cases, private inspection agencies, carry out the enforcement of the various regulatory requirements in Canada. Electrical Inspectors and Chief Electrical Inspectors enforce standards through design reviews, inspections, investigations, etc. Penalties can range from fines of tens of dollars to several thousands of dollars depending on the nature of the infraction. Responsibility for post-market surveillance of electrical products may lie within a jurisdictions regulatory authority, but there is rarely a procedure set up in each jurisdiction. This is because historically, product surveillance activity has been carried out by certification agencies.
For example, if a complaint is filed with the local electrical inspector. The inspector will investigate the incident, and subsequently contact the organization that certified the product and report the incident. The certification organization, which has an agreement with the manufacturer, will begin an investigation and if necessary, institute corrective action. Depending on the severity and extent of the problem, this action may be limited or extensive. If it is a widespread issue then CACES will be informed and this may result in a recall by the manufacturer or the regulators may order the product off the shelves.
The Canadian regulatory system requires the cooperation of all levels of government, private certification organizations and independent regulators. This system of cooperation, while seemingly unregulated due to the absence of one master regulatory body, has worked extremely well over the past decades, perhaps because the interests of one group have not superceded the interests of the others. Furthermore, due to the high level of communication that must take place between the various parties, the Canadian regulatory system has evolved over time at a significant rate while at the same time incorporating the interests, ideas and concerns of an entire cross-section of electrical regulatory perspectives.

Taking on the Counterfeiters

Taking on the Counterfeiters
Counterfeit products can be found anywhere in today’s market. From t-shirts to sunglasses to circuit breakers to autos, no industry is safe from products bearing counterfeit logos and trademarks invading the shelves of retailers, wholesalers and distributors.
by Andrew Wagar, CSA International
Counterfeit products can be found anywhere in today’s market. From t-shirts to sunglasses to circuit breakers to autos, no industry is safe from products bearing counterfeit logos and trademarks invading the shelves of retailers, wholesalers and distributors.
Counterfeit products and intellectual property piracy is a growing problem that has been linked to organized crime and other illegal activities. These products are often unsafe and create unfair competition to legitimate business, bilking manufacturers out of billions of dollars in revenue from purchases of cheap, imitation products. Counterfeit products can also damage a manufacturer’s reputation with its consumers, if inferior, poor quality products are mistaken for the real thing.
Manufacturers of counterfeit products make huge profits by manufacturing inferior products stamped with a brand-name logo, fooling unsuspecting purchasers. Counterfeit products do not meet the necessary standards, and therefore also use counterfeit certification marks, fooling buyers into a false sense of security about the requirements which have been met by the product they are purchasing. They also may use cheaper, sometimes faulty materials and have no research and development (R&D) investment. They simply wait for products to be invented and patented, copy them, and sell them for a fraction of the cost.
Incidents of dangerous, fake counterfeit products arriving in the U.S. have skyrocketed since the mid- 1990’s. The International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC), the largest international organization devoted solely to combating product counterfeiting and piracy, estimates that trademark counterfeiting robs the U.S. of more than $200 billion annually. Last year, U.S. Customs seized and destroyed more than $4 million worth of counterfeit electrical equipment. There have even been reports of counterfeit baby formula at retail stores in 16 states and faulty knock-off aircraft parts used on airplanes.
One expert warns distributors and supply houses that if they are approached with a deal that sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. "No matter what the industry, the story seems to be the same," says anti-counterfeiting lawyer, Lorne Lipkus of Kestenberg, Seigal, Lipkus. "Whether it’s t-shirts, cigars or electrical products, counterfeiters use the same approaches to distribute counterfeit goods. These include claiming the shipment of products offered is an overrun of a product, a deal on a product being sold through the back door, or a product that is ‘just as good as the real thing’ and therefore considerably cheaper in price." The opportunities for distributors are plentiful, and the profits are usually high, but industry is beginning to crack down on the practice, and distributors are among the first to be found and convicted of fraud for selling counterfeit products. "No industry is safe from counterfeiting," warns Lipkus. "Anything that can be duplicated, or can have a logo put on it, can be counterfeited. Even box designs can be duplicated to appear the same as a brand name manufacturer. If you can put yourself in the place of an intelligent, dishonest person, just imagine the possibilities."
The IACC reports the majority of counterfeit products come from Asia, primarily China, and that Eastern Europe has become a major source of these products, particularly Russia, Ukraine, and Poland. This is a concern for electrical manufacturers, as many electrical products and components are manufactured in Asia. For North American manufacturers and regulators hoping to remedy the situation abroad, there are many roadblocks, including a lack of useful or strong international legal avenues as well as a general lack of concern by Asian authorities. In many of these countries, the problem is not considered important; therefore, there are few officials policing the situation.
CSA International, a world-leading certification and testing organization, has developed an international agenda to combat trademark misrepresentation of its CSA certification marks. Similar to manufacturers, CSA International is fighting to protect its trademarks from illegal use, which would compromise the integrity of its certification marks.
Recently, CSA International implemented a North American anti-counterfeiting program, intended to investigate and take action against individuals who import or distribute products illegally bearing the CSA certification marks.
Doug Geralde, director, Corporate Audits and Investigations with CSA International, vice president of International Affairs for IAEI and vice chair of the IACC’s International Committee, stresses the importance CSA International has put on its anti-counterfeiting program. "The fight against counterfeit trademarks is important to everyone," he says. "At CSA, our reputation depends on the integrity of our mark. We’ve found products with counterfeit CSA marks and other certification organization marks. We want to catch these people and these problems, before they result in a loss of life."
CSA International’s efforts to thwart trademark infringement of its certification mark will benefit industry in general. By working with manufacturers and organizations such as the IACC as well as government authorities, CSA International hopes its efforts will help consumers and purchasers feel confident knowing the products they have purchased have been certified by a neutral, accredited third-party. Distributors will feel confident knowing the products they are selling have met the necessary certification protocol and are not in breach of trademark laws. Manufacturers will benefit by being alerted to counterfeit products infringing on their trademarks, as CSA Group’s anti-counterfeit program has found many products illegally bearing not only CSA trademarks but other corporate trademarks as well.
Tim Trainer, president of the IACC, explains that manufacturers need to be aware of the possibility of knock-offs, and should give the genuine products some security features so that identifying counterfeits is easier. He also stresses that manufacturers need to work with regulatory authorities, such as U.S. Customs, to help combat counterfeiters. One important step all manufacturers should take is registering their trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office located in Washington D.C. and registering their trademarks and copyrights with U.S. Customs. For only $190.00, registered trademarks and copyrights are entered into the U.S. Customs IPR Imaging Module, a database that contains images of genuine products and their counterfeit versions. CSA International is also doing its part, by becoming an active member of the IACC. CSA has also provided training to U.S. and Canadian customs agents, the RCMP and other regulatory authorities, to alert them to the problem of counterfeit marks and to identify products bearing them.
Awareness of the problem is the first step manufacturers must take to protect their trademarks from copyright infringement. By adhering to a zero tolerance policy and by working together, certification organizations, regulatory agencies industry associations, and manufacturers can eradicate this costly and potentially deadly problem.

Harmonizing North American Standards Service Entrance Requirements

Harmonizing North American Standards Service Entrance Requirements
As an attempt to encourage international trade, industry and governments in North America have adopted the strategy of basing national standards on international standards whenever possible.
by CSA Group
As an attempt to encourage international trade, industry and governments in North America have adopted the strategy of basing national standards on international standards whenever possible.
Striving to achieve this goal, National Standards Development Committees in North America have actively engaged in the concurrent process of adapting or adopting International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards as their national standards, and drafting harmonized regional standards which could be used as national standards in each of the participating countries (U.S., Mexico and Canada) through the CANENA process.
Although adoption of IEC-based standards is a utilization of these standards without amendments, the adaptation process involves making national deviations which are warranted due to specific, unique requirements of the adopting country.
Members of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Technical Committee on International Standards have adopted numerous IEC Standards for use in Canada. Upon adoption, these standards become Canadian National Standards, and are referenced in the list of Safety Standards for Electrical Equipment, Appendix A, in the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), Part I. Most of the standards adopted through this process are for self-contained, cord-connected products where there is no impact on the electrical installation codes.
The process of adopting harmonized electrical standards through the CANENA process has been successfully maintained in Canada through CSA’s participation in the CANENA Technical Harmonization Committees’ activities, related to the development of harmonized North American Electrical Safety Standards, primarily in the areas of wiring and industrial products.
CANENA, which celebrates its 10th anniversary this year, fosters the harmonization of electrotechnical standards within the Nations of the Americas. CANENA has established a set of guidelines, intended to facilitate an effective, efficient and objective approach to adopting harmonized standards. Furthermore, each National Standards Development Committee that is involved in harmonization, also utilizes specific criteria for their representatives involved in the process. For example, the CSA Strategic Steering Committee responsible for development of the Electrical Product Safety Standards in Canada has identified a need to provide guiding principles to Canadian representatives participating on the CANENA Technical Harmonization Committees’ (THC’s).
These principles are intended to assist the members of the CSA Technical Committees and Technical Subcommittees with the review of the harmonization process. These guiding principles will be used by the CSA Technical Committee and Subcommittee members during their review of CANENA draft standards at the development stage of the CANENA THC’s operation.
Use of this review criteria, or trigger points, will make Canadian acceptance conditions uniform, consistent and more important, transparent for all participants in the development of harmonized standards, thus expediting the overall process.
The guiding principles (trigger points) that have been recommended for use by the Canadian participants in the harmonized CANENA standards development process are as follows:
1. there is a proposed national deviation(s), particularly a Canadian deviation(s);
2. there is an incompatibility with the installation requirements of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I;
3. there is a new marking symbol introduced which has not been previously recognized in Canada;
4. proposed requirements deviate from those in existing CSA horizontal standards; (Standards that apply to all products, such as CSA Standard C22.2 No. 0, General Requirements);
5. proposed requirements will introduce new or different requirements in Canada (e.g. new products/types, new tests, additional markings, etc.);
6. if there is an incompatibility with other national installation codes (e.g. National Building Code, Elevator Code, etc.);
7. the proposed requirements conflict with unique Canadian health and safety requirements (e.g. EMI, radiation, harmonic content, etc.);
8. the proposed wording for a definition differs between countries;
9. proposed requirements will impact other related product standards (e.g. low temperature marking requirements for wire and cable products would be applicable to more than one standard and a common marking code across all related product standards would be desirable).
These trigger points have been already used in various deliberations by the CANENA THC’s. For example, the following deliberation illustrates the process of developing a harmonized standard involving service entrance equipment (combination panelboards).
Presently CSA Standard C22.2 No. 29, Panelboards and enclosed panelboards, requires that the service switching means must be located within the service box (Clause 7.4.1.1) and that "The main switch or circuit breaker shall be located in a separate section of the enclosure with a sheet-metal barrier or the equivalent, of the same thickness as the walls of the enclosure, having bushed holes or the equivalent, for the necessary wiring between compartments" (Clause 7.4.1.2).
Respectively, the requirements for neutral assemblies is specified in Clause 7.4.5.1. This clause states, "The main neutral assembly shall be located in the service box."
The referenced requirements of this standard relate to the essential principles of electrical safety, which are mandated by the specific installation Rules of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I as follows:
1. Definition of a "service box"
2. Rule 6-200(1) — location of a consumer’s service in a single service box
3. Rule 10-516(2) — use of a grounded service conductor for bonding of service equipment
4. Rule 14-012 — requirement for electrical equipment to have a rating sufficient to interrupt available fault currents
5. Rule 14-500 — operation of switches to prevent exposure to live parts and to limit access to authorized persons only
The scope of each CSA electrical product safety standard states that the equipment covered by the scope is intended for use in accordance with rules of the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I. In the case of C22.2 No. 29, the scope indicates that "This standard applies to panelboards… for use in accordance with the Canadian Electrical Code, Part I..."
Therefore, the referenced example demonstrates the following objective conditions that must be evaluated by the Canadian participants involved in the development of a harmonized standard that includes service entrance equipment:
1. there is no exposure to live parts and limited access to authorized persons;
2. there is ability to manually isolate circuits;
3. there is provision for use of the grounded service conductor as bonding means of service equipment and ability to maintain integrity of bonding and grounding means via the service neutral;
4. there is a provision to minimize damage of the electrical equipment located on the load side of the service disconnecting means from the impact of the available faults.
This example also shows that a transparent use of relevant trigger points would lead to a need for adaptation of the harmonized North American CANENA standard on panelboards with particular Canadian deviations that are consistent with the five essential principles of electrical safety.
Regional harmonized standards help to facilitate trade by working to eliminate or minimize the differences in product safety requirements between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. There is no doubt that the continuing, multi-faceted participation in the harmonization of standards related to electrical products and electrical installations will further enhance trade and the safe and economical use of electrical equipment throughout North America.

Grounding

Canadian CodeCEC Method of Grounding
It goes without saying that correct grounding is vital to minimizing the risks of electrical fire or explosion and risks to personal safety.
by Leslie Stoch, P. Eng
It goes without saying that correct grounding is vital to minimizing the risks of electrical fire or explosion and risks to personal safety. This article reviews some of the grounding methods permitted by the Canadian Electrical Code, their advantages and limitations, and reviews the model for effective grounding.
CEC Rule 10-106(1) requires that ac electrical systems must be solidly grounded when their maximum voltage to ground is limited to 150 volts or less. The most common ac voltages in Canada are found in 120/240-volt single-phase, three-wire and 120/208-volt, three-phase, four-wire electrical systems. A solidly grounded system has a solid connection between its neutral point and the earth.
Some advantages and limitations of a solidly grounded electrical system:
1. Phase voltages to ground are more effectively controlled by a solid interconnection between the electrical system neutral and the earth.
2. Although a solidly grounded system may experience heavy ground faults, when overcurrent and/or ground-fault protection is correctly applied, such faults are swiftly detected and cleared.
3. One perceived disadvantage, the electrical system must shut down during a single-phase ground fault.
Rule 10-500 defines effective grounding in this way: “The path to ground from circuits, equipment or conductor enclosures shall be permanent and continuous and shall have ample ampacity to conduct safely any currents liable to be imposed on it, and shall have impedance sufficiently low to limit the voltage above ground, and to facilitate the operation of the overcurrent devices in the circuit.” Appendix B provides further detail to this definition by prescribing that the overall ground fault return path must have impedance sufficiently low so as to permit at least five times the current ratings or settings of the circuit overcurrent protection to flow during a ground fault.
CEC Rule 10-106(2) also permits ungrounded three-phase delta systems when the electrical system voltage exceeds 150 volts to ground. Delta systems have no interconnection with the earth. An ungrounded delta system offers the advantage that no shutdown is required on occurrence of a single-phase ground fault. Ground indication must be provided and ground faults must be repaired at the earliest possible time. Unfortunately, ground indicating lights are often poorly maintained or ignored, thus increasing risks of equipment damage, personal injuries or fatalities.
Although an ungrounded three-phase delta system may continue to operate during a single-phase ground fault, this benefit brings with it, a number of safety and other risks.
1. Uncontrolled phase voltages during normal operations and arcing voltages during a ground fault will shorten the insulation life of motors and other electrical equipment.
2. A phase-to-phase fault happens when a second phase short-circuits to ground, resulting in fire, explosion, equipment damage, electrical system shutdowns and personal risks.
3. History has shown that failure to maintain the ground indicating lights or ignoring them can lead to serious consequences.
Resistance grounding provides an excellent compromise between solidly grounded and ungrounded delta systems, providing some of the advantages of each.
Connecting the electrical system neutral to earth through a grounding resistor provides a number of important benefits.
1. The CEC, Rule 10-1102 permits electrical systems up to 5 kV to continue operating without shutting down during a ground fault when fault currents are limited to 5 amperes or less.
2. Lower ground-fault levels and reduced flash hazards minimize equipment damage and reduce personal risks.
3. Phase voltages are controlled with a lower risk of insulation damage.
Resistance grounding may be defined as low resistance or high resistance grounding. Low resistance grounding is normally used at higher voltages with ground-fault currents not necessarily limited to 5 amperes. Low resistance grounding is used specifically to reduce ground-fault damages and hazards. The CEC requires that when system voltages exceed 5 kV or allowable ground-fault current exceeds 5 amperes, a shutdown is required during a ground fault.
A high resistance grounded electrical system may be defined as one that limits single-phase ground-fault currents to 5 amperes or less. The CEC, Rule 10-1102 does permit electrical systems up to 5 kV to continue operating during a single-phase ground fault when ground faults are limited to 5 amperes or less. The rule does include a requirement for a visual or audible alarm, clearly identified. It also goes without saying that ground faults should be repaired as soon as possible after detection to reduce the risks of further damage and personal risks
Rule 10-1102 of the present 2002 CEC does not permit using the neutral of resistance grounded systems to supply any single-phase loads. There will be some changes to this requirement when the 2006 electrical code comes into effect.
As usual, you should always consult with your locale electrical inspection authority in each jurisdiction for a more precise interpretation of any of the above.

Power quality

Productivity is the key to survival
in today’s globally competitive
environment. When you think
about the basic inputs to production
— time, labor, and materials
— you can see there isn’t much
room for optimization. You have
24 hours per day, labor is costly,
and you don’t have much choice
in materials. Thus, every
company must use automation to
gain more output from the same
inputs — or perish.
The costs of poor
power quality
The interdependence of various
systems adds layers of
complexity to this issue. Your
computers are fine, but the network
is down — so nobody can
book a flight or file an expense
report. The process is operating
correctly, but the HVAC has shut
down and production must stop.
Mission-critical systems exist
throughout the facility and
throughout the enterprise —
power quality problems can bring
Utility
power
Ground
system
Main switchgear
UPS
panel
drive
Transfer
switch
480 V/
277 V
panel
120 V/
202 V
panel
Lighting
Transformer
Emergency
generator
Receptacle
000124
swit
PDU
480 V
Starter
Disconnect
Power
factor
correction
capacitors
Adjustable
speed motor
000124
CAT II
300 V
CAT III
1000 V
CAT IV
600 V
F r o m t h e F l u k e D i g i t a l L i b r a r y @ w w w. f l u k e . c o m / l i b r a r y
So, we rely on automation,
which in turn relies on clean
power. Power quality problems
can cause processes and equipment
to malfunction or shut
down. And the consequences
can range from excessive energy
costs to complete work stoppage.
Obviously, power quality is
critical.
any one of these to a grinding
halt at any time. And that will
usually be the worst possible
time.
Where do power quality problems
come from? Most originate
inside the facility. They may be
due to problems with:
• Installation — improper
grounding, improper routing,
or undersized distribution.
• Operation — equipment
operated outside of design
parameters.
• Mitigation — improper
shielding or lack of power
factor correction.
• Maintenance — deteriorated
cable insulation or grounding
connections.
Even perfectly installed and
maintained equipment in a
perfectly designed facility can
introduce power quality problems
as it ages.
Power quality problems can
also originate from outside the
facility. We live with the threat of
unpredictable outages, voltage
sags, and power surges.
Obviously, there’s a cost here.
How do you quantify it?
Measuring power
quality costs
Power quality problems make
their effects felt in three general
areas: downtime, equipment
problems, and energy costs.
Downtime
To quantify system downtime
costs, you need to know two
things:
1. The revenue per hour your
system produces.
2. The costs of production.
2 Fluke Corporation The costs of poor power quality
Also, consider the business
process. Is it a continuous, fully
utilized process (e.g., a refinery)?
Must your product be consumed
when produced (e.g., a power
plant)? Can customers instantly
switch to an alternative if the
product is not available (e.g., a
credit card)? If the answer to any
of these questions is yes, then lost
revenue is difficult or impossible
to recover.
Are you an OEM producer? If
you can’t make timely deliveries,
your customer may switch to a
source that can.
Equipment problems
Exact costs are hard to quantify,
because you are dealing with
many variables. Did that motor
really fail from excess harmonics,
or was there some other cause? Is
Line Three producing scrap
because variations in the power
supply are causing variations in
machine performance? To get the
correct answers, you need to do
two things:
1. Troubleshoot to the root cause.
2. Determine the actual costs.
Energy costs
To reduce your power bill, you
need to record consumption
patterns and adjust the system
and load timing to reduce one or
more of the following.
1. Actual power (kWh) usage.
2. Power factor penalties.
3. A peak demand charge
structure.
You can reduce power usage
by eliminating inefficiencies in
your distribution system.
Inefficiency sources include:
• High neutral currents due to
unbalanced loads and triplen
harmonics.
• Heavily loaded transformers,
especially those serving
non-linear loads.
• Old motors, old drives, and
other motor-related issues.
• Highly distorted power, which
may cause excessive heating
in the power system.
You can avoid power factor
penalties by correcting for power
factor. Generally this involves
installing correction capacitors.
But, first correct for distortion on
the system — capacitors can present
low impedance to harmonics
and installing inappropriate PF
correction can result in resonance
or burned out capacitors. Consult
a power quality engineer before
correcting PF if harmonics are
present.
You can reduce peak demand
charges by managing peak-loading.
Unfortunately, many people
overlook a major component of
this cost — the effect of poor
power quality on peak power
usage — and thus underestimate
their overpayments. To determine
the real costs of peak-loading,
you need to know three things:
1. “Normal” power usage.
2. “Clean power” power usage.
3. Peak-loading charge structure.
Let’s walk through an example. Your factory makes 1,000
widgets per hour, and each widget produces $9 of revenue.
Thus, your revenue per hour is $9,000. If your costs of production
are $3,000 per hour, your operating income is $6,000 per
hour when production is running. When production is down, you
lose $6,000 per hour of income and you still have to pay your
fixed costs (e.g., overhead and wages). That’s what it costs to be
down. But, downtime has other costs associated with it:
• Scrap. How much raw material or work in process do you
have to throw away if a process goes down?
• Restart. How much does it cost to clean up and restart after
an unplanned shutdown?
• Additional labor. Do you need to pay overtime or outsource
work to respond to a downtime incident?
Here’s an example. Your factory
is making plastic webbing
that must be of uniform thickness.
Operators consistently
report high scrap rates in the
late afternoon. You can directly
trace machine speed variances
to low voltage caused by heavy
HVAC loads. The operations
manager calculates the net
scrap costs are $3,000 per day.
That’s the revenue cost of your
low voltage. But, don’t forget
other costs, such as those we
identified for downtime.
Let’s walk through an example. Your factory/office
complex averages 570 kWh of consumption during
the workday, but hits peaks of 710 kWh most days.
Your utility charges you for each 10 kWh over 600
kWh for the whole month, any time you exceed
600 kWh during a 15-minute peak measurement
window. If you were to correct for power factor,
mitigate harmonics, correct for sags, and install a
load management system, you would see a different
power usage picture — one you can calculate.
By eliminating the power
quality problems, you reduce the
size of the peak demands and
the base from which they start.
By using load management, you
control when specific equipment
operates and thus how the loads
“stack on top of each other.” Now
your building averages 515 kWh
and your peak-load drops to
650 kWh. But, you add load
management to move some loads
around and now fewer loads
stack on top of each other at
once — your new peak-load
rarely goes beyond 595 kWh.
Saving PQ dollars
You’ve tallied up the costs of
poor power quality. Now, you
need to know how to eliminate
those costs. The following steps
will get you there.
• Examine design. Determine
how your system can best
support your processes and
what infrastructure you need
to prevent failure. Verify
circuit capacity before
installing new equipment.
Re-check critical equipment
after configuration changes.
3 Fluke Corporation The costs of poor power quality
• Comply with standards.
For example, examine your
grounding system for compliance
with IEEE-142. Examine
your power distribution
system for compliance with
IEEE-141.
• Examine power protection.
This includes lightning
protection, TVSS, and surge
suppression. Are these properly
specified and installed?
• Get baseline test data on all
loads. This is the key to
predictive maintenance, and
it allows you to spot emerging
problems.
• Question mitigation.
Mitigating power quality
problems includes correction
(e.g., grounding repair) and
coping (e.g., K-rated transformers).
Consider power
conditioning and backup
power.
• Review maintenance
practices. Are you testing,
then following up with
corrective actions? Conduct
periodic surveys at critical
points — for example, check
neutral to ground voltage and
ground current on feeders and
critical branch circuits.
Conduct infrared surveys of
distribution equipment.
Determine root causes of
failures, so you know how to
prevent recurrences.
• Use monitoring. Can you see
voltage distortions before they
overheat motors? Can you
track transients? If you don’t
have power monitoring
installed, you probably won’t
see a problem coming — but
you will see the downtime it
causes.
At this point, you need to
determine the costs of prevention
and remediation — and then
compare those to the costs of
poor power quality. This comparison
will allow you to justify the
investment needed to fix the
power quality problems. Because
this should be an ongoing effort,
use the right tools so you can do
your own power quality testing
and monitoring rather than
outsourcing it. Today, it’s surprisingly
affordable — and it will
always cost less than downtime.