NFPA and National Fire Protection Association are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02169.
National Fire Protection Association®1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, QUINCY, MA 02169-7471
A compilation of NFPA® TechnicalCommittee Reports on Proposals for public review and comment
Public Comment Deadline: August 31, 2012
Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development
I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.”
The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.
II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document consisting of the ROP and ROC.” A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.
III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.
IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.
V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.
VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.
VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.
VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).
IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs.
X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at (617) 984-7246.
i
2013 Annual Revision Cycle ROP Contents
by NFPA Numerical Designation
Note: Documents appear in numerical order.
NFPA No. Type Action Title Page No.
25 P Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems ............... 25-1 51B P Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work ........................................... 51B-1 56(PS) P Standard for Fire and Explosion Prevention During Cleaning and Purging of Flammable Gas Piping Systems .......................................................................................................... 56(PS)-1 58 P Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code ....................................................................................................................... 58-1 77 P Recommended Practice on Static Electricity .................................................................................................. 77-1 96 P Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations.......................... 96-1 130 P Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems ............................................................. 130-1 306 P Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels ................................................................................... 306-1 403 P Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airports .......................................................... 403-1 412 P Standard for Evaluating Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Foam Equipment ............................................ 412-1
502 P Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways ............................................... 502-1 610 P Guide for Emergency and Safety Operations at Motorsports Venues ......................................................... 610-1 780 P Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems..................................................................... 780-1 1002 P Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications ................................................ 1002-1
1021 P Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications ................................................................................ 1021-1
1026 P Standard for Incident Management Personnel Professional Qualifications ............................................... 1026-1 1031 P Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan Examiner ....................................... 1031-1 1033 P Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator ................................................................... 1033-1 1123 P Code for Fireworks Display ....................................................................................................................... 1123-1 1143 P Standard for Wildland Fire Management ................................................................................................... 1143-1
TYPES OF ACTION
P Partial Revision N New Document R Reconfirmation W Withdrawal
Type Action Page No. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 403 Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airport P 403-1 412 Standard for Evaluating Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Foam Equipment P 412-1 Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems P 130-1 Forest and Rural Fire Protection 1143 Standard for Wildland Fire Management P 1143-1 Gas Hazards 306 Standard for the Control of Gas Hazards on Vessels P 306-1 Gas Process Safety 56(PS) Standard for Fire and Explosion Prevention During Cleaning and Purging of Flammable Gas Piping
Systems
P
56(PS)-1 Hot Work Operations 51B Standard for Fire Prevention During Welding, Cutting, and Other Hot Work P 51B-1 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Systems 25 Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems P 25-1 Lightning Protection 780 Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems P 780-1 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code P 58-1 Professional Qualifications Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications 1002 Standard for Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications P 1002-1 Fire Officer Professional Qualifications 1021 Standard for Fire Officer Professional Qualifications P 1021-1 Incident Management Professional Qualifications 1026 Standard for Incident Management Personnel Professional Qualifications P 1026-1 Fire Inspector Professional Qualifications 1031 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan Examiner P 1031-1 1033 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator P 1033-1 Pyrotechnics 1123 Code for Fireworks Display P 1123-1 Road Tunnel and Highway Fire Protection 502 Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways P 502-1 Static Electricity 77 Recommended Practice on Static Electricity P 77-1 Safety at Motorsports Venues 610 Guide for Emergency and Safety Operations at Motorsports Venues P 610-1 Venting Systems for Cooking Appliances 96 Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations P 96-1
iii
COMMITTEE MEMBER CLASSIFICATIONS1,2,3,4
The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof,
that is affected by the standard. 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the
standard. 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product,
assembly, or system affected by the standard. 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace. 5. RT Applied Research/Testing Laboratory: A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent
applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards. 6. E Enforcing Authority: A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces
standards. 7. I Insurance: A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency. 8. C Consumer: A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the
standard, but who is not included in (2). 9. SE Special Expert: A person not representing (1) through (8) and who has special expertise in the scope of the
standard or portion thereof. NOTE 1: “Standard” connotes code, standard, recommended practice, or guide. NOTE 2: A representative includes an employee. NOTE 3: While these classifications will be used by the Standards Council to achieve a balance for Technical Committees, the Standards Council may determine that new classifications of member or unique interests need representation in order to foster the best possible Committee deliberations on any project. In this connection, the Standards Council may make such appointments as it deems appropriate in the public interest, such as the classification of “Utilities” in the National Electrical Code Committee. NOTE 4: Representatives of subsidiaries of any group are generally considered to have the same classification as the parent organization.
FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2013 Annual Revision CYCLE
FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, August 31, 2012
For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.
For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Log #:
Date Rec’d:
Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)
Date 8/1/200X Name John B. Smith Tel. No. 253-555-1234
Company Email
Street Address 9 Seattle St. City Tacoma State WA Zip 98402
***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.
Please indicate organization represented (if any) Fire Marshals Assn. of North America
1. (a) NFPA Document Title National Fire Alarm Code NFPA No. & Year NFPA 72, 200X ed.
(b) Section/Paragraph 4.4.1.1
2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 72-7
3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text
4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]
Delete exception.
5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)
A properly installed and maintained system should be free of ground faults. The occurrence of one or more ground faults should be required to cause a ‘trouble’ signal because it indicates a condition that could contribute to future malfunction of the system. Ground fault protection has been widely available on these systems for years and its cost is negligible. Requiring it on all systems will promote better installations, maintenance and reliability.
6. Copyright Assignment
(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.
(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)
I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.
Signature (Required)
PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT
Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR
FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2013 Annual Revision CYCLE
FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDST, August 31, 2012
For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.
For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Log #:
Date Rec’d:
Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)
Date Name Tel. No.
Company Email
Street Address City State Zip
***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.
Please indicate organization represented (if any)
1. (a) NFPA Document Title NFPA No. & Year
(b) Section/Paragraph
2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP):
3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text
4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]
5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)
6. Copyright Assignment
(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.
(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)
I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.
Signature (Required)
PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT
Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR
Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document
Step 1 Call for Proposals
Proposed new document or new edition of an existing document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.
Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)
Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.
Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.
Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.
Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)
Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.
Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.
Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.
Step 4 Association Technical Meeting
“Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Association Technical Meeting. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Association Technical Meeting and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)
NFPA membership meets each June at the Association Technical Meeting and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for documents with “certified amending motions.”
Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.
Step 5 Standards Council Issuance
Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.
Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.
The Association Technical Meeting
The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Association Technical Meeting that takes place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.
The Association Technical Meeting provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules, which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at an Association Technical Meeting. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.
The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at an Association Technical Meeting, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Association Technical Meeting.
Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be noncontroversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Association Technical Meeting and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining documents are then forwarded to the Association Technical Meeting for consideration of the NFPA membership.
What Amending Motions Are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments, and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.
The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the NFPA Conference & Expo, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Committee Report Session now runs once each year at the Annual Meeting in June.
Who Can Make Amending Motions. NFPA rules also define those authorized to make amending motions. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, the NFPA Regs should be consulted.
Action on Motions at the Association Technical Meeting. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the Association Technical Meeting and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.
Standards Council Issuance
One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents, it also hears any appeals related to the document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance.
780-1
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Report of the Committee on
Lightning Protection
John M. Tobias, ChairUS Department of the Army, MD [U]
Christopher Batchelor, US Department of the Navy, MD [E] Gerard M. Berger, CNRS - Supelec, France [SE] Matthew Caie, ERICO, Inc., OH [M] Joanie A. Campbell, US Department of the Air Force, FL [E] Josephine Covino, US Department of Defense, VA [E] Ignacio T. Cruz, Cruz Associates, Inc., VA [SE] Robert F. Daley, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM [U] Joseph P. DeGregoria, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NY [RT] Douglas J. Franklin, Thompson Lightning Protection Inc., MN [M] Mitchell Guthrie, Consulting Engineer, NC [SE] Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc., IL [M] William E. Heary, Heary Brothers Lightning Protection, NY [IM] Paul Jacques, Nuclear Service Organization, DE [I] Carl S. Johnson II, AVCON, Inc., FL [U] Bruce A. Kaiser, Lightning Master Corporation, FL [M] Eduardo Mariani, CIMA Ingenieria S.R.L, Argentina [SE] David E. McAfee, Fire and Lightning Consultants, TN [SE] Robley B. Melton, Jr., CSI Telecommunications, GA [U] Rep. Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Victor Minak, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company, VA [U] Rep. American Petroleum Institute Mark P. Morgan, East Coast Lightning Equipment, Inc., CT [M] Luke Pettross, Lightning Eliminators & Consultants Inc., CO [M] Christine T. Porter, Intertek Testing Services, WA [RT] Terrance K. Portfleet, Michigan Lightning Protection Inc., MI [IM] Rep. United Lightning Protection Association, Inc. Robert W. Rapp, National Lightning Protection Corporation, CO [M] Lon D. Santis, Institute of Makers of Explosives, DC [U] Russell Stubbs, Qwest Communications, CO [U] Harold VanSickle, III, Lightning Protection Institute, MO [IM]
Alternates
Charles H. Ackerman, East Coast Lightning Equipment Inc., CT [M] (Alt. to Mark P. Morgan) Richard W. Bouchard, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., CO [RT] (Alt. to Joseph P. DeGregoria) Peter A. Carpenter, Lightning Eliminators & Consultants Inc., CO [M] (Alt. to Luke Pettross)
Dennis P. Dillon, Bonded Lightning Protection, Inc., FL [IM] (Alt. to Harold VanSickle, III) Mark S. Harger, Harger Lightning & Grounding, IL [M] (Alt. to Thomas R. Harger) Kenneth P. Heary, Heary Brothers Lightning Protection, NY [IM] (Alt. to William E. Heary) Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company, NJ [IM] (Alt. to Terrance K. Portfleet)Morris Kline, HMT Inc. TX [U] (Alt. to Victor Munak) (supplemental ballot only)David John Leidel, Halliburton Energy Services, TX [U] (Alt. to Lon D. Santis) Allan P. Steffes, Thompson Lightning Protection Inc., MN [M] (Alt. to Douglas J. Franklin) Paul R. Svendsen, National Lightning Protection Corporation, CO [M] (Alt. to Robert W. Rapp)
Staff Liaison: Richard J. Roux
Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the protection from lightning of buildings and structures, recreation and sports areas, and any other situations involving danger from lightning to people or property, except those concepts utilizing early streamer emission air terminals. The protection of electric generating, transmission, and distribution systems is not within the scope of this Committee.
This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document.
The Report of the Technical Committee on Lightning Protection is presented for adoption.
This Report was prepared by the Technical Committee on Lightning Protection and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 780, Standard for the Installation of Lightning Protection Systems, 2011 edition. NFPA 780-2011 is published in Volume 11 of the 2012 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.
This Report has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, which consists of 28 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.
780-2
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780______________________________________________________________ 780-1 Log #CP1 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required.j Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: O.1.2.2 IEC Publications IEC 62305-2, Protection Against Lightning—Part 2: Risk Management,
Edition 2, 2010 2006. IEC 62305-3, Protection Against Lightning — Part 3: Physical Damage to Structures and Life Hazard, Edition 2, 2010 2006. IEC 62305-4, Protection Against Lightning — Part 4: Electrical and Electronic Systems Within Structures, Edition 2, 2010 2006. O.1.2.3 Military Publications MIL-STD-464C, Interface Standard Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements for Systems, 2010 1997.O.1.2.4 NEMA Publications. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1847, Rosslyn, VA 22209. NEMA LS-1, Low Voltage Surge Protective Devices, 1992.O.1.2.4 UL PublicationsANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, Second Edition, August 15, 1996.Renumber subsequent sections. O.2.1 IEC Publications
IEC 61312-1, Protection Against Lightning Electromagnetic Impulse, 1995.IEC 61643-1, Low-Voltage Surge Protective Devices – Part 1: Surge Protective Devices Connected to Low-Voltage Power Distribution Systems – Requirements and Tests, 2005.IEC 61400-24, Wind Turbine Generator Systems – Part 24: Lightning Protection, 2010 2002.IEC 61643-11, Low-Voltage Surge Protective Devices – Part 11: Surge Protective Devices Connected to Low-Voltage Power Distribution Systems – Requirements and Test Methods, 2011.IEC 61643-12, Low-Voltage Surge Protective Devices – Part 12: Surge Protective Devices Connected To Low-Voltage Power Distribution Systems – Selection and Application Principles, 2008 2002.IEC 61643-21, Low voltage surge protective devices - Part 21: Surge protective devices connected to telecommunications and signalling networks - Performance requirements and testing methods, Edition 1.1, 2009.IEC 61643-22, Low voltage surge protective devices - Part 22: Surge protective devices connected to telecommunications and signalling networks - Selection and Application Principles, 2004.IEC 62305-1, Protection Against Lightning — Part 1: General Principles, Edition 2, 2010 2006.IEC DIS81 (BC/CO)14, Protection of Structures Against Lightning, Part 1: General Principles, Section 1: Guide A — Selection of Protection Levels for Lightning Protection Systems, 1991.O.2.2 IEEE Publications ANSI/IEEE C62.11, Standard for Metal-Oxide Surge Arresters for Alternating Current Systems, 1993.ANSI/IEEE 1100, Recommended Practice for Powering and Grounding Electronic Equipment (Emerald Book), 20051999. IEEE 141, IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power Distribution for
Industrial Plants, 19931997. O.2.3 Military Publications AFMAN 91-201, Explosive Safety Standards, Department of Air Force, Washington, DC, October 2001 January 2011. AMCR 385-100, Safety Manual, Chapter 8, Army Material Command, Washington, DC, 1985 1995. DoDM 6055.09-MSTD, DoD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards,: Explosives Safety Construction Criteria, Chapter 7 Attachment 4, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, 2008 July 1999. NAVSEA OP-5, Ammunition and Explosives Ashore, Volume 1, Sixth Revision 7, Chapter 6, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, March 2011 1995. O.2.4 UL Publications. ANSI/UL 497, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Paired Conductor Communications Circuits, 2001, revised 2004. ANSI/UL 497A, UL Standard for Safety Secondary Protectors for Communications Circuits, 2001, revised 2008. ANSI/UL 497B, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Data Communications and Fire Alarm Circuits, 2004, revised 2008. ANSI/UL 497C, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Coaxial Communications Circuits, 2001, revised 2008.UL 497E, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Antenna Lead-In Conductors, Edition 4, 2011.
UL 452, UL Standard for Safety Antenna Discharge Units, 2006, revised 2007.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee reviewed the entire document to: 1) Update extracted material 2) Update references to other organizations’ documents This revision is the result of a Technical Committee action to review the document to update any extracted material and update references to other organizations’ documents. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: I am rejecting the entire 780 because I do not think it is correct to include Surge Protection. _______________________________________________________________ 780-1a Log #CP4 Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise Section 1.6 to read as follows: 1.6 Metric Units of Measurement. Metric units of measurement in this standard shall be in accordance with the modernized metric system known as the International System of Units (SI). 1.6.1 If a value for measurement as given in this standard is followed by an equivalent value in other units, the first stated value shall be the requirement. 1.6. Units of Measurement. 1.6.1 Measurements shall be presented in inch-pound units followed in parentheses by the equivalent value presented in SI units. 1.6.2 A given equivalent value shall be approximate. Reverse all values throughout the entire document (with the exception of those in Section A.4.7.3.4 and Figure A.4.7.3.4) thus showing inch-pound units followed by metric units in parenthesis. Add Note 3. to Figure A.4.7.3.4 to read as follows: The figure is based on data from IEC 62305-3 which uses metric values as normative. Substantiation: The TC recognizes that inch-pound units are the industry standard. Therefore, all values (with the exception of those in Section A.4.7.3.4 and Figure A.4.7.3.4) are reversed to comply with the Manual of Style, Section 4.1.1(3). Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-2 Log #125 Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Propose replacing all instances of “in.” (the abbreviation for inch) with “in”. Substantiation: Inch is the only measurement of distance that appears to have a period after its abbreviation throughout. The abbreviations for feet, millimeters, and meters do not have a period following them, so it seems unnecessary for the abbreviation for inch to. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee refers the submitter to the Manual of Style, Section 3.2.6.4. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-3 Log #115 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.x (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John M. Tobias, US Army Communications Electronics CommandRecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 1.X Retroactivity. The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection from the hazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued. 1.X.1 Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this standard shall not apply to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the standard. Where specified, the provisions of this standard shall be retroactive. 1.X.2 In those cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines that the existing situation presents an unacceptable degree of risk, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to apply retroactively any portions of this standard deemed appropriate. 1.X.3 The retroactive requirements of this standard shall be permitted to be modified if their application clearly would be impractical in the judgment of the authority having jurisdiction, and only where it is clearly evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided. Substantiation: Establish retroactivity guidance for NFPA 780.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new 1.4 to read as follows: 1.4 Retroactivity. The provisions of this standard reflect a consensus of what is necessary to provide an acceptable degree of protection from the hazards addressed in this standard at the time the standard was issued. 1.4.1 Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this standard shall not
780-3
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780apply to facilities, equipment, structures, or installations that existed or were approved for construction or installation prior to the effective date of the standard. Where specified in this standard, the provisions of this standard shall be retroactive. 1.4.2 In those cases where the authority having jurisdiction determines that
the existing situation presents an unacceptable degree of risk, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to apply retroactively any portions of this standard deemed appropriate. 1.4.3 The retroactive requirements of this standard shall be permitted to be
modified if their application clearly would be impractical in the judgment of the authority having jurisdiction, and only where it is clearly evident that a reasonable degree of safety is provided. Renumber remaining paragraphs.
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes that the submitter’s text is to be located in Section 1.4. The TC edits Section 1.4.1 for clarity. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: RAPP, R.: The document has not defined “acceptable degree of protection”
and Manual of Style - Table 2.2.2.3 Possible Unenforceable and Vague Terms. The authority of the AHJ to change the written specification requirements of a project, that has been bid from those specifications and documents and also a legal binding contract, signed to those specifications and documents, is too much power without consulting with the owner/owners representative, contractors, etc....... _______________________________________________________________780-4 Log #56 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add section (6) to read as follows: (6) Structures housing electric generation equipment, but not the generation
equipment itself. Substantiation: This statement is needed to add clarity, since the Standard allows for the protection of wind turbines, which appears to contradict Section 1.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See 780-4a (Log #CP11). The change satisfies the submitter’s intent. The Technical Committee refers the submitter to Proposal 780-5.
Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-4a Log #CP11 Final Action: Accept(1.1.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 1.1.1 This document shall cover traditional lightning protection system
installation requirements for the following: (1) Structures (2) Miscellaneous structures and special occupancies (3) Heavy-duty stacks (4) Structures containing flammable vapors, flammable gases, or liquids that
can give off flammable vapors (5) Structures housing explosive materials (6) Wind turbines (7) Watercraft (8) Airfield lighting circuits (9) Solar arrays
Substantiation: The TC updates Section 1.1.1 to reflect revised document changes for this cycle. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-5 Log #76 Final Action: Accept in Principle(1.1.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Revise 1.1.2 as follows: 1.1.2* This document shall not cover address lightning protection of the
structure system but not the equipment or installation requirements for electric generating, transmission, and distribution systems except as given in Chapter 9 and Chapter X. Substantiation: This proposed wording makes a positive statement on the scope and clarifies any scope issue with the inclusion of the existing chapter on wind turbines and the proposed solar array chapter. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise 1.1.2 to read as follows: 1.1.2* This document shall not cover address lightning protection of the structure system but not the equipment or installation requirements for electric generating, transmission, and distribution systems except as given in Chapter 9 and Chapter 12.
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and changes Chapter X to 12. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: PETTROSS, L.: I think that if Proposal 780-4a (CP11) does not sufficiently meet the intent of #4 it is better to introduce a line similar to that in #4 to the list. Based on the structure of the writing, 1.1.1 should contain the entire scope stated positively. 1.1.2 and on are all exceptions which are stated negatively. Upon reading 1.1.1 the reader should know everything that the standard addresses. _______________________________________________________________ 780-6 Log #37 Final Action: Accept in Principle(2.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.1 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062–2096. ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices,Third Edition, September 29, 2006, Revised 2011.Substantiation: Update referenced standard to most current edition.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 2.3.1 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062–2096. ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices,Third Edition, September 29, 2006Committee Statement: The Technical Committee retains the document date (by year) but not the revision date. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-6a Log #CP13 Final Action: Accept(3.3.7.4 Roof Conductor, 3.3.7.5 Down Conductor)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: 3.3.7.4 Roof Conductor. A main conductor used to interconnect strike termination devices. 3.3.7.5 Down Conductor. A main conductor used to connect roof conductors to ground electrodes. Substantiation: The TC adds two new definitions. These terms are used in several locations in the standard and are not defined. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-7 Log #51 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.21 ISO Container (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Josephine Covino, DoD Explosives Safety BoardRecommendation: Add the following definition; renumber the remainder of the section accordingly. 3.3.21 ISO container. A steel container that provides a protective shield against lightning threats.Substantiation: Proposal for an Addition to NFPA 780, 2011 Edition, Chapter 8, “Protection of Structures Housing Explosive Materials” Introduction Above is a proposed addition to the subject document that defines US Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines for storage of ammunition and explosives (AE) in steel ISO containers. In particular it delineates two storage categories: one list of AE categories that can be safely stored in a steel ISO container without the need for any LPS installed; the second list is those AE categories that must be stored in an ISO container that has NFPA-compliant LPS installed. Discussion: A detailed study of the electromagnetic effects of lightning strikes on steel ISO containers has been performed. The study includes a mathematical analysis of direct and indirect lightning effects, and corroborative electromagnetic transfer impedance testing. Aside from the potential of burn-through due to a direct strike attachment, the report and subsequent private communications between the authors, Dr. John Tobias and Mr. Mitchell Guthrie conclude that the ISO will provide adequate electromagnetic shielding to its contents. Risk levels to the stored AE are equal to or less than that of other authorized storage structures, with the exception of burn-through. The two AE categories delineated below are; 1. AE that are not adversely affected by burn-through effects (no LPS required) and, 2. AE that could be adversely affected by burn-through (LPS required). Based on the study and the categorization presented, the DoD Explosives Safety Board recommends that these guidelines be added to NFPA 780, Chapter 8, specifically for -- and only applicable to -- DoD AE storage in steel ISO Containers. The theoretical calculations and electromagnetic measurements of a typical steel ISO container indicate that it will provide adequate protection for most
780-4
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780AE against all lightning threats without the application of any external lightning protection means. The level of protection provided by an ISO container against all lightning threats is consistent with all other DoD-approved lightning protected structures that contain AE with the exception of a small possibility of burn-through. Proposed Addition to NFPA 780: This assumes that the container is in good condition, all welds and joints are
sound, and that any damage has been repaired per MIL HDBK-138B. DoD steel ISO containers can be used to safely store the following AE items,
with a minimum Safe Separation Distance of 0.6 inch, without the need for any external LPS: 1. Small arms in ammo boxes. 2. All-up weapon systems in shipping containers. 3. Warheads and rocket motors in shipping containers. 4. Metal cased or overpacked bombs and AE. 5. Detonators and explosive actuators in metallic overpacks. The following AE items must be stored in steel ISO containers that are
protected with an external LPS: 1. Bulk explosives/propellants in non-conductive boxes or drums. 2. Rocket motors which have non-metallic cases. 3. Non-metal cased or overpacked cartridges and ammunition. 4. Items shipped with open detonators or explosive actuators. For personnel safety, a single earth electrode (e.g., a grounding rod) can be
installed at-or-near the door of the container and bonded to it. If any electrical power, communications and/or signal wiring, metallic pipes and/or ducting are installed on an ISO container, LPS as specified in DoD 6055.09-STD and NFPA-780 must be installed, with surge protection as necessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add the following definition to read as follows: 3.3.21 ISO Container. Intermodal container designed to transport freight by
ship, truck or rail built in accordance with ISO 1496. Renumber subsequent sections. Add new 2.3.1 to read as follows:
2.3.1 ISO Standards. International Organization for Standardization, ISO Central Secretariat, 1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland ISO 1496, Series 1 Freight Containers -- Specification and testing -- Part 1:
General Cargo Containers for General Purposes, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1990 Renumber subsequent sections.
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee revises the submitter’s definition for an ISO container and adds the ISO document reference to Chapter 2 to comply with the Manual of Style. The Technical Committee does not necessarily agree with the submitter’s
substantiation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: BATCHELOR, C.: The working group had proposed doing some additional
research that did not occur. The guidance provided needs more work before release. _______________________________________________________________780-8 Log #80 Final Action: Accept in Principle(3.3.29 Strike Termination Device)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Revise 3.3.29 as follows:3.3.29 Strike Termination Device. A component of a lightning protection system that interconnected to lightning protection system using main conductors for the purpose of intercepting intercepts lightning flashes and providing a connection connects them to a path to ground. Strike termination devices include air terminals, metal masts, permanent metal parts of structures as described in Section 4.6.1.4 4.9, and overhead ground wires installed in catenary lightning protection systems. Substantiation: The reference to Section 4.9 for a description of permanent metal parts of structures that may be used as strike termination devices is incorrect. Section 4.9 covers conductors. The only clause found that provides such description is 4.6.1.4. It is also suggested that the first sentence be modified to reflect the intent of the device. As written it is technically correct but does not reflect the intent of the use of the term in the document. For example, a down conductor, roof conductor, fastener, connector, bonding cable, etc. would be “strike termination device” if they happen be struck due to a bypass of the devices installed for the purpose of intercepting the flash. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise 3.3.29 to read as follows: A conductive component of the lightning protection system capable of receiving a lightning strike and providing a connection to a path to ground. Strike termination devices include air terminals, metal masts, permanent metal parts of structures as described in Section 4.6.1.4 4.9, and overhead ground wires installed in catenary lightning protection systems. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and edits for clarity. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-9 Log #43 Final Action: Reject(3.3.29 Strike Termination Device and A.3.3.29 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH InternationalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.29* Strike Termination Device. A component of a lightning protection system that intercepts lightning flashes and connects them to a path to ground. Strike termination devices include air terminals, metal masts, permanent metal parts of structures as described in Section 4.9, and overhead ground wires installed in catenary lightning protection systems. A.3.3.29 Strike termination devices include air terminals, metal masts, permanent metal parts of structures as described in Section 4.9, and overhead ground wires installed in catenary lightning protection systems.Substantiation: The NFPA Manual of Style requires definitions to be in single sentences and not to contain requirements. The additional sentence of this definition contains information that should be placed in an annex or elsewhere in the standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee does not accept the submitter’s substantiation that a definition need be in a single sentence. The Technical Committee refers the submitter to the Manual of Style, Section 2.3.2.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-10 Log #44 Final Action: Accept in Part(3.3.37 Voltage Protection Rating (VPR) and A.3.3.37)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Marcelo M. Hirschler, GBH InternationalRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 3.3.37* Voltage Protection Rating (VPR). A rating (or ratings) selected by the manufacturer based on the measured limiting voltage determined when the SPD is subjected to a combination waveform with an open circuit voltage of 6 kV and a shortcircuit current of 3 kA. The value is rounded up to the next highest 100 V level. A.3.3.37 Voltage Protection Rating (VPR). The VPR is a rating (or ratings) selected by the manufacturer based on the measured limiting voltage determined during the transient voltage surge suppression test specified inANSI/UL1449, ULStandard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices. This rating is the maximum voltage developed when the SPD is exposed to a 3 kA, 8/20 ì current limited waveform through the device. It is a specific measured limiting voltage rating assigned to an SPD by testing done in accordance with UL 1449, Edition 3. Nominal VPR values include 330 V, 400 V, 500 V, 600 V, 700 V, and so forth. The value is rounded up to the next highest 100 V level.Substantiation: The NFPA Manual of Style requires definitions to be in single sentences and not to contain requirements. The additional sentence of this definition contains information that should be placed in an annex or elsewhere in the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts deletion of the last sentence in Section 3.3.37. The Technical Committee does not accept relocation of the last sentence in Section 3.3.37 to Section A.3.3.37. The Technical Committee does not agree with the submitter’s substantiation that a definition must be in a single sentence. The Technical Committee refers the submitter to the NFPA Manual of Style, Section 2.3.2.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-11 Log #79 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 4, Title)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: (1) Revise the title of Chapter 4 as follows:Chapter 4 Protection for Ordinary Structures General Requirements(2) This change will also require the following modifications be made to the remainder of the chapter to remove references to “ordinary structures:” 4.1.1 Ordinary Structures. An ordinary structure shall be any structure that is used for ordinary purposes, whether commercial, industrial, farm, institutional, or residential. This chapter provides general requirements for the protection of structures against lightning.4.1.1.1 Ordinary structures shall be protected according to 4.1.1.1.1 or 4.1.1.1.2. 4.1.1.1.1 Ordinary structures not exceeding 23 m (75 ft) in height shall be protected with Class I materials as shown in Table 4.1.1.1.1. 4.1.1.1.2 Ordinary structures exceeding 23 m (75 ft) in height shall be protected with Class II materials as shown in Table 4.1.1.1.2. A.3.3.22 lightning Protection System. The term refers to systems as described and detailed in this standard. A traditional lightning protection system used for ordinary structures is described in Chapter 4. Mast and catenary-type systems
780-5
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780typically used for special occupancies and constructions are described in Chapter 7. (3) The use of the term “ordinary structures” shall remain as is in 1.1.1 and 4.7.4.1.4. Substantiation: The proposed change in the name of Chapter 4 more accurately reflects the scope of the chapter and eliminates any question as to what constitutes an “ordinary” structure. The chapter begins by providing material requirements, strike termination device description and location requirements, requirements for conductors, grounding electrodes description and installation requirements, and potential equalization through bonding and surge protection requirements. These are all general requirements for a baseline lightning protection system. The remaining chapters in the standard provide requirements for specific occupancies which may deviate from these general requirements based on a specific application. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete the following text:
(3) The use of the term “ordinary structures” shall remain as is in 1.1.1 and 4.7.4.1.4.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text with the exception of (3). The Technical Committee acknowledges deletion of “ordinary” by Committee Proposals 780-25a (Log #CP2) and 780- 4a (Log #CP11). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: GUTHRIE, M.: I believe it would be of value to retain “ordinary” or some
equivalent modifier in 1.1.1 and concur with the action taken in 780-25a to address 4.7.4.1.4. _______________________________________________________________780-12 Log #28 Final Action: Reject(4.1.1 Note (New) )_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Richard Kithil, National Lightning Safety InstituteRecommendation: Add new note to 4.1.1 to read as follows: “Note: Safety for people is described in Annex M--Personal Safety.” Substantiation: Many educated readers make a fatal assumption that chapter 4 includes safety measures for people. I personally have encounted this with NASA, with architects and engineers and attorneys. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Such a note would be out of place in Section 4.1.1. The Technical Committee advises that the addition of notes in NFPA 780
does not comply with the Manual of Style, Section 2.3.6.1. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
Comment on Affirmative: TOBIAS, J.: Although the submitted format and placement is not correct,
additional warnings for human safety should be considered at an appropriate place in the document if there is a perceived lack of clarity on this matter.
_______________________________________________________________780-13 Log #95 Final Action: Reject(Table 4.1.1.1.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Review table for consistency with values used throughout the standard. Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee reviewed Table 4.1.1.1.1 and chooses to retain the values in the table to ensure accuracy and equivalent values. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________ 780-13a Log #CP8 Final Action: Accept(Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise Table 4.1.1.1.1 to add the following values under the Copper column for SI to read as follows: 9.5 mm, 15.9 mm, 0.8 mm, 1.04 mm2, 278 g/m, 29 mm2, 1.04 mm2, 13.3 mm2, 1.30 mm, 12.7 mm, 1.30 mm, 29 mm2 Revise Table 4.1.1.1.1 to add the following values under the Aluminum column for SI to read as follows: 12.7 mm, 15.9 mm, 1.63 mm, 2.08 mm2, 141 g/m, 50 mm2, 2.08 mm2, 20.8 mm2, 1.63 mm, 12.7 mm, 1.63 mm, 50 mm2
Revise Table 4.1.1.1.2 to add the following values under the Copper column for SI to read as follows: 12.7 mm, 1.05 mm2, 558 g/m, 58 mm2, 1.04 mm2, 13.2 mm2, 1.30 mm, 12.7 mm, 1.63 mm, 58 mm2
Revise Table 4.1.1.1.2 to add the following values under the Aluminum column for SI to read as follows: 15.9 mm, 2.62 mm2, 283 g/m, 97 mm2, 2.08 mm2, 20.8 mm2, 1.63 mm, 12.7 mm, 2.61 mm, 97 mm2
Substantiation: The TC edits Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2 for consistency within the document. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-14 Log #67 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Move sections 4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3, and 4.1.2.4 to new sections 4.7.2.1, 4.7.2.2, 4.7.2.3, 4.7.2.4 respectively. Move figure 4.1.2.3 to 4.7.2.3 and rename. Substantiation: Section 4.1.2 deals with roof slopes and types and is currently removed from the requirements for location of strike termination devices on pitched roofs. Relocation of this text will serve to clarify the standard and its application. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Delete 4.1.2.Move sections 4.1.2.1, 4.1.2.2, 4.1.2.3, and 4.1.2.4 to new sections 4.7.2.1, 4.7.2.2, 4.7.2.3, 4.7.2.4 respectively. Move figure 4.1.2.3 to 4.7.2.3 and renumber rename. Renumber remaining sections. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and includes 4.1.2. Figure 4.1.2.3 is renumbered but not renamed as requested by the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-15 Log #91 Final Action: Accept in Part(Figure 4.1.2.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add metric values to entire diagram. Change caption: 1ft. =0.305m Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee does not accept the submitter’s recommendation to add metric values in Figure 4.1.2.3. The Technical Committee refers the submitter to the Manual of Style, Section 3.7.1.5.2.1. The Technical Committee accepts changing the caption: 1 ft = 0.3 m. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
780-6
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-16 Log #68 Final Action: Accept(4.1.2.4)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.1.2.4 Protection for a shed roof shall be as illustrated for the gable method
typical roof types shall be as illustrated in Figure 4.1.2.4. Revise figure 4.1.2.4 as follows:
Flat
Gable Shed Broken gable Gambrel
Mansard Hip
: Air terminal: Conductor: Ground electrode
Substantiation: Roof types and requirements shown in figure 4.1.2.4 are not currently referenced in text. Also shed roof type should be included in figure. Current text references “gable method” which is not defined in the document. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________ 780-17 Log #69 Final Action: Accept(4.1.2.5 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Add new section:4.1.2.5 Roof Hips shall not be considered as ridges for the protection of these types of roofs.Substantiation: Added text clarifies that strike termination devices are not required on roof hips when strike termination devices are properly located on the ridges. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: Directly conflicts with paragraph 4.9.7.1 of the document _______________________________________________________________ 780-18 Log #127 Final Action: Accept(4.6.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Metal parts of a structure that are exposed to direct lightning flashes and that have a metal thickness of 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) or greater shall require only connection to the lightning protection system in accordance with Section 4.98.Substantiation: Section 4.9 is the section on conductors. 4.8 is the section that talks about placement of air terminals and their connection to the system. Also, it may be worthwhile to put a section explicitly stating that metallic strike termination devices other than chimneys and vents (4.8.9) must be connected to the system with 3 square inch bonds, since as it stands those and metallic RTUs (4.8.10) are the only types of rooftop equipment that have that bonding area specified. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The committee accepts the change to 4.6.1.4 and notes that submitter did not provide text as suggested in his substantiation for a new section. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-19 Log #57 Final Action: Reject(4.6.1.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add new section 4.6.1.6* A fixed metal object that has moveable metal components shall be allowed to be used as a strike termination device under the following conditions. (1) The highest surface is greater than 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) thick in accordance with Section 4.6.1.4 (2) The fixed portion is attached to the lightning protection system in accordance with section 4.9 (3) The point of articulation between the fixed portion and the moveable portion is constructed entirely of metal. (4) All other portions of the device are electrically continuous. Substantiation: There are many metallic objects on structures that are subject to direct strike, but cannot be protected since they are designed to move. Bonding of the moveable portion would impede or eliminate the devices intended function (such as a jib crane or a wind sock). If the point of articulation is all metal, there is a reasonable possibility that the surface contact between the components may be sufficient to carry the charge. If it isn’t, the probability is that arcing would take place at the joint and fusing of the component parts would be the extent of the damage. Similar exceptions are made for antennae. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter’s text does not fit the criteria for a strike termination device. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. PORTFLEET, T.: The committees reason to reject is invalid. The suggested change complies with the definition of Strike Termination Device as set forth in section 3.3.29 and section 4.9 Conductors that section 3.3.29 improperly references. 3.3.29 should reference section 4.8 Strike Termination Devices on Roofs, which also does not conflict with the proposal as set forth. There is another reference to Strike Termination Devices; section 4.16.2 which also does not provide any contradictory criteria to that set forth in this proposal.
Figure 4.1.2.4 Protection Measures for Various Roof Types
780-7
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-20 Log #58 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.6.2.2.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Modify existing text for clarity 4.6.2.2.2 Air terminals exceeding 600mm (24 in.) in height length beyond the highest point of their mounting base shall be supported at a point not less than one-half their height as shown in figure 4.6.2.2.2. Change the dimensions on Figure 4.6.2.2. to match Substantiation: Clarifies the intent of the Section. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleChange the dimensions on Figure 4.6.2.2.2 as indicated below.
A: 600 mm (24 in.)B: Air terminals over 600 mm (24 in.) high are supportedC: Air terminal supports are located at a point not less than one-half the height of the air terminal
C
BA
B
C
Note: Air terminal tip configurations can be sharp or blunt.
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes the submitter’s intent to change the dimensions on Figure 4.6.2.2.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
Comment on Affirmative: HARGER, T.: The lower leader arrow for dimension “A” in the figure should
be located at the top of the support not the top of the parapet. Alternatively, the “A” dimension could be eliminated as it appears that the air terminal must be 24” above the top of the parapet.
_______________________________________________________________780-21 Log #62 Final Action: Accept(4.6.5.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Revise the characterization of factor “n” as follows: n = 1 where there is a single one or less overhead ground wire that exceeds
60 30 m (200 100 ft) in horizontal length n = 1.5 where there is a single overhead wire one or more than one wire interconnected above the structure to be protected, such that only two down conductors are located spaced greater than 6 7.6 m (20 25 ft) and less than 30 m (100 ft) apart n = 2.25 where there are more than two down conductors spaced more than 7.6 m (25 ft) apart within a 30 m (100 ft) wide area that are interconnected above the structure being protected Substantiation: To correct a 20 year old typographical error in the spacing of down conductors in the determination of n = 1.5, eliminate confusion as to the
value of n for overhead wires between 100 and 200 feet horizontal distance, and provide a greater correlation between these requirements and the bonding calculations of 4.21. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-22 Log #1 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.7 and 4.8)_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-18 (Log #32) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-6a.Submitter: Harold VanSickle, III, A-C Lightning Security Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows:4.8 4.7 Zones of Protection. The geometry of the structure shall determine the zone of protection. [ROP-6a]4.7 4.8 Strike Termination Devices on Roofs. 4.8.1* Location of Devices. As shown in Figure 4.8.1, the distance between strike termination devices and ridge ends on pitched roofs, or edges and outside corners of flat or gently sloping roofs, shall not exceed 0.6 m (2 ft). Substantiation: Move section 4.8 in front of items now shown as 4.7. The flow of designing systems is what is an air terminal (4.6), how do we protect a single roof (now 4.8), then what do we do with multiple levels (now 4.7). Reversing these sections coordinates the Standard to the process. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 780-23. Committee Statement: The change satisfies the submitter’s intent.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-23 Log #70 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.7 and 4.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Move requirements in section “4.8 Strike Termination Devices on Roofs” to before section “4.7 Zones of Protection” and renumber sections accordingly. This will result in section “4.7 Strike Termination Devices on Roofs” followed by section “4.8 Zones of Protection” Substantiation: Relocation of these sections will place requirements for locating strike termination devices immediately following requirements for strike terminations. Zone of Protection requirements then follow. The intent is to clarify requirements and application of the standard. Requirements of where strike terminals are required are followed by requirements that allow for omissions of devices. Currently these requirements are intermingled causing confusion and misapplication of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleChange A.4.7.3.4 to A.4.8.3.4. Change A.4.7.4.1 to A.4.8.4.1. Change A.4.7.4.2 to A.4.8.4.2. Change A.4.8.1 to A.4.7.1. Change A.4.8.4 to A.4.7.4. Change A.4.8.9.3 to A.4.7.9.3. Change Figure 4.7.3.3(a) to 4.8.3.3(a). Change Figure 4.7.3.3(b) to 4.8.3.3(b). Change Figure 4.7.3.4(a) to 4.8.3.4(a). Change Figure 4.7.3.4(b) to 4.8.3.4(b). Change Figure 4.7.4.1 to 4.8.4.1. Change Figure 4.8.1 to 4.7.1. Change Figure 4.8.2 to 4.7.2. Change Figure 4.8.3(a) to 4.7.3(a). Change Figure 4.8.3(b) to 4.7.3(b). Change Figure 4.8.6.2 to 4.7.6.2. Change Figure 4.8.6.5 to 4.7.6.5. Change Figure 4.8.9.3 to 4.7.9.3. Change Figure A.4.7.3.4 to A.4.8.3.4. Change Figure A.4.7.4.1 to A.4.8.4.1. Change Figure A.4.8.4 to A.4.7.4 Revise 4.7 to read as follows: 4.8 Zones of Protection. The geometry of the structure shall determine the zone of protection. Revise 4.7.1 to read as follows: 4.8.1 One or more of the methods described in 4.8.2 through 4.8.4 and Section 4.7 shall be used to determine the overall zone of protection. Revise 4.7.2 to read as follows: 4.8.2 Roof Types. The zone of protection for the following roof types shall include the roof and appurtenances where protected in accordance with Section 4.7: (1) Pitched roofs (2) Flat or gently sloping roofs (3) Dormers (4) Domed roofs
Air Terminal Support Image
780-8
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780(5) Roofs with ridges, wells, chimneys, or vents Revise 4.7.3 to read as follows: 4.8.3 Multiple-Level Roofs. Revise 4.7.3.1 to read as follows: 4.8.3.1 For structures with multiple-level roofs no more than 15 m (50 ft) in
height, the zone of protection shall include areas as identified in 4.8.3.3 and 4.8.3.4. Revise 4.7.3.2 to read as follows: 4.8.3.2 The zone of protection shall be permitted to be delineated by a cone
with the apex located at the highest point of the strike termination device, with its surface formed by a 45-degree or 63-degree angle from the vertical, based on the height of the strike termination device above the ground as defined in 4.8.3.3 and 4.8.3.4. Revise 4.7.3.3 to read as follows: 4.8.3.3 Structures that do not exceed 7.6 m (25 ft) above earth shall be
considered to protect lower portions of a structure located within a one-to-two zone of protection as shown in Figure 4.8.3.3(a) and Figure 4.8.3.3(b). Revise 4.7.3.4 to read as follows: 4.8.3.4* Structures that do not exceed 15 m (50 ft) above earth shall be
considered to protect lower portions of a structure located within a one-to-one zone of protection as shown in Figure 4.8.3.4(a) and Figure 4.8.3.4(b). Revise 4.7.4 to read as follows:4.8.4 Rolling Sphere Method. Revise 4.7.4.1 to read as follows: 4.8.4.1* The zone of protection shall include the space not intruded by a
rolling sphere having a radius of the striking distance determined for the type of structure being protected, as shown in Figure 4.8.4.1. Revise 4.7.4.1.1 to read as follows:4.8.4.1.1 Where the sphere is tangent to earth and resting against a strike termination device, all space in the vertical plane between the two points of contact and under the sphere shall be considered to be in the zone of protection. Revise 4.7.4.1.2 to read as follows: 4.8.4.1.2 A zone of protection shall also be formed where such a sphere is
resting on two or more strike termination devices and shall include the space in the vertical plane under the sphere and between those devices, as shown in Figure 4.8.4.1. Revise 4.7.4.1.3 to read as follows:
4.8.4.1.3 All possible placements of the sphere shall be considered when determining the overall zone of protection using the rolling sphere method. Revise 4.7.4.1.4 to read as follows: 4.8.4.1.4 The striking distance of an ordinary structure shall not exceed 46 m (150 ft). Revise 4.7.4.2 to read as follows:4.8.4.2 For structure heights exceeding the striking distance above earth or above a lower strike termination device, the zone of protection shall be the space in the vertical plane between the points of contact, and also under the sphere where the sphere is resting against a vertical surface of the structure and the lower strike termination device(s) or earth. Revise 4.7.4.3 to read as follows: 4.8.4.3 Under the rolling sphere method, the horizontal protected distance
found geometrically by Figure A.4.8.4.1 also shall be permitted to be calculated using the following formula (units shall be consistent, m or ft): Add formula here.
Revise 4.7.4.3.1 to read as follows:4.8.4.3.1 For the formula to be valid, the sphere shall be either tangent to the lower roof or in contact with the earth, and in contact with the vertical side of the higher portion of the structure. Revise 4.7.4.3.2 to read as follows:4.8.4.3.2 In addition, the difference in heights between the upper and lower roofs or earth shall be the striking distance or less. Revise 4.8 to read as follows:4.7 Strike Termination Devices on Roofs. Revise 4.8.1 to read as follows: 4.7.1* Location of Devices. As shown in Figure 4.7.1, the distance between
strike termination devices and ridge ends on pitched roofs, or edges and outside corners of flat or gently sloping roofs, shall not exceed 0.6 m (2 ft). Revise 4.8.1.1 to read as follows:
4.7.1.1 Strike termination devices shall be placed on ridges of pitched roofs, and around the perimeter of flat or gently sloping roofs, at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft). Revise 4.8.1.2 to read as follows: 4.7.1.2 Strike termination devices 0.6 m (2 ft) or more above the object or area to be protected shall be permitted to be placed at intervals not exceeding 7.6 m (25 ft). Revise 4.8.2 to read as follows: 4.7.2 Pitched Roof Area. For a pitched roof with eave heights over 15 m (50
ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.7.2.) Revise 4.8.2.1 to read as follows:
4.7.2.1 Except for the gutter, any portion of the building that extends beyond that tangent shall be protected. Revise 4.8.2.2 to read as follows: 4.7.2.2 Eaves over 46 m (150 ft) above grade shall be protected in
accordance with 4.7.1. Revise 4.8.2.3 to read as follows: 4.7.2.3 The tangent of the rolling sphere arc shall be considered a vertical line over 46 m (150 ft) above grade, except as permitted by 4.8.3.4. Revise 4.8.3 to read as follows: 4.7.3 Flat or Gently Sloping Roof Area. Flat or gently sloping roofs that exceed 15 m (50 ft) in width or length shall have additional strike termination devices located at intervals not to exceed 15 m (50 ft) on the flat or gently sloping areas, as shown in Figure 4.7.3(a) and Figure 4.7.3(b), or such area can also be protected using taller strike termination devices that create zones of protection using the rolling sphere method so the sphere does not contact the flat or gently sloping roof area. Revise 4.8.4 to read as follows:4.7.4* Dormers. Revise 4.8.4.1 to read as follows: 4.7.4.1 Dormers as high as or higher than the main roof ridge shall be protected with strike termination devices, conductors, and grounds. Revise 4.8.4.2 to read as follows: 4.7.4.2 Dormers and projections below the main ridge shall require protection only on those areas extending outside a zone of protection. Revise 4.8.5 to read as follows: 4.7.5 Roofs with Intermediate Ridges. Strike termination devices shall be located along the outermost ridges of buildings that have a series of intermediate ridges at the same intervals as required by 4.7.1. Revise 4.8.5.1 to read as follows:4.7.5.1 Strike termination devices shall be located on the intermediate ridges in accordance with the requirements for the spacing of strike termination devices on flat or gently sloping roofs. Revise 4.8.5.2 to read as follows: 4.7.5.2 If any intermediate ridge is higher than the outermost ridges, it shall be treated as a main ridge and protected according to 4.7.1. Revise 4.8.6 to read as follows:4.7.6 Flat or Gently Sloping Roofs with Irregular Perimeters. Structures that have exterior wall designs that result in irregular roof perimeters shall be treated on an individual basis. Revise 4.8.6.1 to read as follows: 4.7.6.1 The imaginary roof edge formed by the outermost projections shall be used to locate the strike termination devices in accordance with 4.7.1. Revise 4.8.6.2 to read as follows: 4.7.6.2 In all cases, however, strike termination devices shall be located in accordance with Section 4.8, as shown in Figure 4.7.6.2. Revise 4.8.6.3 to read as follows:4.7.6.3 Strike termination devices installed on vertical roof members shall be permitted to use a single main-size cable to connect to a main roof conductor. Revise 4.8.6.4 to read as follows: 4.7.6.4 The main roof conductor shall be run adjacent to the vertical roof members so that the single cable from the strike termination device is as short as possible and in no case longer than 4.9 m (16 ft). Revise 4.8.6.5 to read as follows: 4.7.6.5 The connection of the single cable to the down conductor shall be made with a tee splice or other fitting listed for the purpose, as shown in Figure 4.7.6.5. Revise 4.8.7 to read as follows:4.7.7 Open Areas in Flat Roofs. The perimeter of open areas, such as light or mechanical wells, shall be protected if the open area perimeter exceeds 92 m (300 ft), provided both rectangular dimensions exceed 15 m (50 ft). Revise 4.8.8 to read as follows: 4.7.8 Domed or Rounded Roofs. Strike termination devices shall be located so that no portion of the structure is located outside a zone of protection, as set forth in Section 4.8. Revise 4.8.9 to read as follows:4.7.9 Chimneys and Vents. Strike termination devices shall be required on all chimneys and vents that are not located within a zone of protection, including metal chimneys having a metal thickness of less than 4.8 mm (3/16 in.). Revise 4.8.9.1 to read as follows: 4.7.9.1 Chimneys or vents with a metal thickness of 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) or more shall require only a connection to the lightning protection system. Revise 4.8.9.2 to read as follows: 4.7.9.2 The connection for 4.7.9.1 shall be made using a mainsize lightning conductor and a connector that has a surface contact area of not less than 1940mm2 (3 in.2) and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices. Revise 4.8.9.3 to read as follows: 4.7.9.3* Required strike termination devices shall be installed on chimneys and vents, as shown in Figure 4.7.9.3, so that the distance from a strike termination device to an outside corner or the distance perpendicular to an outside edge is not greater than 0.6 m (2 ft). Revise 4.8.9.4 to read as follows:4.7.9.4 Where only one strike termination device is required on a chimney or vent, at least one main-size conductor shall connect the strike termination device to a main conductor at the location where the chimney or vent meets the roof surface and provides two or more paths to ground from that location in accordance with Section 4.9 and 4.9.2.
780-9
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Revise 4.8.10 to read as follows: 4.7.10 Metal Roof Top Units. Strike termination devices shall be required in
accordance with 4.7.10.1 through 4.7.10.3.2 on all roof top mechanical units with continuous metal housings less than 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) thick such as air-conditioning/heating units, metal air intake/exhaust housings, and cooling towers, that are not located in a zone of protection. Revise 4.8.10.1 to read as follows: 4.7.10.1 Air terminals shall be installed in accordance with 4.7.1 through
4.7.3. Revise 4.8.10.2 to read as follows:
4.7.10.2 The air terminals shall be mounted on bases having a minimum contact area of 1940mm2 (3 in.2), each secured to bare metal of the housing or mounted by drilling and tapping to the unit’s frame in accordance with 4.16.3.2 and 4.16.3.3. Revise 4.8.10.3 to read as follows: 4.7.10.3 At least two main-size conductors shall be installed to connect the unit to the lightning protection system. Revise 4.8.10.3.1 to read as follows: 4.7.10.3.1 The connection shall be made to bare metal at the base or lower edges of the unit using main-size lightning conductors and bonding devices that have a surface contact area of not less than 1940 mm2 (3 in.2) and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices. Revise 4.8.10.3.2 to read as follows: 4.7.10.3.2 The two main bonding plates shall be located a far apart as practicable at the base or lower edges of the unit’s electrically continuous metal housing and connected to the lightning protection system. Revise A.4.7.3.4 to read as follows: A.4.8.3.4 Research indicates that the probability of low-amplitude strikes to
the vertical side of a structure of less than 60 m (200 ft) in height are low enough that they need not be considered (see IEC 62305-3, Protection Against Lightning, Section 5.2.3.1). It is suggested that a wall or surface with a slope characterized by an angle from vertical of no more than 15 degrees be considered essentially vertical as it relates to the electric field gradient that could result in the generation of streamers. See Figure A.4.8.3.4. IEC 62305-3, Protection Against Lightning, Section 5.2.3.2 acknowledges that the rules for the placement of strike termination devices can be relaxed to the equivalent of IEC Lightning Protection Class IV for upper parts of tall structures where protection is provided on the top of the structure. Figure A.4.8.3.4 identifies the maximum values of protection angle versus class of lightning protection system based on IEC 62305-3. The 15- degree angle from vertical falls well within the limits specified for a Class IV lightning protection system at a height of 60m(200 ft). Revise A.4.7.4.1 to read as follows: A.4.8.4.1 Figure A.4.8.4.1 depicts the 46 m (150 ft) rolling sphere method for
structures of selected heights up to 46 m (150 ft). Based on the height of the strike termination device for a protected structure being 7.6 m (25 ft), 15 m (50 ft), 23 m (75 ft), 30m(100 ft), or 46m(150 ft) above ground, reference to the appropriate curve shows the anticipated zone of protection for objects and roofs at lower elevations. Revise A.4.8.4 to read as follows: A.4.7.4 Figure A.4.7.4 illustrates dormer protection.
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepted the submitter’s text with revisions to appropriately retain the annex material and figures/tables. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W: I do not believe surge protection belongs in this document.
Comment on Affirmative: RAPP, R: 4.8 Zones of Protection. The geometry of the structure shall determine the zone of protection. Should be “shall determine the “zones” of protection, there are more than one from any structure. Revise 4.7.4.1.1 to read as follows: 4.8.4.1.1 Where the sphere is tangent to
earth and resting against a strike termination device, all space in the verticalplane between the two points of contact and under the sphere shall be considered to be in the zone of protection. “resting against”, means it could be resting on the side of the strike termination device, I believe it should read, “resting on the tip of”. Revise 4.7.4.1.2 to read as follows: 4.8.4.1.2 A zone of protection shall also be formed where such a sphere is resting on two or more strike termination devices and shall include the space(shall include the space not intruded) in the vertical plane under the sphere and between those devices, as shown in Figure 4.8.4.1.
Revise 4.8.2 to read as follows: 4.7.2 Pitched Roof Area. For a pitched roof with eave heights over 15 m (50 ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.7.2.) I have never agreed with this unsubstantiated method of protection that does not meet the rest of the standard’s requirements but has been included in the standard to ease the installers potential problems with the installation. Delete it. Revise 4.8.6.1 to read as follows: 4.7.6.1 The imaginary roof edge formed by the outermost projections shall be used to locate the strike termination devices in accordance with 4.7.1. “imaginary roof edge” - vague and unenforceable language - Revise 4.8.6.5 to read as follows: 4.7.6.5 The connection of the single cable to the down conductor shall be made with a tee splice or other fitting listed for the purpose, as shown in Figure 4.7.6.5. Remove “tee splice or other” Revise A.4.7.3.4 to read as follows: A.4.8.3.4 Research indicates.........What research? It needs to be included with date and titles, etc....... Revise A.4.7.3.4 to read as follows: A.4.8.3.4 Research indicates that the probability of low-amplitude strikes to the vertical side of a structure of less than 60 m (200 ft) in height are low enough that they need not be considered (see IEC 62305-3, Protection Against Lightning, Section 5.2.3.1). It is suggested that a wall or surface with a slope characterized by an angle from vertical of no more than 15 degrees be considered essentially vertical as it relates to the electric field gradient that could result in the generation of streamers. See Figure A.4.8.3.4. IEC 62305-3, Protection Against Lightning, Section 5.2.3.2 acknowledges that the rules for the placement of strike termination devices can be relaxed to the equivalent of IEC Lightning Protection Class IV for upper parts of tall structures where protection is provided on the top of the structure. Figure A.4.8.3.4 identifies the maximum values of protection angle versus class of lightning protection system based on IEC 62305-3. The 15- degree angle from vertical falls well within the limits specified for a Class IV lightning protection system at a height of 60m(200 ft). The references to IEC Standards, indicates in my opinion, a weakness of the NFPA 780 document to not doing it’s own research and documentation and coming to its own conclusions. _______________________________________________________________ 780-24 Log #114 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.7 and 4.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John M. Tobias, US Army Communications Electronics CommandRecommendation: ADD/Revise sections 4.7 & 4.8, in accordance as shown on the following pages: Substantiation: Clarifies zones of protection especially for simple roof structures and eaves under 50 ft. Established protective angle method for determining zone of protection as a general method. All concepts are currently described in the NFPA 780 Standard. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 780-23. Committee Statement: The change satisfies the submitter’s intent.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. Comment on Affirmative: FRANKLIN, D.: 4.8.4 and Figure 4.8.4 do not seem to be complete or representative to account for all types and configurations of dormers. The text needs to be expanded and the illustration made more representative. TOBIAS, J.: Although action on 780-23 satisfies the intent of this proposal, some of the definitions, terms and methods of the original 780-24 submission should be considered for inclusion.
780-10
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
2011 Edition Proposed 2014 Edition Committee Notes 4.7 Zones of Protection. The geometry of the structure shall determine the zone of protection.
4.7 Zones of Protection. Zones of protection shall be a volume afforded by a system of strike termination devices described by one or more of the methods by 4.7.2 through 4.7.6.
4.7.1 One or more of the methods described in 4.7.2 through 4.7.4 and Section 4.8 shall be used to determine the overall zone of protection.
4.7.1 One or more of the methods described in 4.7.3 through 4.7.6 and Section 4.8 may be used together on a single structure to determine the overall zone of protection. 4.7.2 Strike Termination placements shall comply with section 4.x.x (Existing 4.8)
4.7.2 Roof Types. The zone of protection for the following roof types shall include the roof and appurtenances where protected in accordance with Section 4.8:
4.7.3 Simple Roof Zone of ProtectionThe zone of protection for the following roof types shall include the volume below the roof where strike terminations are placed IAW 4.8.
(1) Pitched roofs (1) Pitched roofs (2) Flat or gently sloping roofs (2) Flat or gently sloping roofs (3) Dormers (3) Dormers (4) Domed roofs (4) Domed roofs (5) Roofs with ridges, wells, chimneys, or vents
(5) Roofs with ridges, wells, chimneys, or vents
4.1.2.4 Protection for a shed roof shall be as illustrated for the gable method in Figure 4.1.2.4.
Delete 4.1.2.4.
4.7.3.1 Simple roofs include: a) Gable b) Hip c) Broken Gable d) Flat e) Mansard f) Gambrel These roofs are considered as having a zone of protection with strike termination (air terminal? ) arrangements as illustrated in figure (4.1.2.4 – new number needed) under the conditions of 4.7.3.2
Accounts for the specific guidance in 4.1.2.4, with preservation of the figure. Expands applicability, as expressed in September 2011 780 meeting.
4.7.3.2 Simple roofs shall: a) Have an eave height less than 50 ft. b) Place strike terminations IAW 4.8 c) Place strike terminations IAW 4.8 on the interior of any flat roof areas when dimensions exceed 50 ft on each side. d) Comply with 4.8 to protect any projections greater than 10 inches (or the height of the strike termination above the roof line?) above the roof line. If these conditions cannot be met, another method shall be used to determine the zone of protection.
Limitations solve eave problem, preserves limitations of height and projections.
780-11
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
Bring back this figure A.4.4.4 from the annex to illustrate 4.7.3.2d?
4.7.3 Multiple-Level Roofs. 4.7.4 Multiple-Level Simple Roofs. 4.7.3.1 For structures with multiple-level roofs no more than 15 m (50 ft) in height, the zone of protection shall include areas as identified in 4.7.3.3 and 4.7.3.4.
4.7.4.1 Lower roof levels of simple roofs shall be considered within the zone of protection of the simple roof under the conditions of 4.7.3.2 – 4.7.3.5.
4.7.3.2 The zone of protection shall be permitted to be delineated by a cone with the apex located at the highest point of the strike termination device, with its surface formed by a 45-degree or 63-degree angle from the vertical, based on the height of the strike termination device above the ground as defined in 4.7.3.3 and 4.7.3.4.
4.7.4.2 The zone of protection shall be permitted to be delineated by a cone with the apex located at the highest point of the strike termination device, with its surface formed by a 45-degree or 63-degree angle from the vertical, based on the height of the strike termination device above the ground as defined in 4.7.4.3 and 4.7.4.4.
Preserves the intent of existing 4.7.3, EXCEPT draws protective angle from the strike termination NOT the eave.
4.7.3.3 Structures that do not exceed 7.6 m (25 ft) above earth shall be considered to protect lower portions of a structure located within a one-to-two zone of protection as shown in Figure 4.7.3.3(a) and Figure 4.7.3.3(b).
4.7.4.3 Structures that do not exceed 7.6 m (25 ft) above earth shall be considered to protect lower portions of a structure located within a one-to-two zone of protection as shown in Figure 4.7.3.3(a) and Figure 4.7.3.3(b). (Existing enumeration used.)
4.7.3.4* Structures that do not exceed 15 m (50 ft) above earth shall be considered to protect lower portions of a structure located within a one-to-one zone of protection as shown in Figure 4.7.3.4(a) and Figure 4.7.3.4(b).
4.7.4.4* Structures that do not exceed 15 m (50 ft) above earth shall be considered to protect lower portions of a structure located within a one-to-one zone of protection as shown in Figure 4.7.3.4(a) and Figure 4.7.3.4(b). (Existing enumeration used.)4.7.4.4 Zones of protection for lower roof levels of simple roofs shall be permitted to be described by 4.7.5, protective angle method or by 4.7.6, rolling sphere method, or by any combination of methods.
4.7.5 Protective Angle Method
4.7.5.1 For structures no more than 15 m (50 ft) in height, the zone of protection shall protection shall be permitted to be described by a surface formed by a 45-degree angle from the vertical with the apex located at the highest point of the strike termination device. (Refer to existing figure 4.7.3.4a)
Adds section to become more general. Fact that zone of protection contains lower roof is not relevant. Should just be able to articulate that a protective angle is permissible. (As an approximation of RSM.) Also recognizes the surface is not necessarily a cone.
4.7.5.2 For structures no more than 7.6 m (25 ft) in height, the zone of protection shall be permitted to be described by a surface formed by a 63-degree angle from the vertical with the apex located at the highest point of the strike termination device. (Refer to existing figure 4.7.3.3a)
Same.
4.7.5.3 For structures with multiple-level
780-12
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
2011 Edition Proposed 2014 Edition Committee Notes roofs no more than 15 m (50 ft) in height, both protective angles (45 and 63 degree) may be used. (Refer to existing figure 4.7.3.3a)
4.7.4 Rolling Sphere Method. 4.7.6 Rolling Sphere Method. 4.7.4.1* The zone of protection shall include the space not intruded by a rolling sphere having a radius of the striking distance determined for the type of structure being protected, as shown in Figure 4.7.4.1.
4.7.6.1* The zone of protection shall include the space not intruded by a rolling sphere having a radius of the striking distance determined for the type of structure being protected, as shown in Figure 4.7.4.1.
4.7.4.1.1 Where the sphere is tangent to earth and resting against a strike termination device, all space in the vertical plane between the two points of contact and under the sphere shall be considered to be in the zone of protection.
4.7.6.1.1 Where the sphere is tangent to earth and resting against a strike termination device, all space in the vertical plane between the two points of contact and under the sphere shall be considered to be in the zone of protection.
4.7.4.1.2 A zone of protection shall also be formed where such a sphere is resting on two or more strike termination devices and shall include the space in the vertical plane under the sphere and between those devices, as shown in Figure 4.7.4.1.
4.7.6.1.2 A zone of protection shall also be formed where such a sphere is resting on two or more strike termination devices and shall include the space in the vertical plane under the sphere and between those devices, as shown in Figure 4.7.4.1.
4.7.4.1.3 All possible placements of the sphere shall be considered when determining the overall zone of protection using the rolling sphere method.
4.7.6.1.3 All possible placements of the sphere shall be considered when determining the overall zone of protection using the rolling sphere method.
4.7.4.1.4 The striking distance of an ordinary structure shall not exceed 46 m (150 ft).
4.7.6.1.4 The striking distance of an ordinary structure shall not exceed 46 m (150 ft).
4.7.4.2* For structure heights exceeding the striking distance above earth or above a lower strike termination device, the zone of protection shall be the space in the vertical plane between the points of contact, and also under the sphere where the sphere is resting against a vertical surface of the structure and the lower strike termination device(s) or earth.
4.7.6.2* For structure heights exceeding the striking distance above earth or above a lower strike termination device, the zone of protection shall be the space in the vertical plane between the points of contact, and also under the sphere where the sphere is resting against a vertical surface of the structure and the lower strike termination device(s) or earth.
4.7.4.3 Under the rolling sphere method, the horizontal protected distance found geometrically by Figure A.4.7.4.1 also shall be permitted to be calculated using the following formula (units shall be consistent, m or ft):
4.7.6.3 Under the rolling sphere method, the horizontal protected distance found geometrically by Figure A.4.7.4.1 also shall be permitted to be calculated using the following formula (units shall be consistent, m or ft):
formula formula where: where: d = horizontal protected distance (m or ft)
d = horizontal protected distance (m or ft)
h1 = height of the higher roof (m or ft) h1 = height of the higher roof (m or ft) R = rolling sphere striking distance radius (m or ft)
R = rolling sphere striking distance radius (m or ft)
h2 = height of the lower roof (top of the object)(m or ft)
h2 = height of the lower roof (top of the object)(m or ft)
4.7.4.3.1 For the formula to be valid, the sphere shall be either tangent to the lower roof or in contact with the earth, and in contact with the vertical side of the higher portion of the structure.
4.7.6.3.1 For the formula to be valid, the sphere shall be either tangent to the lower roof or in contact with the earth, and in contact with the vertical side of the higher portion of the structure.
4.7.4.3.2 In addition, the difference in 4.7.6.3.2 In addition, the difference in
780-13
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
2011 Edition Proposed 2014 Edition Committee Notes heights between the upper and lower roofs or earth shall be the striking distance or less.
heights between the upper and lower roofs or earth shall be the striking distance or less.
4.8.1* Location of Devices. Asshown in Figure 4.8.1, the distance between strike termination devices and ridge ends on pitched roofs, or edges and outside corners of flat or gently sloping roofs, shall not exceed 0.6 m (2 ft). 4.8.1.1 Strike termination devices shall be placed on ridges of pitched roofs, and around the perimeter of flat or gently sloping roofs, at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft). 4.8.1.2 Strike termination devices 0.6 m (2 ft) or more above the object or area to be protected shall be permitted to be placed at intervals not exceeding 7.6 m (25 ft). 4.8.2 Pitched Roof Area. For a pitched roof with eave heights over 15 m (50 ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.8.2.)
4.8.2 Pitched Roof.
(A) A pitched roof with eave heights of 15 m (50 ft) or less above grade shall require protection for the ridge only where there is no horizontal portion of the building that extends beyond the eaves, other than a gutter. (B) Pitched roofs with eave heights more than 15 m (50 ft) shall have strike termination devices located according to the 46 m (150 ft) rolling sphere method. (C) For a pitched roof with eave heights over 15 m (50 ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.8.2.)
New section on Simple roofs solves eave problem up to 50 ft.
Language is from 2008 edition.
C is added to preserve what is a good illustration of the application of rolling sphere. I think this preserves the committee intent in the matter.
4.8.2.1 Except for the gutter, any portion of the building that extends beyond that tangent shall be protected.
Perfectly consistent with new simple roof protection section.
4.8.2.2 Eaves over 46 m (150 ft) above grade shall be protected in accordance with 4.8.1. 4.8.2.3 The tangent of the rolling sphere arc shall be considered a vertical line over 46 m (150 ft) above grade, except as permitted by 4.7.3.4.
4.8.2.3 The tangent of the rolling sphere arc shall be considered a vertical line over 46 m (150 ft) above grade.
4.8.3 Flat or Gently Sloping Roof
780-14
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
Area. Flat or gently sloping roofs that exceed 15 m (50 ft) in width or length shall have additional strike termination devices located at intervals not to exceed 15 m (50 ft) on the flat or gently sloping areas, as shown in Figure 4.8.3(a) and Figure 4.8.3(b), or such area can also be protected using taller strike termination devices that create zones of protection using the rolling sphere method so the sphere does not contact the flat or gently sloping roof area. 4.8.4* Dormers. 4.8.4.1 Dormers as high as or higher than the main roof ridge shall be protected with strike termination devices, conductors, and grounds. 4.8.4.2 Dormers and projections below the main ridge shall require protection only on those areas extending outside a zone of protection.
Consistent with new 4.7.3.2 & 4.7.4.
4.8.5 Roofs with Intermediate Ridges. Strike termination devices shall be located along the outermost ridges of buildings that have a series of intermediate ridges at the same intervals as required by 4.8.1. 4.8.5.1 Strike termination devices shall be located on the intermediate ridges in accordance with the requirements for the spacing of strike termination devices on flat or gently sloping roofs. 4.8.5.2 If any intermediate ridge is higher than the outermost ridges, it shall be treated as a main ridge and protected according to 4.8.1. 4.8.6 Flat or Gently Sloping Roofs with Irregular Perimeters. Structures that have exterior wall designs that result in irregular roof perimeters shall be treated on an individual basis. 4.8.6.1 The imaginary roof edge formed by the outermost projections shall be used to locate the strike termination devices in accordance with 4.8.1. 4.8.6.2 In all cases, however, strike termination devices shall be located in accordance with Section 4.8, as shown in Figure 4.8.6.2. 4.8.6.3 Strike termination devices installed on vertical roof members shall be permitted to use a single main-size cable to connect to a main roof conductor. 4.8.6.4 The main roof conductor shall be run adjacent to the vertical roof members so that the single cable from the strike termination device is as short as possible and in no case longer than 4.9 m (16 ft). 4.8.6.5 The connection of the single cable to the down conductor shall be made with a tee splice or other fitting
780-15
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
listed for the purpose, as shown in Figure 4.8.6.5. 4.8.7 Open Areas in Flat Roofs. The perimeter of open areas, such as light or mechanical wells, shall be protected if the open area perimeter exceeds 92 m (300 ft), provided both rectangular dimensions exceed 15 m (50 ft). 4.8.8 Domed or Rounded Roofs. Strike termination devices shall be located so that no portion of the structure is located outside a zone of protection, as set forth in Section 4.7. 4.8.9 Chimneys and Vents. Striketermination devices shall be required on all chimneys and vents that are not located within a zone of protection, including metal chimneys having a metal thickness of less than 4.8 mm (3⁄16 in.). 4.8.9.1 Chimneys or vents with a metal thickness of 4.8 mm (3⁄16 in.) or more shall require only a connection to the lightning protection system. 4.8.9.2 The connection for 4.8.9.1 shall be made using a mainsize lightning conductor and a connector that has a surface contact area of not less than 1940mm2 (3 in.2) and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices.4.8.4.2 Dormers and projections below the main ridge shall require protection only on those areas extending outside a zone of protection. 4.8.5 Roofs with Intermediate Ridges. Strike termination devices shall be located along the outermost ridges of buildings that have a series of intermediate ridges at the same intervals as required by 4.8.1. 4.8.5.1 Strike termination devices shall be located on the intermediate ridges in accordance with the requirements for the spacing of strike termination devices on flat or gently sloping roofs. 4.8.5.2 If any intermediate ridge is higher than the outermost ridges, it shall be treated as a main ridge and protected according to 4.8.1. 4.8.6 Flat or Gently Sloping Roofs with Irregular Perimeters. Structures that have exterior wall designs that result in irregular roof perimeters shall be treated on an individual basis. 4.8.6.1 The imaginary roof edge formed by the outermost projections shall be used to locate the strike termination devices in accordance with 4.8.1. 4.8.6.2 In all cases, however, strike termination devices shall be located in
780-16
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
accordance with Section 4.8, as shown in Figure 4.8.6.2. 4.8.6.3 Strike termination devices installed on vertical roof members shall be permitted to use a single main-size cable to connect to a main roof conductor. 4.8.6.4 The main roof conductor shall be run adjacent to the vertical roof members so that the single cable from the strike termination device is as short as possible and in no case longer than 4.9 m (16 ft). 4.8.6.5 The connection of the single cable to the down conductor shall be made with a tee splice or other fitting listed for the purpose, as shown in Figure 4.8.6.5. 4.8.7 Open Areas in Flat Roofs. The perimeter of open areas, such as light or mechanical wells, shall be protected if the open area perimeter exceeds 92 m (300 ft), provided both rectangular dimensions exceed 15 m (50 ft). 4.8.8 Domed or Rounded Roofs. Strike termination devices shall be located so that no portion of the structure is located outside a zone of protection, as set forth in Section 4.7. 4.8.9 Chimneys and Vents. Striketermination devices shall be required on all chimneys and vents that are not located within a zone of protection, including metal chimneys having a metal thickness of less than 4.8 mm (3⁄16 in.). 4.8.9.1 Chimneys or vents with a metal thickness of 4.8 mm (3⁄16 in.) or more shall require only a connection to the lightning protection system. 4.8.9.2 The connection for 4.8.9.1 shall be made using a mainsize lightning conductor and a connector that has a surface contact area of not less than 1940mm2 (3 in.2) and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices.4.8.9.3* Required strike termination devices shall be installed on chimneys and vents, as shown in Figure 4.8.9.3, so that the distance from a strike termination device to an outside corner or the distance perpendicular to an outside edge is not greater than 0.6 m (2 ft). 4.8.9.4 Where only one strike termination device is required on a chimney or vent, at least one main-size conductor shall connect the strike termination device to a main conductor at the location where the chimney or vent meets the roof surface and provides two or more paths to ground from that location in accordance with Section 4.9 and
780-17
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
4.9.2. 4.8.10.1 Air terminals shall be installed in accordance with 4.8.1 through 4.8.3. 4.8.10.2 The air terminals shall be mounted on bases having a minimum contact area of 1940mm2 (3 in.2), each secured to bare metal of the housing or mounted by drilling and tapping to the unit’s frame in accordance with 4.16.3.2 and 4.16.3.3. 4.8.10.3 At least two main-size conductors shall be installed to connect the unit to the lightning protection system. 4.8.10.3.1 The connection shall be made to bare metal at the base or lower edges of the unit using main-size lightning conductors and bonding devices that have a surface contact area of not less than 1940 mm2 (3 in.2)and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices. 4.8.10.3.2 The two main bonding plates shall be located as far apart as practicable at the base or lower edges of the unit’s electrically continuous metal housing and connected to the lightning protection system.
780-18
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-25 Log #60 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.7.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Revise the text to read as follows: 4.7.1 One or more of the following methods described in 4.7.2 through 4.7.4
and Section 4.8 shall be used to determine the overall zone of protection. (1) The rules of air terminal placements as described in Section 4.8 (2) The angle method as described in Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 (3) The rolling sphere as described in Section 4.7.4
Substantiation: This wording is added for clarity specifically spelling out the different modeling method that may be employed. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 4.7.1 One or more of the following methods described in 4.7.2 through 4.7.4
and Section 4.8 shall be used to determine the overall zone of protection: (1) The rules of air Air terminal placements as described in Section 4.8 (2) The angle method as described in Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 (3) The rolling sphere method as described in Section 4.7.4Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text with revisions for clarity and consistency. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: 4.8 allows the use of 10” air terminals with specified distances that allows the rolling ball to “intrude”/touch the structure or equipment. The document conflicts itself. _______________________________________________________________ 780-25a Log #CP2 Final Action: Accept(4.7.4.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Change 4.7.4.1.4 to read as follows: 4.7.4.1.4 The striking distance of an ordinary structure shall not exceed 46 m (150 ft). Substantiation: The TC removes the word “ordinary” to correlate with action on Proposal 780-11. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-26 Log #71 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.8.2 through 4.8.2.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read a follows: 4.8.2 Pitched Roofs Area. 4.8.2.1 Strike termination devices shall not be required around the perimeters of pitched roofs with eave heights less than or equal to over 15 m (50 ft) above grade. 4.8.2.2 For a pitched roofs with a span of 30 m (100 ft) or less and eave
heights over fifteen m (50 ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.8.2.) 4.8.2.3 Pitched roofs not meeting the above shall be treated in the same manner as flat or gently sloping roofsSubstantiation: Added text clarifies exceptions and requirements for locating strike terminals on pitched roofs Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 4.8.2 Pitched Roofs Area. For a pitched roof with eave heights over 15 m (50 ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.8.2.) 4.8.2.1 Strike termination devices shall not be required around the perimeters of pitched roofs with eave heights less than or equal to 15 m (50 ft) above grade. 4.8.2.2 For a pitched roofs with a span of 30 m (100 ft) or less than or equal to 15 m (50 ft) but less than 46 m (150 ft) above grade, it shall be permitted to omit strike termination devices at the eaves if the slope of that roof is equal to or steeper than the tangent of the arc at the eave elevation of a rolling sphere having a 46 m (150 ft) radius. (See Figure 4.8.2.2.) 4.8.2.2.1 Except for the gutter, any portion of the building that extends beyond that tangent shall be protected. 4.8.2.2.2 Eaves over 46 m (150 ft) above grade shall be protected in accordance with 4.8.1.
4.8.2.2.3 The tangent of the rolling sphere arc shall be considered a vertical line over 46 m (150 ft) above grade, except as permitted by 4.7.3.4. 4.8.2.3 Pitched roofs not meeting the criteria of 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.2.2 shall be treated in the same manner as flat or gently sloping roofs. Change Figure 4.8.2 to Figure 4.8.2.2. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text with revisions made for clarity. The Technical Committee retaines text that was inadvertently omitted by the submitter. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-27 Log #72 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.8.9 through 4.8.9.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows:4.8.9 Chimneys, Vents and Other Objects on Roofs. Strike termination devices shall be required on all chimneys and vents objects on roofs that are not located within a zone of protection, including metal chimneys objects having a metal thickness of less than 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) except as permitted in this section. 4.8.9.1 Chimneys or vents Metal objects on roofs with a metal thickness of 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) or more shall require only a connection to the lightning protection system. 4.8.9.2 The connection for 4.8.9.1 shall be made using a main-size lightning conductor and a connector that has a surface contact area of not less than 1940 mm2 (3 in.2) and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices. 4.8.9.3 *Required strike termination devices shall be installed on chimneys and vents objects on roofs, as shown in Figure 4.8.9.3, so that the distance from a strike termination device to an outside corner or the distance perpendicular to an outside edge is not greater than 0.6 m (2 ft). 4.8.9.4 Where only one strike termination device is required on a chimney or vent an object, at least one main-size conductor shall connect the strike termination device to a main conductor at the location where the object meets the roof surface and provides two or more paths to ground from that location in accordance with Section 4.9 and 4.9.2. 4.8.9.5 Small objects on roofs that are less than 254 mm (10 in) above the surface of the roof shall not require strike termination devices unless they are located within 0.9 m (3 ft) of the ridge or roof edge Substantiation: Current text does not address objects that are found on roofs other than chimneys, vents or metal roof top units. Revised text addresses other objects on roofs that may require strike termination devices. Added text addresses small objects on roofs that may not generate appreciable streamers and thus may not require strike termination devices. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 4.8.9 Chimneys, Vents and Other Objects on Roofs. Strike termination devices shall be required on all chimneys and vents objects on roofs that are not located within a zone of protection, including metal chimneys objects having a metal thickness of less than 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) except as permitted in this section. 4.8.9.1 Chimneys or vents Metal objects on roofs with a metal thickness of 4.8 mm (3/16 in.) or more shall require only a connection to the lightning protection system using a main-size lightning conductor and a connector in accordance with the following: (1) Has a surface contact area of not less than 1940 mm2 (3 in.2) or a minimum of 38 mm (1 1/2 in.) of contact along the axis of a round surface (2) Provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices 4.8.9.2* Required strike termination devices shall be installed on chimneys and vents objects on roofs, as shown in Figure 4.8.9.2, so that the distance from a strike termination device to an outside corner or the distance perpendicular to an outside edge is not greater than 0.6 m (2 ft). Renumber A.4.8.9.3 as A.4.8.9.2. Renumber Figure 4.8.9.3 as Figure 4.8.9.2. 4.8.9.3 Where only one strike termination device is required on a chimney or vent an object, at least one main-size conductor shall connect the strike termination device to a main conductor at the location where the object meets the roof surface and provides two or more paths to ground from that location in accordance with Section 4.9 and 4.9.2. 4.8.9.4 Small objects on roofs that are less than 254 mm (10 in.) above the surface of the roof shall not require strike termination devices unless they are located within 0.9 m (3 ft) of the ridge or roof edge.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and revises Section 4.8.9.1 for clarity and for compliance with the Manual of Style. The Technical Committee renumbers the subsections accordingly. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: 4.8.9.4 “Small objects” undefined terms and vague
780-19
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-28 Log #73 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.8.9.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.8.9.2 The connection for 4.8.9.1 shall be made using a main-size lightning
conductor and a listed main-size connector that has a surface contact area on flat surfaces of not less than 1940 mm2 (3 in.2) or a minimum of 38 mm (1-1/2 in) of contact along the axis of a round surface and shall provide two or more paths to ground, as is required for strike termination devices. Substantiation: The added words allow the use of listed main-size connectors for connecting to metal objects that are round in section that are used as strike termination devices. This has been industry practice for bonding of antenna masts, conduit risers, vent pipes, light poles, etc for many years Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 780-27.
Committee Statement: The change satisfies the submitter’s intent.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________780-29 Log #74 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.8.11 (New) )_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.8.11 Movable or Rotating Objects on Roofs. 4.8.11.1 Movable or rotating objects on roofs shall be protected using properly supported long air terminals or lightning masts. 4.8.11.2 Movable or rotating metal objects on roofs that do not pose additional hazard to the protected structure shall be permitted to be connected to the lightning protected system in accordance with 4.8.9.1. Substantiation: This new text addresses movable or rotating objects found on roofs that cannot be protected by usual means without affecting their functionality Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 4.8.11 Movable or Rotating Objects on Roofs. 4.8.11.1 Movable or rotating objects on roofs shall be protected using properly supported long air terminals or lightning masts. 4.8.11.2 Movable or rotating metal objects on roofs that do not pose an additional hazard to the protected structure shall be permitted to be connected to the lightning protection system in accordance with 4.8.9.1.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and changes “protected” to “protection.” Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: 4.8.11.2 ....”that do not pose and additional hazard” Vague and
Unenforceable language Comment on Affirmative: DALEY, R.: 4.8.11.1 suggests that only air terminals or mast are acceptable.
Being in the zone of protection of a higher object should also be noted.
_______________________________________________________________780-30 Log #126 Final Action: Accept(4.9.3.3)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Likewise, mMetal roofing or siding having a thickness of less than 4.8 mm
(3/16 in.) shall not be substituted for main conductors. Substantiation: The word “likewise” is unnecessary and doesn’t refer to anything in the preceding paragraphs. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-31 Log #83 Final Action: Reject(4.9.11.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change the value as follows: 4.9.11.2 “distance of 1.8 9 m (6 ft.)”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: Reject
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee chooses to retain 1.8 m.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-32 Log #128 Final Action: Reject(4.10.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Attached by nails, screws, bolts, or adhesives as necessary, tThe fasteners shall not be subject to breakage and shall be of the same material as the conductor or a material equally resistant to corrosion as that of the conductor. Substantiation: The deleted text adds no requirement to this paragraph, and is therefore unnecessary. Also, it’s grammatically inelegant. Yes, I actually said that. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter did not provide any technical substantiation to justify deletion of the text. The Technical Committee disagrees with the submitter’s substantiation. The Technical Committee chooses to retain the current language. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. Comment on Affirmative: PORTFLEET, T.: The existing text does not conform to the Manual of Style. There is more than one requirement in this text. A committee proposal was put forward at the ROP meeting that was not addressed. It was to modify the existing text as follows: 4.10.1 Attached by nails, screws, bolts or adhesive as necessary, the fasteners shall not be subject to breakage. 4.10.2 Fasteners shall be of the same materials as the conductor or of a material equally resistant to corrosion as that of the conductor. Renumber existing 4.10.2 to 4.10.3 _______________________________________________________________ 780-33 Log #130 Final Action: Accept(4.12.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Fittings used for required connections to metal bodies in or on a structure shall be secured to the metal body by bolting, brazing, welding, screwing, or using high-compression connectors listed for the purpose. Substantiation: Machine screws are extensively used in industry for attachment to metal rooftop units, and are technically not a bolt. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. Comment on Affirmative: RAPP, R.: Instead of “screwing”, “the use of metals screws suitable for the application” _______________________________________________________________ 780-34 Log #75 Final Action: Accept(4.13.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Thomas R. Harger, Harger Lightning Protection Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.13.1.1 Each down conductor shall terminate at a grounding electrode dedicated to the lightning protection system or to a grounding electrode system in the case of a building, structure or facility that has multiple grounding electrodes that are bonded together with a ground ring electrode to form the grounding electrode system.Substantiation: The added words will permit the use of building or facility grounding electrode system for grounding electrodes for the lightning protection system where a building or facility has multiple grounding electrodes that are bonded together. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
780-20
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-35 Log #129 Final Action: Accept(4.13.1.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The design, size, and depth, and number of grounding electrodes shall
comply with 4.13.2 through 4.13.8. Substantiation: Sections 4.13.2 through 4.13.8 say nothing whatsoever about the number of ground rods required. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-36 Log #131 Final Action: Accept in Part(4.13.1.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.13.1.4 The down-conductor(s) shall be attached permanently to the grounding electrode system by bolting, brazing, welding, or high-compression connectors listed for the purpose, and clamps shall be suitable for direct burial. 4.13.1.4.1 Clamps used to connect the down-conductor to the grounding electrode system shall be suitable for direct burial. Substantiation: There were two requirements in one paragraph. I changed that. Aren’t I nice? Also, since there can never be any less than two down-conductors on any given structure, there doesn’t appear to be a need for the brackets around the “s” at the end of down-conductors. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartRevise text to read as follows: 4.13.1.4 The down-conductor(s) shall be attached permanently to the
grounding electrode system by bolting, brazing, welding, or high-compression connectors listed for the purpose, and clamps shall be suitable for direct burial.4.13.1.4.1 Clamps used to connect the down-conductor to the grounding electrode system shall be suitable for direct burial.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts deletion of the second phrase in Section 4.13.1.4. The Technical Committee does not accept addition of Section 4.13.1.4.1 as
listed for the purpose adequately provides the requirement. The Technical Committee does not necessarily agree with the submitter’s
substantiation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________780-37 Log #132 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.13.4.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The ground ring electrode shall be a main-size lightning conductor, or a listed
grounding conductor of equivalent or greater cross-sectional area.Substantiation: No one lists 500 KCM conductor as a lightning protection conductor, but it’s used all the time as a ground loop conductor. Perhaps we should be able to use that as a ground if it’s, y’know, there already. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: The ground ring electrode shall be a main-size lightning conductor, or a listed
grounding conductor of equivalent or greater cross-sectional area.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text but not the requirement for “listed” as bare wire is not listed. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________780-38 Log #133 Final Action: Accept(4.13.8.1.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: The ground terminal for shallow topsoil shall be either a ground ring
electrode in accordance with 4.13.4 a minimum distance of 0.6 m (2 ft) from the foundation or exterior footing, radial(s) in accordance with 4.13.5, or a plate electrode in accordance with 4.13.6 a minimum distance of 0.6 m (2 ft) from the foundation or exterior footing. The ground ring electrode, radial(s), or plate electrode shall be buried at the maximum depth of topsoil available.Substantiation: Just inserting the definite article to keep things nice and grammatically correct.
Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-39 Log #134 Final Action: Reject(4.13.8.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Delete entire paragraph.Substantiation: Vague and unenforceable language. How many extra ground rods should be used? Is a ground loop mandatory? Should sectionals be used to go down deeper? None of these questions are answered. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter did not provide any technical substantiation to justify deletion of the text. The submitter is encouraged to review and resubmit for the ROC. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-40 Log #47 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.14)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Harold VanSickle, III, Lightning Protection Institute / Rep. Grounding & Bonding Task Group - NFPA 780 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.14 Common Grounding Bonding of Grounded Systems. 4.14.1 General. All grounding grounded media and buried metallic conductors that can assist in providing a path for lightning currents in or on a structure shall be interconnected to the lightning protection system within 3.6 vertical meters (12 vertical feet) of the base of the structure to provide a common ground potential. 4.14.2 For structures exceeding 18 m (60 ft.) in height, the interconnection of the lightning protection system grounding electrodes and other grounded media shall be in the form of a ground loop conductor. 4.14.1.1 4.14.3 This interconnection shall include all building grounding electrode systems including lightning protection, electric service, communication, and antenna system grounds grounding electrodes. , as well as underground metallic piping systems. 4.14.1.2 4.14.4 Interconnection of underground metallic piping systems shall include water service, well casings located within 7.6 m (25 ft.) of the structure, gas piping, underground conduits, underground liquefied petroleum gas piping systems, and so on. If the water pipe is not electrically continuous due to the use of plastic pipe sections or other reasons, the nonconductive sections shall be bridged with main size conductors, or the connection shall be made at a point where electrical continuity is ensured.4.14.1.3 Connection to gas piping shall comply with the following requirements: 1. *Interconnection to a gas line shall be made on the customer’s side of the meter. 2. Bonding shall not be permitted to the utility side of the meter. 4.14.1.4 Main-size lightning conductors shall be used for interconnecting these systems to the lightning protection system. 4.14.1.5 * Where galvanic corrosion is a concern or where a direct bond is prohibited by local code, an isolating spark gap shall be permitted. 4.14.5 When the building grounded systems noted above are interconnected at a common accessible point in or on the structure, the lightning protection system shall have only one main size conductor connected to the common bonding point. This common bonding point shall include a ground bar, a section of water pipe, or the metallic structural frame per NFPA 70. 4.14.6 Where bonding of the lightning protection grounding system, grounded media, and buried metallic conductors has not been accomplished at a common point, interconnection shall be provided according to the following: A. Grounded media and buried metallic conductors shall be bonded to the lightning protection grounding system below a height 12 ft. (3.6 m) vertically above the base of the structure. B. Grounded media and buried metallic conductors inherently bonded through construction to the lightning protection grounding system shall not require further bonding. C. The continuous metal framework of a structure shall be connected to the lightning protection system (See 4.9.13 and 4.16). D. Main size lightning conductors shall be used for direct connection of grounded media and buried metallic conductors to the lightning protection system. E. A ground bar designed for interconnection of building grounded systems shall have one connection to the lightning protection system. F. A continuous metal water pipe system designed for interconnection of building grounded systems shall be connected to the lightning protection system.
780-21
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780G. Interconnection to a gas line shall be made on the customer’s side of the meter. H. Where galvanic corrosion is a concern or where a direct bond is prohibited by local code, an isolating spark gap shall be permitted. 4.14.2 Common Ground Bondings.4.14.2.1 Where electric, community antenna television (CATV), data, communications, or other systems are bonded to a metallic water pipe system, only one connection from the lightning protection system to the water pipe system shall be required, provided the water pipe is electrically continuous between all systems. 4.14.2.2 If the water pipe is not electrically continuous due to the use of plastic pipe sections or other reasons, the nonconductive sections shall be bridged with main size conductors, or the connection shall be made at a point where electrical continuity is ensured.Substantiation: Reorganization of 4.14 to include parts of 4.20 (Ground-Level Potential Equalization) and more closely coordinate bonding interconnections with wording in the NEC (NFPA 70 - 2011). The intent is to have a common ground point used for all building systems whenever possible. Note: In reference to above item 4.14.6 C), there is an additional proposal to
move 4.16 to 4.19. (See proposal on Sections 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 4.20, & 4.21). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 4.14 Common Grounding Bonding of Grounded Systems. 4.14.1 General. All grounding grounded media and buried metallic conductors that can assist in providing a path for lightning currents in or on a structure shall be interconnected to the lightning protection system within 3.6 vertical meters (12 vertical feet) of the base of the structure to provide a common ground potential. 4.14.2 For structures exceeding 18 m (60 ft.) in height, the interconnection of the lightning protection system grounding electrodes and other grounded media shall be in the form of a ground loop conductor. 4.14.1.1 4.14.3* This interconnection shall include all building grounding electrode systems including lightning protection, electric service, communication, and antenna system grounds grounding electrodes. , as well as underground metallic piping systems. 4.14.1.2 4.14.4 Interconnection of underground metallic piping systems shall include water service, well casings located within 7.6 m (25 ft.) of the structure, gas piping, underground conduits, underground liquefied petroleum gas piping systems, and so on. If the water pipe is not electrically continuous due to the use of plastic pipe sections or other reasons, the nonconductive sections shall be bridged with main-size conductors, or the connection shall be made at a point where electrical continuity is ensured.4.14.1.3 Connection to gas piping shall comply with the following requirements: (1) *Interconnection to a gas line shall be made on the customer’s side of the meter. (2) Bonding shall not be permitted to the utility side of the meter. 4.14.1.4 Main-size lightning conductors shall be used for interconnecting these systems to the lightning protection system. 4.14.1.5 * Where galvanic corrosion is a concern or where a direct bond is prohibited by local code, an isolating spark gap shall be permitted. 4.14.5* When the building grounded systems noted above are interconnected at a common accessible point in or on the structure, the lightning protection system shall have only one main size conductor connected to the common bonding point. This common bonding point shall be permitted to include a ground bar, a section of water pipe, or the metallic structural frame per NFPA 70. 4.14.6 Where bonding of the lightning protection grounding system, grounded media, and buried metallic conductors has not been accomplished at a common point, interconnection shall be provided according to the following: (1) Grounded media and buried metallic conductors shall be bonded to the lightning protection grounding system below a height 12 ft. (3.6 m) vertically above the base of the structure. (2) Grounded media and buried metallic conductors inherently bonded through construction to the lightning protection grounding system shall not require further bonding. (3) The continuous metal framework of a structure shall be connected to the lightning protection system (See 4.9.13 and 4.16). (4) Main size lightning conductors shall be used for direct connection of grounded media and buried metallic conductors to the lightning protection system. (5) A ground bar designed for interconnection of building grounded systems shall have one connection to the lightning protection system. (6) A continuous metal water pipe system designed for interconnection of building grounded systems shall be connected to the lightning protection system. (7) Interconnection to a gas line shall be made on the customer’s side of the meter. (8)* Where galvanic corrosion is a concern or where a direct bond is prohibited by local code, an isolating spark gap shall be permitted. Renumber A.4.14.1.5 as 4.14.6(8). 4.14.2 Common Ground Bondings.4.14.2.1 Where electric, community antenna television (CATV), data, communications, or other systems are bonded to a metallic water pipe system, only one connection from the lightning protection system to the water pipe
system shall be required, provided the water pipe is electrically continuous between all systems. 4.14.2.2 If the water pipe is not electrically continuous due to the use of plastic pipe sections or other reasons, the nonconductive sections shall be bridged with main size conductors, or the connection shall be made at a point where electrical continuity is ensured.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and edits Sections 4.14.4 and 4.14.6 for compliance with the Manual of Style and relocates Section A.4.14.1.5 to A.4.14.6(8). The Technical Committee notes that the references in this proposal correlate with Proposals 780-117 and 780-118. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. MELTON, JR., R.: I vote negative as currently proposed and recommend to modify 4.14.4 to incorporate the following text: The interior metal water pipe shall not be used as an electrical bonding conductor for the lightning protection system to access a common point of bonding to the grounding electrode system in the interior of the structure served located more than 1.52m (5 ft) from the point of entrance. Exception: The following shall apply to industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings or structures that have a metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing bonded to the pipe) and electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe) to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductors. For these locations where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation, interior metal water piping located more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall be permitted as a part of the grounding electrode system or as a conductor of interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system provided that the entire length, other than short lengths passing perpendicular through walls, floors, or ceilings, of the interior metal pipe that is being used for the conductor is exposed. FPN: It is recommended that the access to the grounding electrode system be located on the outside of the structure served, or at a point within 3 m (5 ft) of the entrance to the structure and adjacent to the power service entrance. Substantiation: This proposed text is intentionally very similar to NFPA 70, NEC-2008, 250.52(A)(1). Metal water piping systems employing threaded connections will have an acceptable electrical conductivity through the point of connection. Soldered mechanical connections for copper water pipe does not necessarily result in an adequate electrical connection. The heating from a direct strike seeking the grounding electrode system may result in mechanical damage to the metallic water pipe, especially copper with soldered connections, causing major water damage to the structure served. RAPP, R.: 4.14.1 - “base of the structure” - undefined term and vague 4.14.1 - “where electrical continuity is ensured” - ensured to what? 4.14.6 (1) - “base of the structure” - undefined term and vague _______________________________________________________________ 780-41 Log #34 Final Action: Reject(4.14.2.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tom Scholtens, City of Charleston / Rep. NFPA Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Recommendation: Revise section 4.14.2.1 as follows: 4.14.2.1 Where electric, community antenna television(CATV), data, communications, or other systems are bonded to a metallic water-pipe, only one connection from the lightning protection system to the water pipe system shall be required, provided the water pipe is electrically continuous between all systems the lightning protection system shall not be directly interconnected.Substantiation: Note: This proposal was developed by the proponent as a member of NFPA’s Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) with the committee’s endorsement. Interconnection of a grounding path from a lightning protection system to a water pipe may create more problems than it could possibly solve. There is no question that other portions of the structure that could provide lightning conductivity should have a common ground, but to induce a lightning bolt into a common ground system may cause the lightning to interact with those identified systems and cause damage or fire. The lightning protection system should be required to terminate solely as 4.13 requires. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter did not provide any technical substantiation to justify the proposed text. The submitter is encouraged to review and resubmit for the ROC. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. Comment on Affirmative: MELTON, JR., R.: To assure an equipotential bond, the LPS should be bonded at a common point with the other services. The use of the CWP as a bonding means can result in major damage due to fire and water damage.
780-22
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-42 Log #48 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 4.20, and 4.21)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Harold VanSickle, III, Lightning Protection Institute / Rep. Grounding & Bonding Task Group - NFPA 780 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.15 4.18 Concealed Systems.Move all of section 4.15 to 4.18. Renumber paragraphs 4.15.1 – 4.15.4.2 as 4.18.1 – 4.18.4.2.4.16 4.19 Structural Metallic Systems.Move all of section 4.16 to 4.19. Renumber paragraphs 4.16.1 – 4.16.3.5 as 4.19.1 – 4.19.3.5.4.18 4.20 Surge Protection.Move all of section 4.18 to 4.20. Renumber paragraphs 4.18.1 – 4.18.9.2 as 4.20.1 – 4.20.9.2.4.20 4.15 Potential Equalization.Move all of section 4.20 to 4.15. Renumber paragraphs 4.20.1 – 4.20.4 as 4.15.1 – 4.15.4.4.21 4.16 Bonding of Metal Bodies. Move all of section 4.21 to 4.16. Renumber paragraphs 4.21.1 – 4.21.4 as 4.16.1 – 4.16.4.Substantiation: Reorganizes Standards sections to place similar requirements together. This coordinates current sections 4.20 & 4.21 which cover bonding to follow 4.14 (common bonding of grounded systems) as section numbers 4.15 & 4.16. Section 4.17 remains the same. Current Sections 4.15, 4.16 & 4.18 will then be moved to 4.18, 4.19, & 4.20. Placing the bonding requirements together in consecutive standards sections improves the flow of the document for the user. Note: Paragraphs 4.20.4 and 4.21.4 shown above moving to 4.15.4 and
4.16.4 are new paragraphs covered by another proposal. The second proposal also includes the elimination of current Section 4.19. (See proposal on Sections 4.19, 4.20, & 4.21). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Committee Proposal 780-42a (Log #CP5).
Committee Statement: The action satisfies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________780-42a Log #CP5 Final Action: Accept(4.15 through 4.21)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: 4.15 Potential Equalization.4.15.1* Ground-Level Potential Equalization. Ground-level potential equal-ization shall be required in accordance with Section 4.14.4.15.2* Roof-Level Potential Equalization. For structures exceeding 18 m (60 ft) in height, all grounded media in or on the structure shall be interconnected within 3.6 m (12 ft) of the main roof level.4.15.3 Intermediate-Level Potential Equalization. Intermediate-level poten-tial equalization shall be accomplished by the interconnection of the lightning protection system down conductors and other grounded media at the interme-diate levels between the roof and the base of a structure in accordance with 4.15.3.1 through 4.15.3.3.4.15.3.1 Steel-Framed Structures. Intermediate-loop conductors shall not be required for steel-framed structures where the framing is electrically continu-ous.4.15.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Structures Where the Reinforcement Is Interconnected and Grounded in Accordance with 4.18.3. The lightning protection system down conductors and other grounded media shall be inter-connected with a loop conductor at intermediate levels not exceeding 60 m (200 ft).4.15.3.3 Other Structures. The lightning protection system down conductors and other grounded media shall be interconnected with a loop conductor at intermediate levels not exceeding 18 m (60 ft).
4.15.4 Materials. Horizontal loop conductors used for the interconnection of lightning protection system downlead conductors, grounding electrodes, or other grounded media shall be sized no smaller than the size required for the main conductor, as listed in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2. 4.16 Bonding of Metal Bodies. Metal bodies, not covered by other sections of this Standard, located outside or inside a structure that contribute to lightning hazards because they are grounded or assist in providing a path to ground for lightning currents shall be bonded to the lightning protection system in accor-dance with Section 4.21.
4.16.1 Long, Vertical Metal Bodies. Long, vertical metal bodies shall be bonded in accordance with 4.16.1.1 through 4.16.1.3.4.16.1.1 Steel-Framed Structures. Grounded and ungrounded metal bodies exceeding 18 m (60 ft) in vertical length shall be bonded to structural steel members as near as practicable to their extremities unless inherently bonded through construction at these locations.4.16.1.2 Reinforced Concrete Structures Where the Reinforcement Is Interconnected and Grounded in Accordance with 4.18.3. Grounded and ungrounded metal bodies exceeding 18 m (60 ft) in vertical length shall be bonded to the lightning protection system as near as practicable to their extrem-ities unless inherently bonded through construction at these locations.4.16.1.3 Other Structures. Bonding of grounded or ungrounded long, vertical metal bodies shall be determined by 4.16.2 and 4.16.3, respectively.4.16.2 Grounded Metal Bodies. This subsection shall cover the bonding of grounded metal bodies not covered in 4.16.1.4.16.2.1 Where grounded metal bodies have been connected to the lightning protection system at only one extremity, the formula shown in 4.16.2.4 or 4.16.2.5 shall be used to determine whether additional bonding is required.4.16.2.2 Branches of grounded metal bodies connected to the lightning pro-tection system at their extremities shall require bonding to the lightning protec-tion system in accordance with the formula shown in 4.16.2.4 or 4.16.2.5 if they change vertical direction more than 3.6 m (12 ft).4.16.2.3 Where such bonding has been accomplished either inherently through construction or by physical contact between electrically conductive materials, no additional bonding connection shall be required.4.16.2.4 Structures More Than 12 m (40 ft) in Height.4.16.2.4.1 Grounded metal bodies shall be bonded to the lightning protection system where located within a calculated bonding distance, D, as determined by the following formula:
where:
D = calculated bonding distance
h = vertical distance between the bond being considered and the nearest lightning protection system bond
n = a value related to the number of down conductors that are spaced at least 7.6 m (25 ft) apart, located within a zone of 30 m (100 ft) from the bond in question, and where bonding is required within 18 m (60 ft) from the top of any structure
Km = 1 if the flashover is through air, or 0.50 if through dense material such as concrete, brick, wood, and so forth
4.16.2.4.2 The value n shall be calculated as follows: n = 1 where there is only one down conductor in this zone; n = 1.5 where there are only two down conductors in this zone; n = 2.25 where there are three or more down conduc-tors in this zone.4.16.2.4.3 Where bonding is required below a level 18 m (60 ft) from the top of a structure, n shall be the total number of down conductors in the lightning protection system.4.16.2.5 Structures 12 m (40 ft) and Less in Height.
780-23
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 7804.16.2.5.1 Grounded metal bodies shall be bonded to the lightning protection system where located within a calculated bonding distance, D, as determined by the following formula:
where:
D = calculated bonding distance
h = either the height of the building or the vertical distance from the nearest bonding connection from the grounded metal body to the lightning protection system and the point on the down conductor where the bonding connection is being considered
n = a value related to the number of down conductors that are spaced at least 7.6 m (25 ft) apart and located within a zone of 30 m (100 ft) from the bond in question
Km = 1 if the flashover is through air, or 0.50 if through dense material such as concrete, brick, wood, and so forth
4.16.2.5.2 The value n shall be calculated as follows: n = 1 where there is only one down conductor in this zone; n = 1.5 where there are only two down conductors in this zone; n = 2.25 where there are three or more down conduc-tors in this zone.4.16.3* Isolated (Nongrounded) Metallic Bodies. An isolated metallic body, such as a metal window frame in a nonconducting medium, that is located close to a lightning conductor and to a grounded metal body will influence bonding requirements only if the total of the isolated distances between the lightning conductor and the isolated metal body and between the isolated metal body and the grounded metal body is equal to or less than the calculated bond-ing distance. The effect shall be determined by 4.16.3.1.4.16.3.1 The effect shall be determined by using Figure 4.16.3.1 according to either 4.16.3.1.1 or 4.16.3.1.2.Change FIGURE 4.21.3.1 to FIGURE 4.16.3.1.4.16.3.1.1 If a + b is less than the calculated bonding distance, then A shall be bonded to B directly.4.16.3.1.2 If a + b is greater than the calculated bonding distance, bonds shall not be required.4.16.3.2 A bonding connection shall be required where the total of the short-est distance between the lightning conductor and the isolated metal body and the shortest distance between the isolated metal body and the grounded metal body is equal to or less than the bonding distance as calculated in accordance with 4.16.2.4.16.3.3 Bonding connections shall be made between the lightning protection system and the grounded metal body.4.16.3.3.1 The bonding connection shall be permitted to be made directly to the grounded metal body.4.16.3.3.2 The bonding connection shall be permitted to be made from the lightning protection system to the isolated metal body and from the isolated metal body to the grounded metal body.4.16.4 Materials. Conductors used for the bonding of grounded metal bodies or isolated metal bodies requiring connection to the lightning protection system shall be sized in accordance with bonding conductor requirements in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2.4.17 Metal Antenna Masts and Supports. Metal antenna masts or supports located on a protected structure shall be connected to the lightning protection system using main-size conductors and listed fittings unless they are within a zone of protection.4.18 Concealed Systems.4.18.1 General.4.18.1.1 Requirements covering exposed systems also shall apply to con-cealed systems, except conductors shall be permitted to be coursed under roofing materials, under roof framing, behind exterior wall facing, between wall studding, in conduit chases, or embedded directly in concrete or masonry construction.4.18.1.2 Where a conductor is run in metal conduit, it shall be bonded to the conduit at the point where it enters the conduit, at the point where it emerges from the conduit, and at all locations where the conduit is not electrically con-tinuous.4.18.2 Masonry Chimneys. Chimney strike termination devices and con-ductors shall be permitted to be concealed within masonry chimneys or to be attached to the exterior of masonry chimneys and routed through the structure to concealed main conductors.4.18.3 Concealment in Steel-Reinforced Concrete. Conductors or other components of the lightning protection system concealed in steel-reinforced
concrete units shall be connected to the reinforcing steel.4.18.3.1 Concealed down conductors shall be connected to the vertical rein-forcing steel in accordance with 4.9.13.4.18.3.2 Roof conductors or other concealed horizontal conductor runs shall be connected to the reinforcing steel at intervals not exceeding 30 m (100 ft).4.18.4 Grounding Electrodes. Grounding electrodes for concealed systems shall comply with Section 4.13.4.18.4.1* Grounding electrodes located under basement slabs or in crawl spaces shall be installed as near as practicable to the outside perimeter of the structure.4.18.4.2 Where rod or cable conductors are used for grounding electrodes, they shall be in contact with the earth for a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) and shall extend to a depth of not less than 3 m (10 ft) below finished grade, except as permitted by 4.13.4 and 4.13.5.
4.19* Metal Bodies. Metal bodies located outside or inside a structure that con-tribute to lightning hazards because they are grounded or assist in providing a path to ground for lightning currents shall be bonded to the lightning protection system in accordance with Sections 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21.A.4.19 See Annex C for a technical discussion of lightning protection potential-equalization bonding.4.19.1 General. The factors in 4.19.1.1 through 4.19.1.4 shall determine the necessity of bonding a metal body to a lightning protection system. 4.19.1.1 Bonding shall be required if there is likely to be a sideflash between the lightning protection system and another grounded metal body. 4.19.1.2 The influence of a nongrounded metal body, such as a metal window frame in a nonconductive medium, is limited to its effectiveness as a short circuit conductor if a sideflash occurs and, therefore, shall not necessarily require bonding to the lightning protection system. 4.19.1.3 Bonding distance requirements shall be determined by a technical evaluation of the number of down conductors and their location, the interconnection of other grounded systems, the proximity of grounded metal bodies to the down conductors, and the flashover medium (i.e., air or solid materials). 4.19.1.4 Metal bodies located in a steel-framed structure that are inherently bonded through construction shall not require further bonding. 4.19.2 Materials. 4.19.2.1 Horizontal loop conductors used for the interconnection of lightning protection system downlead conductors, grounding electrodes, or other grounded media shall be sized no smaller than the size required for the main conductor, as listed in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2. 4.19.2.2 Conductors used for the bonding of grounded metal bodies or isolated metal bodies requiring connection to the lightning protection system shall be sized in accordance with bonding conductor requirements in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2. 4.20 Potential Equalization. 4.20.1* Ground-Level Potential Equalization. Ground level potential equalization is required in accordance with Section 4.14 – Common Bonding of Grounded Systems. 4.20.1* All grounded media and buried metallic conductors that can assist in providing a path for lightning currents in and on a structure shall be connected to the lightning protection system within 3.6 m (12 ft.) of the base of the structure in accordance with Section 4.14.4.20.1.2 For structures exceeding 18 m (60 ft.) in height, the interconnection of the lightning protection system grounding electrodes and other grounded media shall be in the form of a ground loop conductor.4.19 Structural Metallic Systems.4.19.1 General. The metal framework of a structure shall be permitted to be utilized as the main conductor of a lightning protection system if it is equal to or greater than 4.8 mm (3⁄16 in.) in thickness and is electrically continuous, or it is made electrically continuous by methods specified in 4.19.3.4.19.2 Strike Termination Devices.4.19.2.1 Strike termination devices shall be connected to the structural metal framing by direct connection, by use of individual conductors routed through the roof or parapet walls to the steel framework, or by use of an exterior con-ductor that interconnects all strike termination devices and that is connected to the metal framework.4.19.2.2 Where such an exterior conductor is used, it shall be connected to the metal framework of the structure at intervals not exceeding an average dis-tance of 30 m (100 ft), as widely spaced as practicable.4.19.3 Connections to Framework. Conductors shall be connected to areas of the structural metal framework that have been cleaned to base metal, by use of bonding plates having a surface contact area of not less than 5200 mm2 (8 in.2) or by welding or brazing.4.19.3.1 Drilling and tapping the metal column to accept a threaded connec-tor also shall be permitted.4.19.3.2 The threaded device shall be installed with at least five threads fully engaged and secured with a jam nut or equivalent.4.19.3.3 The threaded portion of the connector shall be not less than 12.7 mm (½ in.) in diameter.4.19.3.4 Bonding plates shall have bolt-pressure cable connectors and shall be bolted, welded, or brazed to the structural steel framework so as to maintain electrical continuity.4.19.3.5* Where corrosion-protective paint or coatings are removed, the completed electrical connection shall have corrosion protection equivalent to
780-24
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780the original coating.4.19.4 Grounding Electrodes.4.19.4.1 Grounding electrodes shall be connected to steel columns around the perimeter of the structure at intervals averaging not more than 18 m (60 ft).4.19.4.2 Connections shall be made near the base of the column in accor-dance with the requirements in 4.19.3.4.19.5 Bonding Connections. Where metal bodies located within a steel-framed structure are inherently bonded to the structure through the construc-tion, separate bonding connections shall not be required.4.20 Surge Protection.4.20.1* General. The requirements for surge protection systems installed for the electrical, communications (including, but not limited to, CATV, alarm, and data), or antenna systems or for other electrical system hardware shall apply only to permanently installed SPDs.4.20.2* Surge Protection Requirements.4.20.2.1 SPDs shall be installed at all power service entrances.4.20.2.2* SPDs shall be installed at entrances of conductive communications systems (including, but not limited to, CATV, alarm, and data) and antenna systems.4.20.2.3 SPDs shall be installed at all points where an electrical or electronic system conductor leaves a structure to supply another structure if the conduc-tors or cables are run over 30 m (100 ft).4.20.2.4* Surge protection shall be permitted for installation at subpanels or branch panels and at the point of utilization (outlet or signal termination; also termed supplementary protection).4.20.2.5* SPDs shall not be required where, under engineering supervision, it is determined that surge threat is negligible or the lines are equivalently pro-tected or where installation compromises safety.4.20.3 Surge Threat Levels.4.20.3.1* Electrical Power Circuits.4.20.3.1.1 The SPD shall protect against surges produced by a 1.2/50 μs and 8/20 μs combination waveform generator.4.20.3.1.2 SPDs at the service entrance shall have a nominal discharge cur-rent (In) rating of at least 20 kA 8/20 µs per phase.4.20.3.2 Signal, Data, and Communication Protection. SPDs shall be listed for the protection of signal, data, and communications systems and shall have an Imax rating of at least 10 kA 8/20 μs or greater when installed at the entrance.4.20.4* Measured Limiting Voltage of an SPD. The published voltage protec-tion rating (VPR) for each mode of protection shall be selected to be no greater than those given in Table 4.20.4 for the different power distribution systems to which they can be connected.Change Table 4.18.4 to Table 4.20.4.4.20.5* Facility ac Surge Protection.4.20.5.1 The short-circuit current rating of the SPD shall be coordinated with the available fault current rating of the supply (panel) to which it is connected, in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.4.20.5.2 The maximum continuous operating voltage (MCOV) of the SPD shall be selected to ensure that it is greater than the upper tolerance of the util-ity power system to which it is connected.4.20.5.3 The protection of service entrances shall use Type 1 or Type 2 SPD, in compliance with applicable standards such as UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Edition 3.4.20.5.4 SPDs at grounded service entrances shall be wired in a line-to-ground (L–G) or line-to-neutral (L–N) configuration.4.20.5.4.1 Additional modes, line-to-line (L–L), or neutral-to-ground (N–G) shall be permitted at the service entrance.4.20.5.4.2 For services without a neutral, SPD elements shall be connected line-to-ground (L–G). Additional line-to-line (L–L) connections shall also be permitted.4.20.6 Communications Surge Protection.4.20.6.1* SPDs shall be provided for all communications systems (includ-ing but not limited to CATV, alarm, and data) and antenna systems at facility entrances.4.20.6.2 The selection of SPDs shall take into consideration aspects such as the frequency, bandwidth, and voltage.4.20.6.3 Losses (such as returns loss, insertion loss, impedance mismatch, or other attenuation) introduced by the SPD(s) shall be within acceptable opera-tional limits.4.20.6.4 SPDs protecting communications systems shall be grounded.4.20.6.4.1* SPDs protecting communications systems shall be grounded in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Chapter 8.4.20.6.4.2 If the point of grounding in 4.20.6.4.1 is greater than 6 m (20 ft) away, a supplementary earth electrode or electrode system shall be installed at the SPD location.4.20.6.4.3 SPDs shall not be grounded through a down conductor of the light-ning protection system.4.20.6.4.4* SPDs for data and signal line protection shall provide common mode protection.4.20.7 Installation.4.20.7.1 Installation of surge suppression hardware shall conform to the requirements of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.4.20.7.2* SPDs shall be located and installed so as to minimize lead length. Interconnecting leads shall be routed so as to avoid sharp bends or kinks.4.20.7.3 The SPD grounding conductor shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
4.20.7.4* All SPD components shall be accessible for inspection and mainte-nance.4.20.8* Earth Grounding Electrode. Resistance of the earth electrode system used in the grounding of SPDs shall comply with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.4.20.9 Physical Characteristics.4.20.9.1 The SPDs shall be protected with consideration for the operational environment and according to the manufacturer’s instructions.4.20.9.2 Enclosures and other ancillary equipment shall be listed for the pur-pose.A.4.15.1 For structures 18 m (60 ft) or less in height, a loop conductor should be provided for the interconnection of all grounding electrodes and other grounded media. Regardless of the building height, ground loop conductors should be installed underground in contact with earth. Ground-level potential equalization allows use of a ground ring electrode as a ground loop conductor. A ground ring electrode conforming to 4.13.4 can be utilized for the ground loop conductor.A.4.15.2 In the case of flat or gently sloping roofs, the roof conductors required by 4.9.7 can be used for achieving roof-level potential equalization. In the case of pitched roofs, the interconnection should be a loop placed at the eave level.A.4.16.3 In addition to the bonding of metal bodies, surge suppression should be provided to protect power, communication, and data lines from dangerous overvoltages and sparks caused by the lightning strikes. (See Annex C for a dis-cussion of bonding and an understanding of problems often encountered.)A.4.18.4.1 It is preferable that grounding electrodes be located no closer than 0.6 m (2 ft) from foundation walls to minimize the probability of damage to the foundation, although this is not always practicable for all applications. For reference, IEC 62305-3, Protection Against Lightning, requires that ring earth electrodes be buried at a depth of at least 0.5 m (18 in.) and a distance of approximately 1 m (3 ft) around external walls.A.4.19.3.5 Protecting the base metal with a conductive, corrosion-inhibiting coating, coating the entire bond with a corrosion-inhibiting coating, or other equivalent methods can be utilized.A.4.20.1 Surge protection alone is not intended to prevent or limit physical damage from a direct lightning strike to a facility or structure. Rather, it is intended to defend against indirect lightning effects imposed upon the electri-cal services to a structure as part of a coordinated lightning protection system installed in accordance with the requirements of this standard.Surge currents and their corresponding overvoltage transients can be coupled onto electrical utility feeders in a number of ways. These mechanisms include magnetic or capacitive coupling of a nearby strike or the more dramatic but much less frequent conductive coupling of a direct cloud-to-ground discharge. These overvoltage transients pose a significant threat to modern electrical and electronic equipment.A.4.20.2 The SPD responds to surges by lowering its internal impedance so as to divert surge current to limit the voltage to its protective level — the measured limiting voltage. After the occurrence of surges, the SPD recovers to a high-impedance-state line-to-ground and extinguishes current-to-ground through the device when line voltage returns to normal. The SPD achieves these functions under normal service conditions. The normal service conditions are specified by the frequency of the system, voltage, load current, altitude (i.e., air pressure), humidity, and ambient air temperature.A.4.20.2.2 Antennas are considered a part of conductive signal, data, and communication services.A.4.20.2.4 SPDs should be considered on branch distribution panels 30 m (100 ft) or more from the primary service entrance panel where the electrical equipment fed by the panel is susceptible to overvoltages and determined to be mission critical or critical to life safety. Inductive coupling of electrical and magnetic fields can result in surges sufficient to cause damage to susceptible electrical equipment. Permanent failure of electrical and electronic systems due to lightning electromagnetic pulse (LEMP) can be caused by conducted and induced surges transmitted to apparatus via connecting wiring as well as the effects of radiated electromagnetic fields impinging directly onto apparatus itself. Protection at primary and subpanels (coordinated SPD system) is a rec-ommended technique to reduce these effects. NEMA LS-1, Low Voltage Surge Protective Devices, and IEC 62305-4, Protection Against Lightning, suggest that the impedance resulting from 30 m (100 ft) of wiring from an SPD can be sufficient to allow overvoltages of magnitudes that can result in failure of susceptible electrical equipment. In order to reduce the probability of failure of mission-critical equipment or equipment that is critical to life safety, surge pro-tection should be considered where the distance between the SPD at the service entrance exceeds 30 m (100 ft).A.4.20.2.5 Most services to facilities will require discrete surge suppression devices installed to protect against damaging surges. Occasionally, services will be located in an area or manner where the threat from lightning-induced surges and overvoltage transients might be negligible. For example, the requirements in 4.20.2.3 (also see A.4.20.6.1) exempt services less than 30 m (100 ft) in length that are run in grounded metal conduit between buildings requiring surge protection. Other examples where SPDs might not be required to be installed at each service entrance are those applications where fiber optic transmission lines (with no conducting members) are used. The standard recognizes that there can be acceptable exceptions and consequently allows for such exceptions to the requirements for surge suppression on electrical utility, data, and other signal lines, provided a competent engineering authority
780-25
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780has determined that the threat is negligible or that the system is protected in a manner equivalent to surge suppression.Allowance in this standard for the exemption of surge suppression at specific locations is not intended as a means to provide a broad exemption simply because surge suppression might be considered inconvenient to install. Rather, this allowance recognizes that all possible circumstances and configurations, particularly those in specialized industries, cannot be covered by this standard.Determinations made by an engineering authority for exempting installation of SPDs should focus on the likelihood of lightning activity in the region, the level of damage that might be incurred, and the potential loss of human life or essential services due to inadequate overvoltage protection.Four methods of analysis are commonly used for this determination, although other equivalent analysis can be used. The four methods are the following: (1) A risk assessment could be performed in accordance with IEC 62305-2, Protection Against Lightning, and surge protection requirements could be waived if justified by the assessment.(2) The lightning flash density/risk analysis is an analysis to determine the frequency of lightning activity in the geographic area of the facility. As a rule of thumb, if the flash density exceeds one flash per square kilometer per year, surge suppression or other physical protection should be considered. Lightning energy can indirectly couple to services at ranges greater than 1 km (0.6 mi) to create potentially damaging overvoltages.(3) Plant/facility statistical or maintenance records can also be used as a risk analysis. If these records can demonstrate the lack of damage on a service due to surges, it can be used to justify low risk of surge damage to a particular sys-tem or facility.(4) The lightning electromagnetic environment analysis starts with a threat electromagnetic field from a nearby lightning strike and computes the mag-nitude and rise-time characteristics of transients coupled into services feed-ing a structure or facility. Based on the computed threat, SPDs can be sized appropriately or omitted, as warranted. This analysis is typically performed for critical communications facilities and in military applications. Electromagnetic environments for such an analysis can be found in MIL-STD-464, Interface Standard Electromagnetic Environmental Effects Requirements for Systems, and IEC 62305-4, Protection Against Lightning.In all cases, the criticality of continued operation, potential life hazard to persons and essential services, and the consequence of facility damage or shut-down should be factors in the analysis. If a hazardous condition results from a surge causing temporary shutdown without permanent damage (e.g., through the disabling of a computer or communication system), then the requirements for surge suppression as articulated by Section 4.20 should not be exempted.A.4.20.3.1 SPDs are typically sized significantly larger than the expected challenge level. At service entries, it is generally agreed that a nominal dis-charge current (In) of 20 kA will provide adequate protection. However, larger ratings that protect against less probable but more powerful lightning events will usually provide a better capability to handle multiple strikes and will usu-ally provide a longer service life.Rating the SPD’s In higher than the minimums in this document is recom-mended in areas with frequent lightning.Where installed, SPDs at branch panels or subpanels should have an In rating of 10 kA 8/20 µs or greater per phase.Where installed, supplementary protection (also called point of utilization) SPDs should have an In rating of 5 kA 8/20 µs or greater per phase.A.4.20.4 The measured limiting voltages of the SPD should be selected to limit damage to the service or equipment protected.Devices rated in accordance with ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Edition 3, reflect that the voltage rating test in this Edition utilizes a 3 kA peak current instead of the 500 A current level used in the SVR test of ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, Edition 2.A.4.20.5 Surges can be induced upon any line entering a structure.Where installed, branch panels over 30 m (100 ft) from the service entrance should have L–G or L–N and N–G modes of protection. Additionally, L–L pro-tection is also permitted (although this is usually achieved by the L–N modes across two phases). L–L protection is achieved by the L–N modes across two phases.The following modes of protection are possible to minimize voltage differences between the individual conductors: (1) Line-to-line (L–L) protection places the SPD between the current-carrying conductors in a power system.(2) Line-to-neutral (L–N) protection places the SPD between the current-carrying conductors and the grounded conductor (neutral) in a power system.(3) Line-to-ground (L–G) protection places the SPD between the current-carrying conductors and the grounding conductor (ground) in a power system.(4) Neutral-to-ground (N–G) protection places an SPD between the grounded conductor (neutral) and the grounding conductor (ground) in a power system. This mode of protection is not required at the service entrance (primary service panel board) if the neutral-to-ground bond is implemented at this location or within proximity of this point of installation. Thus, in general, an SPD with only L–L and L–N modes of protection might be required at the service entrance.(5) Common mode is a term used for a mode of protecting telecommunications, data lines, and so forth. This mode places the SPD between the signal conductor and ground. It is analogous to L–G mode in power systems.
(6) Differential mode is a term used for a mode of protecting telecommunications, data lines, and so forth. In this mode, an SPD is placed between the individual signal lines, analogous to the L–L mode of protection in power systems.A.4.20.6.1 SPDs should be placed on both ends of external signal, data, and communication lines longer than 30 m (100 ft) connecting pieces of equipment or facilities, to protect against surges coupled into the wiring or caused by ground potential differences.A.4.20.6.4.1 The purpose of the SPD is to equalize L–L, L–N, L–G, and N–G potentials. While a good ground is important, a good bond is imperative to minimize damage due to lightning and/or power contact or induction.A.4.20.6.4.4 Differential mode protection should also be provided where practicable.A.4.20.7.2 Longer, or looped, SPD line and ground conductors increase the impedance of the SPD ground circuit. Increasing the lead length serves to increase pass-through voltage at the point where the SPD is wired into service equipment or a branch panelboard. Consequently, it is essential to minimize lead length impedance in this circuit.A.4.20.7.4 Some SPD units are provided with a failure indicator. This feature is recommended since it facilitates maintenance or test procedures. Where used, this indicator should be visible. Building maintenance should consider periodic inspection or testing of SPDs. (See NFPA 70B, Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance.)A.4.20.8 The effectiveness of the SPD is based on the impedance of the path to ground. A lower ground resistance minimizes voltage differences of conductors attached to SPDs near the service entrance and reduces the chance of arcing or insulation breach. Consequently, it is essential to minimize impedance in this circuit.Substantiation: The TC reorders, reorganizes and simplifies Sections 4.15 through 4.21. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: RAPP, R.: 4.19.3.3 “The threaded portion of the connector shall be not less than 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) - material requirements now call for a minimum of 1/4” - where is the research and justification for the change to 1/2”? 4.20 - Surge Protection should not be a requirement of this installation standard, but a recommendation and a referral to the NEC, NFPA 70. A.4.15.1 - “For structures 18 m (60 ft) or less in height - not or less but 60’ or greater. Comment on Affirmative: PORTFLEET, T.: All value in text and formulas have to be changed to express “English” values first. _______________________________________________________________ 780-43 Log #63 Final Action: Accept(4.15.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Delete requirement that conductors used for grounding electrodes in concealed systems extend to a depth of not less than 10 feet as shown below: 4.15.4.2 Where rod or cable conductors are used for grounding electrodes, they shall be in contact with the earth for a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) and shall extend to a depth of not less than 3 m (10 ft) below finished grade, except as permitted by 4.13.4 and 4.13.5.Substantiation: There is no technical justification that grounding electrodes for concealed systems requires special consideration outside of the requirements provided in 4.13. The suggested deleted text is not necessary and could be confusing as to its application. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-44 Log #135 Final Action: Reject(4.15.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Delete entire paragraph.Substantiation: Paragraph simply restates information already found in 4.13, and is therefore redundant. And don’t even get me started on the bit about cable conductors being used for grounding electrodes and having to extend 10 ft below finished grade.... Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee chooses to retain 4.15.4.2. The Technical Committee refers the submitter to Proposal 780-43. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
780-26
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-45 Log #104 Final Action: Accept(4.18.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add the following words: 4.18.1. … “Permanently installed Surge Protection Devices (SPDs).”Substantiation: Editorial change according to MOS Section 3.2.5.1.1Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: Surge Protection should not be a requirement for this installation
standard and should be addressed in the NEC, NFPA 70. _______________________________________________________________780-46 Log #136 Final Action: Accept(4.18.3)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Surge Threat Levels Protective Device Ratings
Substantiation: Section 4.18.3 has nothing to do with surge threat levels, but does have something to do with the required ratings of SPDs. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 _______________________________________________________________ 780-47 Log #105 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.18.3.2 and 4.18.3.2.1 (new))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Revise 4.18.3.2 to read as follows: 4.18.3.2 Signal, Data, and Communication Protection. SPDs shall be listed for the protection of signal, data, and communications systems. Add new 4.18.3.2.1 to read as follows: 4.18.3.2.1 Signal, data, and communications SPDs’ shall have a maximum discharge current ( Imax) rating of at least 10kA 8/ 20 us or greater when installed at the entrance.Substantiation: The text requires multiple requirements and which need to be broken out into subsections according to the Manual of Style Section1.8.3 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 4.18.3.2 Signal, Data, and Communication Protection. 4.18.3.2.1 SPDs shall be listed for the protection of signal, data, and communications systems. 4.18.3.2.2 Signal, data, and communications SPDs’ shall have a maximum discharge current (Imax) rating of at least 10kA 8/ 20 us or greater when installed at the entrance. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and revises to comply with the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 Comment on Affirmative: MELTON, JR., R.: 8X20 usec waveforms apply to power service protection, whereas 10X1000 @ 100 Amps. (UL 497, UL 497A and UL 497C) apply to telco and CATV protection. (Telecordia GR 1089, Chapter 4) _______________________________________________________________ 780-47a Log #CP10 Final Action: Accept(Table 4.18.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise Table 4.18.4 to add the following values under the Line-to-Neutral column to read as follows: 600, 1000, 600, 600, 1200, 1200, 1800, -, -, -, - Revise Table 4.18.4 to add the following values under the Line-to-Ground column to read as follows: 700, 1000, 700, 700, remainder unchanged Revise Table 4.18.4 to add the following values under the Neutral-to-Ground column to read as follows: 600, 1000, 600, 600, 1200, 1200, 1800, -, -, -, - Revise Table 4.18.4 to add the following values under the Line-to-Line column to read as follows: -, -, 1200, 1200, 1800, 1800, remainder unchanged Substantiation: The technical committee updates the table.
Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 _______________________________________________________________ 780-48 Log #65 Final Action: Reject(4.18.4 and A.4.18.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Revise 4.18.4 as follows:4.18.4* Measured Limiting Voltage of an SPD. The published voltage protection rating (VPR) for each mode of protection shall be selected to limit damage to the service or equipment protected be no greater than those given in Table 4.18.4 for the different power distribution systems to which they can be connected. Move Table 4.18.4 to A.4.18.4 and change the title as follows: Table A.4.18.4 Maximum Allowed Recommended Voltage Protection Rating per Mode of Protection Provided for Different Power Distribution Systems to Which the SPD May Be Connected Revise first sentence of A.4.18.4 as follows: The measured limiting voltages of the SPD should be selected to limit damage to the service or equipment protected. The recommended voltage protection rating per mode of protection for different power distribution systems to which they may be connected is shown in Table A.4.18.4. Substantiation: The Surge Protection Task Group considered a suggestion to delete Table 4.18.4 but felt there may be some value to moving it to Annex A. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter did not provide any technical substantiation to justify the proposed text. The Technical Committee chooses to retain the table in the body of the document. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 Comment on Affirmative: GUTHRIE, M.: I agree with the action taken on the proposal but do not concur with the Committee Statement. The reason for the rejection of the proposal is that 780-109 references the table, which minimizes the need to move the table. _______________________________________________________________ 780-49 Log #38 Final Action: Accept(4.18.5.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.18.5.3 The protection of service entrances shall use Type 1 or Type 2 SPD, in compliance with applicable standards such as UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Edition 3.Substantiation: Delete reference to edition of the UL standard in the text of this section. Instead, refer to the referenced edition as updated and listed in 2.3.1 so the referenced standard edition is consistent throughout the document. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 _______________________________________________________________ 780-50 Log #110 Final Action: Reject(4.18.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Differentiate requirements base on the media carrying the signal. Substantiation: 4.18.6.1 Requires SPDs on All Communications systems. Fiber optic cable is none conductive and does not require an SPD. Similarly the I max rating required may exceed the conductive capacity of some signal wires i.e. one twisted pair of phone wire. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter has not provided the specific proposed text in the recommendation for this proposal in accordance with 4.3.3(c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects including the wording to be added or revised and how the text in the document should be revised. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45
780-27
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-51 Log #2 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.18.6.4)_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-54 (Log #78) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-50.Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. United Lightning Protection Association Recommendation: Add the following text: 4.18.6.4.1.1 Conductive media that is bonded to the point of grounding of the
electrical service, such as electric ground wires, structural steel, water pipe or conduit, shall be permitted to be used as an SPD bond. Delete new section 4.18.6.4.2 and 4.18.6.4.3.
Substantiation: The bonding requirements of section 4.20 would make the requirements of 4.18.6.4.2 and 4.18.6.4.3 a major cause of failures. Antennae on buildings taller than 60 feet would require these grounds, which would have to be required to be bonded at the top and bottom, effectively making it a short circuit pathway to equalize potential circumventing the SPD, and there by damaging the equipment protected by it. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 780-52.
Committee Statement: The change satisfies the submitter’s intent.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45
_______________________________________________________________780-52 Log #66 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.18.6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 4.18.6.4.2 If the point of grounding in 4.18.6.4.1 is greater than 6 m (20 ft)
away, a supplementary earth electrode or electrode system ground reference point shall be installed at the SPD location. Acceptable supplementary ground reference points are given below: 4.18.6.4.2.1 Equipotential ground bus bar 4.18.6.4.2.2 Structural steel for a structural steel frame building 4.18.6.4.2.3 Ground reference at a secondary power distribution panelSubstantiation: The purpose if the proposal is to provide a description of acceptable alternative grounding techniques where supplemental electrodes are required for SPDs. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 4.18.6.4.2 If the point of grounding in 4.18.6.4.1 is greater than 6 m (20 ft) away, a supplementary earth electrode or electrode system ground reference point shall be installed at the SPD location. Acceptable supplementary ground reference points that shall be permitted are given below: (1) Equipotential ground bus bar(2) Structural steel for a structural steel frame building (3) Ground reference at a secondary power distribution panelCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and revised for compliance with the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 25 Negative: 3 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. MELTON, JR., R.: Delete (2): The SPD should NOT be bonded to the structural steel for the building without a direct bond to the power ground - local lightning GPR due to Ldi/dt conduction on ground path may raise the equipment ground reference substantially above other interfacing circuitry which references a different ground point - common issue wth PBX telecommunication equipment. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 Comment on Affirmative: DALEY, R.: Add a fourth approved ground point: An electrically continuous grounded metal water pipe. _______________________________________________________________ 780-53 Log #107 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.18.6.4.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Revise the text as follows: 4.18.6.4.2. “If the point of grounding in 4.18.6.4.1 is greater than 6 m (20 ft.) horizontally away,”Substantiation: The text as written would require additional grounding to be done at every other floor on a high rise building. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 780-52. Committee Statement: The change satisfies the submitter’s intent.
Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 2 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 _______________________________________________________________ 780-54 Log #106 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.18.6.4.2.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.18.6.2.1. Attachment to other grounded media such as building steel, grounded metallic conduit or water pipe, and the ground wire of the electric system shall be acceptable as electrode systems at the SPD location. Substantiation: The new text provides direction as to how he previous require can be met. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Proposal 780-52. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes the submitter intended to refer to 4.18.6.4.2.1. The change satisfies the submitter’s intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-55 Log #108 Final Action: Reject(4.18.6.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 4.18.6.5 It shall be permitted to not install SPDs on fiber optic cable.Substantiation: New text needs to be added since 4.18.6.1.requires it on all communications systems. There are instances when it is not needed. This alternative is set forth in accordance with MOS Section 2.2.1.3. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: SPDs are not required on nonconductive lines. SPDs are not available to protect fiber optic cable. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-56 Log #109 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.18.6.6 and 4.18.6.6.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add new section: 4.18.6.6. SPDs shall be provided on all proprietary equipment by the communication utility provider or the tenant communication utility. Add new Section 4.18.6.6.1. SPDs shall not be required if the service provider has made other provisions for lightning surge threats. Substantiation: It is illegal to disturb property that does not belong to you.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new text to read as follows: 4.18.6.5 Utility Owned Communication Equipment. 4.18.6.5.1 SPDs shall be provided on all proprietary equipment by the communication utility provider or the tenant communication utility. 4.18.6.5.2 SPDs shall not be required if the service provider has made other provisions for lightning surge threats. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and revised to comply with the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code. _______________________________________________________________ 780-57 Log #49 Final Action: Accept in Principle(4.19, 4.20, and 4.21)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Harold VanSickle, III, Lightning Protection Institute / Rep. Grounding & Bonding Task Group - NFPA 780 Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:4.19* Metal Bodies. Metal bodies located outside or inside a structure that contribute to lightning hazards because they are grounded or assist in providing a path to ground for lightning currents shall be bonded to the lightning protection system in accordance with Sections 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21. 4.19.1 General. The factors in 4.19.1.1 through 4.19.1.4 shall determine the necessity of bonding a metal body to a lightning protection system. 4.19.1.1 Bonding shall be required if there is likely to be a sideflash between the lightning protection system and another grounded metal body. 4.19.1.2 The influence of a nongrounded metal body, such as a metal window frame in a nonconductive medium, is limited to its effectiveness as a short circuit conductor if a sideflash occurs and, therefore, shall not necessarily require bonding to the lightning protection system.
780-28
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 7804.19.1.3 Bonding distance requirements shall be determined by a technical evaluation of the number of down conductors and their location, the interconnection of other grounded systems, the proximity of grounded metal bodies to the down conductors, and the flashover medium (i.e., air or solid materials). 4.19.1.4 Metal bodies located in a steel-framed structure that are inherently bonded through construction shall not require further bonding. 4.19.2 Materials. 4.19.2.1 Horizontal loop conductors used for the interconnection of lightning protection system downlead conductors, grounding electrodes, or other grounded media shall be sized no smaller than the size required for the main conductor, as listed in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2. 4.19.2.2 Conductors used for the bonding of grounded metal bodies or isolated metal bodies requiring connection to the lightning protection system shall be sized in accordance with bonding conductor requirements in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2. 4.20 Potential Equalization. 4.20.1* Ground-Level Potential Equalization. Ground level potential equalization is required in accordance with Section 4.14 – Common Bonding of Grounded Systems. 4.20.1* All grounded media and buried metallic conductors that can assist in providing a path for lightning currents in and on a structure shall be connected to the lightning protection system within 3.6 m (12 ft.) of the base of the structure in accordance with Section 4.14.4.20.1.2 For structures exceeding 18 m (60 ft.) in height, the interconnection of the lightning protection system grounding electrodes and other grounded media shall be in the form of a ground loop conductor. 4.20.4 Materials. Horizontal loop conductors used for the interconnection of lightning protection system downlead conductors, grounding electrodes, or other grounded media shall be sized no smaller than the size required for the main conductor, as listed in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2. 4.21 Bonding of Metal Bodies. Metal bodies, not covered by other sections of this Standard, located outside or inside a structure that contribute to lightning hazards because they are grounded or assist in providing a path to ground for lightning currents shall be bonded to the lightning protection system in accordance with Section 4.21. 4.21.4 Materials. Conductors used for the bonding of grounded metal bodies or isolated metal bodies requiring connection to the lightning protection system shall be sized in accordance with bonding conductor requirements in Table 4.1.1.1.1 and Table 4.1.1.1.2.Substantiation: Revised text eliminates 4.19 entirely by moving required paragraphs to 4.20 & 4.21 as appropriate, and deleting informational items that are not requirements. 4.20.1.1 and 4.20.1.2 are included in new proposed 4.14 - with a new 4.20.1 to reference section 4.14. This revision simplifies and better organizes the Standard to benefit the user. Note: There is an additional proposal to move all of Section 4.20 & 4.21 to
4.15 & 4.16. (See proposal on Sections 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 4.20, & 4.21). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee Committee Action on Committee Proposal 780-42a (Log #CP5). Committee Statement: The action satisfies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: HEARY, W.: This topic belongs in the National Electrical Code.
_______________________________________________________________780-58 Log #29 Final Action: Accept(5.8)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Bruce A. Kaiser, Lightning Master CorporationRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 5.8 Roof Top Helipads. Roof top helipads on a protected structure shall be
protected in accordance with Chapter 4 except as permitted by 5.8.1 through 5.8.7. 5.8.1* The metal frame of the structure or metal frame of the safety net at the perimeter of the pad shall be permitted to serve as a strike termination device. 5.8.2 If adjacent sections of the perimeter metal frame or metal frame of the safety net are not electrically continuous through their mounting system, they shall be connected together with a main-size conductor. 5.8.3 Where aircraft warning lights are installed at the perimeter of the pad and extend above the edge of the helipad, air terminals shall be installed adjacent to the fixture. 5.8.4 The structural metal frame of the helipad shall be connected bonded to the lightning protection system at a minimum of two places in accordance with 4.16.3.5.8.4.1 Connections shall be installed at intervals not to exceed an average of 30 m (100 ft) around the perimeter of the pad, as widely spaced as practicable. 5.8.4.2 Clamps and conductors shall be installed at or below the elevation of the safety net frame.
5.8.4.3 Clamps and conductors shall be secured against vibration and rotor wash. 5.8.5 All exposed components shall be nonreflective or treated with a nonreflective finish. 5.8.6* Helipads used for parking shall have a designated point to connect the helicopter to the lightning protection system while parked. 5.8.7 All components of the lightning protection and grounding systems shall be located so as not to interfere with helicopter operations. A.5.8.1 The metal thickness could be less than the dimensions required in Chapter 4. On a nonmetal helipad, a A flat metal plate should be permitted to serve as a strike termination device in the landing area if the landing area exceeds 15 m (50 ft) in both dimensions. The minimum exposed area of the plate should be 1950 mm2 (3 in.2). The minimum thickness of the plate should be 4.8 mm (3/16 in). The plate should be installed flush with the helipad surface and exposed to the air. The plate should be connected to the roof lightning protection system with a two-way horizontal or downward path. Conductors connecting the plate to the lightning protection system should be installed flush with or below the helipad surface. Refer to 4.15.3.2 for the bonding requirements. A.5.8.6 The connection does not provide lightning protection for the parked aircraft. Consideration should be given to relocate the helicopter to a safer location.Substantiation: Provide guidance for any AHJ and installers for protecting helipads on roofs of buildings and other structures. This proposal was developed by the NFPA 780 Helipad Task Group (TG Members: Bruce Kaiser, Doug Franklin, Rich Bouchard and Tom Harger.) The proposed change to 5.8.1 reflects the proper intent of the section that the metal frame of the safety net serve as a strike termination device rather than the safety net itself. The first proposed change to 5.8.2 correlates with the proposed change to 5.8.1 while the second proposed change clarifies that the safety net need not be electrically continuous, but rather, the mounting system to which the safety net is secured to be electrically continuous. The term “aircraft warning” is proposed to be deleted from 5.8.3 as the intent of the section is not to solely limit the application to these but rather, to any type light that may be installed about the perimeter of the pad. Further, only lights that extend above the edge of the helipad require protection by air terminals. In 5.8.4, “bonded” is proposed to be change to “connected” for clarity and for consistency with other text throughout NFPA 780. Reference is made to 4.16.3 to clarify how the connection is required to be made. Annex text is proposed to be added to 5.8.6 to clarify that although the parked aircraft is connected to the LPS, that it is not necessarily protected by the LPS. Proposed text is added to A.5.8.1 to clarify that the flat metal plate is applicable to nonmetal helipads whereas such a plate need not be added where the helipad surface is already metal. Reference to 4.15.3.2 is proposed to be added to point the user to the bonding requirements section of NFPA 780. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-59 Log #98 Final Action: Accept(6.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change values as follows: 6.2.2 “lead having a minimum thickness of 1.63 mm (1/16 0.064 in.)”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
780-29
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-60 Log #137 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure 7.3.2.2(a))_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Extend tip of mast in figure to above the circumference of the circle around
it. Substantiation: As the figure is now, the mast is not sufficiently differentiated from a simple radius arrow on the circle. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise figure as follows:
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s recommendation and edits Figure 7.3.2.2.(a). The change satisfies the submitter’s intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-61 Log #26 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.1 through 7.3.3.7)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Nestor Camerino, Naval Ordinance Safety and Security Activity (NOSSA) Recommendation: Publish equations contained on Pages 18 – 51 of the RSM Technical Paper that I have provided so that users have all of the equations required to accomplish NFPA 780, paragraph 7.3.3.6., and a mathematical model that allows heights above grade (e.g., numbers) to be placed against any points on the dashed zone of protection lines shown in Figure 7.3.3.2. Substantiation: Because equation
is the only equation provided by NFPA 780 for review of air termination systems against the Rolling Sphere Model, it is widely thought that no other equations are required or that other equations are invalid. Further, and because equation
is the only equation provided by NFPA 780, it is often incorrectly applied in attempts to define zone of protection coverage for air termination systems other than the single mast systems for which it was intended. The Abstract and Discussion Chapters of the accompanying RSM Technical Paper expound on the problem. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter has not provided the specific proposed text in the recommendation for this proposal in accordance with 4.3.3(c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects including the wording to be added or revised and how the text in the document should be revised. The submitter’s text does not improve usability of the document or provide increased safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
Mast 30 m (100 ft)
H
(a) Single MastZone of protection defined by dashed lines
Ground surface
(b) Overhead Ground WiresZone of protection defined by ground wire(s) and dashed lines
H
H
Radius 30 m (100 ft)(striking distance) Overhead wires
Supporting mast
Radius 30 m (100 ft)(striking distance)
Figure 7.3.2.2(a) Figure 7.3.2.2(b)
780-30
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-62 Log #27 Final Action: Reject(7.3.3.4)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Nestor Camerino, Naval Ordinance Safety and Security Activity (NOSSA) Recommendation: Reword and/or expand upon 7.3.3.4, specifically where it talks to more than one mast being used. More equations should be included in NFPA 780 for review of air termination systems against the Rolling Sphere Model. Substantiation: Where more than one mast is used, paragraph 7.3.3.4 often leads to application of
to generate Figure 5 of the accompanying document. There are not enough words in paragraph 7.3.3.4 to explain that Figure 6 is the correct application of
when more than 1 mast is used. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter has not provided the specific proposed text in the recommendation for this proposal in accordance with 4.3.3(c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects including the wording to be added or revised and how the text in the document should be revised. The submitter’s text does not improve usability of the document or provide
increased safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-63 Log #99 Final Action: Accept(7.4.1.2.2.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value to read as follows:7.4.1.2.2.2. “Shunt shall be 51 50 mm (2 in.).”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-64 Log #100 Final Action: Accept(8.3.2.1.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change the value to read as follows:8.3.2.1.1 “diameter of 16 15 mm (5/8 in.)”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-65 Log #138 Final Action: Accept(Figure 8.3.2.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Note: Increase dimension as required to all maintain a 0.3 m (1 ft) spacing between foundation and ground rod. Substantiation: There was clearly a typo in the note. Who did that drawing, anyway? Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-66 Log #64 Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Delete the exception cited as shown below: 8.3.4* Integral system lightning protection systems using strike termination
devices directly attached to the structure shall be installed as specified in Chapter 4, except as modified below.Substantiation: There are no modifications to the integral LPS installation requirements of Chapter 4 given as suggested by the proposed deleted text. A.8.3.4 discusses spacing of strike termination devices based on a striking distance of 100 feet. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 8.3.4* Integral Lightning Protection Systems. Strike termination devices directly attached to the structure shall be installed as specified in Chapter 4. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text with revisions for clarity. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-67 Log #77 Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.5.5 and 8.7 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Delete existing requirements of 8.5.5 and add new 8.7 as follows: 8.7 Metallic Fences. 8.7.1 Grounding 8.7.1.1 Fences shall be grounded where located within 3 m (10 ttl of a structure housing explosives with the grounding electrode interconnected with the grounding system of the structure. 8.7.1.2 Fences surrounding an explosives facility shall be grounded within 100 feet of where overhead power lines cross the fence. 8.7.1.3 Perimeter fences 8.7.1.3.1 Perimeter fences are required to be grounded only where they come into proximity of structures housing explosives or proximity to areas where touch and step potentials could present a threat to personnel. S. 7.1.3.2 Where perimeter fences are required to be grounded. gate posts shall be grounded at maximum 100 foot spacing. 8.7.1,4 Gate posts through which explosives material or personnel will pass shall be grounded in accordance with 8.7.3 8.7.2 Bonding 8.7.2.1 Fences shall be bonded across gates and other discontinuities in accordance with the reguirements of 8.7.3 8.7.2.2 Metallic posts supporting fencing with a nonconductive coating shall utilize a rigid metallic bar. conductive tubing or wire bonded to the support post for interconnection of the fence posts. 8.7.3 Gates and Gate Posts 8.7.3.1 All gate posts shall be provided with a grounding electrode. 8.7.3.2 Class I main-size conductors, buried not less than 38 mm (18 in.>. shall interconnect posts on opposite sides of a gate underground. 8.7.3.3 Gates shall be bonded to their grounded support posts. 8.7.3,4 Nonconductive gate posts supporting horizontal single metallic strands shall have down conductors extending the full height of the nonconductive pole and bonded to each single strand to form a continuous path to ground.Renumber remainder of 8.5 and 8.7 through 8.9 accordingly. Substantiation: According to its location in the chapter, 8.5.5 is a subset of the bonding requirements but it contains not only bonding, but also grounding and conductor requirements for fences. Unlike the other items covered in Clause 8.5.5, the requirements for fences and associated gates are not necessarily associated with a specific structure but often associated with a group of structures. It is recommended that the fence and gate requirements be addressed as an independent section located after the requirements for specific facilities as a new 8.7. The proposed revision also reorganizes presentation of the material and addresses specific Issues such as when the requirements of the section shall be applied to a fence and gate. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleDelete existing 8.5.5 through 8.5.5.3. Renumber 8.5.6 through 8.7.3 as 8.5.5 through 8.6.3.Revise text to read as follows: 8.7 Metallic Fences. 8.7.1 Grounding. 8.7.1.1 Fences shall be grounded where located within 6 ft (1.8 m) of a structure housing explosives by interconnection with the grounding system of the structure. 8.7.1.2 Fences meeting the criteria of 8.7.1.1 shall also be grounded within 30 m (100 ft) on both sides of where overhead power lines cross the fence. 8.7.1.3 Gate posts through which explosives material or personnel will pass shall be grounded in accordance with 8.7.3. 8.7.1.4 Metal single-strand fences with nonconductive posts requiring grounding in accordance with 8.7.1 shall use a main-size conductor extending the full height of the post. 8.7.1.5 The main-size conductor discussed in 8.7.3.4 shall be bonded to each single-strand to form a continuous path to ground. 8.7.2 Bonding. 8.7.2.1 Fences shall be bonded across gates and other discontinuities in accordance with the requirements of 8.7.3. 8.7.2.2 Fencing mesh covered with nonconductive material shall be bonded to posts requiring grounding by 8.7.1.
780-31
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 7808.7.3 Gates and Gate Posts. 8.7.3.1 All gate posts shall be provided with a grounding electrode meeting the requirements of 4.13 using a main-size conductor. 8.7.3.2 Class I main-size conductors, buried not less than 460 mm (18 in.) in depth, shall interconnect posts on opposite sides of a gate. 8.7.3.3 Gates shall be bonded to their grounded support posts using a flexible secondary-size jumper. Renumber subsequent sections. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text with revisions for clarity and consistency of terms. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: BATCHELOR, C.: 8.7.1.5 needs clarification - 8.7.3.4 Does Not Exist,
should be 8.7.1.4?. Is the intent for this Main Conductor to bond every strand in the fence or just the strands that cross at that fence post? 8.7.2.2 consider adding the word conductive in front of fence fabric.
_______________________________________________________________780-67a Log #CP7 Final Action: Accept(8.5.5.1 and 8.5.8)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise 1.9 m to 1.8 m in 8.5.5.1 and 8.5.8.Substantiation: The TC edits for consistency within the document.Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-68 Log #97 Final Action: Accept(8.5.5.2.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value to read as follows:8.5.5.2.1. “buried not less than 38 460 mm (18 in.)”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
(Sequence number 780-69 was not used.) _______________________________________________________________ 780-70 Log #82 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure 8.5.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: On the right side of the Plan view. change “bronze ground clamp” to “grounding electrode”. On the right side of the Section view, delete “copper-clad” from ground rod call out and identify top of inspection housing as grade. Substantiation: Proposed revision shows ground rods are not restricted to copper-clad only and clarifies that burial depths are measured from grade. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Committee Proposal 780-72a (Log #CP9). Committee Statement: The action satisfies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-71 Log #92 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure 8.5.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change the dimension from 0.45m to 460mm.Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Committee Proposal 780-72a (Log #CP9). Committee Statement: The action satisfies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-72 Log #139 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure 8.5.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Simon Larter, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: “Copper-clad gGround rod” and “Bronze gGround clamp”Substantiation: Different grounding materials are available. The notes in the image can be changed to allow this, as opposed to being ostensibly prescriptive. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle See Committee Action on Committee Proposal 780-72a (Log # CP9). Committee Statement: The action satisfies the intent of the submitter.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-72a Log #CP9 Final Action: Accept(Figure 8.5.8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise 8.5.8 to read as follows: 8.5.8 Railroad Tracks. All railroad tracks that are located within 1.9 m (6 ft) of an explosives facility shall be bonded to the lightning protection system ground ring electrode. as shown in Figure 8.5.8.Delete Figure 8.5.8. Substantiation: The TC deletes Figure 8.5.8 and revises Section 8.5.8 accordingly as this figure does not illustrate that which is described in Section 8.5.8. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: MELTON, JR., R.: DC electric powered railways using a third rail for power - typically (-750 to -1000 DCV) - cannot be grounded. (NOTE: It may be that electric railway systems are prohibited in explosive storage areas.) _______________________________________________________________ 780-73 Log #52 Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.6.5.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Josephine Covino, DoD Explosives Safety BoardRecommendation: Add the following section 8.6.5.5 ISO Containers.8.6.5.5.1* ISO container shall be allowed to be used for the storage of small arms in ammo boxes, All-up weapons systems in shipping containers, warheads and rocket motors in shipping containers, metal cased or overpacked bombs, overpacked ammunition and explosives, as well as detonators and explosive actuators in metallic overpacks, with no additional lightning protection system when the following conditions are met. (1) The container is in good condition, all welds and joints are sound. (2) Any damage has been repaired per MIL HDBK-138B. (3) there is a Safe Separation Distance of ?mm (0.6in.) 8.6.5.5.2 ISO containers must have external NFPA 780 compliant Lightning Protection Systems when storing bulk explosives/propellants in non-conductive boxes or drums, rocket motors which have non-metallic cases, non-metal cased or overpacked cartridges and ammunition, or items shipped with open detonators or explosive actuators. 8.6.5.5.3 If any electrical power, communications and/or signal wiring, metallic pipes and/or ducting are installed on an ISO container, LPS as specified in DoD 6055.09-STD and NFPA-780 must be installed, with surge protection as necessary.Substantiation: Proposal for an Addition to NFPA 780, 2011 Edition, Chapter 8, “Protection of Structures Housing Explosive Materials” Introduction Above is a proposed addition to the subject document that defines US Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines for storage of ammunition and explosives (AE) in steel ISO containers. In particular it delineates two storage categories: one list of AE categories that can be safely stored in a steel ISO container without the need for any LPS installed; the second list is those AE categories that must be stored in an ISO container that has NFPA-compliant LPS installed. Discussion: A detailed study of the electromagnetic effects of lightning strikes on steel ISO containers has been performed. The study includes a mathematical analysis of direct and indirect lightning effects, and corroborative electromagnetic transfer impedance testing. Aside from the potential of burn-through due to a direct strike attachment, the report and subsequent private communications between the authors, Dr. John Tobias and Mr. Mitchell Guthrie conclude that the ISO will provide adequate electromagnetic shielding to its contents. Risk levels to the stored AE are equal to or less than that of other authorized storage structures, with the exception of burn-through. The two AE categories delineated below are; 1. AE that are not adversely affected by burn-through effects (no LPS required) and, 2. AE that could be adversely affected by burn-through (LPS required). Based on the study and the categorization presented, the DoD Explosives Safety Board recommends that these guidelines be added to NFPA 780, Chapter 8, specifically for -- and only applicable to -- DoD AE storage in steel ISO Containers. The theoretical calculations and electromagnetic measurements of a typical steel ISO container indicate that it will provide adequate protection for most AE against all lightning threats without the application of any external lightning protection means. The level of protection provided by an ISO container against all lightning threats is consistent with all other DoD-approved lightning protected structures that contain AE with the exception of a small possibility of burn-through. Proposed Addition to NFPA 780: This assumes that the container is in good condition, all welds and joints are sound, and that any damage has been repaired per MIL HDBK-138B.
780-32
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 DoD steel ISO containers can be used to safely store the following AE items, with a minimum Safe Separation Distance of 0.6 inch, without the need for any external LPS: 1. Small arms in ammo boxes. 2. All-up weapon systems in shipping containers. 3. Warheads and rocket motors in shipping containers. 4. Metal cased or overpacked bombs and AE. 5. Detonators and explosive actuators in metallic overpacks. The following AE items must be stored in steel ISO containers that are
protected with an external LPS: 1. Bulk explosives/propellants in non-conductive boxes or drums. 2. Rocket motors which have non-metallic cases. 3. Non-metal cased or overpacked cartridges and ammunition. 4. Items shipped with open detonators or explosive actuators. For personnel safety, a single earth electrode (e.g., a grounding rod) can be
installed at-or-near the door of the container and bonded to it. If any electrical power, communications and/or signal wiring, metallic pipes and/or ducting are installed on an ISO container, LPS as specified in DoD 6055.09-STD and NFPA-780 must be installed, with surge protection as necessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add * to follow 8.6.5. Add text to read as follows: A.8.6.5 ISO containers are sometimes used for temporary storage of various
explosives materials such as small arms in ammo boxes, various weapons system configurations in shipping containers, commercial explosives, fireworks, etc. Since the metal frame of a properly maintained ISO container does not meet the metal thickness requirement for strike termination devices, there could be some burn-through for some percentage of strikes. The metal frame will provide some shielding from lightning electromagnetic effects and the surface area contact of the superstructure on the local earth will provide some impedance to earth. These could provide protection against the effects of lightning for some configurations and sensitivity of contents but not all. In some cases, it could be necessary to provide strike termination devices, additional bonding, and grounding of the ISO container. The decision as to whether the ISO container must be supplemented for the purpose of protection of lightning should be made by the authority having jurisdiction based on an assessment of the risk based on the sensitivity of the contents contained within the container. Committee Statement: The scope of Chapter 8 is provided in Section 8.1.1. Earth-covered magazines are required to comply with the requirements of Section 8.6.1 and metal portable magazines with Section 8.6.5. The proposal seeks to obtain permission to utilize a less robust container than either of these with less stringent requirements. The submitter has not provided adequate technical substantiation. Data has not been provided to support inclusion of this text. The Technical Committee does not necessarily agree with the submitter’s
substantiation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: BATCHELOR, C.: The working group had proposed doing some additional
research that did not occur. The guidance provided needs more work before release. _______________________________________________________________780-74 Log #81 Final Action: Accept(8.7)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Relocate Clause 8.7 between the bonding requirements and requirements for specific facilities. Change the reference in 8.1.4 to 8.6 as shown below and renumber the remainder of the Chapter accordingly. 8.1.4 For those locations where no strike terminations are installed, bonding and SPDs shall be installed as described in Sections 4.18,8.5, and 8.76.8.76 Surge Protection. Surge protection as described in Section 4.18 shall be required for all power, communications, or data conductors entering or exiting a structure housing explosives. 8.76.1 Power and metallic communications lines (including intrusion detection lines) shall enter the facility in shielded cables or metallic conduit run underground for at least 15 m (50 ft) from the structure. 8.76.2 Conduits shall be bonded to the ground ring electrode where they cross.8.76.3 Use of low-pass filters shall be permitted for added protection on critical electronic loads as determined by the AHJ Substantiation: The proposed arrangement of requirements makes the organization of this chapter in agreement with the remaining chapters as well as the document as a whole. The standard and associated chapters begin with general requirements of strike termination, conductors, grounding, bonding, surge protection, and then go on to discussion application of specific facilities. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-75 Log #30 Final Action: Reject(8.9.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Minker, 60th CES/CEOFERecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.9.6 Lightning protection systems on explosives facilities shall be inspected visually at least 7-month 13-month intervals for evidence of corrosion or broken wires or connections. Substantiation: Change in frequency of inspections aligns the inspections in a way to be more productive and coordinate work. Reduction in frequency of inspection aligns NFPA with AFI 32-1065 and the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB). Both the DDESB and the Air Force have decades of experience with explosives storage and the recommended change meets the goals of NFPA and improves cost efficiency without reducing relative safety. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee reaffirms its requirement for a 7-month inspection interval. The proposed period does not purport to DoDM 6055.09 and offers no proof that it improves relative safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-76 Log #31 Final Action: Reject(8.9.6.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Minker, 60th CES/CEOFERecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.9.6.3 SPDs shall be inspected in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions at intervals not exceeding 7 months or when the visual inspection is performed. Substantiation: Change in frequency of inspections aligns the inspections in a way to be more productive and coordinate work. Reduction in frequency of inspection aligns NFPA with AFI 32-1065 and the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB). Both the DDESB and the Air Force have decades of experience with explosives storage and the recommended change meets the goals of NFPA and improves cost efficiency without reducing relative safety. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee reaffirms its requirement for a 7-month inspection interval. The proposed period does not purport to DoDM 6055.09 and offers no proof that it improves relative safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-77 Log #32 Final Action: Reject(8.9.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Minker, 60th CES/CEOFERecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:8.9.7 The lightning protection system shall be tested electrically at least every 14 months 28 months.Substantiation: Change in frequency of inspections aligns the inspections in a way to be more productive and coordinate work. Reduction in frequency of inspection aligns NFPA with AFI 32-1065 and the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB). Both the DDESB and the Air Force have decades of experience with explosives storage and the recommended change meets the goals of NFPA and improves cost efficiency without reducing relative safety. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee reaffirms its requirement for a 14-month inspection interval. The proposed period does not purport to DoDM 6055.09 and offers no proof that it improves relative safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-78 Log #33 Final Action: Reject(8.9.7.7)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John Minker, 60th CES/CEOFERecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 8.9.7.7 SPDs shall be verified operable every 12 months 13-month when the system is tested electrically or after any suspected lightning strike. Substantiation: Change in frequency of inspections aligns the inspections in a way to be more productive and coordinate work. Reduction in frequency of inspection aligns NFPA with AFI 32-1065 and the DoD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB). Both the DDESB and the Air Force have decades of experience with explosives storage and the recommended change meets the goals of NFPA and improves cost efficiency without reducing relative safety. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee reaffirms its requirement for a 12-month inspection interval. The proposed period does not purport to DoDM 6055.09 and offers no proof that it improves relative safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
780-33
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-79 Log #3 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-74 (Log #1) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: William Dean, SPAWAR Systems CenterRecommendation: I highly recommend it be adopted!!! Substantiation: As a senior engineer/manager with Naval Facilities Engineering Command, I was a principal in hiring the University of Florida experts in lighting protection advise best approaches for design of lightning protection systems for airfield lighting systems. One of the main drivers of this effort was conflicting criteria between various government agencies including FAA, Air Force and Navy. The findings of this study and long standing good engineering practice are in concert with this proposed addition to the code. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-80 Log #4 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-77 (Log #2) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: William Dean, SPAWAR Systems CenterRecommendation: I highly recommend it be adopted!!!Substantiation: Please be aware the vast majority of airfield lighting circuits are ungrounded series circuits. Our need is not proper grounding practice, but proper lightning protection practice. This focus is the heart of Mr. Carl Johnson’s proposed addition to NFPA 780. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-81 Log #5 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-78 (Log #3) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in ProposaI 780-77. Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “The TC sees this as bonding and grounding issues rather than lightning protection issues.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in disagreement with the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: Canadian Electrical Code Section 74-002 Special Terminology; “Ground
Counterpoise - a conductor installed over lighting cables for the purpose of interconnecting the system ground electrodes and providing lightning protection for the cables.” FAA AC 150/5370-10C, L-10S-3.6, first sentence; “ If shown on the plans or
included in the job specifications, bare counterpoise copper wire shall be installed for lightning protection of the underground cables.” FAA AC 150/5340-300, 12.5; “The purpose of the counterpoise or lightning
protection system is to provide low resistance preferred paths for the energy of lightning discharges to enter the earth and safely dissipate without causing damage to equipment or injury to personnel.” FAA-SO-STO-71, cable detail note 4; “The #6 bare soft drawn copper
(BSOC) cable counterpoise shall be installed above direct earth buried (OEB) cables to provide 45° cone of protection for all cables installed in the trench.” NAVAIR 51-50AAA-2 Work Package 009 00 states: “Counterpoises are
installed to protect the circuits and equipment from lightning damage.” UFC 03-535-01, Part 12-1.5.1 last sentence states: “See the following
paragraphs for providing a counterpoise system for lightning protection.” An airfield lighting system counterpoise wire by definition is for lightning
protection. In airfield lighting terminology “counterpoise” is synonymous with lightning protection. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-82 Log #6 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-79 (Log #4) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77. Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “The TC sees this as bonding and grounding issues rather than lightning protection issues.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in opposition to the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: An airfield lighting series (current) circuit differs from common multiple-type (voltage) circuitry because the supplying constant current regulator (CCR) does not respond to short circuits and ground faults. Short circuits and ground faults are not recognized as abnormal conditions, but variations in load. As a result a single ground fault does not effect the overall operation of the lighting system, and two or more ground faults results only in the loss of a portion of the lighting system or a reduction in the intensity of lighting fixtures in that portion of the circuit. A short circuit results only in the loss of a portion of the lighting system or a reduction in the intensity of lighting fixtures in that portion of the circuit bypassed by the short circuit. Open circuits, however are seen as abnormal. The role of the CCR is to adjust output voltage in order to maintain a constant current as loads change. Opening the circuit presents a load of infinite impedance, and the CCR will attempt to compensate by increasing its output voltage. Damage to electrical equipment and hazards to personnel can occur where the system is not automatically turned off by the CCR’s protective devices. These protective devices do not require bonding or grounding to function properly. The recommended interconnection of all metallic components in the airfield lighting system is not for “bonding and grounding,” as defined in the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, as the bonding and grounding have no lighting circuit related electrical functions. The purpose of the interconnection of all metallic components is compliance with NFPA 780 4.14 and NFPA 780 Annex C requirements to achieve the greatest degree of lightning protection possible. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-83 Log #7 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-80 (Log #5) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77.Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “The proposal is beyond the scope of NFPA 780. The submitter is referred to 1.1.1.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in disagreement with the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: NFPA 780-1.2 Purpose, states “The purpose of this standard shall be to provide for the safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from exposure to lightning.” The proposed Chapter 9 describes the lightning protection system necessary to protect airfield lighting systems and thereby the safeguarding of persons and property traveling by aircraft. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-84 Log #8 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-81 (Log #6) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77. Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “The proposal is beyond the scope of NFPA 780. The submitter is referred to 1.1.1.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in disagreement with the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: NFPA 780·3.3.19 defines a lightning protection system as : “A complete system of strike termination devices, conductors (which could include conductive structural members), grounding electrodes, interconnecting conductors, surge protective devices and other connectors and fittings required to complete the system.”
780-34
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 The airfield signs, lights and other metallic items are the strike termination devices. Some NAVAIDs and other equipment outside the “aircraft safety area” are equipped with standard air terminals and down conductors. The interconnecting counterpoise conductors and other metallic items in contact with the earth perform as the down conductors and grounding electrodes. All metallic items are interconnected to prevent side flash. The side flash
distance in the earth can be up to 18 feet, three times the side flash distance in air. The signs, elevated fixtures and in pavement fixtures are the highest fixed points on an airfield. For airfield lighting lightning protection systems the discharge medium for
the lightning attachment can be the air or the earth. The Proposed Chapter 9 provides a complete lighting protection system as
described in NFPA 780 Chapter 4. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-85 Log #9 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-82 (Log #7) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: Add new item after 1.1.1(5): (6) Lightning Protection for Airfield Lighting Circuits
Substantiation: We are in disagreement with the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: An airfield lighting system complies with the definition of an “ordinary
structure” defined in NFPA 780-4.1.1. An airfield lighting system also complies with Merriam Webster’s definition of a structure -1: the action of building: construction: 2 a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization <a rigid totalitarian structure. While not specifically included in 1.1.1 airfield lighting will fall within the
general definition of a structure as provided by NFPA and Merriam Webster. The lightning protection system described in the proposed Chapter 9 is a traditional Franklin based lightning protection system providing a low resistance preferred path for the energy of lightning discharges to enter the earth and safely dissipate without causing damage to equipment or injury to personnel. The lightning protection of airfield lighting systems is no more unique or different from Chapter 4 requirements than the applications described in Chapters 5 through 8. Airfield lighting systems are not specifically excluded in 1.1.2 or 1.1.3. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Proposal 780-4a (Log #CP11). The change satisfies the submitter’s intent. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-86 Log #10 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-83 (Log #8) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 78O-77. The TC rejected the proposal stating “The proposal is beyond the scope of NFPA 780. The submitter is referred to 1.1.1.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. Change Chapter 9 to Annex P. Add new Annex P:
ANNEX P Lightning Protection for Airfield Lighting CircuitsSubstantiation: We are in disagreement with the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: While not specifically included in NFPA 780-1.1.1 the lightning protection system described in ProposaI 780-77 is a traditional Franklin based lightning protection system providing a low resistance preferred path for the energy of lightning discharges to enter the earth and safely dissipate without causing damage to equipment or injury to personnel. Annex I provides “Protection for Parked Aircraft”. Subsequently, the logical progression is to add a chapter/annex to protect the lighting systems that allow the aircraft to operate at night or in poor weather. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-87 Log #11 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-84 (Log #9) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77. The TC rejected the proposal stating “The TC sees this as bonding and grounding issues rather than lightning protection issues.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. Substantiation: The airfield signs, lights and other metallic items at or above the earth’s surface are the strike attachment points. The signs, elevated fixtures and inpavement fixtures are the highest fixed points on the airfield. These metallic items, by virtue of being buried in the earth, are grounded as defined by the NEC. However, only with the interconnection of these metallic items, by a properly sized conductor, can a complete lightning protection system be obtained. One of the reasons all metallic items are interconnected is to prevent side flash. The side flash distance in the earth can be up to 18 feet, three times the side flash distance in air. Traditional bonding and grounding are not necessary to the safe electrical operation of a series lighting circuit. The bonding and grounding are necessary to prevent side flash. The lightning discharge path for airfield lighting lightning protection systems can be through the air or the earth. The interconnecting counterpoise conductors and other metallic items in contact with the earth perform as the down conductors and grounding electrodes. The counterpoise conductor also functions to reduce the potential difference between metallic items to prevent a side flash. The Proposed Chapter 9 provides a complete lighting protection system in absolute agreement with the physics and principles defined in NFPA 780 Chapter 4. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-88 Log #12 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-85 (Log #10) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77. Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “There are four different standards that currently exist on this subject. The TC believes it would be improper to address this subject without coordination with other organizations such as FAA, NAVAIR, and Air Force program offices.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in disagreement with the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: There are many more than four organizations with standards on lightning protection for airfield lighting and other underground circuits. However, the standards all vary in presentation, methods and effectiveness of protection. A quote from “The Basis of Conventional Lightning Protection Technology” is appropriate in this context: “Recognizing the need for standardization to defeat substandard installations and the need to codify best practice for the protection of the public, our predecessors who were the eminent lightning protection experts of their day, enacted specifications............... A situation where, in today’s language, authorities having jurisdiction and specifying engineers have little or no recourse. The end result will be a lack of lightning protection, resulting in a rise in lightning damage and possible loss of life or substandard protection to the same effect.” We are today at the same crossroads, without a standard such as NFPA 780 airfield lighting lightning protection is subject to a multitude of various codes whose implementation or lack thereof is subject to the funding agency. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-89 Log #13 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-75 (Log #11) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77.
780-35
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “There are four different standards that currently exist on this subject. The TC believes it would be Improper to address this subject without coordination with other organizations such as FAA, NAVAIR, and Air Force program offices.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in disagreement with
the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: There are many more than four organizations with standards on lightning
protection for airfield lighting and other underground circuits. However, the standards all vary in presentation, methods and effectiveness of protection. We are at a defining moment, without a standard such as NFPA 780 airfield
lighting lightning protection is subject to a vast array of lightning protection criteria whose performance and implementation is subject to the public’s interpretation. The proposed Chapter 9 is based upon solid and proven Franklin based
conventional lightning protection techniques. The foundation for the proposed Chapter 9 is “Engineering Analysis of Airfield Lighting System Lightning Protection - Final Report.” The primary investigator of the report is Dr. Rakov a member of the TC. The TC received comments on the proposal from the FAA prior its meeting
in San Antonio. The U.S. Navy commissioned the “Engineering Analysis of Airfield Lighting System Lightning Protection - Final Report” and has implemented the reports recommendations in the Navy’s airfield lighting projects. The DOD, U.S. Army, DOE, U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy are all represented on the TC. The Proposed Chapter 9 should be incorporated into NFPA 780. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-90 Log #14 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-86 (Log #12) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Carl S. Johnson, II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: We continue to support new Chapter 9 as contained in Proposal 780-77. Substantiation: The TC rejected the proposal stating “There are four different standards that currently exist on this subject. The TC believes it would be improper to address this subject without coordination with other organizations such as FAA, NAVAIR, and Air Force program offices.” We respectfully disagree with the TC’s findings. We are in disagreement with
the TC’s conclusions based upon the following: There are many more than four organizations with standards on lightning
protection for airfield lighting and other underground circuits. However, the standards all vary in presentation, methods and effectiveness of protection. Military airfield lighting lightning protection systems are prescribed by the
respective branch of service criteria and unique exceptions. FAA owned facilities address lightning protection in FAA “Standards”. The FAA Advisory Circulars are mandatory requirements for Part 139 Air Carrier airport owned lighting systems which are funded by AlP and PFC funding sources. Privately owned airports and general aviation airports are not required to comply with FAA Advisory Circulars. The airfield lighting lightning protection standards and codes in use vary in
their effectiveness and proper application of proven Franklin methods. AC 150/5340-30 requires the fixtures to be isolated (5 feet max) from the counterpoise. The “Engineering Analysis of Airfield Lighting System Lightning Protection - Final Report,” demonstrates that for isolation to be effective a distance of at least 18 feet in soil is necessary. UFC 3-535-01 states to not connect the counterpoise to the lighting vault power grounding system. This statement is in direct conflict with NFPA 70-250.106 and NFPA 780-4.14. A single consensus airfield lighting lightning protection standard is a
necessity for the safeguarding of persons and property from the hazards arising from exposure to lightning and should be instituted to replace the overabundance of ineffective and conflicting standards. The breadth and depth of the NFPA 780 Technical Committee’s experience is
unmatched. The TC is the consummate expert on lightning protection and therefore the obvious source for an airfield lighting lightning protection standard. The Proposed Chapter 9 should be incorporated into the next edition of NFPA 780. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-91 Log #15 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-87 (Log #13) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Vladimir A. Rakov, University of FloridaRecommendation: Accept Proposal 780-77.Substantiation: The NFPA Technical Committee’s action was to “Reject” proposal 780-77 (Log #3). The committee stated the following reasons for rejecting the proposal: 1. “The TC sees this as bonding and grounding issues rather than lightning protection issues.” 2. “The proposal is beyond the scope of NFPA 780. The submitter is referred to 1.1.1.” 3. “There are four different standards that currently exist on this subject. The TC believes it would be improper to address this subject without coordination with other organizations such as FAA, NAVAIR and Air Force program offices.” These reasons do not appear valid to me, as explained in the item-by-item comments below. 1. Buried objects, such as underground cables, are usually protected against lightning by means of a counterpoise (and sometimes also by vertical ground rods connected to the counterpoise). The counterpoise is a bare horizontal conductor usually placed above the cable, and it serves to intercept the lightning current, similar to ground wires placed above phase conductors of overhead power lines. However, as opposed to the overhead ground wire, the counterpoise also plays the role of a grounding electrode whose function is to dissipate lightning current in the soil. Lightning termination on underground cables not protected by the counterpoise is illustrated in Fig. 1. Thus, the counterpoise combines the functions of lightning interceptor and grounding electrode, as opposed to being just the “bonding and grounding issues”. 2. Section 1.1 (Scope) of NFPA 780 is updated as needed. For example, subsection 1.1.2 proposed for the 2011 Edition differs from that in the 2008 Edition. Further, the NFPA Technical Committee has accepted in principle a new Chapter on Protection for Wind Turbines (780-78 Log #87), which is clearly outside the current scope of NFPA 780 and even explicitly excluded from this scope, because wind turbines are “electric generating systems”. 3. If the TC feels that an input from other organizations is needed, why not request that input instead of rejecting the proposal? Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-92 Log #16 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-88 (Log #44) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Dean Ralphs, Elcon Associates, Inc.Recommendation: Accept proposal 780-77.Substantiation: In its rejection of the proposal, one of the TC’s statements was, “The TC sees this as bonding and grounding issues rather than lightning protection issues.” Bonding and grounding is an essential and integral part of effective lightning protection. The requirements for bonding and grounding are pervasive throughout NFPA 780. The proposal is to apply proven grounding and bonding practices to a currently unaddressed condition for the purposes of lightning protection. There is nothing in this that is incompatible with the intent of NFPA 780. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-93 Log #17 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-89 (Log #45) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Dean Ralphs, Elcon Associates, Inc.Recommendation: Accept proposal 780-77.Substantiation: In its rejection of the proposal, one of the TC’s statements was, “The proposal is beyond the scope of NFPA 780. The submitter is referred to 1.1.1.” Section 1.1.1 does not exclude airfield lighting equipment. Section 1.2 states that the purpose of NFPA 780 is to safeguard persons and property. Annex F details the methodology of lightning protection for trees (for informational
780-36
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780purposes only). It is incomprehensible that the protection of trees is within the purview of NFPA 780, but that airfield lighting systems which may cost over a million dollars at a large airport and are an essential life-safety system are not within the scope of NFPA 780. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-94 Log #18 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-90 (Log #46) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Dean Ralphs, Elcon Associates, Inc.Recommendation: Accept proposal 780-77.Substantiation: In its rejection of the proposal, one of the TC’s statements was, “There are four different standards that currently exist on this subject. The TC believes it would be improper to address this subject without coordination with other organizations such as FAA, NAVAIR and Air Force program offices.” Other agencies have produced their own airfield lighting lightning protection
requirements in part because there is no. standard issued by a higher authority that they could defer to. It is appropriate that NFPA 780 become that standard. Ideally, development of the NFPA 780 requirements for airfield lighting systems would be a collaborative process with all stakeholders. Unfortunately, there is not the political will to force all the players to the table to hash this out. The existing standards are a mish-mash of incompatible requirements, which
change periodically and some of which are not in keeping with traditional methods with demonstrated effectiveness. Implementation of these inappropriate methodologies places airfield lighting systems and the flying public at risk. Leadership on this issue from the NFPA is needed now. The FAA installation requirements for airfield lighting lightning protection
apply to airports constructed or maintained with FAA funds. There are a large number of private airfields in the U.S. that are built and maintained per whatever standards the owner and designer and any local inspector feel are appropriate. The proposed Chapter 9 in NFPA 780 would fill a void in providing authoritative guidance for private airfields. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-95 Log #19 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-91 (Log #49) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Julie Villanueva, PMA ConsultantsRecommendation: Accept the proposal.Substantiation: Being an Owner Authorize Representative (OAR) on several runway projects at the Orlando International Airport (MCO) I disagree with the TC comment that “the hazard identified is not a lightning protection issue but a bonding and grounding issue.” It is the potential damage that occurs from lightning strikes that the Orlando International Airport Authorities understands and has experienced in the past and therefore includes in their design drawings of airfield construction projects, a lightning protection counterpoise system for all of their runway and taxiway lights installations. To revise the existing NFPA 780 to include lightning protection for airfield lighting would be the natural outcome of proven lightning protection methods and consolidating all of the existing standards on lightning protection of airfield lighting would bring uniformity of installation to airfield construction projects. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-96 Log #20 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-92 (Log #50) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Jeff Pace, Greater Orlando Aviation AuthorityRecommendation: I would like to enter my support for the proposed Chapter 9 titled Lightning Protection for Airfield Lighting Circuits. Substantiation: The lightning protection (Counterpoise) system as outlined in chapter 9 has been installed at Orlando International Airport and Orlando Executive Airport for many years with excellent results. Central Florida has been labeled by many as the Lightning Capital of the World with good reason.
The afternoon thunderstorms bring thousands of lightning strikes to our area almost daily. With any changes to our lightning protection system we would suffer many more outages, greater equipment damage, and subject our maintenance personnel to greater electrical hazards. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-97 Log #21 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-93 (Log #51) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Frank Barczak, Greater Orlando Aviation AuthorityRecommendation: We unconditionally support and recommend the incorporation of the new proposed Chapter 9 into NFPA 780. Substantiation: Pinecastle Army Airfield was founded in 1942. The base was renamed McCoy Air Force Base on May 7, 1958. In 1974, McCoy Air Force Base (MCO) was closed and the deed was transferred to the City of Orlando. In 1975, The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) was created by a special legislative act. In 1976, the airport was renamed Orlando International Airport. Orlando, Florida is located in Central Florida. When reviewing historical satellite views of strike frequencies, the Central Florida area is blanketed with a significant amount of lightening. Some have even said that we live in the lightning capital of the United States. GOAA received a 1940 to 1950 vintage military airfield lighting system. Lightning damage to the airfield lighting systems was a significant maintenance problem. A single lightning strike would damage or destroy from 20 to 100+ airfield lighting fixtures depending upon the severity of the strike. During the design of the new third runway (R/W 17-35) in 1987, the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority and the design team research FAA design standards, military design standards, and utility design standards to implement the best lightning protection system available. The design included a copper counterpoise conductor routed over the center of each underground duct and conduit. The counterpoise was connected to each base can and ground rods were installed at 500 ft maximum intervals. The counterpoise was also connected to the base can rebar cages, manholes and all metallic elements within the airfield lighting system. Each ground rod was designed to have an earth resistance not to exceed 5 ohms. The counterpoise was connected to the airfield lighting vault’s earth electrode system. The airfield lighting vault’s lightning protection system was designed in accordance with NFPA 780. Each CCR was specified with input and output lightning protection. Transient voltage surge suppression (TVSS) was provided for all sensitive or critical loads. The goal was to provide a preferred path for lightning currents, achieve minimum earth impedance to a lightning strike, equipotential bonding and to provide maximum reliability for the airfield lighting system. Runway 17-35 was opened in 1989. While exact quantities of items damaged by lightning are not kept, GOAA Maintenance soon noticed the Third Runway was not suffering the severity of lightning damage of either of the two older military runways. During the 1990’s, the two existing military runways two runways were rehabilitated. Experience dictated that the rehabilitation of the two runways include the same lightning protection measures incorporated for the Third Runway. Again, GOAA Maintenance noticed a significant decrease in the amount of damage caused by lightning. In the year 2000, design of the fourth runway (R/W 171.-35R) was started. Again, the design included the proven lightning protection measures, similar to those recommended in NFPA 780-77. The 4th runway opened to air carrier traffic on December 25, 2003. During the past five years, the 4th runway at Orlando International Airport has consistently and reliably performed after severe thunderstorms, while surrounding electrical systems such at street lighting, and structures/systems not protected against lightning suffered damage. The consistent and reliable performance of the airfield lighting systems at Orlando International Airport is a testimonial to proper maintenance and the lightning protection criteria proposed in the new NFPA 780 Chapter 9 (Proposal 780-77). Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-98 Log #22 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-76 (Log #53) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Seward Ford, Visual Aids Services Inc.Recommendation: Accept Proposal 780-77.
780-37
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Substantiation: I have been involved with airport lighting for 45 years. The isolated constant current series circuit continues to be the most reliable power distribution system available. The incandescent lamp continues to be the major light source used on the series circuit. The FAA requires a minimum fixture candela output for each fixture application. A small percentage of current reduction results in a large reduction in fixture candela output. Multiple current leakages to ground caused by lightning transients resulting in either high resistance or low resistance paths will result in a non serviceable lighting system. The proposed bonding method for lightning protection provides the best overall lighting system protection against lightning. Our goal is to maintain the same current through each lamp filament. To do this we must have a lighting protection method that protects the integrity of the whole circuit system. This proposal accomplishes this requirement for this unique system design. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-99 Log #23 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New) )_______________________________________________________________Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-94 (Log #55) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: Peter Robson, Naval Facilities Engineering CommandRecommendation: Accept Proposal 780-77.Substantiation: The NFPA Technical Committee’s action was to “Reject’ the proposal for application and design requirements for air field lightning protection. The committee stated the following reasons for rejecting the proposal: 1. ‘’The TC sees this as bonding and grounding issues rather than lightning
protection issues.” 2. ‘’The proposal is beyond the scope of NFPA 780. The submitter is referred
to 1.1.1.” 3. ‘’There are four different standards that currently exist on this subject. The
TC believes it would be improper to address this subject without coordination with other organizations such as FAA, NAVAIR and Air Force program offices.” The commenter agrees this is (in part) a bonding and grounding issue.
However, the solution proposed provides an integrated solution that accounts for bonding, grounding, and lightning protection. This philosophy is consistent with 4.14.1.1 and 4.19 of NFPA 780 requirements which integrates bonding, grounding, flashover, side flash, and lightning protection. The commenter agrees that this proposal is not within the scope as strictly
defined by 1.1.1. However, since this is a controversial and complicated issue, this is an opportunity to add a new category, such as “air field lighting systems” Commenter agrees there are many different standards indicated. However, many of these standards have little or no public domain published engineering, scientific, and/or statistical basis for supporting their respective topology. For example, another alternative may be the integration of an approved shielded cable/connector solution. Shielded cable solutions used on underground power cables, CATV cables, and telecommunications cables have demonstrated a reliable underground design solution. This may be part of this standard. Considering the absence of substantial cable protection (metallic conduits) used in air field lighting systems, viable application and design criteria must be established to ensure air field lighting systems are properly protected from all natural and man made anomalies, including side flash, flashover, short circuit, touch voltage, and potential equalization. The proposal is supported by a study conducted by the University of Florida.
Attempts to coordinate this issue amongst the 000 were made. These attempts did not result in consensus. NFPA can provide guidance on this subject, because it is obviously needed. NFPA can use it experience build consensus within the engineering community, air field community and air field lighting systems equipment supplier community based on analysis of known application, engineering, scientific and statistical data. Finally, the proposal identified as part of the new Chapter 9 submission is
consistent with NFPA 780 concepts. This includes the principle of protection of life and property, intercepting, conducting, and dissipating the lightning strike discharge. This is an opportunity for the organization to provide leadership, coordination, application and installation guidance for a controversial issue. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-100 Log #24 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-95 (Log #56) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: David Rainey, Navaid Lighting Associates, Inc.Recommendation: I am in support of the inclusion of the new chapter on Lightning Protection for Airfield Lighting Circuits. Substantiation: I am a licensed master electrician and have been involved in the design, installation and maintenance of airfield lighting systems for over 30 years. The inclusion of this wording in the document is important because of the special circumstances and design requirements for ungrounded series lighting circuits as stated in the new chapter. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-101 Log #25 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 9 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Note: This proposal appeared as Comment 780-96 (Log #76) which was held from the Annual 2010 ROC on Proposal 780-77.Submitter: James A. Kriss, Pine Hill AirportRecommendation: Support for inclusion of proposal NFPA 780-77.Substantiation: I am writing in response to the request for comments on the pending review of NFPA 780. As an airport owner/operator in Western New York, and an airport consultant nationwide, we believe it is essential that the NFPA document be a recognized source of issues on airport lighting lightning protection. Although many documents refer generally to the NEC, the NFPA is widely regarded as the bible of hangar development at airports. In addition, it allows for a single reference document to accommodate all of the requirements for hangar development at airports. There is always a concern for lightning impacts on airport lighting systems, hangars and facility buildings, including sophisticated and delicate electronic systems. Without requiring multiple references in various construction and development bidding documents, we recommend that the NFPA continue to serve as the source of lightning protection (and potential fires resulting there from) and that the Technical Committee reconsider the requirements to include airfield lighting lightning protection as a supplemental chapter in NFPA 780. It will enable us in the airport development and management business to cite the overall requirements for the NFPA as the single source document for all matters pertaining to fire protection, including lightning protection and grounding, for our hangar and airfield lighting programs. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee realizes that this proposal was placed on hold in the last cycle. The Technical Committee has addressed this subject. See action and statement on Proposal 780-108. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-102 Log #111 Final Action: Accept in Principle(10.4.1.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John M. Tobias, US Army Communications Electronics CommandRecommendation: Add text to read as follows::
in
where: A = cross-sectional area, in.2
ρ = resistivity in Ω-in. Cp = specific heat capacity in BTU/lbm°F D = density in lbm/in.2
MP = melting point in degrees FahrenheitSubstantiation: Equivalent units provided in accordance with Manual of Style and NFPA 780 Editorial Task Group minutes, 4/11/2011.
780-38
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 10.4.1.3* A conducting fitting constructed of metal other than copper or
aluminum that neither contains electrical wiring nor connects conductors containing electrical wiring shall be permitted to be used as a main conductor if it has at least the cross-sectional area given by one of the following formulas:
in
Keep existing metric equation. Revise A in the existing equation to read as follows: A = cross-sectional area, mm2
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s new equation and revises the body of the text and A in the existing equation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-103 Log #112 Final Action: Accept in Principle(10.4.2.3)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Tobias, US Army Communications Electronics CommandRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:
in
where: A = cross-sectional area, in.2
ρ = resistivity in Ω-in. Cp = specific heat capacity in BTU/lbm°F
D = density in lbm/in.2
MP = melting point in degrees FahrenheitSubstantiation: Equivalent units provided in accordance with Manual of Style and NFPA 780 Editorial Task Group minutes, 4/11/2011. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: 10.4.2.3* Aconducting fitting constructed of metal other than copper or
aluminum that neither contains electrical wiring nor connects conductors containing electrical wiring shall be permitted to be used as a bonding conductor if it meets the minimum cross-sectional area given by one of the following formulas:
in
Add existing metric equation here.
Revise A to read as follows: A = cross-sectional area, mm2
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and revises the body of the text and A in the existing equation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-104 Log #102 Final Action: Accept(10.4.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value as follows:10.4.3.1 “at least 2 1.8 m (6 ft) above the waterline,”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-105 Log #103 Final Action: Accept(10.4.4.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change the value as follows: 10.4.4.6 “not less than 1.63 mm (0.064 in.)” Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-106 Log #84 Final Action: Accept(10.5.3.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value to read as follows:10.5.3.1. “at least 5 4.8 mm (3/16in.),”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-107 Log #85 Final Action: Accept(10.5.5.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value to read as follows: 10.5.5.1. “conductor within 200 203 mm (8 in.) of a grounding electrode.”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: GUTHRIE, M.: This change is not necessary because action taken on 780-1a approves SI units as equivalent values and +++the equivalent values shall be approximate. _______________________________________________________________ 780-108 Log #36 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter 11 (New))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Carl S. Johnson II, AVCON, Inc.Recommendation: Add new Section 1.1.1(6) to the document scope as follows: 1.1.1(6) Airfield lighting circuits
Add new Chapter 11 mandatory text and Annex A material as follows: Chapter 11 Protection for Airfield Lighting Circuits 11.1 General. 11.1.1* This chapter shall provide the minimum requirements for the installation of a lightning protection system for airfield lighting systems and components. 11.1.2* Lightning protection systems for airfield lighting shall be installed entirely underground in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 11.2 Application. 11.2.1* The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall be a separate and unique lightning protection system specifically suited for use with series (current driven) airfield lighting circuits. 11.2.2* The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall also provide lightning protection for parallel (voltage powered) circuits, control circuits, and monitoring circuits. 11.2.3 To reduce the potential for flashover and any inductive/capacitive coupling arising from a lightning strike, the counterpoise conductor shall be a separate conductor, and not be located within any raceway used for power, communications, control or signal conductors. 11.2.4 The requirements of 4.2 Materials, 4.3 Corrosion Protection, 4.4 Mechanical Damage or Displacement, 4.9.5 Conductor Bends, 4.13 Grounding Electrodes and 4.14 Common Grounding shall also apply, unless they conflict with this chapter.
780-39
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 11.2.5* An airfield lighting lightning protection system shall be permitted to be omitted when the average lightning flash density is 2 or less flashes per square kilometer per year and when permitted by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). 11.3 Purpose. 11.3.1 The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall provide protection for airfield lighting systems from energy arising from lightning strikes. 11.3.2* The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall provide a path for dissipation of lightning discharge energy to earth minimizing damage to equipment, raceway or cables and electrical shock to personnel. 11.4 Installation of Airfield Lighting Counterpoise System. 11.4.1* Counterpoise Conductor. The counterpoise conductor shall be a bare, annealed or soft drawn, solid copper conductor not smaller than 6 AWG. 11.4.1.1 If bare copper counterpoise conductors are adversely affected by the installed environment, electrically conductive materials (Example; tinned copper) as permitted by the AHJ shall be utilized. 11.4.1.2 Electrically conductive materials shall possess the same performance, qualities and characteristics as the copper counterpoise conductor. 11.4.2 Counterpoise Conductor Location. The counterpoise conductor shall be installed in accordance with 11.4.2.1 through 11.4.2.7. 11.4.2.1 The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to grounding electrodes at intervals not exceeding 150 m (500 ft). 11.4.2.2 The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to grounding electrodes located on each side of a raceway crossing under the airfield pavement. 11.4.2.3 The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall connect to the airfield lighting vault or other airfield lighting circuit power source grounding electrode system. 11.4.2.4* Surge arresters shall be permitted to be installed in the airfield lighting circuit. 11.4.2.5 Reinforcing steel, when used as part of the light base installation, shall be bonded to the metallic light base using a 6 AWG bare solid copper conductor. 11.4.2.6* For edge light fixtures installed in turf (stabilized soils) and for raceways or cables adjacent to the full strength pavement edge, the counterpoise conductor shall either be installed halfway between the pavement edge and the light base, mounting stake, raceway or cable as shown in Figure 11.4.2.6 or in accordance with 11.4.2.7. Note: Light base ground rod can be installed either through the bottom of the light base or exterior to the light base.
780-40
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 11.4.2.6.1 The counterpoise conductor shall be installed 203 mm (8 in.) minimum below grade. 11.4.2.6.2* Each light base or mounting stake shall be provided with a grounding electrode. 11.4.2.6.2.1 When a metallic light base is used, the grounding electrode shall be bonded to the metallic light base or mounting stake with a 6 AWG bare, annealed or soft drawn, solid copper conductor. 11.4.2.6.2.2 When a nonmetallic light base is used, the grounding electrode shall be bonded to the metallic light fixture or metallic base plate with a 6 AWG bare, annealed or soft drawn, solid copper conductor. 11.4.2.7 For raceways installed under pavement, for raceways and cables not installed adjacent to the full strength pavement edge, for fixtures installed in full strength pavement and shoulder pavement and for optional method of edge lights installed in turf (stabilized soils) and for raceways or cables adjacent to the full strength pavement edge, the counterpoise conductor shall be centered over the raceway or cable to be protected as described in this subsection and as shown in Figure 11.4.2.7.
11.4.2.7.1 The counterpoise conductor shall be installed no less than 203 mm (8 in.) above the raceway or cable to be protected, except as permitted in 11.4.2.7.2. 11.4.2.7.2* The minimum counterpoise conductor height above the raceway or cable to be protected shall be permitted to be adjusted subject to coordination with the airfield lighting and pavement designs. 11.4.2.7.3 The counterpoise conductor shall be installed no more than 305 mm (12 in.) above the raceway or cable to be protected. 11.4.2.7.4 The counterpoise conductor height above the protected raceway(s) or cable(s) shall be calculated to ensure the raceway or cable is within a 45 degree area of protection. 11.4.2.7.5* The area of protection shall be determined only by the 45 degree triangular prism area of protection method. 11.4.2.7.6 The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to each metallic light base, mounting stake and metallic airfield lighting component. 11.4.2.7.7* All metallic airfield lighting components in the field circuit on the output side of the constant current regulator (CCR) or other power source shall be bonded to the airfield lighting counterpoise system. 11.4.3 Multiple Raceways or Cables in a Common Formation. 11.4.3.1* Multiple raceways or cables in a common formation or assembly wider than the area of protection provided by a single counterpoise conductor shall be provided with multiple counterpoise conductors.
780-41
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 11.4.3.2* As shown in Figure 11.4.3.2, the number of counterpoise conductors required shall be determined by the height of the counterpoise conductors over the raceways or cables being protected, while maintaining the 45 degree area of protection.
11.4.3.3 Where multiple counterpoise conductors are used they shall be interconnected longitudinally at intervals not exceeding 90 m (300 ft) as shown in Figure 11.4.3.3.
780-42
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 11.4.4 Counterpoise Conductor Interconnections. 11.4.4.1 Where raceways or cables cross, the counterpoise conductors shall be interconnected. 11.4.4.2* Where an existing airfield lighting system is being extended or modified, the new counterpoise conductors shall be interconnected to existing counterpoise conductors at each intersection of the new and existing airfield lighting counterpoise systems. 11.4.5 Grounding Electrodes. 11.4.5.1* The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to grounding electrodes in accordance with 11.4.2.1. 11.4.5.2* Grounding electrodes shall comply with the requirements of 4.13.2 Ground Rods, 4.13.5 Radials, 4.13.6 Plate Electrode or Ground Plate Electrode, 4.13.7 Combinations, and 4.13.8 Grounding Electrode Selection Criteria, unless they conflict with this chapter. 11.4.5.3 Ground rods shall not be less than 15.9 mm (5/8 in.) in diameter and 2.4 m (8 ft) long. 11.4.5.4 The top of the installed ground rod shall be 152 mm (6 in.) minimum below grade. 11.4.6 Bonding Jumpers. A 6 AWG stranded copper green insulated bonding jumper shall be installed between the following items: (1) In-pavement airfield lighting fixture and the metallic light base (2) Elevated fixture base plate and metallic light base (3) Surge arrestors and metallic light base 11.4.6.1 A bonding jumper shall be installed between the metallic frame of the airfield lighting sign(s) or other system components that are not listed in 11.4.6 and its respective metallic light base. 11.4.6.2 Bonding jumper length shall permit direct removal and maintenance of the airfield lighting component without damage to or disconnection of the bonding jumper and not interfere with the intended operation of a frangible coupling. 11.4.6.3 Copper conductors and copper braids of equal current carrying capacity shall be permitted as an alternative to the 6 AWG bonding jumper as permitted by the AHJ. 11.4.6.4 Frangible couplings shall be conductive. 11.4.6.5* All non-current-carrying electrically conductive materials having the potential to become energized by a lightning induced surge shall be bonded together and bonded to the airfield lighting counterpoise system. 11.4.7* Metallic Light Base Grounding. 11.4.7.1 New metallic light bases shall be provided with ground straps for internal and external grounding connections. 11.4.7.2 For existing metallic light bases without ground straps, the installation of ground straps shall not interfere with the structural integrity of the light base. 11.4.8 Connection Requirements. 11.4.8.1* All counterpoise conductor connectors, grounding connectors and bonding connectors shall be listed with relevant standards.
11.4.8.2 Counterpoise conductor connectors shall be listed for direct earth burial and concrete encasement. 11.4.8.3* Bimetallic connectors and fittings shall comply with 11.4.8.3.1 through 11.4.8.3.4. 11.4.8.3.1 Bimetallic connectors and fittings shall be used for splicing or bonding dissimilar metals. 11.4.8.3.2 Conductive oxide inhibitors shall be designed for the specific application and metals used in the connection. 11.4.8.3.3 Conductive oxide inhibitors shall be applied to the mating surfaces of all connections involving dissimilar metals. 11.4.8.3.4 Where corrosion-protective paint or coatings are removed, the electrical connection shall have corrosion protection equal to the original coating. 11.4.8.4 Listed equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions included as part of the listing. 11.4.8.5* The metallic light base ground strap with ground clamp shall be used for connection of the counterpoise conductor to the light base. 11.4.8.6* Grounding, bonding and counterpoise conductor connections not included in 11.4.8.1 through 11.4.8.5 shall be made by exothermic weld or irreversible crimp method. 11.4.9 Bend Radius. The counterpoise conductor radius of bend shall not be less than 203 mm (8 in.), nor form an included (inside) angle of less than 90 degrees as shown in Figure 4.9.5. ANNEX A A.11.1.1 This chapter pertains to lightning protection of airfield lighting systems. These systems are installed underground in both paved (full strength pavement and shoulder pavement) and unpaved areas. The protected components include in-pavement fixtures, elevated fixtures, airfield signs, underground power, communications systems, control and signal circuits and components of runway, taxiway and apron lighting systems. These systems are installed on the portions of an airport that encompass the approach, departure, landing, takeoff, taxiing, and parking areas for aircraft and include runways, taxiways, and other parts of an airport used for taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, loading ramps and parking areas exclusive of building-mounted helipads, approach light structures and antennas. This chapter could apply to other areas with airfield lighting systems. Two generally accepted methods are available for providing lightning protection for airfield lighting circuits. The two methods are ISOLATION and EQUIPOTENTIAL. The isolation method is described in 11.4.2.6 and is shown in Figure A.11.1.1(a). The equipotential method is described in 11.4.2.7 and is shown in Figure A.11.1.1(b). The two methods should not be employed on a single circuit. The designer should select the installation method based upon sound engineering practices and the success of the selected method in previous installations.
780-43
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
A.11.1.2 Above ground items such as approach light masts could be protected in accordance with Chapter 4. A.11.2.1 A typical airfield lighting series (current driven) circuit is powered by a constant current regulator (CCR) or equivalent power supply. Current is the same at all points in the series circuit. The output voltage is directly proportional to the load and output current step. The CCR output (primary circuit) is normally ungrounded. The CCR’s or equivalent power supply’s internal overcurrent protection monitors the actual output current. Series airfield lighting circuit overcurrent protection does not rely upon a low impedance return path or ground connection for proper operation. The installation of an equipotential airfield lighting counterpoise system on a series circuit also provides equipotential bonding between all elements of the airfield lighting system. The airfield lighting counterpoise system maintains all interconnected components at earth potential and protects personnel from possible contact with energized metallic light bases, mounting stakes or fixtures. Lightning strikes often occur on the pavement, the counterpoise conductor provides a method of dissipating the energy as it moves from the pavement surface to the earth. A.11.2.2 The parallel (voltage powered) circuit is similar to the typical alternating current system used in homes and in industry. Voltage is nominally the same at all points in the parallel circuit. The parallel circuit current varies according to the load. Parallel circuits must be installed in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. The required equipment grounding conductor must be sized in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 250. Equipment grounding conductors for parallel circuits should be routed within the same raceway or cable with the parallel circuit conductors or in close proximity to direct buried conductors and cables to reduce the overall circuit impedance allowing expedited operation of the overcurrent device. The equipment grounding conductor must be bonded to each metallic airfield lighting component and the airfield lighting vault building ground system in accordance with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. All metallic airfield lighting components must be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor.
The lightning protection system for a parallel (voltage powered) airfield lighting circuit should be installed in the same manner as a lightning protection system for a series (current driven) airfield lighting circuit. A.11.2.5 A lightning protection system for airfield lighting circuits could still be required for the conditions described in 11.2.5 to comply with funding agency requirements. The AHJ could also require compliance with this standard for conditions described in 11.2.5. A.11.3.2 The function of an airfield lighting counterpoise system is to provide a preferred, low impedance path for lightning energy to earth. A.11.4.1 The copper counterpoise conductor size should be determined by the Engineer of Record based upon sound engineering practices. A 2 AWG bare solid copper counterpoise conductor is recommended for high priority airfield lighting systems and airfield lighting systems installed in areas with a lightning flash density greater than 2 flashes per square kilometer per year. The following factors should be evaluated when considering a larger size counterpoise conductor: (1) The airport’s ability to maintain airport operations after an airfield lighting circuit/system failure (2) Accessibility of the copper counterpoise conductor for repairs as the counterpoise conductor could be installed under pavement (3) Availability of qualified persons to perform airfield lighting system repairs (4) Life cycle cost of the larger size counterpoise conductor including consideration of counterpoise conductor replacement prior to expected 20 year life (5) Results of a Lightning Risk Assessment performed in accordance with Annex L (6) Past performance of the airfield lighting counterpoise system at the airport or geographic area The AHJ could determine/approve the size of the copper counterpoise conductor. A.11.4.2.4 A Chapter 4 compliant lightning protection system and surge protective devices (SPD) could be installed at the airfield lighting vault or other airfield lighting circuit power source.
780-44
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 The need for an airfield lighting vault building lightning protection system, SPDs or surge arresters should be determined by the Engineer of Record, based upon sound engineering practices. Lightning protection systems, SPDs and surge arresters are recommended for high priority airfield lighting systems and airfield lighting systems installed in areas with a lightning flash density greater than 2 flashes per square kilometer per year. Criteria in A.11.4.1 could be used to determine if the airfield lighting field circuits should be provided with surge arresters. A Lightning Risk Assessment performed in accordance with Annex L could be used to determine if the airfield lighting vault building or equivalent electrical equipment protective structure should be provided with a lightning protection system and SPDs in accordance with Chapter 4. The AHJ could determine/approve the need for the airfield lighting vault building or equivalent electrical equipment protective structure lightning protection system, SPDs and airfield lighting circuit surge arrestors. A.11.4.2.6 This subsection addresses items installed in turf adjacent to the full strength pavement edge. Items within 4.6 m (15 ft) of the full strength pavement edge could be considered adjacent to the full strength pavement edge for the purpose of this subsection. The exact routing of the counterpoise conductor could be subject to field conditions such as rock or other obstructions. The counterpoise conductor should be routed as close as practical to the midpoint between the full strength pavement edge and item being protected. A.11.4.2.6.2 The light base grounding electrode could be installed in the same excavation as the light base or mounting stake. If a ground rod is used as the light base grounding electrode, the ground rod could be installed exterior to the light base or installed within the light base, through a hole provided by the manufacturer in the bottom of the light base. A.11.4.2.7.2 Airfield pavement systems design is an intricate engineering solution involving large numbers of complex variables. Operating aircraft and pavement systems interact with each other. This interaction must be addressed by the pavement design process. Structural designs of airfield pavement systems include determination of the overall pavement system thickness to achieve the final design objectives. Airfield pavement systems are normally constructed in courses or layers. The type of pavement and the load bearing capacity of the supporting materials are key components that impact the structural design of the pavement system. These are among many factors that influence the pavement system layer thicknesses required to provide satisfactory pavement system design. An example of a typical pavement system design could consist of the following layers: (1) Condition and compaction of the earth fill and subgrade below the pavement system (typically 100% compaction required); (2) Enhance subbase course material, including additional layering or further enhancement of existing subgrade; (3) Construction of the pavement base course (either flexible or semi-rigid materials to support the pavement surface materials; (4) Final pavement surface materials comprising Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement. HMA (flexible pavement) is typically installed in multiple layers, whereas PCC (rigid pavement) is typically
installed in one layer. The thicknesses of each of the overall pavement layers is determined by the structural requirements of the pavement system based on existing conditions, aircraft size and weights, numbers of repetitions, environmental factors, and other features. The airfield lighting system is incorporated into the airfield pavement system. The design of the depth and height of the various airfield lighting system components, including light bases, light base accessories, conduits, counterpoise conductors, and the like, must be adjusted to integrate the components into the varying pavement system layer thicknesses. Although reasonable effort should be made to comply with the 203 mm (8 in.) requirement contained in 11.4.2.7.1, it is for these reasons the variation described in 11.4.2.7.2 is necessary. A.11.4.2.7.5 The area of protection is considered to be an equilateral triangular cross-sectional area (triangular prism) with the apex located at the center of the counterpoise conductor, having its two sides formed by a 45 degree angle from vertical. The width of the protected area is twice the height of the counterpoise conductor above the raceway or cable being protected. See Figure A.11.4.2.7.5 below for a typical area of protection application. A.11.4.2.7.7 The intent of this subsection is that all metallic light bases, metallic fixtures, metal manhole cover/frames and the like be bonded to the counterpoise conductor. The phrase “output side of the constant current regulator (CCR) or power source” refers to the field circuit. The input power to the CCR or airfield lighting power source would be grounded in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. A.11.4.3.1 Multiple raceways in a common assembly are also known as duct banks. This subsection addresses individual raceways or cables installed in a common excavation but separated by a greater than normal distance. For example, a control circuit and airfield lighting series circuit could be installed in a common trench but separated by 305 mm (12 in.) or more to prevent interference on the control circuit. A.11.4.3.2 Standard trigonometric functions could be used to calculate the width of the “area of protection” with the counterpoise conductor at a specified height above the raceway or cable being protected. The maximum width of the area of protection is twice the height of the counterpoise conductor above the protected raceway or cable. A conservative design would have an overlap of adjacent areas of protection. A.11.4.4.2 One purpose of an equipotential airfield lighting counterpoise system is to provide equipotential bonding between all elements of the airfield lighting system. To achieve this objective, existing counterpoise conductors should be located and interconnected to new counterpoise conductors. Every reasonable and prudent means should be utilized to locate existing counterpoise conductors.
780-45
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 Additional information can be found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-42; Specification for Airport Light Bases, Transformer Housings, Junction Boxes, and Accessories. A.3.3.d When not installed on a light base, an elevated light fixture is installed on a mounting stake. The mounting stake is made of 50.8 × 50.8 × 4.8 mm (2 × 2 × 3/16 in.) steel angle stock or equivalent. The mounting stake is provided with a fitting attached at the top to receive the light fixture and frangible coupling. The length of the stake and fitting do not exceed 762 mm (30 in.). A.3.3.f The definition provided for raceway is taken directly from NFPA 70, National Electrical Code and includes some raceway types not typically used in airfield lighting. The terms conduit, duct or duct bank should be considered raceways of nominally circular cross-sectional area designed to provide physical protection and routing for conductors. Where a requirement of this standard would be applicable to one, it should be considered applicable to all combinations of raceways included in this item. Electrical Ducts, as used in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 310, include electrical conduits, or other raceways round in cross section, that are suitable for use underground or embedded in concrete. Annex O O.1 Referenced Publications Add new section for FAA publications: O.1.2.2 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Publications. U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent Business Office, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785. FAA Advisory Circulars are also available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-30E; Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, September 29, 2010. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-42; Specification for Airport Light Bases, Transformer Housings, Junction Boxes, and Accessories, October 17, 2006. Renumber existing O.1.2.2 through O.1.2.6. O.1.2.6 UL Publications. (Renumbered from O.1.2.5) Add new UL publications: ANSI/UL 96, Standard for Lightning Protection Components, Fifth Edition, May 12, 2005 ANSI/UL 467, Grounding and Bonding Equipment, Ninth Edition, September 21, 2007.Substantiation: NFPA 780 does not address lightning protection for airfield lighting circuits. The proposed new Chapter 11, Protection for Airfield Lighting Circuits provides lightning protection criteria for airfield lighting circuits. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new Chapter 11 mandatory text and Annex A material as follows: Chapter 11 Protection for Airfield Lighting Circuits 11.1 General. 11.1.1* This chapter shall provide the minimum requirements for the installation of a lightning protection system for airfield lighting systems and components. 11.1.2* Lightning protection systems for airfield lighting shall be installed entirely underground in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 11.2 Application. 11.2.1* The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall be a separate and unique lightning protection system specifically suited for use with series (current driven) airfield lighting circuits. 11.2.2* The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall also provide lightning protection for parallel (voltage powered) circuits, control circuits, and monitoring circuits. 11.2.3 To reduce the potential for flashover and any inductive/capacitive coupling arising from a lightning strike, the counterpoise conductor shall be a separate conductor, and not be located within any raceway used for power, communications, control or signal conductors. 11.2.4 All The requirements of 4.2 Materials, 4.3 Corrosion Protection, 4.4 Mechanical Damage or Displacement, 4.9.5 Conductor Bends, 4.13 Grounding Electrodes and 4.14 Common Grounding shall also apply, except as modified by unless they conflict with this chapter. 11.2.5* An airfield lighting lightning protection system shall be permitted to be omitted by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) when the average lightning flash density is 2 or less flashes per square kilometer per year and when permitted by the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). 11.3 Purpose. 11.3.1 The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall provide protection for airfield lighting systems from energy arising from lightning strikes. 11.3.2* The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall provide a path for dissipation of lightning discharge energy to earth minimizing damage to equipment, raceway or cables and electrical shock to personnel. 11.4 Installation of Airfield Lighting Counterpoise System. 11.4.1* Counterpoise Conductor. The counterpoise conductor shall be a bare, annealed or soft drawn, solid copper conductor not smaller than 6 AWG. 11.4.1.1 If bare copper counterpoise conductors are adversely affected by the installed environment, electrically conductive materials (Example; tinned copper) as permitted by the AHJ shall be utilized. 11.4.1.2 Electrically conductive materials shall possess the same performance, qualities and characteristics as the copper counterpoise conductor. 11.4.2 Counterpoise Conductor Location. The counterpoise conductor shall be installed in accordance with 11.4.2.1 through 11.4.2.7.
A.11.4.5.1 The grounding electrode could be installed in the same excavation as the counterpoise conductor. A.11.4.5.2 NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 250.53 requires a second grounding electrode if the earth resistance of the single grounding electrode exceeds 25 ohms. The 25 ohm value is the maximum acceptable earth resistance and should not be interpreted as satisfactory for all installations, refer to Annex B.4.4. Reduced earth resistance values could be necessary to provide effective lightning protection where the lightning risk assessment is high. A.11.4.1 could be used to determine if reduced earth resistance is necessary for protection of the airfield lighting system. The AHJ could define the required grounding electrode earth resistance value. One common means of lowering the ground rod earth resistance is to add length to the ground rod. One simple means of adding length to the ground rod is accomplished by using sectional ground rods. Additional sections of ground rod are added to the original ground rod and driven deeper into the earth to lower the earth resistance. An alternative is to lay rods horizontally and bond together, forming a grid below grade. Other means of obtaining a satisfactory earth resistance are discussed in 4.13.8. A.11.4.6.5 Fixtures with exposed metal parts that might present a shock hazard must be bonded to the airfield lighting counterpoise system. A.11.4.7 A ground strap with a ground clamp is the terminology typically used by light base manufacturers for a light base grounding connection. Metallic light bases should be provided with internal and external ground straps, each provided with a ground clamp. Metallic light base accessories/extensions should be provided with an internal ground strap and ground clamp. A.11.4.8.1 Relevant standards could be standards such as UL 467, Grounding and Bonding Equipment or UL 96, Standard for Lightning Protection Components or other standards applicable to this application. A.11.4.8.3 Connection of dissimilar metals requires special consideration. See NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 110. A.11.4.8.5 A ground strap with a ground clamp provided by the light base manufacturer is an acceptable means of bonding the counterpoise conductor to the metallic light base. Each manufacturer-provided ground clamp is acceptable for the connection of a single counterpoise conductor. A.11.4.8.6 Exothermic welding is not the recommended method of connecting the counterpoise conductor to a galvanized steel light base. Refer to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-30, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, Part 12.5. Chapter 3 Definitions Insert new definitions and renumber existing definitions as necessary. 3.3.a Bonded (Bonding). Connected to establish electrical continuity and conductivity. [70:2011] 3.3.b Counterpoise Conductor. A bare underground electrical conductor providing an area of protection from lightning for underground raceway(s) or cable(s). 3.3.c* Light Base. An enclosure used as a mounting base for airport light fixtures and assemblies. The unit serves as an isolation transformer housing and as an electrical junction box or both. The light base is cylindrically shaped with a closed bottom, provisions for cable or conduit entry and exit, provisions for grounding and provided with a top flange to mate with the fixture or cover. 3.3.d* Mounting Stake. A steel angle iron driven vertically into the earth with provisions for the mounting of an elevated airfield lighting fixture. 3.3.e Pavement. 3.3.e.1 Full Strength Pavement. Pavement designed to provide support of an aircraft for continual operations of the aircraft. 3.3.e.2 Pavement. A hard layered surface constructed to provide support for the loads imposed by airplanes and to produce a firm, stable, smooth, all year, all weather surface free of debris or other particles blown or picked up by propeller wash or jet blast. 3.3.e.3 Shoulder Pavement. Pavement designed to provide support of an aircraft for unintentional or emergency operations of the aircraft. 3.3.f* Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways, cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways, and busways. [70:2011] 3.3.g Turf. Grass, stabilized soil, asphalt, or any other hard surface not intended as a paved shoulder, installed from the edge of the runway or taxiway full strength pavement to just outside the airfield lighting circuits. Annex Insert new annex material in support of definitions and renumber existing sections as necessary. A.3.3.c Type L-867 light bases and extensions are used for applications subject to occasional light vehicular loading but no aircraft or other heavy vehicular loading. Type L-868 light bases and extensions are used for applications subject to aircraft and other heavy vehicular loading. Light bases could be fabricated from metallic or nonmetallic materials. Light bases serve as a connection point for the raceway and housing for mounting the light fixture. Light bases are subject to direct earth burial with or without concrete backfill. Drain connections, load rings and other options are available for the light base.
780-46
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 11.4.2.1 The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to grounding electrodes at intervals not exceeding 150 m (500 ft). 11.4.2.2 The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to grounding electrodes located on each side of a raceway crossing under the airfield pavement. 11.4.2.3 The airfield lighting counterpoise system shall connect to the airfield lighting vault or other airfield lighting circuit power source grounding electrode system. 11.4.2.4* Surge arresters shall be permitted to be installed in the airfield lighting circuit. 11.4.2.5 Reinforcing steel, when used as part of the light base installation, shall be bonded to the metallic light base using a 6 AWG bare solid copper conductor. 11.4.2.6* For edge light fixtures installed in turf (stabilized soils) and for raceways or cables adjacent to the full strength pavement edge, the counterpoise conductor shall either be installed halfway between the pavement edge and the light base, mounting stake, raceway or cable as shown in Figure 11.4.2.6 or in accordance with 11.4.2.7. Note: Light base ground rod can be installed either through the bottom of the light base or exterior to the light base.
d
d/2
Finished grade
Airfield light assembly
Depth to top of ground rod
152 mm (6 in.) minimum (Typical)
Depth tocounterpoise conductor
203 mm (8 in.)minimum
Airfield lighting cable
Edge of full strength pavement
Counterpoise conductor
Grounding electrode installed at150 m (500 ft) maximum intervals,
ground rod shownLight base grounding electrode at
each light base, ground rod shown
Note: Light base ground rod can be installed either through the bottom of the light base or exterior to the light base.
11.4.2.6.1 The counterpoise conductor shall be installed 203 mm (8 in.) minimum below grade. 11.4.2.6.2* Each light base or mounting stake shall be provided with a grounding electrode. 11.4.2.6.2.1 When a metallic light base is used, the grounding electrode shall be bonded to the metallic light base or mounting stake with a 6 AWG bare, annealed or soft drawn, solid copper conductor. 11.4.2.6.2.2 When a nonmetallic light base is used, the grounding electrode shall be bonded to the metallic light fixture or metallic base plate with a 6 AWG bare, annealed or soft drawn, solid copper conductor. 11.4.2.7 For raceways installed under pavement, for raceways and cables not installed adjacent to the full strength pavement edge, for fixtures installed in full strength pavement and shoulder pavement and for optional method of edge lights installed in turf (stabilized soils) and for raceways or cables adjacent to the full strength pavement edge, the counterpoise conductor shall be centered over the raceway or cable to be protected as described in this subsection and as shown in Figure 11.4.2.7.
Light base (Typical)
Distance varies
Primarycircuit
Grounding electrode installedat 150 m (500 ft) maximumintervals, ground rod shown
Counterpoise conductor centeredover raceway and connected to lightbase ground strap with ground clamp(Typical)
Figure 11.4.2.7
Figure 11.4.2.6
780-47
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 11.4.3.3 Where multiple counterpoise conductors are used they shall be interconnected longitudinally at intervals not exceeding 90 m (300 ft) as shown in Figure 11.4.3.3.
Counterpoise conductors
11.4.4 Counterpoise Conductor Interconnections. 11.4.4.1 Where raceways or cables cross, the counterpoise conductors shall be interconnected. 11.4.4.2* Where an existing airfield lighting system is being extended or modified, the new counterpoise conductors shall be interconnected to existing counterpoise conductors at each intersection of the new and existing airfield lighting counterpoise systems. 11.4.5 Grounding Electrodes. 11.4.5.1* The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to grounding electrodes in accordance with 11.4.2.1. 11.4.5.2* Grounding electrodes shall comply with all the requirements of 4.13.2 Ground Rods, 4.13.5 Radials, 4.13.6 Plate Electrode or Ground Plate Electrode, 4.13.7 Combinations, and 4.13.8 Grounding Electrode Selection Criteria, except as modified by unless they conflict with this chapter. 11.4.5.3 Ground rods shall not be less than 15.9 mm (5/8 in.) in diameter and 2.4 m (8 ft) long. 11.4.5.4 The top of the installed ground rod shall be 152 mm (6 in.) minimum below grade. 11.4.6 Bonding Jumpers. A 6 AWG stranded copper green insulated bonding jumper shall be installed between the following items: (1) In-pavement airfield lighting fixture and the metallic light base (2) Elevated fixture base plate and metallic light base (3) Surge arrestors and metallic light base 11.4.6.1 A bonding jumper shall be installed between the metallic frame of the airfield lighting sign(s) or other system components that are not listed in 11.4.6 and its respective metallic light base. 11.4.6.2 Bonding jumper length shall permit direct removal and maintenance of the airfield lighting component without damage to or disconnection of the bonding jumper and not interfere with the intended operation of a frangible coupling. 11.4.6.3 Copper conductors and copper braids of equal current carrying capacity shall be permitted as an alternative to the 6 AWG bonding jumper as permitted by the AHJ. 11.4.6.4 Frangible couplings shall be conductive. 11.4.6.5* All non-current-carrying electrically conductive materials having the potential to become energized by a lightning induced surge shall be bonded together and bonded to the airfield lighting counterpoise system. 11.4.7* Metallic Light Base Grounding. 11.4.7.1 New metallic light bases shall be provided with ground straps for internal and external grounding connections. 11.4.7.2 For existing metallic light bases without ground straps, the installation of ground straps shall not interfere with the structural integrity of the light base.
11.4.2.7.1 The counterpoise conductor shall be installed no less than 203 mm (8 in.) above the raceway or cable to be protected, except as permitted in 11.4.2.7.2. 11.4.2.7.2* The minimum counterpoise conductor height above the raceway or cable to be protected shall be permitted to be adjusted subject to coordination with the airfield lighting and pavement designs. 11.4.2.7.3 The counterpoise conductor shall be installed no more than 305 mm (12 in.) above the raceway or cable to be protected. 11.4.2.7.4 The counterpoise conductor height above the protected raceway(s) or cable(s) shall be calculated to ensure the raceway or cable is within a 45 degree area of protection. 11.4.2.7.5* The area of protection shall be determined only by the 45 degree triangular prism area of protection method. 11.4.2.7.6 The counterpoise conductor shall be bonded to each metallic light base, mounting stake and metallic airfield lighting component. 11.4.2.7.7* All metallic airfield lighting components in the field circuit on the output side of the constant current regulator (CCR) or other power source shall be bonded to the airfield lighting counterpoise system. 11.4.3 Multiple Raceways or Cables in a Common Formation. 11.4.3.1* Multiple raceways or cables in a common formation or assembly wider than the area of protection provided by a single counterpoise conductor shall be provided with multiple counterpoise conductors. 11.4.3.2* As shown in Figure 11.4.3.2, the number of counterpoise conductors required shall be determined by the height of the counterpoise conductors over the raceways or cables being protected, while maintaining the 45 degree area of protection.
H203 mm
to 305 mm(8 in. to 12 in.)
Raceway or cableto be protected
Finished grade
Maximumspacing
= 2H
Maximumspacing
= 2H 3-Each counterpoiseconductors
CL
Protectedareas
Figure 11.4.3.2
Figure 11.4.3.3
780-48
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 ANNEX A A.11.1.1 This chapter pertains to lightning protection of airfield lighting systems. These systems are installed underground in both paved (full strength pavement and shoulder pavement) and unpaved areas. The protected components include in-pavement fixtures, elevated fixtures, airfield signs, underground power, communications systems, control and signal circuits and components of runway, taxiway and apron lighting systems. These systems are installed on the portions of an airport that encompass the approach, departure, landing, takeoff, taxiing, and parking areas for aircraft and include runways, taxiways, and other parts of an airport used for taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft, loading ramps and parking areas exclusive of building-mounted helipads, approach light structures and antennas. This chapter could apply to other areas with airfield lighting systems. Two generally accepted methods are available for providing lightning protection for airfield lighting circuits. The two methods are isolation ISOLATION and equipotential EQUIPOTENTIAL. The isolation method is described in 11.4.2.6 and is shown in Figure A.11.1.1(a). The equipotential method is described in 11.4.2.7 and is shown in Figure A.11.1.1(b). The two methods should not be employed on a single circuit. The designer should select the installation method based upon sound engineering practices and the success of the selected method in previous installations.
11.4.8 Connection Requirements. 11.4.8.1* All counterpoise conductor connectors, grounding connectors and bonding connectors shall be listed with relevant standards. 11.4.8.2 Counterpoise conductor connectors shall be listed for direct earth burial and concrete encasement. 11.4.8.3* Galvanically compatible Bimetallic connectors and fittings shall comply with 11.4.8.3.1 through 11.4.8.3.4. 11.4.8.3.1 Galvanically compatible Bimetallic connectors and fittings shall be used for splicing or bonding dissimilar metals. 11.4.8.3.2 Conductive oxide inhibitors shall be designed for the specific application and metals used in the connection. 11.4.8.3.3 Conductive oxide inhibitors shall be applied to the mating surfaces of all connections involving dissimilar metals. 11.4.8.3.4 Where corrosion-protective paint or coatings are removed, the electrical connection shall have corrosion protection equal to the original coating. 11.4.8.4 Listed equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions included as part of the listing. 11.4.8.5* The metallic light base ground strap with ground clamp shall be used for connection of the counterpoise conductor to the light base. 11.4.8.6* Grounding, bonding and counterpoise conductor connections not included in 11.4.8.1 through 11.4.8.5 shall be made by exothermic weld or irreversible crimp method. 11.4.9 Bend Radius. The counterpoise conductor radius of bend shall not be less than 203 mm (8 in.), nor form an included (inside) angle of less than 90 degrees as shown in Figure 4.9.5.
Light base groundingelectrode
Power cable
Power cable
Each edge light baseconnected to grounding
electrode
Edge light base
Centerline light base
d/2 dCounterpoise conductor
Counterpoise conductor
Runway/taxiway centerline
Edge of fullstrength pavement
Grounding elctrodeinstalled at 150 m (500 ft)maximum intervals
Grounding elctrodeinstalled at 150 m (500 ft)maximum intervals
Power cable and counterpoiseconductor located in same trench,
counterpoise conductor on top
Notes:1. Provide a second trench for the edge light counterpoise conductor. Normally the edge light counterpoiseconductor is routed around the light base a minimum of 305 mm (12 in.) toward the full strength pavement.2. The centerline light counterpoise conductor is shown parallel to the raceway or cable being protected for graphicsimplicity. The centerline light counterpoise conductor is actually installed above and centered over the raceway orcable to be protected in accordance with 11.4.2.7. [See Figure 11.4.2.7].3. Grounding electrodes can be any of those described in 11.4.5.2. Ground rods are typically used for this application.
Figuare A.11.1.1(a)
780-49
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
A.11.4.1 The copper counterpoise conductor size should be determined by the Engineer of Record based upon sound engineering practices. A 2 AWG bare solid copper counterpoise conductor is recommended for high priority airfield lighting systems and airfield lighting systems installed in areas with a lightning flash density greater than 2 flashes per square kilometer per year. The following factors should be evaluated when considering a larger size counterpoise conductor: (1) The airport’s ability to maintain airport operations after an airfield lighting circuit/system failure (2) Accessibility of the copper counterpoise conductor for repairs as the counterpoise conductor could be installed under pavement (3) Availability of qualified persons to perform airfield lighting system repairs (4) Life cycle cost of the larger size counterpoise conductor including consideration of counterpoise conductor replacement prior to expected 20 year life (5) Results of a Lightning Risk Assessment performed in accordance with Annex L (6) Past performance of the airfield lighting counterpoise system at the airport or geographic area The AHJ could determine/approve the size of the copper counterpoise conductor. A.11.4.2.4 A Chapter 4 compliant lightning protection system and surge protective devices (SPD) could be installed at the airfield lighting vault or other airfield lighting circuit power source. The need for an airfield lighting vault building lightning protection system, SPDs or surge arresters should be determined by the Engineer of Record, based upon sound engineering practices. Lightning protection systems, SPDs and surge arresters are recommended for high priority airfield lighting systems and airfield lighting systems installed in areas with a lightning flash density greater than 2 flashes per square kilometer per year. Criteria in A.11.4.1 could be used to determine if the airfield lighting field circuits should be provided with surge arresters. A Lightning Risk Assessment performed in accordance with Annex L could be used to determine if the airfield lighting vault building or equivalent electrical equipment protective structure should be provided with a lightning protection system and SPDs in accordance with Chapter 4. The AHJ could determine/approve the need for the airfield lighting vault building or equivalent electrical equipment protective structure lightning protection system, SPDs and airfield lighting circuit surge arrestors. A.11.4.2.6 This subsection addresses items installed in turf adjacent to the full strength pavement edge. Items within 4.6 m (15 ft) of the full strength pavement edge could be considered adjacent to the full strength
Edge of fullstrength pavement
Notes:1. The counterpoise conductors are shown parallel to the raceways or cables being protected for graphic simplicity.The counterpoise conductors are actually installed above and centered over the raceways or cables to be protectedin accordance with 11.4.2.7. [See Figure 11.4.2.7 ].2. Grounding electrodes can be any of those described in 11.4.5.2. Ground rods are typically used for this application.
Power cableCenterline light base
Counterpoise conductor
Counterpoise conductor
Runway/taxiway centerline
Grounding elctrodeinstalled at 150 m (500 ft)maximum intervals
Grounding elctrode installed at150 m (500 ft) maximum intervals
Power cable and counterpoise conductorlocated in same trench, counterpoise
conductor on top
Power cable and counterpoise conductor locatedin same trench, counterpoise conductor on top
Power cableEdge light base
Edge of shoulder
A.11.1.2 Above ground items such as approach light masts could be protected in accordance with Chapter 4. A.11.2.1 A typical airfield lighting series (current driven) circuit is powered by a constant current regulator (CCR) or equivalent power supply. Current is the same at all points in the series circuit. The output voltage is directly proportional to the load and output current step. The CCR output (primary circuit) is normally ungrounded. The CCR’s or equivalent power supply’s internal overcurrent protection monitors the actual output current. Series airfield lighting circuit overcurrent protection does not rely upon a low impedance return path or ground connection for proper operation. The installation of an equipotential airfield lighting counterpoise system on a series circuit also provides equipotential bonding between all elements of the airfield lighting system. The airfield lighting counterpoise system maintains all interconnected components at earth potential and protects personnel from possible contact with energized metallic light bases, mounting stakes or fixtures. Lightning strikes often occur on the pavement, the counterpoise conductor provides a method of dissipating the energy as it moves from the pavement surface to the earth. A.11.2.2 The parallel (voltage powered) circuit is similar to the typical alternating current system used in homes and in industry. Voltage is nominally the same at all points in the parallel circuit. The parallel circuit current varies according to the load. Parallel circuits must be installed in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. The required equipment grounding conductor must be sized in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 250. Equipment grounding conductors for parallel circuits should be routed within the same raceway or cable with the parallel circuit conductors or in close proximity to direct buried conductors and cables to reduce the overall circuit impedance allowing expedited operation of the overcurrent device. The equipment grounding conductor must be bonded to each metallic airfield lighting component and the airfield lighting vault building ground system in accordance with the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. All metallic airfield lighting components must be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor. The lightning protection system for a parallel (voltage powered) airfield lighting circuit should be installed in the same manner as a lightning protection system for a series (current driven) airfield lighting circuit. A.11.2.5 A lightning protection system for airfield lighting circuits could still be required for the conditions described in 11.2.5 to comply with funding agency requirements. The AHJ could also require compliance with this standard for conditions described in 11.2.5. A.11.3.2 The function of an airfield lighting counterpoise system is to provide a preferred, low impedance path for lightning energy to earth.
Figure A.11.1.1(b)
780-50
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 A.11.4.3.1 Multiple raceways in a common assembly are also known as duct banks. This subsection addresses individual raceways or cables installed in a common excavation but separated by a greater than normal distance. For example, a control circuit and airfield lighting series circuit could be installed in a common trench but separated by 305 mm (12 in.) or more to prevent interference on the control circuit. A.11.4.3.2 Standard trigonometric functions could be used to calculate the width of the “area of protection” with the counterpoise conductor at a specified height above the raceway or cable being protected. The maximum width of the area of protection is twice the height of the counterpoise conductor above the protected raceway or cable. A conservative design would have an overlap of adjacent areas of protection. A.11.4.4.2 One purpose of an equipotential airfield lighting counterpoise system is to provide equipotential bonding between all elements of the airfield lighting system. To achieve this objective, existing counterpoise conductors should be located and interconnected to new counterpoise conductors. Every reasonable and prudent means should be utilized to locate existing counterpoise conductors. A.11.4.5.1 The grounding electrode could be installed in the same excavation as the counterpoise conductor. A.11.4.5.2 NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, 250.53 requires a second grounding electrode if the earth resistance of the single grounding electrode exceeds 25 ohms. The often accepted earth resistance value of The 25 ohms value is the maximum acceptable earth resistance and should not be interpreted as satisfactory for all installations, refer to Annex B.4.4. Reduced earth resistance values could be necessary to provide effective lightning protection where the lightning risk assessment is high. A.11.4.1 could be used to determine if reduced earth resistance is necessary for protection of the airfield lighting system. The AHJ could define the required grounding electrode earth resistance value. One common means of lowering the ground rod earth resistance is to add length to the ground rod. One simple means of adding length to the ground rod is accomplished by using sectional ground rods. Additional sections of ground rod are added to the original ground rod and driven deeper into the earth to lower the earth resistance. An alternative is to lay rods horizontally and bond together, forming a grid below grade. Other means of obtaining a satisfactory earth resistance are discussed in 4.13.8. A.11.4.6.5 Fixtures with exposed metal parts that might present a shock hazard must be bonded to the airfield lighting counterpoise system. A.11.4.7 A ground strap with a ground clamp is the terminology typically used by light base manufacturers for a light base grounding connection. Metallic light bases should be provided with internal and external ground straps, each provided with a ground clamp. Metallic light base accessories/extensions should be provided with an internal ground strap and ground clamp. A.11.4.8.1 Relevant standards could be standards such as UL 467, Grounding and Bonding Equipment or UL 96, Standard for Lightning Protection Components or other standards applicable to this application. A.11.4.8.3 Connection of dissimilar metals requires special consideration of galvanically compatible fittings. See NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 110. A.11.4.8.5 A ground strap with a ground clamp provided by the light base manufacturer is an acceptable means of bonding the counterpoise conductor to the metallic light base. Each manufacturer-provided ground clamp is acceptable for the connection of a single counterpoise conductor. A.11.4.8.6 Exothermic welding is not the recommended method of connecting the counterpoise conductor to a galvanized steel light base. Refer to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-30, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, Part 12.5. Chapter 3 Definitions Insert new definitions and renumber existing definitions as necessary. 3.3.a Bonded (Bonding). Connected to establish electrical continuity and conductivity. [70:2011] 3.3.b Counterpoise Conductor. A bare underground electrical conductor providing an area of protection from lightning for underground raceway(s) or cable(s). 3.3.c* Light Base. An enclosure used as a mounting base for airport light fixtures and assemblies. The unit serves as an isolation transformer housing and as an electrical junction box or both. The light base is cylindrically shaped with a closed bottom, provisions for cable or conduit entry and exit, provisions for grounding and provided with a top flange to mate with the fixture or cover. 3.3.d* Mounting Stake. A steel angle iron driven vertically into the earth with provisions for the mounting of an elevated airfield lighting fixture. 3.3.e Pavement. 3.3.e.1 Full Strength Pavement. Pavement designed to provide support of an aircraft for continual operations of the aircraft. 3.3.e.2 Pavement. A hard layered surface constructed to provide support for the loads imposed by airplanes and to produce a firm, stable, smooth, all year, all weather surface free of debris or other particles blown or picked up by propeller wash or jet blast. 3.3.e.3 Shoulder Pavement. Pavement designed to provide support of an aircraft for unintentional or emergency operations of the aircraft. 3.3.f* Raceway. An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars, with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to, rigid metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit,
pavement edge for the purpose of this subsection. The exact routing of the counterpoise conductor could be subject to field conditions such as rock or other obstructions. The counterpoise conductor should be routed as close as practical to the midpoint between the full strength pavement edge and item being protected. A.11.4.2.6.2 The light base grounding electrode could be installed in the same excavation as the light base or mounting stake. If a ground rod is used as the light base grounding electrode, the ground rod could be installed exterior to the light base or installed within the light base, through a hole provided by the manufacturer in the bottom of the light base. A.11.4.2.7.2 Airfield pavement systems design is an intricate engineering solution involving large numbers of complex variables. Operating aircraft and pavement systems interact with each other. This interaction must be addressed by the pavement design process. Structural designs of airfield pavement systems include determination of the overall pavement system thickness to achieve the final design objectives. Airfield pavement systems are normally constructed in courses or layers. The type of pavement and the load bearing capacity of the supporting materials are key components that impact the structural design of the pavement system. These are among many factors that influence the pavement system layer thicknesses required to provide satisfactory pavement system design. An example of a typical pavement system design could consist of the following layers: (1) Condition and compaction of the earth fill and subgrade below the pavement system (typically 100% compaction required); (2) Enhance subbase course material, including additional layering or further enhancement of existing subgrade; (3) Construction of the pavement base course (either flexible or semi-rigid materials to support the pavement surface materials; (4) Final pavement surface materials comprising Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) or Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement. HMA (flexible pavement) is typically installed in multiple layers, whereas PCC (rigid pavement) is typically installed in one layer. The thicknesses of each of the overall pavement layers is determined by the structural requirements of the pavement system based on existing conditions, aircraft size and weights, numbers of repetitions, environmental factors, and other features. The airfield lighting system is incorporated into the airfield pavement system. The design of the depth and height of the various airfield lighting system components, including light bases, light base accessories, conduits, counterpoise conductors, and the like, must be adjusted to integrate the components into the varying pavement system layer thicknesses. Although reasonable effort should be made to comply with the 203 mm (8 in.) requirement contained in 11.4.2.7.1, it is for these reasons the variation described in 11.4.2.7.2 is necessary. A.11.4.2.7.5 The area of protection is considered to be an equilateral triangular cross-sectional area (triangular prism) with the apex located at the center of the counterpoise conductor, having its two sides formed by a 45 degree angle from vertical. The width of the protected area is twice the height of the counterpoise conductor above the raceway or cable being protected. See Figure A.11.4.2.7.5 for a typical area of protection application.
Area ofprotection
Area ofprotection
Raceway or cableto be protected
Finished gradeCounterpoise conductor
CL
2H =406 mm to 610 mm
(16 in. to 24 in.)
H203 mm to
305 mm(8 in. to 12 in.)
A.11.4.2.7.7 The intent of this subsection is that all metallic light bases, metallic fixtures, metal manhole cover/frames and the like be bonded to the counterpoise conductor. The phrase “output side of the constant current regulator (CCR) or power source” refers to the field circuit. The input power to the CCR or airfield lighting power source would be grounded in accordance with NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.
Figure A.11.4.2.7.5
780-51
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________ 780-109 Log #61 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Chapter X Protection for Solar Panels (New))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Matthew Caie, ERICO, Inc.Recommendation: Add new Chapter for “ Protection for Solar Panels” as follows: X.1 General. The intent of this chapter shall be to provide lightning protection requirements for roof mounted or ground mounted solar panels. X.2 Fundamental Principle of Protection. X.2.1 Roof or ground mounted solar panels subject to direct lightning strike shall be protected in accordance with the chapter 4 and as required in this chapter. X.2.2 Protection shall be provided by direct mounting of strike termination devices to the solar panel or panel framing or by locating strike termination devices (including air terminals, masts, and overhead ground wires) adjacent to the solar pane ls in such a manner as to place the solar panels in a zone of protection as required in Section 4.7. X.3 Strike Termination Devices. X.3.1 Strike termination devices shall extend a minimum of 254 mm (10 in.) above the surface of the solar panel. X.3.2 Strike termination devices shall be located at the ends of the uppermost edge or nearest support of solar panels or panel arrays not to exceed 0.6 m (2 ft.) unless the uppermost edge or nearest support is within a zone of protection. X.3.3 Strike termination devices shall be located along the uppermost edge of solar panels or panel arrays at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft.) unless the panel arrays are within a zone of protection X.3.4 Solar panels or panel arrays that have a slope of less than 1/8 shall have strike termination devices located within 0.6 m (2 ft.) of all corners and at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft.) along all edges unless the corners or edges are within a zone of protection. X.3.5 Solar panels or panel arrays that have a slope of less than ¼ and the distance from the uppermost edge to the lowermost edge along the face of the panel or array exceeds 6 m (20 ft.) shall have strike termination devices located within 0.6 m (2 ft.) of all corners and at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft.) along all edges unless the corners or edges are within a zone of protection. X.3.6 Strike termination devices shall not be secured directly to the panels or panel frames of photovoltaic panels and arrays. X.3.7 Consideration shall be given to the effects of shadowing of the solar panels due to the location of strike termination devices. X.4 Protection of Electrical and Mechanical Systems. X.4.1 Because the solar array and power conversion systems contain electrical and/or electro mechanical control systems, consideration shall be given to the protection of these systems with bonding, shielding, isolation and surge protection in accordance with the following: (1) Separation distance and bonding techniques maintained in accordance with Sections 4.20 and 4.21 (2) Maximized distance between lightning conductors and the solar array panels, and electrical based control systems and cabling (3) SPDs installed as close as practicable to the solar arrays and electrical systems (inverters) and panel tracking control systems (4) DC Solar array cabling shall be magnetically shielded by either braided wire sheath or wire mesh screen or installed within electrically bonded metallic conduit, cable tray or raceways. Ground conductors that are exposed to the direct or partial lightning currents shall be run separately and outside of the cable path of the DC cabling [MOS. 3.3.1.2.1 The structure of all items within a list shall be parallel — that is, the items shall be all single words, all phrases, or all full sentences. X.4.2 Surge protection in accordance with 4.18 shall be provided on the dc output of the solar panel from + to G and - to G, at the combiner and re-combiner box for multiple solar panels, and at the ac output of the inverter and shall have a nominal discharge current rating (In) as specified in 4.18.3.1.2. If the system inverter is more than 30m from the closest combiner or re-combiner box then additional SPD are required at the DC input of the inverter. [MOS. 1.8.3 Subsections. Sections containing multiple requirements shall be subdivided into subsections, which shall be further subdivided into paragraphs of text.] X.4.3 The SPD provided on the dc output shall have a dc MCOV equal to or greater than the panel/s maximum photovoltaic system voltage as specified in article 690 of NFPA 70. The SPD provided on the ac output shall have an ac MCOV equal to or greater than the inverter output voltage. [MOS. 1.8.3 Subsections. Sections containing multiple requirements shall be subdivided into subsections, which shall be further subdivided into paragraphs of text.] X.4.4 The short circuit current rating of the dc SPD shall be coordinated with the available fault current of the solar panel/s (note co-ordinate with UL1449 new work area for terminology – potential date for finalizing terminology in 2012 with UL1449) The short circuit current rating of the ac SPD shall be coordinated with the available fault current of the inverter.
liquidtight flexible conduit, flexible metallic tubing, flexible metal conduit, electrical nonmetallic tubing, electrical metallic tubing, underfloor raceways, cellular concrete floor raceways, cellular metal floor raceways, surface raceways, wireways, and busways. [70:2011] 3.3.g Turf. Grass, stabilized soil, asphalt, or any other hard surface not intended as a paved shoulder, installed from the edge of the runway or taxiway full strength pavement to just outside the airfield lighting circuits. Annex Insert new annex material in support of definitions and renumber existing sections as necessary. A.3.3.c Type L-867 light bases and extensions are used for applications subject to occasional light vehicular loading but no aircraft or other heavy vehicular loading. Type L-868 light bases and extensions are used for applications subject to aircraft and other heavy vehicular loading. Light bases could be fabricated from metallic or nonmetallic materials. Light bases serve as a connection point for the raceway and housing for mounting the light fixture. Light bases are subject to direct earth burial with or without concrete backfill. Drain connections, load rings and other options are available for the light base. Additional information can be found in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-42; Specification for Airport Light Bases, Transformer Housings, Junction Boxes, and Accessories. A.3.3.d When not installed on a light base, an elevated light fixture is installed on a mounting stake. The mounting stake is made of 50.8 ~ 50.8 ~ 4.8 mm (2 ~ 2 ~ 3/16 in.) steel angle stock or equivalent. The mounting stake is provided with a fitting attached at the top to receive the light fixture and frangible coupling. The length of the stake and fitting do not exceed 762 mm (30 in.). A.3.3.f The definition provided for raceway is taken directly from NFPA 70, National Electrical Code and includes some raceway types not typically used in airfield lighting. The terms conduit, duct or duct bank should be considered raceways of nominally circular cross-sectional area designed to provide physical protection and routing for conductors. Where a requirement of this standard would be applicable to one, it should be considered applicable to all combinations of raceways included in this item. Electrical Ducts, as used in NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, Article 310, include electrical conduits, or other raceways round in cross section, that are suitable for use underground or embedded in concrete. Annex O O.1 Referenced Publications Add new section for FAA publications: O.1.2.2 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Publications. U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent Business Office, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785. FAA Advisory Circulars are also available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-30F; Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, September 29, 2011. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-42F; Specification for Airport Light Bases, Transformer Housings, Junction Boxes, and Accessories, October 17, 2006. Renumber existing O.1.2.2 through O.1.2.6. O.1.2.6 UL Publications. (Renumbered from O.1.2.5) Add new UL publications: ANSI/UL 96, Standard for Lightning Protection Components, Fifth Edition, May 12, 2005 ANSI/UL 467, Grounding and Bonding Equipment, Ninth Edition, September 21, 2007.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and edits for clarity. The Technical Committee revises note 3 in Figure A.11.1.1(a) and note 2 in Figure A.11.1.1(b) to correctly reference Section 11.4.5.2 rather than Section 4.13. The Technical Committee edits the number and date references in Annex O.1.2.2. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: DALEY, R.: Chapter sizes main and bonding conductors in AWG. Current tables 4.1.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.1.2 size main and bonding conductors in cir. mils. Change sizes in new chapter from AWG to cir. mils for consistency. New 11.4.6.3 calls for “equal current carrying capacity” but does not reference a standard to locate the capacities. FRANKLIN, D.: Within X.3.6 delete “or panel frames.” This could be confused with the structural supports when mounting is appropriate. PORTFLEET, T.: Some text does not comply with the manual of style 11.4.2.6 has a note without mandatory language, making it Annex material. This section also adds another definition of Bonded (bonding) as 3.3a where one already exist under section 3.3.2. The committee needs to decide which definition it wants.
780-52
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 (5) Ground conductors that are exposed to the direct or partial lightning currents run separately and outside of the cable path of the DC cabling 12.4.2 Surge Protection. 12.4.2.1 Surge protection in accordance with 4.18 shall be provided on the dc output of the solar panel from positive to ground and negative to ground, at the combiner and re-combiner box for multiple solar panels, and at the ac output of the inverter. 12.4.2.2 Surge protective devices shall have a nominal discharge current rating (In) as specified in 4.18.3.1.2. 12.4.2.3 If the system inverter is more than 30m (100 ft) from the closest combiner or re-combiner box then additional SPDs shall be required at the dc input of the inverter. 12.4.2.4 Maximum Continuous Operating Voltage (MCOV). 12.4.2.4.1 The SPD provided on the dc output shall have a dc MCOV equal to or greater than the panel/s maximum photovoltaic system voltage as specified in Article 690 of NFPA 70. 12.4.2.4.2 The SPD provided on the ac output shall have an ac MCOV equal to or greater than the inverter output voltage. 12.4.2.5 Short Circuit Current Rating. 12.4.2.5.1 The short circuit current rating of the dc SPD shall be coordinated with the available fault current of the solar panel(s). 12.4.2.5.2 The short circuit current rating of the ac SPD shall be coordinated with the available fault current of the inverter. 12.4.2.6 Voltage Protection Rating (VPR). 12.4.2.6.1 The VPR of the dc SPD shall be a maximum of 3 times the panel’s maximum photovoltaic system voltage. 12.4.2.6.2 The VPR of the ac SPD shall be based on Table 4.18.4. 12.4.2.6.3 For voltages exceeding the values in Table 4.18.4, the VPR shall be permitted to be 3 times the output voltage of the inverter. 12.5 Grounding. 12.5.1 Ground Mounted Systems. 12.5.1.1 Systems that rely on the metallic structure to form part of the lightning protection system shall be grounded in accordance with 4.13.4 utilizing a ground ring electrode encompassing the perimeter of each array. 12.5.1.2 Systems that rely on the metallic structure to form parts of the lightning protection system shall be made electrically continuous. 12.5.1.3 For solar arrays that do not rely on the metallic structure to form part of the lightning protection system, each separate row or structure shall be bonded at one location direct to the ground ring electrode. 12.5.1.4 Solar arrays that do not rely on the metallic structure to form part of the lightning protection system shall be made electrically continuous by means of bonding in accordance with the NEC. 12.5.2 Roof Mounted Systems. 12.5.2.1 Solar arrays shall be bonded in accordance with 4.20.3. 12.5.2.2 Solar arrays shall be made electrically continuous by means of bonding in accordance to the NEC. 12.5.2.3 If the structure forms part of, or is within the required separation distance from the lightning protection system, the metallic structure of the system shall be made electrically continuous in accordance with Chapter 4. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text with revisions for clarity. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 1 Abstain: 1Explanation of Negative: RAPP, R.: This information is not ready to be a part of the 780 installation standard and should be included in the appendix at this time. Coordination between the industry and this committee should be more complete and studied before we publish it in the standard. Explanation of Abstention: GUTHRIE, M.: I agree with the concept of this chapter but do not feel that it is in sufficient condition to be published in the standard. Some additional work is required. Comment on Affirmative: PORTFLEET, T.: 12.3.4.1 does not meet the manual of style. It mandates compliance with one of the following, then only lists 12.3.4.1.1. There is no 12.3.4.1.2. either add other options or rewrite the text. _______________________________________________________________ 780-110 Log #35 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.1.4.2 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Tom Scholtens, City of Charleston / Rep. NFPA Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) Recommendation: Add a section A1.4.2 to Annex A as follows: 1.4.2 * The individual(s) responsible for the installation shall be certified for fitness on the requirements of this standard by the authority having jurisdiction. A 1.4.2. Installation of a Lightning Protection System may not only require special skills, but if not accomplished appropriately may be counter productive. “Certification for Fitness” may include Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Master Label Certification of Inspection, Certified Master Installation and Design Certification or equivalent. In order to verify the quality of work, the finished Lightning Protection System should have a UL Certificate of Inspection or equivalent.
[MOS. 1.8.3 Subsections. Sections containing multiple requirements shall be subdivided into subsections, which shall be further subdivided into paragraphs of text.] X.4.5 The VPR of the dc SPD shall be a maximum of 3 times the panel/s maximum photovoltaic system voltage. The VPR of the ac SPD shall be based on Table 4.18.4. For voltages exceeding the values in table 4.18.4, the VPR may be 3 times the output voltage of the inverter. [MOS. 1.8.3 Subsections. Sections containing multiple requirements shall be subdivided into subsections, which shall be further subdivided into paragraphs of text.] X.5 Grounding Content still under development, to be completed and reviewed by the task group before presentation at the Jan 2012 TC meeting. However intention is to cover the requirements for ground mount and roof top separately. The requirements for ground mount will cover practice to mitigate damaged caused from lightning due to ground potential rise, and routing of grounding conductors to minimize ground loops, bonding practice of tracking type systems, and the resulting induced and conducted effects to the system. The requirements for roof top mount systems will cover layout with a mind to addressing the latter, however also wording on the interconnection to exposed metal objects and co-ordinating with the electrical ground as defined in NEC.Substantiation: Presently there exists no specific recommendations or requirements to address the lightning protection of Solar PV (or other types) on roof top or ground mount. This proposal seeks to address this application. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Title of new Chapter 12 to read as follows: Chapter 12 Protection for Solar Arrays Add new Chapter 12 to read as follows: 12.1 General. The intent of this chapter shall be to provide lightning protection requirements for roof mounted or ground mounted solar (photovoltaic and thermal) panels. 12.2 Fundamental Principles of Protection. 12.2.1 Roof mounted or ground mounted solar panels subject to direct lightning strike shall be protected in accordance with Chapter 4 and as supplemented in this chapter. 12.2.2 Protection shall be provided by one or more of the following methods: (1) Direct mounting of strike termination devices to the solar panel (2) Direct mounting of strike termination devices to the solar panel framing (3) Locating strike termination devices (including air terminals, masts, and overhead ground wires) adjacent to the solar panels in such a manner as to place the solar panels in a zone of protection as defined in Section 4.7 12.3 Strike Termination Devices. 12.3.1 Strike termination devices shall extend a minimum of 254 mm (10 in.) above the surface of the solar panel. 12.3.2 Strike termination devices shall be located at the ends of the uppermost edge or nearest support of solar panels or panel arrays not to exceed 0.6 m (2 ft) unless the uppermost edge or nearest support is within a zone of protection. 12.3.3 Strike termination devices shall be located along the uppermost edge of solar panels or panel arrays at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) unless the panel arrays are within a zone of protection. 12.3.4 Solar panels or panel arrays that have a slope of less than 1/8 shall have strike termination devices located within 0.6 m (2 ft) of outermost corners and at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) along all edges unless the corners or edges are within a zone of protection. 12.3.4.1 Solar panel arrays that exceed 15 m (50 ft) in width or length shall comply with one of the following: 12.3.4.1.1 Have additional strike termination devices located at intervals not to exceed 15 m (50 ft) on the solar panel arrays, similar to Figure 4.8.3(a) and Figure 4.8.3(b) 12.3.4.1.2 Such area can be protected using taller strike termination devices that create zones of protection using the rolling sphere method so the sphere does not contact the solar panel arrays 12.3.5 Solar panels or panel arrays that have a slope of less than ¼ and the distance from the uppermost edge to the lowermost edge along the face of the panel or array exceeds 6 m (20 ft) shall have strike termination devices located within 0.6 m (2 ft) of outermost corners and at intervals not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) along all edges unless the corners or edges are within a zone of protection. 12.3.6 Strike termination devices shall not be secured directly to the panels or panel frames of photovoltaic panels and arrays. 12.3.7 Consideration shall be given to the effects of shadowing of the solar panels due to the location of strike termination devices. 12.4 Protection of Electrical and Mechanical Systems. 12.4.1 Consideration shall be given to the protection of the electrical and/or electro-mechanical control systems with bonding, shielding, isolation and surge protection in accordance with the following: (1) Separation distance and bonding techniques maintained in accordance with Sections 4.20 and 4.21 (2) Maximized distance between lightning conductors and the solar array panels, electrical based control systems and cabling (3) SPDs installed as close as practicable to the solar arrays and electrical systems (inverters) and panel tracking control systems (4) DC solar array cabling magnetically shielded by either braided wire sheath or wire mesh screen or installed within electrically bonded metallic conduit, cable tray or raceways
780-53
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Substantiation: Note: This proposal was developed by the proponent as a member of NFPA’s Building Code Development Committee (BCDC) with the committee’s endorsement. Section 1.4.2 requires the individual(s) responsible for the installation shall
be certified for fitness on the requirements of this standard by the authority having jurisdiction. The AHJ may have no idea where to turn for this certification of fitness requirement. This requirement is ambiguous and may lead an AHJ to find someone
“certified for fitness” that is wholly unprepared to perform the work. The proposed Annex section illustrates the types of certification required to verify the technician as competent. Failure to establish the technician’s qualification may lead to an installed
Lightning Protection System that ultimately does more harm than good. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add * following 1.4.2 Revise A.1.4.2 to read as follows:
A 1.4.2 Installation of a lightning protection system might not only require special skills, but if not accomplished appropriately could be counter productive. Certification for fitness could include review of installation experience and credentials.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes that the submitter did not quote “certified for fitness” from Section 1.4.2 as he perhaps intended. The Technical Committee agrees to provide additional guidance to the AHJ
but revises the submitter’s text. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-111 Log #78 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.3.3.22)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Mitchell Guthrie, Engineering ConsultantRecommendation: Revise A.3.3.22 as follows:A.3.3.22 Lightning Protection System. The term refers to systems as described and detailed in this standard. A traditional Lightning protection systems for used in for ordinary structures is are described in Chapter 4. Mast and catenary type systems typically used for special occupancies and constructions Lightning protection systems for heavy-duty stacks are described in Chapter 6. Lightning protection systems for use in structures containing flammable vapors. gases or liquids that can give off flammable vapors aredescribed in Chapter 7. Lightning protection systems for use in structures housing explosives materials are described in Chapter 8. Lightning protection systems for wind turbines are described in Chapter 9. Lightning protection systems for watercraft are given in Chapter 10.Substantiation: Mast and catenary systems have been moved into the general requirements of Chapter 4 to make it clear that they may be used in any application and not just for special occupancies such as flammable facilities or explosives applications. If it is necessary to indicate where to find protection requirements for ordinary structures, then a listing of where to find protection of special consideration for other occupancies should be provided. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleCommittee Statement: See Committee Proposal 780-111a (Log #CP3). The Technical Committee formulated the appropriate language in Proposal 780-111a (Log #CP3). Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-111a Log #CP3 Final Action: Accept(A.3.3.22)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Delete last sentence in A.3.3.22.Substantiation: The TC deletes the last sentence as the requirements are not only in Chapter 7. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-112 Log #39 Final Action: Accept(A.3.3.37)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: A.3.3.37 Voltage Protection Rating (VPR). The VPR is a rating (or ratings) selected by the manufacturer based on the measured limiting voltage determined during the transient voltage surge suppression test specified in ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices. This rating is the maximum voltage developed when the SPD is exposed to a 3 kA, 8/20 µ current limited waveform through the device. It is a specific measured limiting voltage rating assigned to an SPD by testing done in accordance with UL 1449, Edition 3. Nominal VPR values include 330 V, 400 V, 500 V, 600 V, 700 V, and so forth. Substantiation: Delete reference to edition of the UL standard in the text of this document. Instead, refer to the referenced edition as listed in O.1.2.5 so the referenced standard edition is consistent throughout the document. Committee Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 _______________________________________________________________ 780-113 Log #59 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.6.1.6 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Add new section A.4.6.1.6A.4.6.1.6 Consideration should be taken when using a moveable metallic object as a Strike Termination Devices. If lightning is to attach to metallic objects with moveable parts, there is a possibility that arc might occur at the point of articulation between the component parts which is likely to fuse the parts together.Substantiation: This paragraph provides cautionary language identifying areas of concern associated with this practice. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add * following 4.8.11. Add new section A.4.8.11 to read as follows: A.4.8.11 Consideration should be taken when using a moveable metallic object as a strike termination device. If lightning is to attach to metallic objects with moveable parts, there is a possibility that arcing could occur at the point of articulation between the component parts which could possibly fuse the parts together. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and relocates to Section A.4.8.11. The Technical Committee revises the text for clarity.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-114 Log #86 Final Action: Accept in Part(A.4.7.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change the value under 40 from (131.2) to (130). Remove H m (ft). Place m and ft. notation next to each number. Change the value in the note 2. to as follows: A.4.7.3.4. note 2. “H below 2 1.8 m (6 ft).”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PartChange the value in the note 2 as follows: A.4.7.3.4. note 2. “H below 2 1.8 m (6 ft)”Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the change to note 2 only. The Technical Committee does not accept the remainder of the submitter’s text. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-115 Log #50 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.14.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod CompanyRecommendation: Insert new text to read as follows: A.4.14.2. When separate but adjacent buildings and/or facilities are interconnected directly (not through a utility) by electric, CATV, CCTV, data, or communications wiring, the grounding systems of those buildings should be directly interconnected to each other using a main-size conductor. The need for this interconnection can be eliminated by the use of fiber optic cable, shielded wire, wire run in grounded metallic conduit, or redundant surge protection (SPD’s installed at entrance /exit of both buildings/facilities). Substantiation: When facilities are inspected for lightning protection after a lightning event, damage is typically seen on devices in other adjacent structures/facilities on devices that share a common interconnected wire between those structures/facilities. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add * following 4.14.2. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and adds an * to 4.14.2.Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
(Sequence number 780-116 was not used)_______________________________________________________________ 780-117 Log #45 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.14.3 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Harold VanSickle, III, Lightning Protection Institute / Rep. Grounding & Bonding Task Group - NFPA 780 Recommendation: Annex paragraph A.4.14.3Definitions in the NEC (NFPA 70) and 780 for bonding or bonded, grounded or grounding and grounding electrode are similar. The actual Standards sections that define what constitutes these various items point to differences in application, equipment, and requirements.
780-54
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780 NEC paragraph 250.50 (Grounding Electrode System and Grounding Electrode Conductor) requires all electrodes present at each building or structure be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. This coordinates to the requirements of Section 4.14. The differences occur in NEC Paragraph 250.52 which allows grounding electrode devices not shown in Section 4.13. Grounding electrode devices allowed in 250.52, but not referenced in this document include: 250.52 (A) (1) 10 ft. of metallic underground water pipe extending from the structure in contact with earth. 250.52 (A) (2) (1) The metal frame of the structure in contact with earth. 250.52 (A) (3) (2) The concrete encased electrode described as #4 AWG would need to be a main size conductor per Paragraph 4.13.3.2. 250.52 (A) (4) The ground ring electrode not smaller than #2 AWG is acceptable for Class I, but would not be acceptable for Class II (See Table 4.1.1.1.2). 250.52 (A) (5) Pipe electrodes shown under section (a) are not included. Rod electrodes described in (b) as zinc coated steel are not covered (4.13.2.5). 250.52 (A) (6) Other listed electrodes would need to comply with the various sections of 4.13. 250.52 (A) (7) Plate electrodes would need to comply with 4.13.6. 250.52 (A) (8) “Other local metal underground systems or structures” are not referenced as grounding electrodes in this Standard. The lightning protection system designer must be familiar with these
differences for coordination of interconnection with other building grounding electrodes or the structural grounding electrode system as required by paragraph 4.14.3.Substantiation: Annex materials to identify alternate grounding electrodes specified in NEC (NFPA 70 - 2011) to assist users of this document (780) with proper bonding interconnections between lightning protection and qualified grounding electrodes identified by (new) 4.14.3. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd * following 4.14.3. New text to read as follows: Annex paragraph A.4.14.3
Definitions in the NEC (NFPA 70) and 780 for bonding or bonded, grounded or grounding and grounding electrode are similar. The actual standards sections that define what constitutes these various items point to differences in application, equipment, and requirements. NEC paragraph 250.50 (Grounding Electrode System) requires all electrodes present at each building or structure be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. This coordinates to the requirements of Section 4.14. The differences occur in NEC Section 250.52 which describes grounding electrode devices not shown in Section 4.13. Grounding electrode devices described in Section 250.52, but not referenced in this document include: (1) 250.52 (A) (1) 10 ft. of metallic underground water pipe extending from the structure in contact with earth (2) 250.52 (A) (2) (1) The metal frame of the structure in contact with earth (3) 250.52 (A) (3) (2) The concrete encased electrode described as #4 AWG would need to be a main size conductor per Paragraph 4.13.3.2 (4) 250.52 (A) (4) The ground ring electrode not smaller than #2 AWG is acceptable for Class I, but would not be acceptable for Class II (See Table 4.1.1.1.2) (5) 250.52 (A) (5) Pipe electrodes shown under section (a) are not included. Rod electrodes described in (b) as zinc coated steel are not covered (4.13.2.5) (6) 250.52 (A) (6) Other listed electrodes would need to comply with the various sections of 4.13 (7) 250.52 (A) (7) Plate electrodes would need to comply with 4.13.6 (8) 250.52 (A) (8) “Other local metal underground systems or structures” are not referenced as grounding electrodes in this Standard The lightning protection system designer must be familiar with these differences for coordination of interconnection with other building grounding electrodes or the structural grounding electrode system as required by paragraph 4.14.3.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and edits to comply with Manual of Style. The Technical Committee notes that the references in this proposal correlate
with Proposal 780-40. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-118 Log #46 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.14.5 (New) )_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Harold VanSickle, III, Lightning Protection Institute / Rep. Grounding & Bonding Task Group - NFPA 780 Recommendation: Annex paragraph A.4.14.5NEC paragraph 250.68 (Grounding Electrode Conductor and Bonding Jumper Connection to Grounding Electrodes) identifies locations where separately derived systems and associated bonding jumpers may be located for common grounding or bonding. NEC paragraph 250.104 (Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel) details metallic piping, the structural frame, and all separately derived grounding systems should be interconnected to form a single common ground. Paragraph 4.14.5 requires one connection to other building grounded systems. Much like a ground bus bar the common grounding point for the lightning
protection system to other building grounded systems may be distinguishable as located in the first 5 feet of water pipe, but it may include the entire water pipe system. A common connection point on the structural metallic frame may be apparent, or it may be the extent of the building framework. There is no qualifier (size of pipe or structural metal) in the NEC. This is different from this Standard which qualifies the structural metallic frame as a current carrying part of the system when it meets or exceeds the 3/16” thickness requirement (See 4.16.1). When installation of the electrical grounding system is made in full compliance with the NEC document there would be the need to connect to the lightning protection ground system only once to comply with 4.14.5. The location must be identified by the method used from the NEC. In cases where the building structural metallic frame is a part of the lightning protection system or is bonded as required by 4.9.13, you would generally expect that no additional bonding runs at grade level between systems would be required. The lightning protection system designer may consider simplification of the system interconnection requirement by specifying one connection to the metallic water pipe system, but in certain cases the use of plastic pipe sections makes this not a part of the building grounding system. In other instances the building structural frame may not be exposed for connection of derived systems, so this may not be the method for interconnection of grounded systems, or there may be no metallic frame. The designer could also specify connection of the lightning protection ground system to the electrical grounding electrode, but in the case of buildings served by feeders of branch circuits (250.104 (A)(3)) there is no grounding electrode. Knowledge of the requirements or acceptable allowances of the NEC (NFPA 70) is necessary to determine common bonding of the lightning protection system to other building grounded systems at a single point. If the installed building grounded systems are not in compliance with current NEC requirements, common ground bonding must include the interconnection of all to the lightning protection grounding system. If there is no problem with multiple bonds between various systems, or “loops”, etc., then multiple connections from the lightning protection system will simply improve the overall grounding system quality for the structure.Substantiation: Coordination of interconnection of grounded systems at a common point in 780 & 70 requires consideration of various applications for different structure types. This explanatory information added to the annex of 780 assists the user with references to both documents to make the proper determination. Note: There is an additional proposal to move Section 4.16 to 4.19 causing the reference at the end of the second paragraph to change from 4.16.1 to 4.19.1, if approved. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleAdd * following 4.14.5. New text to read as follows: Annex paragraph A.4.14.5NEC Section 250.68 (Grounding Electrode Conductor and Bonding Jumper Connection to Grounding Electrodes) identifies locations where separately derived systems and associated bonding jumpers might be located for common grounding or bonding. NEC Section 250.104 (Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel) details the interconnection of metallic piping, the structural frame, and all separately derived grounding systems. Paragraph 4.14.5 requires one connection to other building grounded systems. Much like a ground bus bar the common grounding point for the lightning protection system to other building grounded systems could be distinguishable as located in the first 5 feet of water pipe, but it could include the entire water pipe system. A common connection point on the structural metallic frame could be apparent, or it could be the extent of the building framework. There is no qualifier (size of pipe or structural metal) in the NEC. This is different from this standard which qualifies the structural metallic frame as a current carrying part of the system when it meets or exceeds the 3/16” thickness requirement (See 4.16.1). When installation of the electrical grounding system is made in full compliance with the NEC there would be the need to connect to the lightning protection ground system only once to comply with 4.14.5. The location must be identified by the method used from the NEC. In cases where the building structural metallic frame is a part of the lightning protection system or is bonded as required by 4.9.13, one would generally expect that no additional bonding runs at grade level between systems would be required. The lightning protection system designer could consider simplification of the system interconnection requirement by specifying one connection to the metallic water pipe system, but in certain cases the use of plastic pipe sections makes this not a part of the building grounding system. In other instances the building structural frame could not be exposed for connection of derived systems, so this could not be the method for interconnection of grounded systems, or there could be no metallic frame. The designer could also specify connection of the lightning protection ground system to the electrical grounding electrode, but in the case of buildings served by feeders of branch circuits (250.104 (A)(3)) there is no grounding electrode. Knowledge of the requirements or acceptable allowances of the NEC (NFPA 70) is necessary to determine common bonding of the lightning protection system to other building grounded systems at a single point. If the installed building grounded systems are not in compliance with current NEC requirements, common ground bonding must include the interconnection of all to the lightning protection grounding system. If there is no problem with
780-55
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780multiple bonds between various systems, or “loops”, etc., then multiple connections from the lightning protection system will simply improve the overall grounding system quality for the structure.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and revises for clarity and for compliance with the Manual of Style. The Technical Committee notes that the references in this proposal correlate
with Proposal 780-40. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: MELTON, JR., R.: A.4.14.5: (2nd Para.) “.....in the first 5 feet....(add)
provided that a minimum of 10 feet of metallic cold water piping is in contact with the earth). As in 780-40 Log 47, the CWP should not be used as a “bonding means” to get to the power ground. In general, the power ground will always be much better than the driven electrodes/ground ring for the LPS. To assure an equipotential bond, the single point bond for systems within the structure is required. PORTFLEET, T.: The text does not comply with the manual of style. As
modified by the committee the English value should be listed with SI values in parentheses following those values. 5 feet should be 5ft (1.52 m) 3/16” should be 3/16 in. (4.8 mm)
_______________________________________________________________780-119 Log #40 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.4.18.4)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:A.4.18.4 The measured limiting voltages of the SPD should be selected to limit damage to the service or equipment protected. Devices rated in accordance with ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Edition 3, reflect that the voltage rating test in this Edition utilizes a 3 kA peak current instead of the 500 A current level used in the SVR test of ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, Edition 2.Substantiation: Delete reference to edition of the UL standard in the text of this document. Instead, refer to the referenced edition as listed in O.1.2.5 so the referenced standard is consistent throughout the document. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: A.4.18.4 The measured limiting voltages of the SPD should be selected to limit damage to the service or equipment protected. Devices rated in accordance with ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Edition 3, reflect that the voltage rating test in this Edition utilizes a 3 kA peak current instead of the 500 A current level previously used in the SVR test of ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, Edition 2.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and adds “previously.” Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: RAPP, R.: See response to 780-45 _______________________________________________________________ 780-120 Log #96 Final Action: Reject(A.8.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Remove this section from the annex and place it in the main body of the standard. Expand 8.3.4 to incorporate the mid roof spacing requirements. 8.3.4 concludes with as “except as modified below” with nothing listed below. The text goes directly to 8.3.5. It appears that the annex material was intended to be mandatory text, but was not written as such. The explosives task group needs to clarify the original intent. Substantiation: All of the explanatory material is redundant statements of Chapter 4 Requirements, except that 20 ft. is the maximum spacing for 1ft. and 2 ft. air terminals and the mid roof spacing is diminished. 8.3.4 refers back to chapter 4, but the mid roof values enumerated in the annex is different than those of chapter 4. Since a 100 ft. Rolling Sphere Model is being employed, the different values should be specifically spelled out in the text. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee does not agree to relocate the text of Section A.8.3.4 to the end of Section 8.3.4 as it is clearly informational material and belongs in the annex. The Technical Committee refers the submitter to Proposal 780-66 that deletes “, except as modified below.”Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-121 Log #53 Final Action: Reject(A.8.6.5.5)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Josephine Covino, DoD Explosives Safety BoardRecommendation: Add the following section A.8.6.5.5.1. For personnel safety, a single earth electrode (e.g., a grounding rod) can be installed at-or-near the door of the container and bonded to it. Substantiation: Proposal for an Addition to NFPA 780, 2011 Edition, Chapter 8, “Protection of Structures Housing Explosive Materials” Introduction Above is a proposed addition to the subject document that defines US Department of Defense (DoD) guidelines for storage of ammunition and explosives (AE) in steel ISO containers. In particular it delineates two storage categories: one list of AE categories that can be safely stored in a steel ISO container without the need for any LPS installed; the second list is those AE categories that must be stored in an ISO container that has NFPA-compliant LPS installed. Discussion: A detailed study of the electromagnetic effects of lightning strikes on steel ISO containers has been performed. The study includes a mathematical analysis of direct and indirect lightning effects, and corroborative electromagnetic transfer impedance testing. Aside from the potential of burn-through due to a direct strike attachment, the report and subsequent private communications between the authors, Dr. John Tobias and Mr. Mitchell Guthrie conclude that the ISO will provide adequate electromagnetic shielding to its contents. Risk levels to the stored AE are equal to or less than that of other authorized storage structures, with the exception of burn-through. The two AE categories delineated below are; 1. AE that are not adversely affected by burn-through effects (no LPS required) and, 2. AE that could be adversely affected by burn-through (LPS required). Based on the study and the categorization presented, the DoD Explosives Safety Board recommends that these guidelines be added to NFPA 780, Chapter 8, specifically for -- and only applicable to -- DoD AE storage in steel ISO Containers. The theoretical calculations and electromagnetic measurements of a typical steel ISO container indicate that it will provide adequate protection for most AE against all lightning threats without the application of any external lightning protection means. The level of protection provided by an ISO container against all lightning threats is consistent with all other DoD-approved lightning protected structures that contain AE with the exception of a small possibility of burn-through. Proposed Addition to NFPA 780: This assumes that the container is in good condition, all welds and joints are sound, and that any damage has been repaired per MIL HDBK-138B. DoD steel ISO containers can be used to safely store the following AE items, with a minimum Safe Separation Distance of 0.6 inch, without the need for any external LPS: 1. Small arms in ammo boxes. 2. All-up weapon systems in shipping containers. 3. Warheads and rocket motors in shipping containers. 4. Metal cased or overpacked bombs and AE. 5. Detonators and explosive actuators in metallic overpacks. The following AE items must be stored in steel ISO containers that are protected with an external LPS: 1. Bulk explosives/propellants in non-conductive boxes or drums. 2. Rocket motors which have non-metallic cases. 3. Non-metal cased or overpacked cartridges and ammunition. 4. Items shipped with open detonators or explosive actuators. For personnel safety, a single earth electrode (e.g., a grounding rod) can be installed at-or-near the door of the container and bonded to it. If any electrical power, communications and/or signal wiring, metallic pipes and/or ducting are installed on an ISO container, LPS as specified in DoD 6055.09-STD and NFPA-780 must be installed, with surge protection as necessary. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee added Annex material on ISO containers in Section A.8.6.5. See action on Proposal 780-73. The Technical Committee does not necessarily agree with the submitter’s substantiation. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-122 Log #87 Final Action: Accept(A.9.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value to read as follows:A.9.1 “blades up to 20 18 m (60 ft) long,”Substantiation: The value is incorrect. Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
780-56
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-122a Log #CP6 Final Action: Accept(Table A.10.4.1.3)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Delete note following Table A.10.4.1.3.Substantiation: The TC deletes the note as it provides no guidance for the user of the table. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-123 Log #113 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.10.4.1.3 and Table A.10.4.1.3)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Tobias, US Army Communications Electronics CommandRecommendation: Revise text as follows:A.10.4.1.3 If a metal with the area given by the equation in 10.4.1.3 is subject to the lightning heating (action integral) required to raise the temperature of a copper conductor with 21 mm2 (0.033 in.2) from a nominal temperature of 298 K (77 °F) to the melting point of copper, then its temperature would be raised to the melting point of the metal. Values for silicon bronze and stainless steel are given in Table A.10.4.1.3. Append existing Table A.10.4.1.3 with the following values:
Table A.10.4.1.3 Areas for Main Conductor Not Containing Electrical Wiring Metal Cp (BTU/lbm°F) D (lbm/in2) ( in) MP (°F) Area (in2)Silicon bronze 0.086 0.32 9.95 × 10-6 1981 0.13 Stainless steel 0.122 0.29 3.74 × 10-5 2781 0.19
Substantiation: Equivalent units provided in accordance with Manual of Style and NFPA 780 Editorial Task Group minutes, 4/11/2011. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: A.10.4.1.3 If a metal with the area given by the equation in 10.4.1.3 is subject to the lightning heating (action integral) required to raise the temperature of a copper conductor with 21 mm2 (0.033 in.2) from a nominal temperature of 298 K (77 °F) to the melting point of copper, then its temperature would be raised to the melting point of the metal. Values for silicon bronze and stainless steel are given in Table A.10.4.1.3(a) or Table A.10.4.1.3.(b).Revise title of the submitter’s proposed table to read as follows: Table A.10.4.1.3(a) Areas for Main Conductor Not Containing
Electrical Wiring (inch-pound units) Revise the headings in the submitter’s table so the following are italic:
Cp, D, p and MP Change title of Table A.10.4.1.3 to read as follows: Table A.10.4.1.3(b) Areas for Main Conductor Not Containing
Electrical Wiring (metric units)(See Tables A.10.4.1.3(a) and A.10.4.1.3(b) on the following page.)Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and edits to editorially insert the new table and revise its heading. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: PORTFLEET, T.: Values are to be changed expressing the “English” values
first.
_______________________________________________________________780-124 Log #88 Final Action: Accept in Principle(A.15.4.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change the values as follows: ”at a depth of at least 0.545 m (18 in.) and a distance of approximately 10.9 m (3ft.) around the external walls.” Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: ”at a depth of at least 460 mm (18 in.) and a distance of approximately 10.9 m (3 ft) around the external walls.”Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes the submitter intended to refer to A.4.15.4.1. The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and deletes “the.” The Technical Committee changed 0.545 m to 460 mm for consistency throughout the document. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-125 Log #93 Final Action: Accept(Figure B.3.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Figure B.3.2.2. Change dimension on the radius from 45 m to 46 m.Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: GUTHRIE, M.: This change is not necessary because action taken on 780-1a indicates the equivalent values shall be approximate. _______________________________________________________________ 780-126 Log #89 Final Action: Accept in Principle(B.3.3.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change values to read as follows:B.3.3.2. second paragraph “”is approximately 45 46 m (150ft.)” third Paragraph “standard 45 46 m (150 ft.)”Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: B.3.2.2. second paragraph “is approximately 45 46 m (150 ft)” third paragraph “standard 45 46 m (150 ft)”Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes the submitter intended to refer to B.3.2.2. The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and edits per the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: GUTHRIE, M.: This change is not necessary because action taken on 780-1a indicates the equivalent values shall be approximate. _______________________________________________________________ 780-127 Log #90 Final Action: Reject(C.2.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change value to read as follows:C.2.1 “is sufficient for side flash of over 1.8 9 mm (6 ft.) “Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2 Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee notes that in his proposal, the submitter incorrectly used units of mm rather than m. The Technical Committee chooses to retain 1.8 m.
780-57
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
Table A.10.4.1.3(b) Areas for Main Conductor Not Containing Electrical Wiring (metric units)
Metal
Cp
(J kg−1 K−1)
D (kg m−3)
ρ (Ω m)
MP (K)
Area (mm2)
Silicon bronze 360 8800 2.55 × 10−7 1356 85
Stainless steel 510 7930 9.6 × 10−7 1800 125
Note: Conductors with these areas have a larger resistance per unit length than a main conductor made of copper and so should not be used where potential equalization is required.
Proposal 780-123 (Log #113) Committee Action
Table A.10.4.1.3(a) Areas for Main Conductor Not Containing Electrical Wiring (inch-pound units)
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: GUTHRIE, M.: This change is not necessary because action taken on 780-1a
indicates the equivalent values shall be approximate. _______________________________________________________________780-128 Log #116 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Table C.2.3)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: John M. Tobias, US Army Communications Electronics CommandRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
Table C.2.3 Sample Calculations of Bonding Distances
hD
n=1.0 n=1.5 n=2.25m ft Km m ft m ft m ft
3.05 10 1 0.50 1 ft 8. in. 0.33 1 ft 1 3/8 in. 0.22 9 in. 0.5 0.25 10 in. 0.17 6 3/4 in. 0.11 4.1/2 in.
6.10 20 1 1.01 3 ft 4 in. 0.67 2 ft. 2 3/4 in. 0.45 1 ft 6 in. 0.5 0.50 1 ft 1 3/8 in. 0.33 1 ft 1 3/8 in. 0.22 9 in.
9.15 30 1 1.52 5 ft 0 in. 1.01 3 ft 4 in. 0.67 2 ft 2 3/4 in. 0.5 0.76 2 ft 6 in. 0.50 1 ft 8 in. 0.33 1 ft 1 3/8 in.
12.2 40 1 2.03 6 ft 8 in. 1.37 4 ft 6 in. 0.91 3 ft 0.5 1.01 3 ft 4 in. 0.68 2 ft 3 in. 0.45 1 ft 6 in.
Substantiation: Equivalent units provided in accordance with Manual of Style and NFPA 780 Editorial Task Group minutes, 4/11/2011. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise the submitter’s value to be 1 ft 8 in.
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s recommendation but notes a typographical error in the submission. The Technical Committee changes the submitter’s recommendation of 1 ft 1 3/8 in. to be 1 ft 8 in. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-129 Log #54 Final Action: Reject(Annex F)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Bob Rouse, Tree Care Industry Association / Rep. ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee A300 Recommendation: Proposal 1: Delete Annex F and replace with a normative reference for ANSI A300 Part 4 Lightning Protection Systems for Trees. Official citation: ANSI A300 (Part 4)-2008 for Tree Care Operations - Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices (Lightning Protection Systems). Alternative proposal if proposal 1 is not accepted: Harmonize NFPA 780
Annex F with ANSI A300 Part 4 by making the following revisions: 1) F2.1 Conductors should conform to the requirements of Table 4.1.1(a) for
bonding conductor cable of Chapter 4. This change will allow use of the miniature cable that we now have in A300.2) F2.2 eliminate the last sentence: If the tree trunk is 0.9m (3 ft) in diameter or larger, two down conductors should be run on opposite sides of the trunk and interconnected. This will eliminate the need for a second down conductor.3) F2.5 Ground terminals: (1) …. extend three one or more radial conductors in a trench 0.3m (12 inches) 0.2m (8 inches) deep a distance of at least 3 m (10 feet) from the base of the tree, and be spaced at equal intervals about the base to a distance of not less than 3 m or a single driven rod installed outside the drip line of the tree. (2) Have radial conductors extended to the branch line not less than 7.6 m(25 ft). not less than 3 m (10 ft) from the base of the tree. (3) change depth 0.3 m(12 inches) to 0.2 m (8 inches). This will allow the use of the A300 specified trench depth and distance from the trunk.4) Figure F1. Change air terminal 1 and 3 from sharp point to blunt tip. Change depth of conductor from 0.3 m to 0.2 m (8 inches). Change caption 2 Class 1 or 11 full size cable to secondary size cable. 5) Note 1 Locate ground approximately at branch line to avoid root damage 3m (10 feet_ from base of tree. Location at branch line (know in the Tree Care Industry as drip line) does
warrant against root damage. 6) Note 2 Install cable loosely to allow for tree growth.
Tree growth accommodation does not require loose cables, trees grow from growing points at the apex of branches and twigs (primary growth) and in girth (secondary growth).Substantiation: The current edition of NFPA 780 Annex F is not in harmony with ANSI A300 Part 4 Lightning Protection Systems for Trees. The current version of ANSI A300 is based on common tree care industry best practices, failure modes of current best practices, and arborist experience.
Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee chooses to not delete Annex F and replace it with a normative reference to ANSI A300 Part 4. The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. The submitter has not provided the specific proposed text in the recommendation for this proposal in accordance with 4.3.3(c) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects including the wording to be added or revised and how the text in the document should be revised. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-130 Log #118 Final Action: Accept in Principle(F.1)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Figure F.1. Show ground conductor depth to 0.2 m. 1. Show blunt rather than sharp tip air terminal. 2. Class 1 or Class II full size cable bonding conductor. Alternative: Secondary size conductor 3. Branch air terminal Show blunt rather than sharp air terminal 5. Drive-type cable clip at 0.9 m to 2 m O/C. This allows the wider spacing of fasteners on tall straight trunks. Note 1: Locate the ground approximately at the branch line at least 4 m from the trunk to avoid root damage.Note 2: Install the cable loosely to allow for tree growthSubstantiation: Eliminating Note 2 because the Conductor is installed taut. This statement is confusing and leads to leaving excessive conductor on the tree that can lead to sideflash. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise Figure F.1 text to read as follows: 2. Class I or Class II full size cable bonding conductor5. Drive-type cable clip no more than at 6 ft (2 m) O/C Note 1: Locate the grounding electrode at least 12 ft (4 m) from the trunk to avoid root damage Note 2: Install the cable loosely to allow for tree growth Relable Note 3 as Note 2. Committee Statement: The Technical Committee notes that the submitter is referring to Figure F.1. The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. Several of the items requested by the submitter are already satisfied by the NFPA 780-2011 edition. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
780-59
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-131 Log #119 Final Action: Accept in Principle(F.2.1)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: F2.1 Conductors should conform to the requirements of Chapter 4 for
bonding conductors 16 strands of 17 gauge wire.Substantiation: ANSI A300 has been using the smaller conductor for nearly 10 years, this is easier to install in trees and has functioned without problems. The larger diameter conductor is not needed in trees. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: F2.1 Conductors should conform to the requirements of Chapter 4 for bonding conductors. Committee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and retains a reference to Chapter 4. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-132 Log #120 Final Action: Accept(F.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Delete the following text: F 2.2 … If the tree trunk is 0.9 m in diameter or larger, two down conductors should be run on opposite sides of the trunk and interconnected.Substantiation: One conductor is sufficient since most strikes occur high in the tree where the trunk diameter is smaller. The only tree damage we see is above the air terminal, not on side branches or the trunk on the opposite side of the tree. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-133 Log #121 Final Action: Accept in Principle(F.2.5(1))_______________________________________________________________Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: F2.5 (1) Be connected to all conductors that descend the trunk of the tree,
extend three or more radial conductors in trenches 0.3 0.2 m and be spaced at equal intervals about the base to a distance not less than 3 m or a single driven ground rod installed outside the dripline of at least 4 m from the tree trunk.Substantiation: We have found that one ground rot installed at 10 feet (3m) from the trunk has been sufficient and results in minimal root and tree damage. Eight inch (0.2 m) trench depth is practical and achieves our goal of minimizing tree root damage. Deeper trenches damages more roots. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: F2.5 (1) Be connected to all conductors that descend the trunk of the tree, extend one or more radial conductors in trenches 0.3 0.2 m (8 in.) and be spaced at equal intervals about the base to a distance not less than 3 m (10 ft) or a single driven ground rod installed outside the dripline of at least 4 m (12 ft) from the tree trunk.Committee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and adds English units as required by the Manual of Style. The Technical Committee also changes “three” to “one.” Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
_______________________________________________________________ 780-134 Log #122 Final Action: Accept in Principle(F.2.5(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: F 2.5 (2) Have radial conductors extend to the branch line not less than 7.6 4 m. Substantiation: This distance has been effective at minimizing root damage, greater length adds cost and is not necessary. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Revise text to read as follows: F 2.5 (2) Have radial conductors extend to the branch line not less than 7.6 4 m (12 ft) Committee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s text and added English units as required by the Manual of Style. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-135 Log #123 Final Action: Accept(F.2.5(3))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Delete the following text: F 2.5 (3) Have the out ends connected to the radial conductors with a conductor that encircles the tree at a depth of not less than 0.3 m. Substantiation: If done, this would be extremely damaging to the tree. The majority of the roots needed for water and nutrient uptake are at a depth less than 12 inches, so doing a circling soil cut around the tree can be very damaging and should be avoided. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-136 Log #124 Final Action: Reject(F.2.5(4))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: E. Thomas Smiley, Bartlett Tree Research LaboratoryRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: F2.5 (4) Be bonded to an underground metallic water pip where available within 7.6 m of the branch line 3 m of the ground conductor.Substantiation: To be consistent with other recommendations and minimize tree root damage. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The submitter is encouraged to utilize the most recent edition of NFPA 780 in future submittals. Reducing the bonding distance reduces safety. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________ 780-137 Log #94 Final Action: Accept(G.1.1.3(2))_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Stephen Humeniuk, Warren Lightning Rod Company / Rep. ULPARecommendation: Change values to read as follows: G.1.1.3 (2) “no greater than 1 0.9 m (3.3 3 ft) spacing between conductors”………”depth of no less than 152 150 mm (6 in.) and no greater than 459 460 mm (18 in.)Substantiation: Change is need to maintain consistency throughout the document as per the Manual of Style Section 4.1.2. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
780-60
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-138 Log #117 Final Action: Accept in Principle(Figure L.2)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: David E. McAfee, Fire and Lightning ConsultantsRecommendation: Replace existing figure with the following revised figure:
Figure L.2
780-61
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780Substantiation: Updated flash density values available for National Lightning Detection Network and Vaisala. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Replace existing figure with the following revised figure:
Committee Statement: The Technical Committee accepts the submitter’s recommendation and provides an updated map providing cloud-to-ground lightning incidence. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 Comment on Affirmative: FRANKLIN, D.: Confirm that, per committee disucussion, the map will be
converted to a “line type” illustration to denote boundaries. The shaded version is not usable or accurate as shown
Vaisala’s National Lightning Detection Network® (NLDN®)Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Incidence in the Continental U.S. (1997–2010)
780-62
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780_______________________________________________________________780-138a Log #CP12 Final Action: Accept(L.6.7.8, L.6.7.9, L.6.7.10 and Figure L.6.8)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: Technical Committee on Lightning Protection, Recommendation: Revise Tables L.6.7.8, L.6.7.9, L.6.7.10 and Figure L.6.8 as follows:
Table L.6.7.8
Line Type Routing, shielding and bonding conditions Withstand Voltage UW in kV
1 1.5 2.5 4 6
Power lines
or Telecom
lines
Aerial or buried line, unshielded or shielded whose shield is not bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment 1 1 1 1 1
Shielded aerial or buried whose shield bonded to the same bonding bar as equipment
5 Ω/km < RS < 20 Ω/km 1 1 0.95 0.9 0.8
1 Ω/km < RS < 5 Ω/km 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.1
RS ≤ 1 Ω/km 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.04 0.02
Note 1: RS is the resistance of the cable shield which can be obtained from the cable manufacturer. NOTE 2 In suburban/urban areas, an LV power line uses typically unshielded buried cable whereas a telecommunication line uses a buried shielded cable with a shield resistance of 5 Ω/km. In rural areas, an LV power line uses an unshielded aerial cable whereas a telecommunication line uses an aerial unshielded cable. An HV buried power line uses typically a shielded cable with a shield resistance in the order of 1 Ω/km to 5 Ω/km. Note 3 Values for UW can be obtained from manufactures and equipment suppliers. If the actual values are not readily available from other sources the following typical values may be utilized;
1. For structures containing computer equipment; UW = 1.5 kV 2. For a typical residential structure: UW = 2.5 kV 3. For a typical business, hotel, hospital etc. structure: UW = 2.5 kV 4. For a typical light industrial structure: UW = 4.0 kV 5. For a typical heavy industrial structure: UW = 6.0 kV 6. Default value: UW = 1.5 kV
Table title remains unchanged.
Table title remains unchanged.
Table L.6.7.9
Line type Withstand voltage UW in kV
1 1,5 2,5 4 6
Power lines 1 0,6 0,3 0,16 0,1
TLC lines 1 0,5 0,2 0,08 0,04
Note: Values for UW can be obtained from manufactures and equipment suppliers. If the actual values are not readily available from other sources the following typical values may be utilized;
1. For structures containing computer equipment; UW = 1.5 kV2. For a typical residential structure: UW = 2.5 kV3. For a typical business, hotel, hospital etc. structure: UW = 2.5 kV4. For a typical light industrial structure: UW = 4.0 kV5. For a typical heavy industrial structure: UW = 6.0 kV6. Default value: UW = 1.5 kV
Revise Table L.6.7.10 to add the following values under the Failure of Systems (LO) column to read as follows: no entry, no entry, 10-3, 10-6, 10-6, 10-6, 10-6, 10-1
780-63
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
Risk of Failure of Internal Systems Due to Strike Near Incoming Service – RZ
NI =
RZ = (NI _NL)(PZ)(LZ) NL = RZ =
PZ =
LZ =
Risk Calculations
Risk of Injury or Loss of Life – R 1
RA =
RB =
RC =
R1 = RA+RB+RC*+RM*+RU RM = R1 =+RV+RW*+RZ*
RU =
RV =
RW =
RZ =
Risk of Loss of Service (Power, Phone, Water, etc.) – R 2
RB =
RC =
R2 = RB+RC+RM+RV+RW+RZ RM = R2 =
RV =
RW =
RZ =
Risk Calculations (continued)
Risk of Loss of Historical Significance – R 3
RB =
R3 = RB+RV RV = R3 =
Risk of an Economic Loss – R 4
RA =
RB =
RC =
R4 = RA**+RB+RC+RM+RU** RM = R4 =+RV+RW+RZ
RU =
RV =
RW =
RZ =
Overall Risk to the Structure
R1 =
R2 =
R = R1+R2+R3+R4 R3 = R =
R4 =
* Applicable only for structures with life-critical electrical equipment, risk of explosion, or where failure of internal system immediately endangers life
** Applicable only to structures where animals could be lost
LZ = LO
Figure title remains unchanged. Substantiation: The TC edits Tables L.6.7.8, L.6.7.9, L.6.7.10 and Figure L.6.8 to make the information easier to utilize and to correlate with changes made by the IEC. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
780-66
Report on Proposals A2013 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 780
_______________________________________________________________ 780-139 Log #41 Final Action: Accept in Principle(O.1.2.5)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: O.1.2.5 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten
Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Transient Voltage Surge
Suppressors, Second Edition, August 15, 1996. ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Third Edition, September 29, 2006, Revised 2011.Substantiation: Delete duplicate references and update the referenced standard to the most recent edition. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: O.1.2.5 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Transient Voltage Surge Suppressors, Second Edition, August 15, 1996. ANSI/UL 1449, UL Standard for Safety for Surge Protective Devices, Third Edition, September 29, 2006, Revised 2011.Committee Statement: The Technical Committee retains the document date (by year) but not the revision date. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28 _______________________________________________________________780-140 Log #42 Final Action: Reject(O.2.4)_______________________________________________________________Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: O.2.4 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road,
Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 497, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Paired Conductor
Communications Circuits, 2001, revised 2004 2009. ANSI/UL 497A, UL Standard for Safety Secondary Protectors for Communications Circuits, 2001, revised 2008. ANSI/UL 497B, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Data Communications and Fire Alarm Circuits, 2004, revised 2008. ANSI/UL 497C, UL Standard for Safety Protectors for Coaxial Communications Circuits, 2001, revised 2008. UL 452, UL Standard for Safety Antenna Discharge Units, 2006, revised 2007. Substantiation: Update the referenced standard to the most recent edition.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The Technical Committee retains the document date (by year) but not the revision date. Number Eligible to Vote: 28 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 28
![First Revision No. 1-NFPA 1917-2013 [ Global Input ......First Revision No. 168-NFPA 1917-2013 [ Section No. 2.2 ] 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f73298c4908545705195fc5/first-revision-no-1-nfpa-1917-2013-global-input-first-revision-no-168-nfpa.jpg)
![First Revision No. 4021-NFPA 101-2015 [ Detail ]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6198c097c098272e427daa1c/first-revision-no-4021-nfpa-101-2015-detail-.jpg)
![Second Revision No. 11-NFPA 30-2013 [ Section No. 2.2 ]€¦ · · 2013-08-14Second Revision No. 11-NFPA 30-2013 [ Section No. 2.2 ] ... NFPA 96, Standard for Ventilation Control](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5b053b107f8b9abf568b62fc/second-revision-no-11-nfpa-30-2013-section-no-22-2013-08-14second-revision.jpg)
![First Revision No. 6-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Chapter NFPA ] · First Revision No. 6-NFPA 90A-2012 [ Chapter NFPA ] ... developed index of 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM E ... Public](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5acf07a17f8b9a71028c21fd/first-revision-no-6-nfpa-90a-2012-chapter-nfpa-revision-no-6-nfpa-90a-2012.jpg)
![First Revision No. 8085-NFPA 5000-2018 [ Global Input ]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6209a9faa1d94a32340530e7/first-revision-no-8085-nfpa-5000-2018-global-input-.jpg)
![First Revision No. 2-NFPA 1002-2015 [ Chapter 1 ]...First Revision No. 6-NFPA 1002-2015 [ Section No. 2.2 ] 2.2 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/613d7cdee1ef621e9f2dc11b/first-revision-no-2-nfpa-1002-2015-chapter-1-first-revision-no-6-nfpa.jpg)