ANSI/NETA Standard for Acceptance Testing Specifications for Electrical Power . Specifications have been published in , , , , and Portage, Mich.-based InterNational Electrical Testing Association (NETA) recently published ANSI/NETA MTS, “Standard for Maintenance. PREFACE (continued). ANSI/NETA MTS Optional Tests. The purpose of these specifications is to assure that all tested electrical equipment and systems.
|Published (Last):||9 January 2015|
|PDF File Size:||11.84 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.64 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Ansi neta mts 2007 frequency of maintenance tests
There is no specific requirement that NETA standards or NETA-certified contractors be used for maintenance testing, although that is certainly the main organization in the US that deals with testing of electrical equipment. From that data we can determine whether the first trip time is within manufacturer’s specification. Red Flag This Post Please let us know here why this post mst-2007 inappropriate.
But ansi-netaa are a lot of competent ansi-nfta organizations, including groups associated with manufacturers that are not NETA members.
We have tried an optional solution for some of these “problem” breakers, that uses the installation of CT’s and a protective relay. It’s only as good as the technician on YOUR job. Hover, much of MY equipment is bolted in place.
Thanks for the tip! In my ansi-beta several years ago one of the large insurers was very proactive about making sure their customers did the right thing, now days they wait until they get a claim, then one of the first things they ask is if you’ve done your recommended maintenance, no records, no claim.
Still go into a lot of facilities where regular testing and maintenance is not being done, some figure a label warning of arc flash hazard is enough and it is the electricians problem to figure it out.
He may have to travel with said trailer for several hundred miles to my site in Armpit, Mississippi, for which I pay, and when he gets there, he’s pulling out the ONLY breaker feeding my station, so I’m off-line on an interstate pipeline, for a scheduled outage, mts-200 the while hoping that something doesn’t get broken by that remove-test-replace cycle. That’s just an opinion, mts2-007 understand. When you add to that the electrical risk, where you know you’re going to have to work on live equipment and you’re going to see sizable electrical outages because by nature the breakers you’re interested in testing will be critical feeders, I see NFPA 70E as offering more hazards than it corrects.
Some added features helped sell the idea to their management, like better fault recording, ability to use relay data for mts-207, ability to test if a test switch installed with minimal service disruption, and ability to easily change settings for service access arc flash settings. I think you are basically correct. Have them put that in their pipe and smoke it By joining you are opting in znsi-neta receive e-mail.
ANSI/NETA MTS REQUIRED? – Electric power & transmission & distribution – Eng-Tips
I am changing our engineering standards to require future installations to employ drawout power breakers for major loads, but we use many smaller power panels and switchracks and those feeder breakers will need to be tested to validate their condition for arc-flash. It’s easy to join and it’s free. For additional direction for performing maintenance on overcurrent protective devices, see Chapter 2, Safety-Related Maintenance Requirements.
We still had to make sure the trip elements works, but a functional test of the trip was way easier to perform than pulling a breaker out of the unit to test. Unbolting twelve bolts on the bus side connection and disconnecting twelve thumb-sized cables on the load side so that the break can be tested is a problem. The arc-flash study is supposed to consider the “condition of maintenance” of the equipment.
As long as you don’t have a meltdown or an accident you might get away with it.
It is a very good tool, and I recommended it to several clients after I went back into power system field ansi–neta. Having dealt with this before, it is my experience that the simple act of removing a molded-case breaker for testing, then replacing it in its original location is a high-risk exposure in that many connections will not be restored properly.
Yes, for the most part.
My question is, How can the analysis be legitimate without ever having tested the OCPD’s and Relays electrically and mechanically? It is administered and enforced by OSHA, who are frequently described as “toothless dogs” that are all bark and no bite, but here’s the catch.
I’m looking at similar mtw-2007. This significantly increases the incident energy exposure in an Arc Flash scenario. Can it be done? It did not tell me the condition of system protection devices and their ability to sense and properly react to overcurrent conditions. Some were pretty hard opposed to the idea, some greatly in favor, and from a long term standpoint I guess we’ll see as we only started doing this a year ago. I have to agree with many of the points brought up ansi-nega “old field guy”, I also worked for a NETA company for a few years, the supervising engineer was the reason I joined the company, a joy to work with, but when he left it wasn’t so much anymore.
Once you open that breaker and rack it out you have broken loose dried lubricants, excercised springs, etc. So please understand this relates only to the contact parting time.