SUMMARY OF ITEMS OF ENGINEERING INTEREST

JULY 1999

Viewing Instructions

There are both bookmarks and links imbedded in this file.

Browsing with bookmarks

Bookmarks mark parts of a document for quick access.

To jump to a topic by using its bookmark:

1. The bookmarks are shown on the left side of the screen. If a triangle appears to the

left of the bookmark, click the triangle to show or hide subordinate bookmarks.

2. To go to the destination specified by a bookmark, click the bookmark text or doubleclick the page icon to the left of the bookmark name.

Following links

The various indices in this bulletin use links to allow the user to quickly go to the desired

article.

To follow a link:

1. Move the pointer over a linked area. The pointer changes to a pointing finger when

positioned over a link.

2. Click to follow the link.

General information:

You can use the buttons at the top of the screen for going from page to page. Also, by

right-clicking your mouse, you will see a navigation box. For details, please see the

Acrobat Reader help screens.
UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

RURAL UTILITIES

SERVICE

SUMMARY OF

ITEMS OF ENGINEERING INTEREST

JULY 1999
THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

ENGINEERING and DESIGN

Revision of the 1997 National Electrical Safety Code.........................................1

Bulletin 1728F-803 Implementation....................................................................2

Errata and Comments to Bulletin 1728F-803 ......................................................4

Guidelines for RUS Approval to Use Steel Distribution Poles ............................5

Wood Equivalent Steel and Concrete Poles........................................................8

Engineer’s Checklist for the Design of Substations.............................................9

MATERIAL and PROCUREMENT

RUS Plans for Improving the List of Materials.................................................11

Distribution Line Anchor Coatings and Galvanizing .........................................13

Security Lights – High Pressure Sodium or Mercury Vapor? ............................15

RUS Acceptance of AMR Capable Meters and Financing AMR Systems.........16

Cable Insulation Failures from Abnormal Soil Conditions.................................17

Keep Testing Your Underground Power Cable.................................................18

RUS is Planning to Revise its Contract Forms..................................................19

OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL

Substation Periodic Visual Inspections.............................................................21

7 CFR Part 1794 - RUS Environmental Policies & Procedures.........................26

ADMINISTRATIVE and OTHER

Y2K Update.....................................................................................................32

RUS 2000 Electric Engineering Seminar ..........................................................33

Seismic Safety..................................................................................................33

Water and Wastewater Roles for Rural Electric Systems..................................34

RUS Technical Publications.............................................................................35

Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee.....................................37

Exhibit 1 – Conversion Table for 1728F-803 39

Exhibit 2 – Maximum Line Angles – Table VII 51

Appendix A – ESD Directory 53

Appendix B – NRECA T&D Committee 55
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

iv

ABBREVIATIONS

AMR Automatic Meter Reading

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BER Borrower’s Environmental Report

BIL Basic Impulse Level

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFC National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWP Construction Work Plan

EA Environmental Analysis

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ER Environmental Report

ESD Electric Staff Division

EVAL Applicant's Environmental Analysis

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GFR RUS General Field Representative

HPS High Pressure Sodium

ICBO International Conference of Building Officials

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IOU Investor Owned Utility

kV Kilovolt

M&E Mechanical and Electrical

MW Megawatt

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

NESC National Electrical Safety Code

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

OLF Overload Factor

PSD Power Supply Division

REA Rural Electrification Administration

RTB Rural Telephone Bank

RUS Rural Utilities Service

RUS List of RUS Informational Publication 202-1, “List of Materials

 Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification Borrowers”

T&D Transmission & Distribution

UBC Uniform Building Code

WWD Water And Waste Disposal

Y2K Year 2000
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

1

ENGINEERING and DESIGN

Revision of the 1997 National Electrical Safety Code

Work on the revision of the 1997 NESC National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) (to create the

2002 NESC) has been ongoing for the past year. The seven NESC subcommittees have

completed their meetings and review of proposed changes. The preprint of the Code Revisions

developed by the subcommittees will be published September 1, 1999, and will include a request

for input from the public concerning the proposed changes. Of major concern to cooperatives

and consultants are the changes being considered for Sections 25 and 26, Safety Rules for

Overhead Lines - Loadings for Grades B and C and Strength Requirements, respectively.

Some of these proposed changes are summarized below:

1. In Rule 250C, the subcommittee may remove the 60-foot (18 m) height limit. The present

code requires one to consider extreme winds for structures over 60 feet (18 m). NESC

Subcommittee 5 is considering removal of this exclusion, thus requiring designers to

consider extreme winds for all structures regardless of their height. If this proposal

passes, distribution lines may have to be the same strength as transmission lines if extreme

winds control the design.

2. A new combined ice and wind 50 year map may be included in section 25, Loadings for

Grades B and C. The subcommittee is proposing to allow utilities to meet current

requirements of Light, Medium, or Heavy Loading District loads or to meet the new

combined ice and wind map.

3. The current 50-year extreme wind map will be replaced with the new ASCE 7, 50-year

wind map based on a 3-second gust wind speed. Initially this may appear as a rather

benign change. However, use of this wind information involves equations to calculate the

wind pressure on an overhead line which are fairly cumbersome.

4. Fiber reinforced composite structures and crossarms are being added to the strengths and

loading sections.

5. One proposal concerns the Grade C transverse overload factor on steel or prestressed

concrete structures. The proposal is to change the overload factor from 2.2 to 1.75.

6. Subcommittee 5 is also considering a complete rewrite of sections 24, 25, and 26. This

proposal eliminates light, medium, and heavy loading district loads and replaces these

loads with construction, extreme wind, and extreme wind and ice loads.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

2

This summary is not an attempt to detail all proposed changes as there are many others being

proposed. Individuals involved in the design of transmission and distribution lines should closely

review the preprint when it is issued on September 1, 1999, and make their opinions known by

submitting comments by May 1, 2000, to:

Secretary

National Electrical Safety Code

IEEE Standards Department

445 Hoes Lane

P.O. Box 1331

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331

NESC Subcommittee 5 will also be holding a session to briefly explain proposed changes and to

entertain questions at the winter meeting of the Tower, Poles, and Conductor subcommittee of

the IEEE Transmission and Distribution Committee at Las Vegas (early February, 2000), and

perhaps at other events as well.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Don Heald, Structural

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-9102.

Bulletin 1728F-803 Implementation

Questions and concerns from some Rural Utilities Service (RUS) borrowers prompted us to

investigate the unusual problems that are being encountered in implementing new

Bulletin 1728F-803, “Specifications and Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line Construction.” We

contacted some borrowers in person and others by telephone who told us about the disturbing

impact the new assembly numbers were causing for their staffs and their computer programs.

We have learned that a number of borrowers utilize some very sophisticated and extensive

computer software to aid them in their line staking. Additionally, these computer programs are

closely linked together in a system that calculates, and sometimes controls, materials, inventory,

cost estimating, retirement, and various other accounting functions. Some of these computer

systems were developed in-house and some were purchased from specialized software vendors.

Quite frankly, until our recent investigation, we were not aware that these software systems were

so extensive, so closely linked together, and so difficult to make changes and additions. Also,

when we delayed the effective date of the new bulletin, it did not occur to us that the date we

picked, December 31, 1999, was the day before “Y2K”! We were advised that our timing on this

bulletin could not have been worse because many borrowers are changing their entire data

processing systems in an effort to be Y2K compatible. Dealing with entirely new processing

systems while also having to deal with drawing number changes was more than anyone needed.

We were aware that line workers and engineers would need to become accustomed to a new set

of assembly unit numbers and new drawings. We also anticipated that this would not be a popular

change. The change in the construction assemblies themselves and their associated material is
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

3

actually very minor as discussed below. Some of the borrowers we talked with told us that the

change in the numbers and drawings would not be so difficult if they had more transition time to

familiarize themselves with the numbers and drawings before they would actually be used.

Based on what we have learned, we are planning to delay the effective date of new Bulletin

1728F-803 such that borrowers may continue to use old Bulletin 50-5 (D-803), “Specifications

and Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line Construction,” until July 1, 2001, or may use new Bulletin

1728F-803 immediately. When approved, this postponement will:

• Allow borrowers to delay transition work until after the “Y2K” event;

• Allow sufficient time to make orderly and required changes in their computer systems;

• Allow users of the new bulletin adequate time to get use to the new numbers and

drawings before they are to be used; and,

• Allow RUS time to provide borrowers with conversion tables (i.e., the new number of

the old assembly) and other data and information borrowers might find useful.

We have developed a table converting RUS Bulletin 1728F-803 construction units to retirement

units. This conversion table is similar to the existing tables in the appendices of Bulletin 1767B-2,

“Work Order Procedure (Electric).” This information should be available to borrowers shortly.

We have also compiled a conversion table that compares the new assembly numbers with the old

numbers with annotated comments on what changes are involved. This table is attached as

Exhibit 1. After reviewing this table one will see that the new numbering system is more orderly,

and more importantly, one will see that the actual construction assembly units have not changed

drastically.

Changes needed to be made to computer systems (because of RUS Bulletin 1728F-803 drawings)

are not as drastic as they might first seem if the following is considered:

Several assemblies were deleted because they are no longer used or useful to borrowers. Many of

these deleted units were “guide drawings.” Unlike construction assembly units, “guide drawings”

do not have any material associated with them. The new bulletin has several new guide drawings

(with no material) that need not be entered in computer programs.

There are many new drawings depicting optional use of post type insulators. These types of

drawings were not in the old bulletin. If a borrower does not use or plan to use post type

insulators, then there is no need to enter them in the computer. On the other hand, if post type

insulators are used, then the new drawings should be very helpful to engineers and line workers.

Many of the new deadend type drawings now show the optional use of three, 4 1⁄4 inch (10.8 cm)

suspension insulators instead of two 6 inch (15.2 cm) suspension insulators. Some borrowers

prefer to use a single polymer deadend insulator. Borrowers may continue to use the same

deadend insulators that they have in the past. The 4 1⁄4 inch (10.8 cm) suspension insulator

drawings involve drawing changes only and do not require a change in computer programs. This
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

4

option is explained in detail in the “General Construction Specifications” section of the new

bulletin.

Considering all of the above, the vast majority of the required changes only require the addition or

changing of washers! A lot of borrowers consider washers to be truck stock and don’t even list

them on their material sheets. However, we do realize that with each unit some borrowers

probably include more material, such as armor rods, ties, and bolt lengths that are not shown on

the RUS drawings. An assembly number conversion table should allow borrowers, in many cases,

simply to replace the old number with a new number for identical or similar construction

assemblies.

The following are a few “tricks” that borrowers could employ:

• Distribute some copies of the new bulletin in the engineering office and line shop several

weeks before training and implementation to peak interest and help acclimatize key

personnel.

• When and where possible, insert a new column in computerized forms with the new

assembly numbers next to the old ones. Retain both columns before a conversion is made

and as long afterward as may be useful.

• On staking sheet drawings (and staking sheets when feasible), put the new assembly

number in parenthesis next to the old one for several weeks before the conversion. For

some period after the conversion, reverse the process. (This is the process that has been

used by the NESC to convert from English to metric units.)

For more information on the changes in Bulletin 1728F-803, see Bulletin 1728F-800, “Assembly

Unit Numbers and Standard Format.” This bulletin explains the new numbering format and the

reasons why we made the changes.

If you have any information or questions, please call Jim Bohlk, Electrical Engineer, Distribution

Branch, at (202) 720-1967.

Errata and Comments to Bulletin 1728F-803

Recently, RUS published Bulletin 1728F-803, Specifications and Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line

Construction. We have identified several errors in the first printing of 1728F-803, and we have

received some comments that are addressed below.

Errata to Bulletin 1728F-803

TABLE VII, Maximum Line Angles on Spool Insulator Assemblies, at the beginning of

Section “N”, has the wrong value (1,500 lbs./conductor) entered for the designated maximum

transverse load for ANSI Class 53-4 spool insulators. The correct value is 2,250 lbs./conductor,

which is fifty percent of the mechanical and electrical (M&E) strength for this class of insulators.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

5

Thus, all of the line angles are incorrect; they are smaller than they need to be. The attached table

(Exhibit 2) has the correct designated maximum transverse load value entered and the resulting

calculated line angles (which are greater), and are now correct. Please make copies of the

attached table and replace TABLE VII in each copy of Bulletin 1728F-803.

Assembly “VC2.51” should have 2 (two) pin type, 15 kV white insulators (item “a”) listed in the

QTY (quantity) column instead of 1 (one) as shown.

The drawings of Assembly “VD1.81L” should show the outside clamp type crossarm pins

(item “f”) 8 inches (20 cm) from the end of the arm. On Assembly “VD1.83L,” the clamp type

crossarm pins should be arranged the same as shown on the “VD2.91L” assembly drawing.

There may be other errors in the first printing of this bulletin. Please contact us if you find errors

or have questions or comments. RUS plans to publish an errata sheet to this bulletin later this

year.

Comments on Bulletin 1728F-803

The drawings for the transformer banks “VG2.1,” “VG3.1,” etc., show cutouts (item “af”) and

arresters (item “ae”) mounted next to each other on a crossarm. The drawings in old

Bulletin 50-5 show the use of a combination cutout/arrester (item “ax”). Either method may be

used. Also, either method may be used for single-phase, conventional pole type transformers.

However, RUS strongly recommends that surge arresters be mounted directly on the transformer,

thus shortening the arrester lead length and providing maximum protection to the transformer.

Table 232-2 in the 1997 edition of the NESC requires 13.0 feet (3.96 m) minimum ground

clearance to platforms and equipment cases. This dimension is shown for the platform mounted

voltage regulators of assembly “VY1.3” in new Bulletin 1728F-803. However, a 10.0 foot

minimum (3.05 m) ground clearance is shown for similar assemblies “VM7-1” and “VM7-3” in

old Bulletin 50-5 and “M7-11” in Bulletin 50-3, “Specifications and Drawings for 12.5/7.2 kV

line Construction.” RUS requires that all new construction comply with the most restrictive

provisions of the most recent edition of the NESC, RUS specifications, or other local regulating

governmental authorities. Thus, for these assemblies, the NESC clearance of 13.0 feet (3.96 m)

minimum must be used because it is more restrictive than the clearance shown in Bulletins 50–5

and 50-3. Please note, however, that the requirements of the NESC are not retroactive and only

apply to new construction.

If you have any information or questions, please call Jim Bohlk, Electrical Engineer, Distribution

Branch, at (202) 720-1967.

Guidelines for RUS Approval to Use Steel Distribution Poles

In the August 1997 issue of the Items of Engineering Interest, RUS summarized information that

borrowers need to include with their requests for RUS approval to use steel distribution poles.

These guidelines have been slightly revised and are provided below.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

6

In order to assist the RUS staff in considering requests to use steel distribution poles, borrowers

should adequately address in writing items 1 through 8 below. Currently, approval to use steel

distribution poles is only being granted on a case-by-case trial basis to gain experience.

Information to include in requests to use steel distribution poles:

1. Because approval is only being considered for site specific projects, define the project and

where the steel poles will be installed.

2. State the maximum number of steel poles to be used.

3. Furnish reasons for using steel poles. If favorable cost is the main reason, then include an

engineering economic analysis of the cost of using steel poles compared with standard

RUS construction with wood poles. This analysis should include the additional cost (if

any) for equipment and material needed to compare both structure types as equivalent in

mechanical strength, raptor protection, and quality of service such as blinking lights due to

lightning flashovers.

4. Provide a description of the proposed steel poles and the method(s) of corrosion

protection to be utilized when manufactured, when placed in service and for future

maintenance.

5. RUS regulations require that all assembly units must be built according to RUS

construction standards. If nonstandard assembly top construction is being proposed, then

furnish sufficient dimensioned drawings and other technical information for RUS’

evaluation of the design.

6. Except for various miscellaneous material items, RUS regulations require that borrowers

use materials that RUS has accepted or technically accepted. A compilation of accepted

materials may be found in Informational Publication 202-1, “List of Materials Acceptable

for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification Borrowers.” Contact the Chair, Technical

Standards Committee “A” (Electric) for information on technically accepted items. If the

proposed design uses materials that do not fall into the any of the acceptance categories

above, then furnish RUS sufficient information, data and test results of all such materials

for evaluation and approval determinations.

7. Indicate that the steel poles to be used have been selected based on engineering

calculations considering the expected duty and conditions to which they will be exposed.

(See also “Wood Equivalent Steel and Concrete Poles” in this issue.)

8. Provide a statement regarding the anticipated impact that the pole-top assembly design of

the steel pole may have on the possible electrocution of raptors. Also state the mitigation

measures that will be incorporated in the design to minimize such possibilities.

The following design information should also be considered but does not have to be submitted to

RUS:
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

7

RUS strongly advocates a minimum lightning impulse withstand strength (often incorrectly

and simply referred to as a BIL level) of 300 kV for distribution pole top assemblies. A

minimum of 300 kV withstand needs to be maintained at dead-end assemblies. Withstand

strengths of less than 300 kV will usually facilitate flashovers of lightning strikes to or

proximate to distribution lines. A recloser operation, which will cause lights to flicker, is

usually required to clear the resulting arc. Thus, a minimum of 300 kV withstand is

required to maintain a reasonable quality of service. Standard RUS pole type assemblies,

with wood poles, have a minimum withstand strength of 350 to 400 kV. If the steel pole

design has a withstand strength of less than 300 kV, borrowers should consider what

additional measures, such as the installation of surge arresters, might be used to minimize

flashovers, or, what impact a design with a withstand strength of less than 300 kV might

have on the quality of service.

A steel pole may be used as a grounding conductor if the pole meets the sufficient

conductivity and low impedance requirements of the NESC and RUS specifications.

However, a directly embedded steel pole is not recognized in the NESC as a grounding

electrode. Thus, the NESC and RUS requires that separate driven ground rods or

grounding electrodes be used for all equipment, surge arresters and other required system

grounds, including grounding the poles themselves, if needed to provide adequate

grounding. (See NESC Rule 215.C.1.)

Borrowers should use stainless steel or galvanized steel ground rods and non-copper

ground wire in the soil on steel pole lines to mitigate the corrosive effects of buried

dissimilar metals in close proximity.

The design of unguyed angle and dead-end steel pole structures should consider pole

deflection and the possible need for greater embedment depths.

For NESC Grade C construction, there should not be a direct substitution of wood poles with

steel poles of the same designation. Engineers should calculate the design load and select the

standard class steel pole based on these calculations. Extreme ice conditions and appropriate high

winds should be considered in the design loads. (See also “Wood Equivalent Steel and Concrete

Poles” in this issue.) For steel poles on distribution lines, RUS advocates the use of NESC

Grade B overload factors for angle and deadend (guyed or unguyed) structures.

The information requested above is needed to insure a safe, reliable, and economical distribution

line when using steel poles. Considerations such as these plus many other design considerations

are incorporated into all RUS standard designs for overhead distribution lines. RUS is developing

a guide specification for steel distribution poles which, when finalized, borrowers could use to

purchase and use steel distribution poles without further RUS approval.

If you would like further information or have any questions, please call Harvey Bowles, Chief,

Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-5082, or Bob Lash, Chief, Transmission, at (202) 720-0486.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

8

Wood Equivalent Steel and Concrete Poles

Borrowers are cautioned that there should not be a direct substitution of wood poles with steel

poles or concrete poles if the original line design was based on Grade C construction. Most

manufacturers standardize on steel or concrete poles such that the poles have a wood pole

equivalency based on Grade B requirements in the NESC. Table 1 below summarizes the loads

used to design poles:

Table 1

Pole Class Wood Pole

Tip Loads (lbs.)

Steel or Concrete Pole

‘Equivalent’ Load (lbs.)

1 4500 28001

2 3700 2300

3 3000 1900

4 2400 1500

5 1900 1200

6 1500 950

An example will be used to demonstrate the confusion when using standard class steel or concrete

poles in distribution lines.

Example:

A cooperative wishes to build a distribution line meeting Grade C construction. The design calls

for 40-4 wood poles but decides in one section to use steel distribution poles. The transverse

working load (load without overload factors, [OLF]) is 1200 lbs. two feet (.6 m) from the top of

the wood pole.2 The common practice is to substitute a standard class steel pole, designated as a

40-4, for the wood pole. From Table 1, the ultimate load for the equivalent steel pole would be

1500 lbs.

But, this is where the problem occurs. The ‘ultimate’ load, to which the steel pole needs to be

designed, should be: 1200 lbs. (working load) x 2.2 (OLF3) = 2640 lbs.

In the table above, the 2640 lbs. ‘ultimate’ load corresponds to a ‘class 1’ steel pole.

If a 40-4 steel pole with a tip load of 1500 lbs. were selected, it would be under the required

NESC strength by approximately 75 percent. This is where the potential confusion comes into

play.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call H. Robert Lash, Chief,

Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-0486 or Harvey Bowles, Chief, Distribution Branch, at

 

1

 Ratio of Grade B steel OLF 2.5 to wood OLF 4.

2

 Class 4 tip load of 2400 lbs. divided by Grade C wood OLF 2.0.

3

 Overload factor for steel poles not at a crossing, Grade C construction.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

9

(202) 720-1979.

Engineer’s Checklist for the Design of Substations

Increased electrical demand in areas served by RUS borrowers indicates more need for the

construction of substation facilities now and in the future. Therefore, it’s important that the

engineer take a closer look at the construction techniques available in RUS publications and other

resources to utilize in the construction of substation facilities. We recommend that engineers use

the following construction drawings list and the checklists as a quick aid in helping in the

substation design process.

Drawings to be submitted by the engineer for RUS review:

• One line diagram (relaying systems; ratings for breakers, transformers, switches, etc.)

• Three line diagram (PT’s, CT’s, phasing, etc.)

• Plot plan (Plan View)

• Grading plan (Site Plan, fence layout and details)

• Foundation plan and details

• Elevation plan and details

• Grounding plan and details

• Control house plan, elevations and details

• Material lists

One & Three Line Diagrams Checklist:

q All spare CT’s are shorted and properly grounded at the cabinets

q Station service transformers are internally or externally fused

q Surge arresters are used on all high and low sides

q Voltage and current ratings included for all equipment

q All existing and future equipment properly identified

q Underground cables are clearly identified at the termination points

q Reflects plan view of equipment arrangement

q All conductors are identified as to size, material and number per phase

q Legend, revision notes with date, and reference drawings and equipment notes are added

Plan View - Drawing Checklist:

q Access roads, culverts and other drainage surfacing provided

q Fence and gate locations selected properly and shown on scale

q Allowance for maintenance crew accesses for removal and installation of equipment

q Allowance for future expansion and mobile substation connections

q Electrical clearances (phase to phase and phase to ground) are clearly shown

q North arrow properly positioned

q Landscaping is architect to meet local requirements
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

10

Grading - Drawings Checklist:

q Elevation of the finished subgrade and existing contours

q Cross-sectional views indicating slopes for cut and fill areas

Foundations - Drawings Checklist:

q Steel reinforcement bar size, spacing, and location

q Thickness of concrete pads between 8” (20 cm) and 24” (61 cm)

q Top of concrete elevations

q Construction notes including reinforcing bar chart, footings, anchor bolts with tolerance

tables, and all foundation details

Grounding Plan and Details Checklist:

q Ground grid buried a minimum of 1 foot 6 inches (0.5 m) below grade

q Adequate grounding conductor buried to allow for expansion due to temperature changes

and future construction additions

q Below ground connections by exothermic weld process

q Ground grid extended minimum of 2 feet (0.6 m) (3 feet [.9 m] is recommended) outside

of the fence and gate bypass extending a minimum of 1 foot 6 inches (0.5 m) beyond open

gates

q Above ground connections by compression or bolted

q All structures connected to ground grid

q Two or more ground paths for surge arresters, transformers and all other electrical

equipment

q Disconnect switch handles grounded adequately to the ground grid and to the grounding

mats according to the grounding detail drawings

q Chain link fence and gate grounded

q Reinforcing bars not used for grounding electrodes

q Adjoining metal fence (farm fence, etc.) not connected directly to substation fence

q Grounding conductors including grounding rods

q Shall meet the applicable standards and RUS acceptable materials

q The entire area inside the fence and including a minimum of 3.3 feet (1 m) (4.9 feet

[1.5 m] recommended) outside the fence shall be covered with minimum of 4 inches

(10 cm) of crushed rock possessing a minimum resistivity of 3,000 ohm-meters wet or dry

Elevation Plan and Details Checklist:

q Material Size and Shape

q Expansion Provisions

q Weep Holes

q Precautions for aluminum-to-copper connections

q Welding procedures notes (inert gas shielding for aluminum bus)

q Corona Bells (above 161 kV)

q Bus adequately supported, with provisions for mounting surge arresters
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

11

q Use of damping cable to minimize vibration

q Lightning protection shield angle less than 45 degrees, or use of “Rolling Sphere

Methods” (refer to the “Lightning Protection for Substations” article in the 1998 Items of

Engineering Interest)

q Surge arresters lead length short as possible, surge arresters not used as bus supports

q Proper length and BIL of suspension and post insulators

q Adequate construction details to construct

q Provisions for construction notes, legend, future expansion, and mobile substation

connection

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Ted V. Pejman, Electrical

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-0999.

MATERIAL and PROCUREMENT

RUS Plans for Improving the List of Materials

For many years, RUS has published Informational Publication 202-1, “List of Materials

Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification Borrowers” (List of Materials). We are

constantly trying to improve this publication. The following is a summary of the initiatives RUS

has started recently and initiatives we plan to undertake to improve the List of Materials.

Already Initiated

1. T&D Materials Subcommittee. NRECA’s Transmission and Distribution (T&D)

Committee has established a new Materials Subcommittee to identify needed

improvements in the RUS List of Materials. The Materials Subcommittee has met some

three times since formation and has completed a thorough review of the RUS List of

Materials and has already provided RUS with valuable feedback.

The subcommittee has identified a number of product categories included in the List of

Materials that are outdated and no longer needed RUS is currently considering removal of

the items identified as outdated. The subcommittee has also identified a number of new

item categories that should be added.

Some of the new items identified by the subcommittee include such materials as fiberglass

crossarms, motor-operated switches, more types of anchors, and Automatic Meter

Reading (AMR) equipment. The RUS staff is currently evaluating some of these items for

possible listing. This evaluation involves developing requirements under which Technical

Standards Committee "A" would consider prospective manufacturers' products. As soon

as these requirements are developed and Technical Standards Committee "A" agrees, RUS

staff will begin inviting manufacturers known to produce these products to submit

applications for RUS acceptance consideration.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

12

The Materials Subcommittee also advised that it was requesting that NRECA establish a

WEB site repository whereby NRECA members could post requests for information about

various products and, conversely, provide feedback on the performance of various

products. This new tool would also allow the Materials Subcommittee and the other T&D

Subcommittees to pass subcommittee minutes, action item notices, and enable them to

function faster and more effectively. RUS believes that the WEB site will be invaluable in

helping identify new categories of products of significant and growing interest to

borrowers.

2. RUS WEB Listing. RUS has included the List of Materials on the RUS WEB site at:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/listof.htm

Currently a borrower can connect to this site and download the entire list as an Adobe

Acrobat "PDF" file. We are currently updating this listing on a biweekly basis after each

meeting of Technical Standards Committee "A." This initiative offers borrowers the most

up-to-date listing possible.

New Initiatives

In addition to responding to applicable recommendations from the Materials Subcommittee, RUS

also plans to vigorously pursue the following actions to improve both the quality and usefulness of

the List of Materials:

1. Consider More Choices in Specific Product Listings. Our current regulations in

7 CFR 1728 specifically limit acceptance of one product per manufacturer per product

category in the List of Materials (dual listing prohibition). We know that some RUS

borrowers would like to see more than one of a manufacturer's products in the same

categories because, in some instances, the sole product accepted for the manufacturer

does not satisfy the borrower's needs for a specific application. We believe that there may

be a number of categories where a multiple listings of manufacturers' products are justified

on the basis of functionality and there is no conflict with the dual listing prohibition. One

example is in the “anchor” category. We believe that in addition to anchors already

included, a more rugged anchor could also be listed and provide borrowers added utility

for installing anchors in extremely hard soil.

We plan to initiate a review of categories to see if there are product categories where we

can offer more choices like the anchor listing example. After identifying such listing, we

will then invite all the listed manufactures to submit applications to have appropriate

products considered by Technical Standards Committee “A.”

2. Addition of New Product Categories. We are currently working or expect to begin work

on establishment of the following new product categories:

a. Meters with AMR Capabilities – We are currently investigating and preparing a

requirements sheet for possible inclusion of a new category of watthour meters which
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

13

have AMR capabilities. When we complete this preliminary phase we plan to send

letters to all known manufacturers of such products and invite them to submit

applications for RUS acceptance consideration of their products.

b. Wood, Steel, and Concrete Poles - We are currently working with the NRECA

Transmission Subcommittee to prepare guide specifications for steel and concrete

poles. When this task is completed, we will consider using the documents produced,

along with RUS' Wood pole specifications, as a possible basis for listing and

acceptance of all three pole types; and

c. Wood and Fiberglass Crossarms - We hope to initiate the same actions as cited in item

“a” above in the near future.

3. Data Base List. We are planning to move the List of Materials from its present word

processing format into a data base format. We believe that in data base format borrowers

will be able to better utilize the listings and run queries and compare products with greater

ease. This project will be a high priority of the new Chair of Technical Standards

Committee “A.”

4. Revision of 7 CFR 1728. We are currently evaluating the regulation which controls the

RUS listing and acceptance process. We are hoping to introduce new provisions which

will allow us to maintain the list more effectively. As an example, we hope to make

obsolete listing a thing of the past through periodic relisting of accepted products.

We are very excited about these initiatives and the improved impact they are expected to have on

the List of Materials. However, these initiatives will involve significant resources to accomplish

and therefore will take some time to complete.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Don Heald, Acting Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.

Distribution Line Anchor Coatings and Galvanizing

RUS has received some requests from manufacturers of anchors to consider allowing RUS

borrowers to use bare steel (ungalvanized or uncoated) anchors in distribution line construction.

Manufacturers advised that use of bare steel anchors would allow them to achieve production

economies that could be passed on to borrowers. These requests prompted RUS to review

anchors and RUS' requirements related to coatings.

At the present time, RUS requires non-power-installed anchors to be:

1. Galvanized in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Standard A153, "Specification for Zinc Coating (Hot Dip) on Iron and Steel Hardware”,

or
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

14

2. Coated with a coal tar asphalt.

There are a number of reasons for galvanized or asphalt coated anchors. These manufacturing

processes help to preserve the anchors and prevent users from having to deal with messy, rusting,

stain-producing pieces of steel in warehouses, storage yards, and the back of line-crew trucks.

However, the more important reason for the RUS requirement is to help minimize corrosion of

the anchor rods to which the anchors are attached while in service. Corrosion of anchor rods can

cause the anchor rods to fail and can result in possible catastrophic structure failure of the power

line in the anchor's vicinity. Such failures cannot be tolerated, especially in today's utility market

when customers are expecting and demanding highly reliable electric service.

Galvanizing, which is essentially the application of zinc on the surface of steel, is a form of

cathodic corrosion protection. When placed in an electrolyte such as soil and interconnected with

steel, zinc forms a galvanic corrosion cell. Electrochemically, zinc is more reactive than steel and,

thus, the zinc becomes the anode of the cell and corrodes. Steel, being less reactive

electrochemically, becomes the cathode of the cell and is protected from corrosion. If there is

much less zinc exposed to the electrolyte than steel, the zinc will be completely consumed and the

steel would no longer receive protection and eventually becomes susceptible to corrosion.

(Galvanic corrosion cells will form between various locations on the steel and the anodic locations

will corrode, eating away the metal.) If there is much more zinc exposed in the electrolyte than

steel, zinc corrodes rapidly at first but the two metals gradually polarize and the galvanic

corrosion cell process slows down providing long term corrosion protection with minimal loss of

zinc. Hot dip galvanizing of steel anchors and anchor rods completely encases the two steel

products and provides a high zinc-to-steel ratio exposure resulting in efficient corrosion

protection for the anchor and anchor rod.

Asphalt coatings provide corrosion protection in a different manner. Coatings act as a barrier

between a steel anchor and the soil, preventing the steel from coming in contact with soil.

Connected to a galvanized steel anchor rod, an asphalt coated steel anchor causes less galvanic

stress to the anchor rod than would be the case if the anchor was bare steel. In the latter case, a

bare steel anchor would create a very reactive galvanic cell with a galvanized steel anchor rod.

The anchor rod would soon loose all its zinc coating and expose the steel under it to eventual

corrosion and possible loss of the rod's holding power. With a good asphalt covering on an

anchor there would be much less galvanic stress on a connected anchor rod and the anchor rod

would be protected from corrosion.

A perfect coating would not let any anchor steel contact soil and there would be no corrosion cell

created between the anchor material and the anchor rod. Unfortunately, no coating is perfect as

there are always voids or small holes in the coating which expose very small amounts of steel to

the soil. During installation of an anchor there is always some degradation of the anchor's coating

as well. However, the overall coverage of a properly coating anchor is still effective in providing

adequate corrosion protection to the anchor rod and the anchor.

Anchor coatings need to be of the highest quality to provide the most reliable service possible.

Coatings should have a high permeability to effectively insolate the anchor steel from contacting

the soil. Coatings should also be relatively inert with respect to the soil to ensure they do not
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

15

deteriorate and otherwise will provide long service life. As can be imagined, coatings must also

have good impact resistance to minimize damage during shipping, handling, and installation. A

coating must also have excellent adherence characteristics so that it makes and maintains an

effective bond to the anchor's steel. A coating should also have low water absorption properties

to help keep moisture from coming into contact with the steel surface of the anchor.

RUS also requires that coatings be electrically conductive to minimize radio and television

interference problems. The normal electrical field stresses existing near the high voltage phase

conductors electrostatically couple to the anchor guy and anchor rod seeking a pathway to

ground. With a galvanized anchor or an anchor with a conductive coating, these stresses are

easily grounded and alleviate the stresses. The grounded anchor assembly also is much safer for

line crews and the public. If an anchor is coated with a material that is electrically insulating, the

coating and steel under it acts like a capacitor. The phase conductors' electrical stresses still

couple onto the anchor guy and flow down through the anchor rod and then flow to ground

through the coating's "capacitor" causing a voltage drop to appear across the anchor-soil

interface. The anchor assembly now acts like a small low-power radio station with a 30 to

45 foot (9 to 14 meter) antenna which can generate a broad spectrum of the powerline's harmonic

frequencies which include commercial radio and television frequencies. Commercial radio and

television signals are usually weaker in rural areas making reception troublesome anyway. A

noisy anchor assembly near a consumer's residence can wreck havoc with reception and make

listening or watching or both impossible.

RUS' review of anchor manufacturer's request to use paint instead of asphalt coatings involved

Electric Staff Division (ESD) visits to several anchor manufacturers and RUS borrowers. During

visits to borrowers we learned that borrowers are quite satisfied with asphalt coated anchors and

that there was no aversion to handling and installing them. During visits to anchor manufacturing

plants, ESD discovered that various coating application methods and differing coating thickness

are resulting on finished anchors.

RUS is currently in the process of developing an anchor coating specification which will be used

to evaluate anchors for RUS acceptance. Such a specification will help to ensure that anchor

coatings are consistently satisfactory.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call George Keel, Equipment

Specialist, Distribution Branch at (202) 690-0551.

Security Lights – High Pressure Sodium or Mercury Vapor?

Security lights have increased in popularity as more and more people move into rural areas.

Mercury vapor lights were the standard for many years and have proved durable and satisfactory.

High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lights were promoted primarily because they use considerably less

energy. However, the experience with HPS lights installed by some electric cooperatives has been

disappointing and frustrating. The perception of some consumers is that HPS lights do not

provide enough light. In contrast to mercury vapor lights, which start out bright and gradually get
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

16

dimmer over the years, HPS lights actually get brighter over the years. Common voltage

fluctuations, such as from window air conditioners, can cause HPS lights to cycle off. Problems

with both the HPS fixture and the lamp, combined with the brightness and cycling issues, have

resulted in numerous customer complaints. The extra trips to replace fixtures and lamps have

increased maintenance costs, and although data is difficult to verify, it is believed that the

increased maintenance costs may offset the energy savings. Preliminary data also indicates that

the life expectancy of HPS lamps may be considerably less than mercury vapor lamps. As a result,

many utilities suspect they are losing money on HPS lights and need to increase rates to avoid

subsidizing this product.

The initial problems with HPS lights involved both the fixture and the lamp. Better quality

fixtures are now available, but problems with HPS lights still persist. These problems are believed

to be the result of improper installation of the fixture, inconsistent lamp manufacturing quality, or

rough handling of the lamp. A large IOU found that lamp failures were greatly reduced following

training which stressed proper handling and installation, including installing the lamp as the last

step in the process. To reduce customer complaints and problems some utilities have switched

back to mercury vapor and others are offering customers a choice. A survey by one cooperative

indicates that customers prefer mercury vapor over HPS by a 4 to 1 margin, mostly because they

prefer the white color of mercury vapor compared to the yellow color of HPS.

The energy savings potential make HPS lights a highly desirable choice. However, based on the

limited experience discussed here, there is a need for greater improvement in HPS installation

standards and lamp quality. RUS borrowers with similar HPS experience should let

manufacturers know their concern and insist on improvements.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Norman, General

Field Representative (Kentucky), at (606) 253-4653, E-mail: mnorman@rus.usda.gov.

RUS Acceptance of AMR Capable Meters and Financing AMR Systems

RUS has decided to include Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Capable Meters in RUS

Informational Publication 202-1, “List of Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS

Electrification Borrowers.” RUS is currently in the process of developing a set of requirements

for AMR Capable Meters. When this list of requirements is finalized, RUS will invite all known

manufacturers of AMR capable meters to submit applications for RUS acceptance of their

products.

In addition to RUS accepting AMR Capable Meters, RUS will now finance the costs associated

with the purchase and installation of AMR systems. In developing a request for financing, either

as part of a loan application or for the use of general funds subject to future reimbursement with

RUS financing, borrowers should work with their RUS General Field Representative (GFR) in

providing the following support documentation:
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

17

1. Cost/benefit analysis reflecting savings to be realized as a result of the installation of the

AMR system. Intangible benefits should be identified, and will be considered, even though

a dollar value may not be assigned.

2. Technical information on the proposed scope of the project and AMR system. This should

include information on the type of system and communications medium proposed, and

type of meters to be used.

3. A breakdown of estimated costs in four distinct categories: (1) master station, (2)

injection/substation equipment, (2) any retrofit or additional meter costs to accept AMR

devices and (4) all other costs associated with purchasing, installing and operating the

specific AMR device.

RUS staff is currently developing specific procurement and cost accounting procedures and will

make those available to borrowers as soon as they are completed.

If you would like more information or have any questions regarding AMR capable meters, please

call Stephen Jones, Electrical Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1792. If you have any

questions regarding the financing of AMR systems, please contact your GFR or Regional Office.

Cable Insulation Failures from Abnormal Soil Conditions

Recently, a cooperative from the Midwest experienced numerous outages on its underground

circuits due to cable failures. The affected circuits are approximately 14 and 16 miles (23 and

26 km) long, and were installed around 1986. The cables are unjacketed, with 4/0 aluminum

conductors, extruded semiconducting screens, 175 mil wall insulation, with bare copper

concentric neutral wires. The initial major fault occurred in 1995. The next three faults were

within an area of 40 square yards (33 square meters) and during summer seasons. Subsequent

faults spread throughout these circuits.

The cooperative dug up affected cable sections and sent cable samples to the manufacturer and to

independent labs for testing. One of the reports suggested the problem is associated with metal

corrosion that may be caused by the presence of sulfate reducing bacteria. The most common

physically visible problem identified in all of the test reports seems to be the presence of “spots”

on insulation surfaces. None of the reports stated how these spots developed but several possible

mechanisms of development were suggested. One such suggested mechanism was that moisture

containing dissolved calcium carbonate is migrating into the cable. When the moisture attempts to

migrate back out (driven by temperature gradients or capillary action), the calcium carbonate

precipitates in localized regions under the insulation shield. This buildup of precipitate could

cause the insulation shield to lose contact with the insulation in these regions, leading to partial

discharge and eventual failure.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

18

The soil environment in all effected areas has a higher concentration of calcium carbonate than a

“normal” environment. In one area, the soil is 12-1/2 times more conductive than seawater. Of

the five failures evaluated to date, four were located in a site some 3-1/2 feet (1.1 m) lower in

elevation than the surrounding terrain while the fifth was near a small lake. It is probable that

these locations are water drainage sites for the respective areas. The manufacturer believes that

agriculture chemicals may be concentrating in these failure locations, and these chemicals, in turn,

are being absorbed into this unjacketed cable, causing the observed “spots” in the

insulation/screen interface and seriously affecting the integrity of the cable dielectric.

The manufacturer also theorizes that the failure could be from the limestone deposits that leached

into the cable from the surrounding soil. The company further speculates that something

happened to the cables after installation resulting in the loose insulation/insulation screen adhesion

area.

Electrical and physical examinations to date show evidence of impulse damage to the cables and

chemical attack from something in the service environment. Cable with thicker insulation and a

jacket has been proposed as a solution to this highly localized electrical phenomenon. Chemical

infusion and biological attack should be minimized by using a jacketed cable.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.

Keep Testing Your Underground Power Cable

In previous Items of Engineering Interest, we have discussed testing of new underground cable.

The Underground Subcommittee of the NRECA’s T&D Engineering Committee highly

recommends that electric utility operators test underground cable they purchase. The

Subcommittee recommends that the following tests be conducted at a minimum.

1. Dimensional analysis of all cable components;

2. Microscopic examination for voids, contaminants and protrusions; and

3. Insulation shield stripping test.

The Subcommittee also recommends that optional testing of Tree-Retardant Cross-Linked

Polyethylene and Cross-Linked Polyethylene insulated cables include a Hot Oil Test. The

Subcommittee does not recommend conductor shield and insulation shield resistivity tests because

they consistently test well below maximum specifications.

Subcommittee recommended typical sampling rates are to test one sample, each, from the first

and last reel on orders of 50,000 feet (15 km) or less and one sample for each additional

50,000 feet (15 km) of cable ordered.

The Subcommittee recommends that purchasers instruct manufacturers to cut samples and send

them to the selected testing laboratory, or the purchaser can cut the samples upon arrival of the

shipment. The Subcommittee further recommended that purchasers notify suppliers in advance
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

19

that cable testing will be conducted and purchasers should establish responsibilities and

procedures in case of a failure, such as: Any evidence of noncompliance with the enclosed

specifications shall be justification for:

1. Further testing at manufacturer’s expense (each shipping reel);

2. Rejection of the tested reel and possibly the reels preceding and following in the

manufacturing process; and

3. Rejection of the entire order, depending on the severity and frequency of noncompliance.

A partial list of possible independent testing laboratories provided by the Subcommittee includes:

Cable Technology Laboratories, Inc.

P.O. Box 708

690 Jersey Ave.

New Brunswick, NJ 08903

(201) 846-3220

Forster Electrical Engineering, Inc.

550 North Burr Oak Ave.

Oregon, WI 53575

(608) 835-9009

NEETRAC

62 Lake Mirror Road, Building 3

Forest Park, GA 30050

(800) 762-6522

All of these laboratories participate in the Cable Acceptance Testing Program promoted by

NRECA’s T&D Underground Subcommittee. The inclusion of a laboratory in this list does not

imply endorsement by RUS. The testing laboratories listed above have voluntarily agreed to

collect electric cooperative test data and provide it to the NRECA Underground Subcommittee

annually for information and publication. To have your data included, note on your purchase

order “INCLUDE IN COOPERATIVE DATA FILE.” Cooperative names will not be published

and participation is voluntary.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.

RUS is Planning to Revise its Contract Forms

RUS is planning to update, consolidate, and streamline the standard forms of contracts used for

construction and procurement. The forms included in this effort are:

• Form 172, Certificate of Inspection, Contract Construction.

• Form 173, Materials Contract.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

20

• Form 180, Construction Contract Amendment.

• Form 181, Certificate of Completion, Contract Construction for Buildings.

• Form 187, Certificate of Completion, Contract Construction.

• Form 198, Equipment Contract.

• Form 200, Construction Contract - Generating.

• Form 201, Right-of-Way Clearing Contract.

• Form 203, Transmission System Right-of-Way Clearing Contract.

• Form 238, Construction or Equipment Contract Amendment.

• Form 257, Contract to Construct Buildings.

• Form 274, Bidder’s Qualifications.

• Form 282, Subcontract.

• Form 458, Materials Contract.

• Form 764, Substation and Switching Station Erection Contract.

• Form 786, Electric System Communications and Control Equipment Contract.

• Form 790, Distribution Line Extension Construction Contract (Labor and Materials).

• Form 792, Distribution Line Extension Construction Contract (Labor Only).

• Form 830, Electric System Construction Contract (Labor and Materials).

• Form 831, Electric Transmission Construction Contract (Labor and Materials).

Our plans for revising and updating these forms include:

1. Eliminate unneeded forms. This would include merging the Form 181 into the Form 187,

merging the Form 180 into the Form 238, merging the Form 201, 203, and 764 into the

Form 830, and eliminating Forms 181, 180, 201, 203, and 764. We are also considering

eliminating infrequently used guidance forms (Forms 172, 173, 274, 282, and 458).

2. Make forms suitable for “subject to” or “not subject to” RUS approval. This would

include merging the Form 831 into the Form 830 and eliminating Form 831.

3. Make construction contract forms suitable for “labor only” or “labor and material.” This

would include merging the Form 792 into the Form 790 and eliminating Form 792.

4. Standardize tables and information pages and incorporate them as separate attachments.

We are planning to publish the “Construction Units” pages as a separate bulletin. This

would allow the borrower to include in the bid package only those construction unit pages

that are relevant to a particular project.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

21

5. Maximize consistency among forms. This would include standardizing common

provisions and terminology, and adding a “Notice and Instructions to Bidders” to forms

not having one.

6. Include an estimated or base quantity provision in unit price contract forms.

7. Add a provision regarding assignment of the contract to RUS.

8. Update and clarify contract provisions as necessary. This would include:

a. Clarifying that the contractor (not the owner or engineer) is solely responsible for the

means and methods of construction and for the supervision of the contractor's

employees.

b. Deleting the reference to a “Supervisor” appointed by RUS.

c. Delete the reference to the loan contract and owner's access to funding.

d. Deleting the option for eliminating retainage after the contract is 50% complete.

e. Updating the “Buy American” requirement.

f. Eliminating gender specific terms (him, his, materialmen, etc.)

RUS welcomes comments from the users of these forms about our plans to update, consolidate,

and streamline the standard forms of contracts. We are specifically interested in comments on the

following questions:

• Are the guidance forms used often or should they be eliminated?

• Are there provisions in the contract forms that should be updated (in addition to the

provisions indicated above)?

• Does the proposed revision/consolidation plan meet the needs of most borrowers?

If you have comments, please send them to: Fred J. Gatchell, Deputy Director, Electric Staff

Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1569,

1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1569. If you would like more

information or have any questions, please call Fred Gatchell, Deputy Director, ESD, at

(202) 720-1398.

OPERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL

Substation Periodic Visual Inspections

Each substation and the individual items of equipment contained therein should be periodically

inspected. The recommended frequency of these inspections is monthly.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

22

Visual inspections should encompass the total substation area including the site, the control house

and all equipment and structures. This inspection should be made with the substation energized.

Therefore, all inspections should be made from ground level, to assure adequate safety clearances

from energized parts. Binoculars should be used to view buses and other equipment located on

structures.

Special care should be used when ground connections are checked, since a high voltage could

develop across any gap created between a ground cable and a piece of equipment, particularly

under fault conditions. For this reason, ground connections should not be removed for any reason

while the substation is energized.

The following describes details of visual inspection:

Power Transformers

1. Inspect control cabinet, control relays, contactors, indicators, and the operating

mechanism.

2. Look for loose, contaminated, or damaged bushings, loose terminals, and oil leaks.

3. Check oil levels in main tanks, tap changer compartment, and bushings.

4. Inspect inert gas system (where applicable) for leakage, proper pressure, etc.

5. Read and record operations counter indicator associated with load tap changer.

6. Observe oil temperature. The oil temperature should not exceed the sum of the maximum

winding temperature as stated on the nameplate plus the ambient temperature (not to

exceed 40°C) plus 10°C. Generally, oil temperature does not exceed 95° and 105°C for

55°C and 65°C winding temperature rise units, respectively, since the ambient temperature

rarely exceeds 30°C for periods of time long enough to cause an oil temperature rise

above these points.

Voltage Regulators

1. Perform the same inspections as listed for power transformers (as applicable).

2. Place regulator control in manual position and operate regulator over small range only.

3. Return control to automatic and verify that the regulator functions properly.

4. Read and record operations counter indicator.

Oil, Vacuum, SF6 and Air Blast Circuit Breakers

1. Check for loose, contaminated, or damaged bushings, loose terminals, oil leaks, and

proper gas pressures.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

23

2. Check oil level in bushings and main tank (as applicable).

3. Check anti-condensation heaters.

4. Read and record the number of operations indicator. If breaker has not operated during

the preceding year, bypass the breaker or otherwise remove the breaker from the circuit

for testing. Test the breaker by simulating relay action by placing a jumper across the

tripping contact studs on the back of the relay. Allow breaker to go through its sequence

to check its operation.

5. Inspect contact areas on main plug-in assembly for signs of overheating or arcing.

6. Read and record compressor operating hours indicator.

Fuses

1. Observe condition of contact surface of fuse clips.

2. Check for broken or cracked supporting insulators and for contamination.

Surge Arresters

1. Check for cracked, contaminated or broken porcelain, loose connections to line or ground

terminals and corrosion on the cap or base.

2. Check for pitted or blackened exhaust parts or other evidence of pressure relief.

3. If discharge counters are provided, check connections and record the number of

operations.

Buses and Shield Wire

1. Inspect bus supports for damaged porcelain and loose bolts, clamps or connections.

2. Observe condition of flexible buses and shield wires.

3. Inspect suspension insulators for damaged porcelain (include line entrances).

Capacitors (Series and Shunt)

1. Observe condition of fuses.

2. Inspect for damaged tanks and bushings and for leakage of the dielectric.

Reactors (Oil Filled and Air Core)

1. Observe condition of paint and varnish.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

24

2. Inspect bushings for cracks and contamination.

3. Check valves and gaskets for oil leaks (as applicable).

Disconnects and Other Switches

1. Check for cracked, contaminated, or broken porcelain, loose connections and corrosion to

metal parts.

2. Observe condition of contact surfaces and area around them.

3. Observe condition of arcing horns on air break switches (where applicable).

4. Inspect operating mechanism.

5. Inspect all live parts for scarring, gouging, or sharp points that could contribute to radio

noise or corona.

6. Inspect flexible braids or slip-ring contacts used for grounding for corrosion, wear or

broken strands.

7. Check gearboxes for signs of moisture and corrosion.

8. Check corona balls and rings for damage.

Control and Metering Equipment

1. Check current and potential transformers for damage to cases, bushings, terminals, and

fuses. Verify the integrity of the connections, both primary and secondary.

2. Observe the condition of control, transfer, and other switch contacts, indicating lamps, test

blocks and other devices located in or on control cabinets, panels, switchgear, etc. Look

for signs of condensation in these locations.

3. Examine meters and instruments externally to check for loose connections and damage to

cases and covers. Note whether the instruments are reading or registering.

4. Open and close each potential switch on the test block to determine whether the speed of

the meter disk is affected. Repeat the process with the current switches. Changes of

speed should be approximately the same for each meter element.

5. Check status of relay targets (where applicable).

6. Make an external examination of relays, looking for damaged cases and covers or loose

connections.

7. Check station battery for loose connections and the battery cells for low electrolyte level

and low specific gravity of the electrolyte.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

25

8. Inspect station battery charger. Check charging current and voltage. Observe ground

detector lamps for an indication of an undesirable ground on the dc system.

9. Check annunciator panel lights.

Structures

1. Inspect all structures for loose or missing bolts and nuts.

2. Check for damaged paint, galvanizing, and signs of corrosion.

3. Inspect for deterioration, buckling, and cracking.

Grounding System

1. Check all above grade ground connections at equipment, structures, fences, switch

operator’s platforms (mats), etc.

2. Observe the condition of any flexible type connections.

Cable

1. Inspect exposed sections of cable for physical damage.

2. Inspect the insulation or jacket for signs of deterioration.

3. Check for cable displacement or movement.

4. Check for loose connections.

5. Inspect shield grounding (where applicable), cable support, and termination.

Foundations

1. Inspect for signs of settlement, cracks, spalling, honeycombing, exposed reinforcing steel,

and anchor bolt corrosion.

Substation Area (General)

1. Verify existence of appropriate safety signs (i.e., danger and warning signs, as applicable).

2. Check indoor and outdoor lighting systems for burned-out lamps or other component

failures.

3. Verify that there is an adequate supply of spare parts and fuses.

4. Observe the condition of hook sticks.

5. Inspect the fire protection system and the provision for drainage in the event of leaking oil.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

26

6. Check for bird nests or other foreign materials in the vicinity of energized equipment,

buses, or fans.

7. Observe the general condition of the substation yard, noting the overall cleanliness and the

existence of low spots that may have developed.

8. Observe the position of all circuit breakers in the auxiliary power system and verify the

correctness of this position.

9. Inspect the area for weed growth, debris, and only minor material associated with the

maintenance of the substation equipment stored in the yard.

Substation Fences

1. Check for minimal gap under the fence and gate. Normally the gap should not exceed

2 inches (5 cm) under the fence and 4 inches (10 cm) under the gate.

2. Check that the fence fabric is intact with no rust.

3. Check that the barbed wire is taut.

4. Check that the gate latches are operable.

5. Check that flexible braid type connections are intact.

6. Verify that no wire fences are tied directly to the substation fence.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Mike Eskandary, Electrical

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-9098.

7 CFR Part 1794 - RUS Environmental Policies & Procedures

RUS is pleased to announce the publication of its final rule on "Environmental Policies and

Procedures," 7 CFR Part 1794. The rule was published in the Federal Register on

December 11, 1998, which is also the effective date of the final rule. The previous version of

7 CFR Part 1794, dated March 13, 1984, has been rescinded.

The Federal Register version of the final rule (7 CFR Part 1794) can be downloaded from the

RUS web site at: www.usda.gov/rus/regs.shtml under Electric Program Regulations and

Bulletins. The final rule exclusive of the preamble and responses to comments can be downloaded

from the same web site.

Most of the changes to 7 CFR Part 1794 result from the addition of Water and Environmental

Programs, that formerly belonged to the Farmers Home Administration, to RUS. Actions and

procedures specific to that program are defined in separate subsections of the final rule.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

27

The final rule contains a variety of substantive and procedural changes from the provisions of the

previous rule that affect Electric Borrowers. Those changes are identified by section as follows:

Subpart A - General

§1794.3 Actions requiring environmental review

Only borrower actions that require the approval of financing assistance are subject to

environmental review. Specifically excluded are approvals pursuant to loan contracts and

security instruments (e.g., approval of the use of general funds where no RUS

reimbursement will be requested) and approvals of lien accommodations.

§1794.4 Metric units

Environmental documents prepared by or for an electric borrower should use non-metric

equivalents (British system) followed by metric units in parentheses or a metric conversion

table as an appendix. All numerical designations have been rounded to the nearest whole

number. This is a reversal of previous policy.

§1794.6 Definitions

This is a new section that defines some of the terminology used in the regulation. Note

that the environmental document submitted by electric borrowers for projects that are

normally categorically excluded or require an environmental assessment without scoping is

now called an Environmental Report (ER). In the previous rule the document was called a

Borrower’s Environmental Report (BER).

§1794.7 Guidance

The two environmental guide bulletins that were issued in November 1993 and

April 1995, respectively, have been revised and updated to accompany the final rule. Both

environmental guidance bulletins can be downloaded from the RUS web site under

Electric Program Regulations and Bulletins. The two bulletins are now titled:

RUS Bulletin 1794A-600 – Guide for Preparing an Environmental Report for

Categorically Excluded Projects.

RUS Bulletin 1794A-601 – Guide for Preparing the Environmental Report for

Electric Projects Requiring an Environmental Assessment.

Subpart B – Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act

§1794.11 Apply NEPA early in the planning process.

Where a proposed action normally requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS), it is imperative that the borrower consults with RUS prior to obtaining

the services of an environmental consultant. The Council on Environmental Quality
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

28

(CEQ) Regulations in §1506.5(c) stipulate when an EIS is to be prepared by a contractor,

that contractor be chosen solely by the lead agency, with the cooperation of the

cooperating agencies, or by a cooperating agency to avoid any conflict of interest.

It is also imperative that borrower’s notify and consult with the appropriate Branch within

the Power Supply Division (PSD) of RUS on all Environmental Analysis (EA) with

Scoping and EIS projects. The Engineering and Environmental Staff needs authorization

from PSD before staff can proceed with the environmental review for proposals in these

two categories.

Subpart C – Classification of Proposals

§1794.21 Categorically excluded proposals without an ER.

(b) Electric and Telecommunications Programs

The following three actions were deleted in the new regulation and are no longer

considered actions subject to environmental review:

(2) Routine approvals made pursuant to loan security documents (e.g., contracts

for bulk commodities, goods and services, capital credit retirements, and technical

design or specifications).

(3) Agreements for transmission, wheeling, interconnection with, power purchases

from, or sale to other utilities where no associated borrower construction or

financing of construction is involved.

(6) Fuel or mineral contracts where the borrower does not have effective control

over or responsibility to alter the development of the specific fuel or mineral

source (e.g., the mine).

The following five actions that previously required a BER, normally do not require an ER

under the new regulation:

(14) Rebuilding of power lines or telecommunications cables where road or

highway reconstruction requires the applicant to relocate the lines either within or

immediately adjacent to the new road or highway easement or right-of-way.

(15) Phase or voltage conversions, reconductoring or upgrading of existing

electric distribution lines, or telecommunication facilities.

(17) Participation by an applicant(s) in any proposed action where total applicant

financial participation will be five percent or less.

(19) Additional bulk commodity storage (e.g., coal, fuel oil, limestone) within

existing generating station boundaries. A certification attesting to the current state
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

29

of compliance of the existing facilities and a description of the facilities to be added

shall be provided to RUS.

(20) Proposals designed to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the

environment (e.g., precipitators, baghouse or scrubber installations, and coal

washing equipment) which will have no other environmental impact outside the

existing facility site.

The following six new actions have been added to this category:

(16) Construction of new power lines, substations, or telecommunications

facilities on industrial or commercial sites, where the applicant has no control over

the location of the new facilities. Related off-site facilities would be treated in

their normal category.

(18) Construction of a battery energy storage system at an existing generating

station or substation site.

(21) Construction of standby diesel electric generators (one megawatt or less total

capacity) and associated facilities, for the primary purpose of providing emergency

power, at an existing applicant headquarters or district office, telecommunications

switching or multiplexing site, or at an industrial, commercial or agricultural

facility served by the applicant.

(22) Construction of onsite facilities designed for the transfer of ash, scrubber

wastes, and other byproducts from coal-fired electric generating stations for

recycling or storage at an existing coal mine (surface or underground).

(23) Changes or additions to an existing water well system, including new water

supply wells and associated pipelines within the boundaries of an existing well field

or generating station site.

(24) Repowering or uprating of an existing unit(s) at a fossil-fueled generating

station in order to improve the efficiency or the energy output of the facility.

Repowering or uprating that results in increased fuel consumption or the

substitution of one fuel combustion technology with another is excluded from this

classification.

Note that a description of the facilities to be constructed shall be provided to RUS for

Items (14), (15), (16), (18), (20), (21), (22), and (23).
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

30

§1794.22 Categorically excluded proposals requiring an ER.

(a) Electric and Telecommunications Programs

The following action that previously required an EA requires an ER under the final rule.

(7) Construction of substations, switching stations, or telecommunications

switching or multiplexing centers requiring no more than 5 acres (2 hectares) of

new physically disturbed land or fenced property.

The following new actions have been added to this category:

(5) Changes to existing transmission lines that involve less than 20 percent pole

replacement, or the complete rebuilding of existing distribution lines within the

same ROW. Changes to existing transmission lines that require 20 percent or

greater pole replacement will be considered the same as new construction

(8) Construction of diesel electric generating facilities of 5 megawatts (MW)

(nameplate rating) or less either at an existing generation or substation sites. This

category also applies to a diesel electric generating facility of 5 MW or less that is

located at or adjacent to an existing landfill site and supplied with refuse derived

fuel. All new associated facilities and related electric power lines shall be covered

in the ER.

(10) Construction of new water supply wells and associated pipelines not located

within the boundaries of an existing well field or generating station site.

The acreage threshold for new headquarters (item #4) has been increased from 5 acres

(2 hectares) to 10 acres (4 hectares).

The capacity thresholds for diesel generation facilities (item #8) have been modified and

the capacity thresholds for hydroelectric proposals have been eliminated.

§1794.23 Proposals normally requiring an EA.

(c) Electric Program

The following new action has been added to this category:

(4) Repowering or uprating of an existing unit(s) at a fossil-fueled generating

station where the existing fuel combustion technology of the affected unit(s) is

substituted for another (e.g. coal or oil-fired boiler is converted to a fluidized bed

boiler or replaced with a combustion turbine unit).

The acreage threshold for new headquarters (item # 7) has been increased to greater than

10 acres (4 hectares).
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

31

The capacity thresholds for combustion turbine or diesel generation have been modified to

differentiate between new sites (50 MW or less) and existing sites (100 MW or less).

Capacity thresholds for hydroelectric proposals have been eliminated.

§§1794.24 and 1794.25

Acreage and capacity threshold changes within §1794.24, and a capacity threshold change

within §1794.25 reflect changes that have been made in §§1794.22(a), and 1794.23(c).

Other Procedural Changes

Subpart D - Procedure for Categorical Exclusions

Each project must be sufficiently described to ensure its proper environmental

classification. Sufficient information for this purpose is normally provided in the

project description included in the construction work plan. There are 13 actions in

§1794.21(b) that require additional information. The purpose is to ensure that

construction and operation of the facilities covered by these actions will not impact

important resources.

Subpart E – Procedure for Environmental Assessments

The EA will be the subject document of the notice of availability requirements in

§1794.42, where previously, the applicant’s BER or the Environmental Analysis

(EVAL) was the subject document. With this change, the notice requirements for

all three programs will be consistent for both EA proposals and EA with scoping

proposals. This change will encourage more public involvement by allowing public

review of EA proposals prior to the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI). Normally, there will be no comment period following the issuance of

the FONSI as was required for scoping proposals under the previous regulation.

Subpart F – Procedure for Environmental Assessments with Scoping

The notice requirements for Electric program projects that require scoping have

been changed. The timing of RUS Federal Register notice for public scoping

meetings in §1794.52(b) has been reduced from 30 days to 14 days prior to the

meeting. No appreciable benefit resulted from the earlier notice requirement.

Scoping documents must be made available to the public at least 10 days in

advance of the meeting. The meeting format can be either the traditional (formal

presentation) style or the open house style.

The previous rule allowed RUS to accept the applicant’s BER as its EA but

required RUS to prepare its own EA from the applicant’s EVAL where a proposed

action requires scoping. This requirement has been changed to allow RUS accept

the EVAL as its EA. (See §1794.53.)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

32

Subpart G – Procedure for Environmental Impact Statements

The policy regarding the use of a contractor prepared EIS has been modified.

Under the previous rule, RUS was required to use agency funds if an independent

contractor was chosen by RUS to prepare the EIS. In accordance with the

provisions of 7 CFR Part 1789, “Use of Consultants Funded by Applicants” and

Section 759A of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996,

preparation of a draft or final EIS by an independent contractor can be funded by

the applicant, provided the consultant is selected by RUS.

A new requirement, publication of a notice of availability by RUS and the applicant

for a Record of Decision, is established in §1794.63.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Larry Wolfe, Senior

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff, at (202) 720-5093,

E-mail: lwolfe@rus.usda.gov.

ADMINISTRATIVE and OTHER

Y2K Update

With less than 160 days remaining until January 1, 2000, it is imperative that everyone continue

their hard work ensuring that all critical systems are Y2K compliant. It is important that all billing

and business systems, as well as infrastructure and other date-sensitive systems, be ready for the

transition to Y2K. To further ensure a smooth transition, you should consult with those

companies whose systems interface with yours to determine their compliance status.

Regardless of how thoroughly you plan for Y2K compliance, last-minute surprises are inevitable.

After you have finished the necessary steps of awareness, inventory, assessment, remediation,

testing, and implementation, potential risks must be identified and managed. It may be impossible

to correct 100 percent of the issues in time; therefore, problems with mission critical processes

should be solved first. As you are aware, because of your interaction with a multitude of other

entities, there are Y2K issues beyond your control that may affect you. One important way to be

sufficiently prepared is through the development and application of a well-defined and executable

contingency plan.

The RUS Y2K Home Page (www.usda.gov/rus/y2k/index.htm) has information on contingency

planning and links to other sites with a wealth of information on the topic. Links are also included

to sites that discuss all aspects of the Y2K problem including descriptions of the steps in

correcting it.

We would like to thank all of the electric and telecommunications borrowers who responded to

our Y2K Compliance survey. A copy of the latest summary of responses can also be found on the
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

33

RUS Y2K Home Page. We appreciate your continued interest and cooperation in this crucial

matter.

If you have questions about general Y2K issues, please contact our Y2K Compliance

Coordinator, John Schell, at (202) 720-0671, or by E-mail at jschell@rus.usda.gov. Your RUS

General Field Representative is also available to provide assistance in helping you ensure Y2K

compliance.

RUS 2000 Electric Engineering Seminar

RUS is planning to conduct a seminar on rural electric distribution and transmission system

engineering and operations in March, 2000. The program will include presentations on various

topics of interest to the rural electric engineering community.

In addition to the formal presentations, this seminar will provide an opportunity for the

participants from around the country to share experiences and ideas of mutual interest.

Distribution system managers, engineers, and line superintendents as well as personnel of

consulting engineering firms are expected to attend this seminar. RUS is planning to hold this

seminar in conjunction with NRECA’s “TechAdvantage 2000.”

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Fred Gatchell, Deputy

Director, ESD, at (202) 720-1398.

Seismic Safety

RUS is revising its existing regulations concerning seismic safety. The proposed revision to

7 CFR Part 1792, Subpart C, would update and simplify the seismic safety requirements for new

building construction using RUS or RTB loan, grant or guaranteed funds or funds provided

through lien accommodations or subordinations approved by RUS or RTB.

The proposed revision also changes the list of acceptable model codes and standards for which

new buildings are to meet seismic provisions. According to a recent study commissioned by the

Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in Construction, the model codes and standards which

are equivalent to the 1994 NEHRP Recommended Provisions are the 1997 ICBO Uniform

Building Code (UBC) and the ASCE 7-95 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Don Heald, Structural

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-9102.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

34

Water and Wastewater Roles for Rural Electric Systems

Over the last 30-plus years, many rural electric systems have assumed a variety of roles with

water and sewer systems. The roles include:

• Ownership

• Management services

• Operation and maintenance services

• Financial assistance

• Building community support

• Assistance in developing new facilities

• Merger assistance

Involvement in other utilities like community water or wastewater systems will expand the rural

electric system’s relationship with its customers while providing a valuable community service.

Some electric cooperatives that are involved in this program include Warren Rural Electric

Cooperative Corporation in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and Southern Illinois Electric Cooperative

in Dongola, Illinois.

RUS, through its Water and Environmental Programs, provides financing for water and waste

disposal (WWD) facilities. WWD loans and grants are available to develop water and waste

disposal (including solid waste disposal and storm drainage) systems in rural areas and towns with

a population not in excess of 10,000. The funds are available to public entities such as

municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian tribes, and corporations not operated for

profit. RUS may also guarantee water and waste disposal loans made by banks and other eligible

lenders. Grant funds may be used to reduce water and waste disposal costs to a reasonable level

for rural users. Grants may be made for up to 75 percent of eligible project costs in some cases.

More information may be obtained from any USDA Rural Development field office or via the

Internet at:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/

During fiscal year 1998, 949 loans for $787 million and 752 grants for $469.5 million were made

to construct or improve rural water and waste disposal facilities. Similar numbers are expected

for fiscal year 1999.

In 1995, NRECA and the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) jointly

published Community Involvement – Opportunities in Water-Wastewater Services, The Final

Report of the NRECA/CFC Joint Member Task Force on Rural Water and Wastewater

Infrastructure. This is a very good resource for rural electric systems contemplating involvement

in a water or wastewater system. More information may be obtained from NRECA, 4301 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1860. Telephone: (703) 907-5500.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Glen Deal, Acting Director,

Engineering and Environmental Staff, at (202) 720-1582, E-mail: gdeal@rus.usda.gov.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

35

RUS Technical Publications

RUS has issued a number of technical publications recently. These publications include:

RULES:

• 7 CFR 1710, Subpart E, “Load Forecasts and Market Analysis.” This proposed rule,

published July 7, 1999, will change the existing load forecasting regulations. The

proposed changes are intended to reduce the overall administrative burden of reporting

load forecasts to RUS. The proposed changes will also allow RUS to accept less detailed

analysis for smaller borrowers.

• 7 CFR 1724, “Electric Engineering, Architectural Services and Design Policies and

Procedures.” This rule, published on June 29, 1998, contains RUS requirements on

engineering and architectural services and system design. This rule simplifies RUS

requirements relating to architectural and engineering services and the planning and design

of electric distribution, transmission, and generation systems and facilities owned by RUS

borrowers, and substantially reduces the number of engineering documents that must be

submitted to RUS. These policies and procedures were contained in seven RUS bulletins,

which have been rescinded.

• Bulletin 1728F-803, “Specifications & Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line

Construction” (incorporated by reference). The final rule covering the revision of this

bulletin was published on December 31, 1998. The revision includes a new drawing

assembly designation system as well as a number of clarifications, modifications, and

updates to these drawings. This bulletin was formerly known as RUS Bulletin 50-3.

• Bulletin 1728F-806, “Specifications & Drawings for Underground Electric

Distribution” (incorporated by reference). The proposed rule covering the revision of

this bulletin was published on April 8. 1998. The proposed revision includes a number of

clarifications, modifications, and updates to these drawings. Public comments on this

proposed rule have been received and are now being incorporated into the final rule.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS:

• Bulletin 1726C-115, “Checking Sag in a Conductor by the Return Wave Method,”

dated September 24, 1998. This bulletin presents a convenient and practical method for

checking sag in a conductor regardless of span length, tension, size or type of conductor.

• Bulletin 1728F-800, “Assembly Unit Numbers and Standard Format,” dated

December 16, 1998. This bulletin explains and documents the RUS construction unit

numbering scheme and the new numbering format used in new and revised RUS

construction drawings.

• IP 202-1, “List of Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification

Borrowers,” published in July 1999, and its quarterly supplements. This document
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

36

provides a convenient listing of the materials and equipment that have been accepted by

RUS.

If you need any of these publications, please contact RUS' Program Development and Regulatory

Analysis staff at (202) 720-8674. Many RUS publications are also available via the Internet at:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/regs.shtml

PUBLICATIONS IN PROGRESS

Timber Specifications: RUS is in the process of revising the following three bulletins that cover

pressure treating poles and crossarms, and their respective quality control:

• 1728F-700, “RUS Specification for Wood Poles, Stubs and Anchor Logs,”

• 1728H-701, “RUS Specification for Wood Crossarms (Solid and Laminated)

Transmission Timbers and Pole Keys” (7 CFR 1728.201), and

• 1728H-702, “RUS Specification for Quality Control and Inspection of Timber

Products” (7 CFR 1728.202).

Topics currently being considered for revision include:

1. Elimination of the requirement for borrowers to notify RUS of their timber product

purchases during the previous year,

2. Reinstatement of the acceptance and listing of inspection agencies in the RUS List of

Materials,

3. Requirement for a heat sterilization during kiln drying or steam conditioning of poles,

4. Requirement for inspection agencies to have their company designation branded or

tagged on the pole face,

5. Elimination of the 10 percent allowance of preservative retention reduction after

shipment to the borrower,

6. Requirement for all independent inspectors and plant quality control personnel to be

trained and certified by x-ray fluorescence instrument manufacturer,

7. Requirement for treating plants and inspection agencies to maintain certain levels of

liability insurance and errors and omission insurance, and

8. Include butt treating of cedar poles as an acceptable method of treatment for poles.

RUS is hereby soliciting input from electric borrowers and others as to necessary changes to

the aforementioned bulletins. Comments or suggestions should be sent to H. Robert Lash,
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

37

Chief, Transmission Branch, RUS, Stop 1569, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC

20250-1569, E-mail: blash@rus.usda.gov. All comments are welcome.

RUS is also working on the following publications:

• 7 CFR 1710, Subpart H, “Demand Side Management and Renewable Energy

Systems.” This proposed rule will reflect the changes in the electric utility industry and

provide borrowers with more flexibility in obtaining RUS financing for demand side

management and renewable energy projects. Criteria for an integrated resource plan

acceptable to RUS will also be reduced. For further information, please contact Georg

Shultz at (202) 720-1920.

• RUS Bulletin 1724D-101B, “System Planning Guide, Construction Work Plans.”

This bulletin provides guidance to borrowers and engineers in the preparation of

Construction Work Plans (CWP). This revision will update and simplify this document.

For further information, please contact Jim Bohlk at (202) 720-1967.

• RUS Bulletin 1724D-112, “The Application of Shunt Capacitors to the Rural Electric

System.” This bulletin will examine the application of shunt capacitors on rural

distribution systems and serve as a general guide for capacitor applications to RUS

borrowers and others. The System Planning Subcommittee of NRECA’s T&D Committee

has been instrumental in the development of this bulletin. For further information, please

contact Chris Tuttle at (202) 205-3655.

• RUS Bulletin 1724D-114, “Voltage Regulator Application on Rural Distribution

Systems.” This bulletin will examine the application of voltage regulators on rural

distribution systems and serve as a general guide for voltage regulator applications to RUS

borrowers and others. For further information, please contact Harvey Bowles at

(202) 720-5082.

Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee

In 1991, NRECA established its Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee (T&D

Committee) to work with REA (now RUS) in the development and maintenance of electric

transmission and distribution standards and specifications, and the exchange of engineering

information of mutual interest to rural electric utilities. The T&D Committee is composed of

some of the most dedicated and talented individuals from NRECA and from electric cooperatives

all across the United States. These individuals routinely donate several weekends and

considerable amounts of other personal time each year to fulfill their commitments to the

Committee.

We want to use this opportunity to thank these individuals and the organizations that sponsor

their participation. See Appendix B for the T&D Committee Roster.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

38

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Don Heald, Acting Chair,

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric), at (202) 720-0980.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

39

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VA1 VA1.1 (none)

VA1A VA1.2 (none)

VA1-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VA1-1A (old assembly discontinued)

VA1-2 (old assembly discontinued)

VA2 VA2.1 (brackets replaced with pole-top-pins)

VA2-3 (old assembly discontinued)

VA3 VA3.1 Replace 2 Washers

VA4 VA4.1 Replace 4 Washers

VA5 VA5.1 Replace 2 Washers

VA5-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VA5-2 VA5.2 Replace 2 Washers

VA5-2A (old assembly discontinued)

VA5-3 VA5.3 (none)

VA5-4 (old assembly discontinued)

VA6 VA6.1 Significant Changes

VA7 VA5.21 (none)

VA7-1 VA5.31 (none)

VA8 VA6.21 (none)

VA9 VA2.21 Add 2 Washers (under crossarm pins)

VA9-1 VA1.11 Add 1 Washer (under crossarm pin)

VB1 VB1.11 (none)

VB1A VB1.12 (none)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

40

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VB1-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VB1-1A (old assembly discontinued)

VB2 VB2.21 (none)

VB3 VB3.1 Replace 2 Washers

VB3A (old assembly discontinued)

VB4-1 VB4.1 Replace 6 Washers

VB4-1A (old assembly discontinued)

VB5-1 VB5.1 Replace 3 Washers

VB5-1A (old assembly discontinued)

VB7 VB5.21 (none)

VB7-1 VB5.31 (none)

VB8 VB6.21 (different crossarm braces)

VB9 VB2.22 Add 2 Washers (under crossarm pins)

VB9-2 VB2.51 Add 2 Washers (under crossarm pins)

VB9-1 VB1.14 Add 1 Washer (under crossarm pin)

VB9-3 VB1.41 Add 1 Washer (under crossarm pin)

VC1 VC1.11 (none)

VC1B VC1.12 (none)

VC1-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VC1-1A (old assembly discontinued)

VC1-2 VC1.11L (none)

VC1-3 VC2.21L (brackets replaced with pole-top-pins)

VC1-4 VC1.13L (brackets replaced with pole-top-pins)

VC1-5 (old assembly discontinued)

VC2 VC2.21 (brackets replaced with pole-top-pins)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

41

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VC2-1 VC2.52 (none)

VC2-2 VC2.52L (none)

VC3 VC3.1 Replace 3 Washers

VC3L (old assembly discontinued)

VC3-1 VC3.2L Replace 8 Washers

VC4-1 VC4.1 Replace 8 Washers

VC4-1L VC4.2L Replace 8 Washers

VC5-1 VC5.1 Replace 4 Washers

VC5-1L VC5.2L Replace 4 Washers

VC7 VC5.21 (none)

VC7-1 VC5.31 (none)

VC8 VC6.21 (different crossarm braces)

VC8-1 VC6.51 Significant Changes

VC8-2 (old assembly discontinued)

VC8-3 (old assembly discontinued)

VC9 VC2.51 Add 2 Washers and Anti-split Bolt

VC9-1 VC1.41 Add 1 Washer (under crossarm pin)

VC9-2 VC2.51L Replace 2 Insulator Pins

VC9-3 VC1.41L Replace 1 Insulator Pin

VDC-C1 VD1.81 (none)

VDC-C1B (old assembly discontinued)

VDC-C1L VD1.83L (none)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

42

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VDC-C2-1 VD2.91 (none)

VDC-C2-1L VD2.91L (none)

VDC-C3 (old assembly discontinued)

VDC-C4-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VE1-1 E1.1 Add Marker; Significant Changes

VE1-2 (old assembly discontinued)

VE1-3 E2.1 Add Marker; Significant Changes

E2-1 E1.01 Add Marker; Significant Changes

E2-2 (old assembly discontinued)

E2-3 E1.02 Add Marker; Significant Changes

E3-2 E3.1 Add Guy Marker

E3-3 (old assembly discontinued)

E3-10 (old assembly discontinued)

E4-2 (old assembly discontinued)

E4-3 (old assembly discontinued)

VE5-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VE5-2 (old assembly discontinued)

VE6-2 (E2.2G) (old assembly discontinued - see E1.1)

VE6-3 (E2.2G) (old assembly discontinued - see E2.1)

VE7-2L (E2.3G) (old assembly discontinued - see E1.1)

VE7-3L (E2.3G) (old assembly discontinued - see E2.1)

VE8-2L (E2.4LG) (old assembly discontinued - see E1.1)

VE8-3L (E2.4LG) (old assembly discontinued - see E4.1L)

E11 (old assembly discontinued)

E12 (old assembly discontinued)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

43

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

F1-1 F1.6 (none)

F1-2 F1.8 (none)

F1-3 F1.10 (none)

F1-4 F1.12 (none)

F1-1C (old assembly discontinued)

F1-2C (old assembly discontinued)

F1-3C (old assembly discontinued)

F1-4C (old assembly discontinued)

F1-1S F2.6 (none)

F1-2S F2.8 (none)

F1-3S F2.10 (none)

F1-4S F2.12 (none)

F1-1P F3.6 (none)

F1-2P F3.8 (none)

F1-3P F3.10 (none)

F1-4P F3.12 (none)

F2-1 (old assembly discontinued)

F2-2 (old assembly discontinued)

F2-3 (old assembly discontinued)

F2-4 (old assembly discontinued)

F4-1S F4.2 (none)

F4-1E F4.1 (none)

F5-1 F5.1 (none)

F5-2 F5.2 (none)

F5-3 F5.3 (none)

F6-1 F6.1 (none)

F6-2 F6.2 (none)

F6-3 F6.3 (none)

VG10 VG1.8 (none)

VG66 (old assembly discontinued)

VG106 VG1.3 (none)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

44

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VG19 VG1.7 (none)

VG65 (old assembly discontinued)

VG105 VG1.2 (none)

VG39 VG1.7 (none)

VG67 (old assembly discontinued)

VG136 VG1.2 (none)

G150 Y2.1 Significant Changes

VG150 VY2.1 Significant Changes

VG210 VG2.1 (none) (separate cutout & arrester)

VG310 VG3.1 (minor changes) (1 crossarm eliminated)

VG311 VG3.2 (minor changes) (1 crossarm eliminated)

VG312 VG3.3 (minor changes) (1 crossarm eliminated)

J5 J1.2 (none)

J6 J2.2 (none)

J7 J3.1 (none)

J7C J2.2 (none)

J8 J1.1 (none)

J10 J2.1 (none)

J11 J3.1 (none)

J12 J4.1 (none)

K10 K1.1 (none)

K11 K1.3 (none)

K14 K1.4 (none)

K10C K2.2 (none)

K10C K2.3 (none)

K10L K2.1 (none)

K11L K1.3 (none)

K14L K1.1 (none)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

45

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

K11C K1.4 (none)

K14C K1.2 (none)

K15C J2.1 (none)

K16C K3.2 (none)

K17 K3.1 (none)

K17L K3.1 (none)

VM2-11 H1.1 (none)

VM2-11A (old assembly discontinued)

VM2-12 P2.1 (none)

M2-15 H4.1 (none)

VM2-12A P2.2 (none)

VM2-12A2 P2.3 (none)

VM3-1A VS1.1 (none)

VM3-4 (old assembly discontinued)

VM3-16 VS2.32 (minor changes) (Add 1 crossarm brace)

VM3-2 VS2.21 (minor changes) (number of bolts & washers)

VM3-3 VS2.31 (minor changes) (number of bolts & washers)

VM3-10A VR1.1 (none)

VM3-19 (old assembly discontinued)

VM3-20 (old assembly discontinued)

VM3-19A VR2.1 (none)

VM3-20A VR3.1 (none)

VM3-23 VR1.2 Significant Changes (arms replaced with

bracket)

VM3-24 (old assembly discontinued)

VM3-25 (old assembly discontinued)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

46

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VM3-24A VR2.2 (none)

VM3-25A VR3.2 (none)

VM5-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VM5-2 VA1.01 (none)

VM5-4 (old assembly discontinued)

VM5-5 VA1.011 (none)

VM5-6 VP1.01 (none)

VM5-7 VA1.011P (none)

VM5-8 VA5.2 Replace 1 Washer

M5-9 VS1.01 (none)

M5-10 VS1.02 (none)

M5-11 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-12 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-13 W3.2 (none)

M5-14 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-15 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-16 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-17 W3.1 (none)

M5-18 VA1.10P (none)

M5-19 N1.2 (none)

M5-20 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-21 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-22 (old assembly discontinued)

M5-23 (old assembly discontinued)

VM7-1 VY1.1 Significant Changes (crossarms, platform

eliminated)

VM7-3 VY1.3 (minor changes) (number of bolts & washers)

M8 Q1.1 (minor changes) ("item number" of material)

M8-6 Q3.1 (minor changes) ("item number" of material)

M8-9 K4.4G (guide drawing - no material)

M8-10 K4.3G (guide drawing - no material)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

47

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

M8-11 Q3.3 (minor changes) ("item number" of material)

M8-12 Q3.2 (minor changes) ("item number" of material)

VM10-14 (old assembly discontinued)

VM10-15 (old assembly discontinued)

M19 W2.1G (guide drawing - no material)

M20 W1.1G (guide drawing - no material) (Note New

Specifications)

M21 (guide drawing discontinued)

M22-1 (guide drawing discontinued)

M22-2 (guide drawing discontinued)

M24 K4.1G (guide drawing - no material)

M24-1 (guide drawing discontinued)

M24-10 K4.2G (guide drawing - no material)

M26-5 (guide drawing discontinued)

M27 (guide drawing discontinued - see G1.1G)

M27-1 (guide drawing discontinued - see G1.1G)

M27-2 (guide drawing discontinued)

M28 (guide drawing discontinued - see G1.1G)

M29-1 (guide drawing discontinued)
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

48

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

VM33-1 (old assembly discontinued)

VM33-2 (old assembly discontinued)

VM33-3 (old assembly discontinued)

VM33-4 (old assembly discontinued)

VM33-5 (old assembly discontinued)

VM33-6 (old assembly discontinued)

M40-6 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-1A (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-1A2 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-8 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-10 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-16 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-19 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-11 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-12 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-13 (guide drawing discontinued)

M40-17 (guide drawing discontinued)

M41-1 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")

M41-10 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")

M42-3 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")

M42-11 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

49

OLD NEW REQUIRED MATERIAL CHANGES

ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY or (advisory comments)

M42-13 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")

M42-21 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")

M43-4 (guide drawing discontinued - see new

Section "L")

M43-10 (guide drawing discontinued)

M45-20 (guide drawing discontinued)

M45-21 (guide drawing discontinued)

M45-22 (guide drawing discontinued)

M52-3 (guide drawing discontinued)

M52-4 (guide drawing discontinued)

R1 M1.30G (guide drawing - no material)

GENERAL NOTES for CONVERSION TABLE

(Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803)

1. The old drawings of the primary deadend and suspension assemblies show two 10"

(25 cm) suspension insulators; the new drawings show three, 4 1/4" (11 cm)

suspension insulators. Any arrangement which uses materials from the "List of

Materials" (Informational Publication 202-1) is acceptable. The material

descriptions and quantities need to be changed accordingly. See the "General

Construction Specifications" of Bulletin 1728F-803 for additional information.

2. The old drawings of the primary and neutral deadend and suspension assemblies

specify "deadend assemblies" and "angle assemblies" (items "ca" through "ce") on

the drawings and in the material lists. Old guide drawings "M41-1" through

"M42-21" show construction details and materials for these various assemblies.

The above construction details and materials are shown in the "Tying Guides" of
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 1

Conversion Table of Assembly Numbers and Materials

Old Bulletin 50-5 to New Bulletin 1728F-803

50

Section "L" of new Bulletin 1728F-803.

3. The new pole top assemblies of Bulletin 1728F-803 utilize the hole spacing of the

new pole framing guide in drawing "W1.1G."

4. The drawings and specifications of new Bulletin 1728F-803 specify the use of a

square, 3" (8 cm) curved washer for all primary and neutral deadend assemblies

instead of the square, 2 1/4" (6 cm) flat washer specified in old Bulletin 50-5.

5. The drawings and specifications of new Bulletin 1728F-803 specify the use of an

anti-split bolt assembly on all pole top assemblies with double pole top pins and

insulators.

6. The drawings and specifications of new Bulletin 1728F-803 specify the use of a

square, 2 1/4" (6 cm) flat washer beneath the shoulder of all 7.2 kV crossarm pins.

7. Generally, the allowable transverse loading of pole-top assemblies in new Bulletin

1728F-803 is the same as those in old Bulletin 50-5. However, the maximum line

angles for the new assemblies are more restrictive (smaller) than those of the old

assemblies. USE THE TABLES FOR MAXIMUM LINE ANGLES IN NEW

BULLETIN 1728F-803.
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

Exhibit 2

51

TABLE VII

MAXIMUM LINE ANGLES ON SPOOL INSULATOR ASSEMBLIES

(ANSI Class 53-4 Spool Insulator)

Designated Maximum Transverse Load = 2,250 Lbs./Conductor

WIND SPAN (feet)

CONDUCTOR SIZE 150 200 250 300 350 400

LIGHT LOADING DISTRICT

4 ACSR (7/1) 60 60 60 60 60 60

2 ACSR (6/1) 57 57 56 55 55 54

2 ACSR (7/1) 44 43 43 42 42 41

1/0 ACSR (6/1) 36 35 35 34 34 33

123.3 AAAC (7) 35 35 34 34 33 33

2/0 ACSR (6/1) 35 35 34 34 33 33

3/0 ACSR (6/1) 28 28 27 27 26 26

4/0 ACSR (6/1) 28 27 27 26 25 25

246.9 AAAC (7) 27 26 26 25 25 24

336.4 ACSR (18/1) 26 26 25 24 24 23

336.4 ACSR (26/7) 18 18 17 17 16 16

MEDIUM LOADING DISTRICT

4 ACSR (7/1) 60 60 60 60 60 60

2 ACSR (6/1) 57 56 55 55 54 53

2 ACSR (7/1) 44 43 43 42 41 41

1/0 ACSR (6/1) 36 35 35 34 34 33

123.3 AAAC (7) 35 35 34 34 33 33

2/0 ACSR (6/1) 36 35 34 34 33 33

3/0 ACSR (6/1) 28 28 27 27 26 26

4/0 ACSR (6/1) 28 27 27 27 26 26

246.9 AAAC (7) 27 27 26 26 25 25

336.4 ACSR (18/1) 27 26 26 25 25 24

336.4 ACSR (26/7) 19 18 18 18 17 17

HEAVY LOADING DISTRICT

4 ACSR (7/1) 60 60 60 60 60 60

2 ACSR (6/1) 56 54 53 52 51 49

2 ACSR (7/1) 43 42 41 40 39 38

1/0 ACSR (6/1) 35 34 34 33 32 31

123.3 AAAC (7) 34 34 33 32 31 31

2/0 ACSR (6/1) 35 34 33 32 31 31

3/0 ACSR (6/1) 28 27 26 26 25 24

4/0 ACSR (6/1) 27 27 26 25 25 24

246.9 AAAC (7) 27 26 25 25 24 23

336.4 ACSR (18/1) 26 25 25 24 23 22

336.4 ACSR (26/7) 18 18 17 17 16 16

Replace Table VII in RUS Bulletin 1728F-803, Specifications and Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line Construction,

with this table.
THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

APPENDIX A

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

ELECTRIC STAFF DIVISION

53

Office of the Director

George J. Bagnall Director

(202) 720-1900 gbagnall@rus.usda.gov

Donna B. Howdershelt Secretary

(202) 720-1900 dhowders@rus.usda.gov

Fred J. Gatchell Deputy Director

(202) 720-1398 fgatchel@rus.usda.gov

Vacant Chair, Technical

Standards Committee “A”

(202) 720-0980 tscae@rus.usda.gov

Nona Johnson Technical Committee

Assistant

(202) 720-0980 njohnson@rus.usda.gov

Marshall D. Duvall Staff Engineer

(202) 720-0096 mduvall@rus.usda.gov

Robin L. Meigel Finance Specialist

(202) 720-9452 rmeigel@rus.usda.gov

Energy Forecasting Branch

Georg A. Shultz Chief

(202) 720-1920 gshultz@rus.usda.gov

Carolyn Bliss Secretary

(202) 720-1920 cbliss@rus.usda.gov

Sharon E. Ashurst Public Utility Specialist

(202) 720-1925 sashurst@rus.usda.gov

Christopher L. Tuttle Economist

(202) 205-3655 ctuttle@rus.usda.gov

Distribution Branch

Harvey L. Bowles Chief

(202) 720-5082 hbowles@rus.usda.gov

Angel Winters Secretary

(202) 720-5082 awinters@rus.usda.gov

James L. Bohlk Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1967 jbohlk@rus.usda.gov

Trung V. Hiu Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1877 thiu@rus.usda.gov

George L. Keel Equipment Specialist

(202) 690-0551 gkeel@rus.usda.gov

Stephen Jones Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1792 sjones@rus.usda.gov

Transmission Branch

H. Robert Lash Chief

(202) 720-0486 blash@rus.usda.gov

Betty Sharpe Secretary

(202) 720-0486 bsharpe@rus.usda.gov

Donald G. Heald Structural Engineer

(202) 720-9102 dheald@rus.usda.gov

Mike Eskandary Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-9098 meskanda@rus.usda.gov

Ted V. Pejman Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-0999 tpejman@rus.usda.gov

Norris Nicholson Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-1924 nnichols@rus.usda.gov

Updated July, 1999
THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

55

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Committee Chairman

 Overt L. Carroll Clark RECC Winchester, KY

NRECA Staff Coordinator

 Steve Lindenberg NRECA Arlington, VA

David Altman Lumbee River EMC Red Springs, NC

Dominic Ballard East Kentucky Power Co-op Winchester, KY

Alan Blackmon Blue Ridge EC Pickens, SC

Gregory Broussard Jackson EMC Jefferson, GA

John Burch Florida Keys EC Tavernier, FL

James Byrne Poudre Valley REA Fort Collins, CO

Jim Carter NRECA – WQC Spartanburg, SC

Steve Cress Tipmont REMC Linden, IN

Russ Dantzler Mid-Carolina EC Lexington, SC

Berl Davis Palmetto EC Hilton Head, SC

Bruce Dreyer Middle Tennessee EMC Murfreesboro, TN

Herman Dyal Clay Electric Co-op Keystone Heights, FL

Charles Emerson Trico EC Tucson, AZ

Doug Emmons Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. Bloomington, IN

Mark Evans Volunteer Electric Co-op Decatur, TN

Ronnie Frizzell Arkansas EC Corp. Little Rock, AR

David Garrison East Central Oklahoma EC Okmulgee, OK

David Gebhardt LaPlata EA Durango, CO

Phil Gelhorn East Central EA Braham, MN

Ed Giesler Tri-County EC Portland, MI

Allan Glidewell Southwest Tennessee EMC Brownsville, TN

Weldon Gray Concho Valley EC San Angelo, TX

Ron Gunnell Randolph EMC Asheboro, NC

Charlene Ham Rusk County EC Henderson, TX

Wayne Henson East Mississippi EPA Meridian, MS

Bill Hetherington Lee County EC, Inc. North Ft. Myers, FL
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

56

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Vince Heuser Nolin RECC Elizabethtown, KY

Jon Hodge Trinity Valley Electric Co-op Athens, TX

Tom Hoffman Agralite Electric Co-op Benson, MN

Jerrod Howard Central Electric Power Co-op, Inc. Columbia, SC

Robert Johnson Arkansas EC Corp. Little Rock, AR

Joseph Joplin Rutherford EMC Forest City, NC

Wally Lang Minnkota Power Co-op, Inc. Grand Forks, ND

Terry Lee South Mississippi EPA Hattiesburg, MS

Carl Liles Western Farmers EC Anadarko, OK

Gregory Lindsly Dixie EMC Baton Rouge, LA

Troy Little Four County EPA Columbus, MS

Charles Lukkarila Great River Energy Elk River, MN

Bill Kahanek Lower Colorado River Authority Austin, TX

Ken Malone Middle Tennessee EMC Murfreesboro, TN

Charles (Bubba) McCall Georgia Transmission Corp. Tucker, GA

John Mitchell Rappahannock EC Fredericksburg, VA

Ken Murphy Tallapoosa River EC LaFayette, AL

William Murray Berkeley EC Moncks Corner, SC

Tom Myers Berkeley EC Moncks Corner, SC

Ace Necaise Singing River EPA Lucedale, MS

Jim Newberg Missoula EC, Inc. Missoula, MT

Rod Nikula Wright-Hennepin CEA Rockford, MN

David Obenshain Piedmont EMC Hillsborough, NC

David Moore Johnson County EC Cleburn, TX

Bob Oldham Southern Maryland EC Hughesville, MD

Michael Pehosh Ozarks EC Fayetteville, AR

Chris Perry Nolin RECC Elizabethtown, KY

Peter Platz Coast Electric Power Bay St. Louis, MS

John Rodgers Nodak EC, Inc. Grand Forks, ND

David Rudolph Cass County Electric Co-op Fargo, ND

Terry Rosenthal Laclede EC Lebanon, MO
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

57

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Paul Rupard East Kentucky Power Co-op Winchester, KY

Glenn Sell Union Rural EC Marysville, OH

Lewis Shaw Brunswick EMC Shallotte, NC

Robert Siekas Cherryland EC Grawn, MI

Jim Skeen Plumas-Sierra Rural EC Portola, CA

Thomas Slusher Union EMC Monroe, NC

Michael Smith Singing River EC Lucedale, MS

Gary Stein Wabash Valley Power Assn. Indianapolis, IN

Blaine Strampe Federated REA Jackson, MN

Vernon W. Strickland Intercounty ECA Licking, MO

Tom Suggs Natchez Trace EPA Houston, MS

Kieth Thomason Middle Tennessee EMC Murfreesboro, TN

Brian Tomlinson Denton County EC, Inc. Corinth, TX

David Turner Lower Colorado River Authority Austin, TX

John Twitty Alabama EC Andalusia, AL

Scott Wehler Adams Electric Co-op Gettysburg, PA

John Westby Verendrye EC, Inc. Velva, ND

Kenneth Winder Moon Lake Electric Roosevelt, UT
Items of Engineering Interest

July 1999

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

58

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

 CONSULTANT MEMBERS

Jim Bardwell SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

Keith Bartels Martin & Associates, Inc. Mitchell, SD

George Chapman Patterson & Dewar Engineers, Inc. Decatur, GA

Peter Daly Power System Engineering, Inc. MADISON, WI

Bob Dew Southern Engineering Company Atlanta, GA

Don Gray SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

Joseph Jones McCall-Thomas Engineering Co. Orangeburg, SC

Joe Perry Patterson & Dewar Engineers, Inc. Decatur, GA

Art Smith Patterson & Dewar Engineers, Inc. Decatur, GA

Gene Smith SGS Witter, Inc. Lubbock, TX

Mike Smith SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

James Stewart Stewart Engineering, Inc. Anniston, AL

Ed Thomas Utility Electrical Consultants Raleigh, NC

Mike Waters Utility Electrical Consultants Raleigh, NC