UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

RURAL UTILITIES

SERVICE

SUMMARY OF

ITEMS OF ENGINEERING INTEREST

AUGUST 2000
THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

ENGINEERING and OPERATIONS

Revisiting Stray Voltage.....................................................................................1

New Trend in Distribution Generation for the 21st Century.................................2

DOE and Rural Electricity Providers: A Lesson in Economic Benefits...............3

Distributed Generation Standards.......................................................................6

Safety Signs .......................................................................................................8

New Guidelines for RUS Approval to Use Steel Distribution Poles....................9

Update of Bulletin 50-3 (D-804) – 12.47/7.2 kV Construction Standards .........15

Bulletin 1728F-803, Specifications and Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV -

Corrections.............................................................................................16

MATERIAL and PROCUREMENT

RUS Acceptance of Fiberglass Crossarms........................................................18

RUS Bulletin 1724E-216, Guide Specification for Standard Class Spun

Prestressed Concrete Poles.....................................................................18

ICEA Issues New Standards for Power Cables.................................................26

Coop Supply Professionals? ............................................................................29

Close the Loop On Recycling: Buy Recycled ..................................................30

ENVIRONMENTAL

Environmental Report Preparation....................................................................31

Environmental Review of Minor Projects.........................................................34

Summary: The State of the Art in Raptor Protection - A Historical

Perspective.............................................................................................36

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Enforcement ...........................................................37

Raptor Electrocution/Collision Workshops.......................................................38

Raptors at Risk Video ......................................................................................41

ADMINISTRATIVE and OTHER

The RUS Website ............................................................................................42

New Data Collection System............................................................................44

RUS Electric Engineering Seminar and NRECA’s TechAdvantage ..................45

RUS Technical Publications.............................................................................46

Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee.....................................51

Exhibit 1 – Maximum Line Angles – Table VII .....................................................53

Exhibit 2 - Selected Metric Conversion Factors.....................................................54

Appendix A – ESD Directory................................................................................55

Appendix B – NRECA T&D Committee ...............................................................57
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

ii

ABBREVIATIONS

ACSR Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced

ARS Agriculture Research Service

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APS Arizona Public Service Company

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BIL Basic Impulse Insulation Level

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNN Cable News Network

CWP Construction Work Plan

DCS Data Collection System

DG Distributed Generation

DOE Department of Energy

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESD Electric Staff Division

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

G&T Generation and Transmission

HSS High Strength Steel

ICBO International Conference of Building Officials

ICEA Insulated Cable Engineers Association

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IWO Inventory of Work Orders

kip 1000 Pounds

kV Kilovolt

M&E Mechanical and Electrical

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MLEA Moon Lake Electrical Association

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAPM-REU National Association of Purchasing Management-Rural Electric Utilities

NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NESC National Electrical Safety Code

NRECA National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

OLF Overload Factor

OHGW Overhead Groundwire

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PSN Photovoltaic Services Network

PV Photovoltaic

RBS Rated Breaking Strength

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

USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U. S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U. S. Geological Survey

Western Western Area Power Administration
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

1

ENGINEERING and OPERATIONS

Revisiting Stray Voltage

In February and March 2000, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) received several

letters and telephone calls from a number of dairy farmers in Wisconsin and Minnesota. The

farmers advised that their dairy herds are experiencing distress that is affecting the health of cows

and their milk production. These farmers attribute the problem to stray voltage that they believe

is originating from the power lines serving their farms. The farmers indicated there is an

alarming loss of communications and trust between the farmers, the electric utilities that serve

their farms, and others in the state and local governments.

These complaints brought to mind RUS past history with stray voltage concerns. In a

September 24, 1981, letter to all electric borrowers, the Rural Electrification Administration

(REA) advised of a large increase in complaints related to stray voltage on farms. This REA

letter briefly discussed some of the causes and remedies of stray voltage, and recommended that

REA borrowers share the information with the farmers that they serve. A follow-up letter of

April 27, 1983, to all electric borrowers contained additional reference sources for information

on the subject and included some suggested information on stray voltage which could be

provided in "bill stuffers" to customers. At that time, borrowers and farmers were working

together to identify and alleviate stray voltage problems at farms.

In December of 1991, the Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Research Service (ARS)

published a most complete 140 page reference and source of help on the subject of stray voltage

at farms...Agriculture Handbook 696, "Effects of Electrical Voltage/Current on Farm Animals."

The Department published this handbook because of concerns about the way stray voltage

research results were being misinterpreted and misconstrued, and because of the general lack of

understanding of the causes and effects of stray voltage on farms. This handbook has been used

widely and is generally considered to be a prime reference on the subject.

Subject matter includes such information as:

1. The history of stray voltage/current on farms,

2. The physical and electrical sources of this phenomena,

3. The physiological and behavior bases for losses in production,

4. Method for identifying and detecting problems

5. Methods for mitigating stray voltage/current problems, and

6. Areas where further research may be required.

The primary emphasis was on cattle and dairy farms, but the theories and procedures discussed

were relevant for all types of livestock and the associated housing facilities. Recommendations
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

2

were made to address action levels and mitigation techniques. The fundamental conclusion of

this handbook was that stray voltages/currents could be reduced to acceptable levels.

The handbook can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, Technology

Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161, phone (703) 605-6000.

Please advise that you wish to purchase NTIS Order No. PB92-172873.

The recent year 2000 problems described by dairy farmers appear to be multifaceted and involve:

1. Misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about electrical properties and phenomenon,

2. Misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about animal health, physiology and behavior,

and,

3. Poor or lack of communications between all parties involved.

In an effort to help resolve these problems, the Electric Staff Division (ESD) is currently

soliciting involvement and assistance from other USDA agencies. One agency, the Agriculture

Research Service, has experts in animal husbandry and behavior and knowledge of the reaction

of animals to electrical voltages and currents. Another agency, Cooperative State Research,

Education and Extension Service and its various Extension Service offices throughout the U. S.,

could provide help by visiting farmers and farmer organizations to educate farmers about the

cause and cures of stray voltage problems. This education effort could help alleviate the

misunderstandings and lack of knowledge about stray voltage and open the pathway to better

communications with all involved parties.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call John Pavek, Chief,

Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-5082.

New Trend in Distribution Generation for the 21st Century

Perhaps you have read articles, seen reports, or may have attended power generation seminars on

the new technology called “Fuel Cells” that promises to revolutionize the power distribution

industry as we know it.

In the not too distant future, some rural electric customers will have the opportunity to supply a

portion of their own power needs using on-site generators. These highly efficient and reliable

fuel cells will be available in five to ten years with a reasonable per kilowatt installation cost.

This new technology promises almost flawless reliability and emission-free (the only by products

are water, carbon dioxide, and heat...and the heat can be used for hot water or home heating as

well). Fuel cells behave like batteries, but unlike batteries, they are endlessly charged. The fuel

cells use fuel from a natural gas line or a propane cylinder; the fuel is cleaned, then converted

into a hydrogen-rich product, gas, which is then fed to the fuel cell module. In the module, the

supplied hydrogen and oxygen from the air are electrochemically combined to produce DC
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

3

electric power. The DC power is fed to a power converter, where it is converted to AC power,

which is then available to meet the business or residential power requirements.

A growing number of electric customers nationwide believe that fuel cells are a model energy

source for the 21st century. This customer belief should make rural electric distribution managers

more aware and cause them to get involved in this new trend. The U. S. Department of Energy

has also been involved, and has invested in this area and recently announced that the first

100 kW fuel cells experiment has completed a record of 8700 hours of generation supplying

110 kW of electricity to a local power grid. Additional tests and applications for the units up to

250 kW are underway. Tri-County EMC of Reynolds, Georgia, for example, is planning to

market home generation system to its customers by the year 2001.

The potential value of fuel cell technology is already recognized, and in the very near future, the

cost of fuel cells should be comparable with other types of power production. The expected

retail price per unit is about $8500 and should drop by half within a few years. The estimated

unit cost will run between 12 and 16 cents per kilowatt-hour for average household usage. In

addition to the positive benefits surrounding fuel cells, customers are expected to be willing to

pay the initial installation cost for the benefit of having their own independent generator.

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

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

DOE and Rural Electricity Providers: A Lesson in Economic Benefits

A particularly grizzly winter on the Rocky Mountain Plains provided the impetus for a successful

partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories and several

rural electric cooperatives – a partnership that demonstrated that rural electric utilities will be the

first domestic electric utilities to have an economically viable use for photovoltaics.

During the winter of 1988, K. C. Electric Association, Hugo, Colorado, lost more than 600 utility

poles to ice and snow. The buildup on lines snapped poles like toothpicks – at a cost of about

$10,000 for each mile of line that K. C. Electric had to rebuild.

K. C. Electric, like many rural electric cooperatives, is responsible for operating and maintaining

a distribution system serving many remote ranching and farming loads. Many of the downed

lines served only a small load – often just one livestock water pump. To be sure, one small pump

is a critical load when cattle need water. K. C. Electric owns miles and miles of distribution lines

across the eastern Colorado plains. And they are not unique. Rural coop-owned loads are often

characterized by their relatively small power requirements, remote locations, and high cost of

service.

Enter DOE’s National Photovoltaics Program (via Sandia). Could a photovoltaic (PV) array

power a water pump in isolated instances such as those served by K. C. Electric? Matching a

proven technology to this specific application was the key. A partnership that included not only
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

4

Sandia, but also the Western Area Power Administration and the Electric Power Research

Institute, focused on examining and assessing the relative economic benefits of PV power versus

conventional power for small water pumping systems.

As part of the cooperative cost-shared agreement, which included the NEOS Corporation, a

contract was let for $10,000 to purchase a water pumping system as a demonstration project at

one of K. C. Electric's remote customer sites. The installation would give the rural utility a

chance to see the technology at work and assess the costs - and cost savings - while familiarizing

its personnel and customers with PV power. And DOE’s National PV Program would benefit

too. Quoting from a letter that Sandia engineer, John Stevens, who led DOE’s role in the project,

wrote to K. C. Electric:

“...the U.S. DOE National Photovoltaic Program would gain substantially...from

an electric utility documenting their costs, both installation and maintenance, of

photovoltaic systems installed to meet customer loads.”

In short, the DOE Program wanted the coops to look very closely at the cost of PV versus the

cost of line extensions.

The project successfully demonstrated PV for rural co-ops and provided some excellent

preliminary information. A direct outgrowth of this was a survey by NEOS of some 25 electric

cooperatives in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming to determine the potential market for this PV

application. It wasn’t long before more than 6,800 remote water pumping installations for cattle

grazing were identified, all of which were possible candidates for being powered by PV. Taken

together, they represented nearly 3.5 megawatts of electric service capacity for utilities, or over

$20 million in equipment sales for PV suppliers. Yet another spin-off activity was NEOS’ work

with five host utilities in Wyoming to install and monitor water pumping systems across their

service territory. Again, the project would serve the dual purpose of demonstrating performance

and reliability of the pumping application and familiarizing rural utilities with PV power.

DOE’s participation in these efforts took the form of numerous technical consultations by Sandia

engineers, and assistance with a document called PV Products List, through Photovoltaic

Services Network (PSN), a non-profit organization formed by a coalition of some of these same

rural electric services providers. PV Products List provided a single point of contact – PSN – for

purchasing appropriately sized PV systems. The PV Products List still stands as a valuable

service where a future investment makes sense. It is one of the most tangible ways that the rural

electric cooperatives could be helped in their day-to-day activities in purchasing, installing, and

maintaining remote PV water pumping systems.

During this period of time – the late Eighties – the use of PV power by electric utilities was being

talked about everywhere. One particular concept, developed by Pacific Gas and Electric

(PG&E), for introducing PV into the utility industry, suggested that PV cost-effectiveness for

particular utility niches would be the driving force behind its introduction. The concept clearly

suggested how PV-powered application might diffuse into the utility market. Specifically, utility

involvement with PV likely would begin with installations that allowed the utility to postpone

expensive construction projects by supplying increasing load demand with PV.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

5

The program contracted with four electric utilities to study the economic benefit of PV systems

for support of distribution feeders. This study was performed because of the PG&E Kerman

Feeder study. The Kerman study produced the rather startling result that a PV system, when

installed at a carefully selected location, could have benefits that would allow an installed cost of

as high as $6.50 per watt. This was in contrast to the prevalent theory that PV must be installed

for $2.00 per watt to be competitive in the utility environment.

DOE’s effort intended to investigate the range and reality of the PG&E values for other utilities.

The results of the four contracts clearly indicated that the greatest benefit comes when PV can be

installed at a location where it offsets load growth that is forcing the utility to spend money on

capital-equipment upgrades, such as increasing line or substation capacity. In addition, the

greatest benefit is realized when the load that is growing is relatively small, and the cost of the

upgrade is relatively large. This situation is most often seen in the service area of rural co-ops,

where the co-op typically has long lines serving small loads. In fact, the best result of the four

utility studies was a situation with a co-op that had a 36-mile long 25 kV line serving a small

town. Load growth in that town was forcing the utility to consider upgrading the line to 69 kV.

The study showed that installation of a 50kW PV system would allow postponing the line

upgrade for 5 years. The economic benefit to the utility of postponing the line upgrade would

allow the expenditure of $10.50 per watt to build a 50 kW PV system.

An important factor in the high benefit value for this co-op was that the specific problem on this

line was voltage support, rather than capacity support. Thus, a relatively small amount of local

generation could cure a problem that otherwise would require line reconstruction.

This set of studies illustrated the important lesson that long, lightly loaded lines that are

approaching a need for upgrading are the places where PV can first see economic break-even

conditions. Since the nation’s rural co-ops’ very nature means they are rife with long, lightly

loaded lines, then the rural co-ops are the utilities that are in a position to first take advantage of

the modular, distributed, low maintenance aspects of grid-support PV systems.

Photovoltaic Systems for Utility Companies (published in 1990 with DOE PV Program funding)

encouraged electric cooperatives and utilities to consider PV for their remote customer loads.

The installation by K. C. Electric was cited as a demonstration of what could be done in lieu of

rebuilding downed lines.

The PG&E concept did not offer (nor was it intended to offer) suggested methods for initiating

this utility market penetration within any particular market niche. But by then, several utilities in

the western United States had begun testing PV service programs. To transfer information from

those utilities to others that might be interested, DOE collaboratively focused on: (1) identifying

utilities that then offered PV as a service option for isolated utility loads, such as livestock water

pumping; (2) gathering information on program implementation procedures and constraints;

(3) assessing utility and customer attitudes toward PV-powered systems; (4) documenting the

cost, performance, and reliability of any PV-powered systems installed by these utilities; and

(5) compiling all “lessons learned” into a document describing PV as a utility service option for
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

6

livestock water pumping. Photovoltaic Power as a Utility Service: Guidelines for Livestock

Water Pumping (published in 1993 at Sandia) was the result.

Presentations on this successful model were given at the 1992 Rural Electric Power Conference,

at SOLTECH’s 1990 meeting, and in 1993 at the IEEE Summer PES meeting. As a result of the

successful partnership, two electric utility cooperatives in the western United States soon offered

PV-powered electric service options for remote water pumping applications to their rural

customers. Others would follow.

The DOE/rural co-op project was important because livestock water pumping occurs frequently

in the western and mid-western U.S. and the cost of serving this load using traditional utility

methods can be excessive. The lessons learned from utility PV-powered water pumping services

are applicable to other off-grid PV service applications as well.

The bottom line experience of this early DOE partnership with rural electric service providers is

the same as the bottom line for all utilities: Long lines with small loads represent extraordinary

cost savings to rural electric cooperatives. They are, in fact, where PV first makes sense for

utilities.

If you would like further information or have any questions, please call Jim Rannels, Director,

Office of Solar Energy Technologies of DOE at (202) 586-1720, E-mail

JAMES.RANNELS@hq.doe.gov, or Georg Shultz, Chief, Energy Forecasting Branch, at

(202) 720-1920.

Distributed Generation Standards

Distributed Generation (DG) is defined as any generating resource other than central station

generation placed close to the load being served, usually meaning customer site. DG may be

connected to the supply side or demand side of the meter. DG technologies may range from gas

turbines of 50 megawatts or more, to 25 kW micro-turbines, to photovoltaic systems of less than

1 kW. Other technologies such as wind turbines, internal combustion engines, small hydros,

flywheels, fuel cells, and batteries also exist among these size ranges.

DG technologies can provide energy, ancillary services, reliability and power quality to electric

service providers, irrigation districts, municipal utility districts and end users. According to

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) surveys, DG is taking hold in many

parts of the country. For example, these surveys reported that “there are more than 125 MW of

local generation sets at cooperative consumer sites in Florida. Ten of 31 G&Ts reported that

either they or some of their customers are using local equipment for distributed generation

applications...”

Even modest adoption of DG technologies could have a significant impact on cooperatives.

Therefore there is a clear need for good useful standards for interconnecting DG units with
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

7

electric distribution systems. There are already some interconnection standards recently issued

and some under development.

The completed standards include:

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 929-2000, entitled

“Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photovoltaic (PV) Systems.” This document

provides a straightforward, understandable interconnection standard for PV systems and utilities.

This standard is expected to influence other interconnection standards for distributed generation

as well.

The California Public Utilities Commission has published a comprehensive document describing

the minimum operating, metering, and interconnection requirements for any generating source or

sources paralleled with any electric utility system within the State of California. This document is

entitled, “RULE 21 - NONUTILITY-OWNED PARALLEL GENERATION”.

Rule 21 can be downloaded from the following Internet address:

http://www.pge.com/customer_services/business/tariffs/#ER

(under Electric Rules Click on item No. 21 Nonutility-Owned Parallel Generation)

IEEE Standard under development:

IEEE SCC21 P1547 Working Group is currently working to produce a standard document for

interconnection of all types of distributed generation resources with electric power systems by

the end of this year. A published standard is planned in 2002. The draft entitled “IEEE P1547

Standard Draft 04 - Distributed Resources Interconnected with Electric Power Systems.” The

draft is available for viewing at:

http://technet.nreca.org/distribgen.html

To help IEEE produce a consensus document for the interconnection of all types of distributed

generation with investor owned urban and rural utility grids, it is essential for cooperative

engineers to work in unison and to agree on practical, meaningful provisions. Therefore input

from rural electric cooperatives is deemed essential to avoid development of overly complex

standards and to focus on meaningful grid interconnection standards especially pertinent to rural

areas. Rural Utilities Service (RUS) highly recommends that RUS borrowers get involved in the

development of this standard.

We encourage rural electric cooperative engineers and managers to review the referenced

standards and use them as tools to become familiar with the issues involved. Knowledge from

these readings should then be used to evaluate and provide comments to IEEE SCC21 P1547

Working Group. Provide comments to IEEE through Dr. Paul Dolloff, technology consultant at

East Kentucky Power Cooperative to influence this rapidly evolving IEEE standard. Dr. Dolloff

is the NRECA Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee representative on the IEEE
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

8

SCC21 P1547 standards working group. He may be reached by phone at 606-744-4812 and by

e-mail at pauld@ekpc.com.

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

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

Safety Signs

We have previously discussed and would like to reiterate the ANSI standards for environmental

and facility safety signs. These standards are intended to promote uniform national practice, and

include considerable changes from some past safety sign practices. As a result of these new

safety sign standards and other needed changes, RUS has revised Bulletin 1728F-806,

Specifications & Drawings for Underground Electric Distribution. We deleted the formerly used

standards for safety signs and now refer to the following ANSI standards:

ANSI Z535.1 Safety Color Code

ANSI Z535.2 Environmental and Facility Safety Signs

ANSI Z535.3 Criteria for Safety Symbols

ANSI Z535.4 Product Safety Signs and Labels

ANSI Z535.5 Accident Prevention Tags (for Temporary Hazards)

These consensus generated and coordinated standards are intended to apply to every permanent

or temporary safety sign or tag used on a utility system. These standards prescribe details for

colors, shapes, and panel layout for the three panel types: (1) the signal word panel, (2) the

message panel, and (3) the pictorial panel. For dead-front pad-mounted equipment, we

recommend that the “Warning” sign be placed on the exterior and the “Danger” sign be placed

inside the enclosure.

In the past, most borrowers have used the “Danger” sign for substation fences with no additional

safety signs inside the substations. We recommend that the “Warning” signs be placed on the

surrounding fence and “Danger” signs be installed inside the substations on structures that

support live parts. State regulatory agencies or insurance companies may also have

recommendations on this topic that should be considered.

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

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1877.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

9

New Guidelines for RUS Approval to Use Steel Distribution Poles

In January, 2000, RUS again updated its guidelines of things that borrowers should consider

when requesting RUS approval to use steel distribution poles. These new guidelines, now

identified as “Version 5,” are included below. These new guidelines provide borrowers much

more information regarding the proper use and selection of steel distribution poles and associated

pole-top assemblies. The new guidelines also provide more information on who and how to

contact certain individuals at RUS to answer specific questions regarding steel poles. Now, RUS

asks that a borrower address (in writing) only the nine issues listed on the last page of the

guidelines (as applicable) when submitting a request to RUS.

RUS Guidelines and Approval for the Use of Steel Distribution Poles

Version 5

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) will consider a borrower’s written request to use steel

distribution poles for site specific projects on a case-by-case trial basis to gain experience.

Before granting approval, RUS needs sufficient information to assure that the application of steel

poles will result in safe and reliable construction and meet RUS requirements.

Borrowers requesting RUS approval to use steel distribution poles are asked to read the

following guidelines and design information and to furnish RUS with the information requested

in Part II.

Part I: RUS Guidelines and Design Information for Using Steel Distribution Poles

A: MATERIALS

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

materials that RUS has fully, conditionally or technically accepted. A compilation of fully and

conditionally accepted materials may be found in Informational Publication 202-1, “List of

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

This List of Materials can be accessed through the internet at:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/listof.htm
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

10

For information on technically accepted items and other questions regarding materials, please

contact:

Mr. Harvey Bowles, Chair

Technical Standards Committee “A” (Electric)

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1569

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1569

Phone: (202) 720-0980

Fax: (202) 720-7491

Email: hbowles@rus.usda.gov

Borrowers requesting RUS approval of materials not presently accepted, for use with steel poles

or any other application, are asked to provide: a description of the material, catalog sheets, test

results, and the name and address of the manufacturer. Such requests should be sent to the

appropriate regional Engineering Branch Chief. (See Section G)

B: LIGHTNING IMPULSE WITHSTAND STRENGTH and SURGE PROTECTION

A lightning impulse withstand strength, often called Basic Impulse Insulation Level or BIL, of

less than 300 kV on distribution pole top assemblies will usually facilitate flashovers of lightning

strikes to or near distribution lines. A recloser operation, which will cause lights to flicker, is

usually required to clear the resulting arc. RUS advocates that the withstand strength (dry

flashover, phase-to-phase and phase-to-ground) be no less than 300 kV to minimize recloser

operations and thus improve the quality of service. This level is especially important on

deadends where voltage doubling can occur.

A withstand strength of 300 kV (dry flashover) can be achieved on steel poles by using many of

the standard RUS pole-top assemblies and installing a fiberglass-reinforced plastic pole-top pin

(item “b (2)” in the List of Materials) on the phase conductor attached to the very top of the pole.

A 300 kV lightning impulse withstand strength (dry flashover) can be attained on a steel pole

deadend structure by installing a 24 inch (minimum length) insulated extension link (item “eu” in

the List of Materials) between the primary deadend suspension insulators and the steel pole.

Borrowers do not need additional RUS approval to use the above two material items or the

resulting modified standard pole top assemblies.

The designated maximum transverse load on fiberglass-reinforced plastic pole-top pins is

500 pounds. The maximum line angles for this loading limitation can be found in Table I of

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

RUS recommends the installation of surge arresters at 800 foot to 1,200 foot intervals and at

deadends on all distribution lines which are exposed to frequent lightning strikes. This

recommendation is especially applicable to distribution lines built with steel poles because of
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

11

their generally lower lightning impulse withstand strengths. An adequate number of installed

surge arresters minimizes the number of lightning flashovers and the resulting momentary

outages and damaged insulators.

C. GROUNDS, GROUNDING

The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) requires that all non current-carrying metallic

members on a line support structure be effectively grounded. Thus, each steel pole needs to be

effectively bonded to all primary and secondary neutrals, down guys, messengers, and all other

metallic attachments to the pole. Other NESC grounding requirements may also apply.

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

and low impedance requirements of the NESC.

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

separate driven ground rods or grounding electrodes need to be used for all equipment, surge

arresters and other required system grounds. The use of stainless steel or galvanized steel ground

rods and non-copper ground wires in the soil near steel pole distribution lines will help to

mitigate the corrosive effects of dissimilar metals buried in close proximity.

D: COSTS AND ECONOMIC STUDIES

RUS does not require borrowers to provide any economic studies or cost comparisons to justify

the use of steel distribution poles in lieu of wood poles. However, borrowers are encouraged to

compare the initial and long-term estimated installed cost of equivalent distribution structures or

lines constructed with steel poles versus wood poles. Borrowers may, at their discretion, furnish

the results of their cost estimates to RUS.

Questions or comments regarding Sections B through D above are welcomed by and should be

sent to:

John Pavek, Chief

Distribution Branch

Electric Staff Division

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1569

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1569

Phone: (202) 720-5082

Fax: (202) 720-7491

Email: jpavek@rus.usda.gov

E: RAPTOR PROTECTION USING STEEL POLES

RUS advocates that distribution lines be designed and constructed in a way that will minimize

the electrocution of raptors and other animals. Distribution construction with steel poles need
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

12

extraordinary consideration because of the short distances between the bare energized phase

conductors and the grounded steel pole.

On single-phase lines, the installation of 24 inch long fiberglass-reinforced plastic pole-top pins

(“item b (2)” in the List of Materials) will minimize the electrocution of small raptors. On threephase lines, some raptor protection can be achieved in an economical manner by installing

fiberglass-reinforced pole-top pins and perch guards on the crossarms as shown on assembly

VP3.3G in Bulletin 1728F-803.

Good raptor protection can be achieved on both single-phase and three-phase structures by:

• Installing 24 inch long fiberglass-reinforced plastic pole-top pins;

• Using non-metallic crossarms and covering the pole, from the neutral up to and including

the top of the pole, with an insulating coating that has a dielectric strength of at least

15,000 volts; and,

• Using 36 inch (minimum length) fiberglass-reinforced plastic guy strain insulators

(item “w”) and extension links (item “eu”) for all connections to the pole above the

neutral position. (See Bulletin 1728F-803, assemblies VA5.4 and E5.1G)

Any questions or comments regarding raptor protection can be directed to:

Dennis Rankin

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1571

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1571

Phone: (202) 720-1953

Fax: (202) 720-1820

Email: drankin@rus.usda.gov

F: SELECTION OF STEEL DISTRIBUTION POLES

Generally, a wood pole cannot be replaced with a steel distribution pole of the same class

because of NESC strength requirements. After the selection of the NESC grade of

construction, certain “design load” calculations are required to determine the minimum class of a

steel distribution pole that can be used in lieu of a wood pole for standard RUS pole-top

assemblies. The calculations involve the overload factors and strength factors, for both wood

and steel poles, as found in Tables 253-1 and 261-1A of the 1997 edition of the NESC. (Note

that some of these values will probably be changed in the next edition of the NESC.) RUS has

performed the calculations for steel pole “design loads” for various poles and the results are

shown in the tables below.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

13

Required Steel Pole Design Loads

(Columns 1 and 2 from American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 0.51)

(Design loads 2 feet from top of pole)

TABLE 1 - NESC GRADE C STRUCTURES

(RUS Tangent and Small Angle Assemblies) (Not at a Crossing)

(For New and Replaced Grade C Structures)

ANSI 0.51

Wood Pole

Class

Wood Pole

Design Load

(lbs.)

Steel Pole

Design Load

(lbs.)

H1 5400 5800

1 4500 4800

2 3700 4000

3 3000 3200

4 2400 2600

5 1900 2000

6 1500 1600

7 1200 1300

TABLE 2 - NESC GRADE B STRUCTURES

(RUS Deadend and Large Angle Assemblies) (Not at a Crossing)

(For New and Replaced Grade B Structures)

ANSI 0.51

Wood Pole

Class

Wood Pole

Design Load

(lbs.)

Steel Pole

Design Load

(lbs.)

H1 5400 3500

1 4500 2900

2 3700 2400

3 3000 2000

4 2400 1600

5 1900 1200

TABLE 3 - NESC GRADE B STRUCTURES

(RUS Deadend and Large Angle Assemblies) (Not at a Crossing)

(For Existing Grade C Wood Structures to be Replaced with

Grade B Steel Structures)

ANSI 0.51

Wood Pole

Class

Wood Pole

Design Load

(lbs.)

Steel Pole

Design Load

(lbs.)

H1 5400 6600

1 4500 5500

2 3700 4500

3 3000 3600

4 2400 2900

5 1900 2300
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

14

RUS regulations require a minimum of NESC Grade C construction in the design and

construction of distribution lines and structures. NESC Section 24, Grades of Construction, and

RUS may require higher grades of construction for certain structures, locations, and conditions.

For example, deadend structures and line angle structures where the transverse loads are more

than 500 pounds per conductor involve additional calculations (such as loading trees) to

determine the required minimum steel pole strength and pole class. Thus, RUS advocates that

these types of structures (and steel pole selection) be designed (1) under the direction of a

registered professional engineer, and (2) meet NESC Grade B strength requirements.

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

and greater embedment depths. Extreme ice conditions and appropriate high winds should be

considered in the design loads.

Questions or comments regarding proper selection and installation of steel poles should be sent to:

Robert Lash, Chief, Transmission Branch

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1569

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1569

Phone: (202) 720-0486

Fax: (202) 720-7491

Email: blash@rus.usda.gov

OR Donald Heald, Engineer

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1569

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1569

Phone: (202) 720-9102

Fax: (202) 720-7491

Email: dheald@rus.usda.gov

G: REQUEST FOR RUS APPROVAL TO USE STEEL DISTRIBUTION POLES

Borrowers requesting RUS approval to use steel distribution poles should send their written

request and supporting information to the appropriate regional Engineering Branch Chief at the

address given below.

Charles M. Philpott

Chief, Engineering Branch

Northern Regional Division

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1566

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1566

Phone: (202) 720-1432

Fax: (202) 720-1411

Email: cphilpot@rus.usda.gov

OR Louis Riggs

Chief, Engineering Branch

Southern Regional Division

Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1567

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington DC 20250-1567

Phone: (202) 720-0848

Fax: (202) 720-0097

Email: lriggs@rdmail.rural.usda.gov
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

15

Part II: Information Needed by RUS for Case-by-Case Approval of Steel Distribution

Poles

Before granting approval, RUS needs all of the information requested below to determine if the

steel pole application will result in safe and reliable construction and meets all of RUS’

requirements.

1. Indicate the maximum number of steel poles to be used.

2. Indicate the name of the steel pole manufacturer.

3. Define the project or location(s) where the steel poles will be installed.

4. In addition to “experimental purposes to obtain experience,” furnish sound reason(s) for

using steel poles.

5. Indicate that only RUS accepted materials are to be used. Otherwise, see Section A of

steel pole guidelines regarding the need to request material approval.

6. Indicate that only RUS standard construction is to be used. Otherwise, please furnish

sufficient dimensioned drawings and other technical information for RUS’ evaluation of

the design. See Sections A and B of steel pole guidelines.

7. (If, and only if, the design has less than a 300 kV withstand strength [see guidelines,

Section B], then briefly describe assemblies and materials to be used and anticipated

impact [if any] on system power quality and reliability and materials.)

8. Describe raptor protection measures, if any, that are to be incorporated into the design.

Note that RUS recommends that raptor protection be considered in distribution line

designs. Lines using steel poles may require additional consideration. See guidelines,

Section D.

9. Indicate that the determination of the class of the steel poles for each application is based

on the proper engineering calculations performed by a competent person. (See

guidelines, Section F.)

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding RUS approval or the use of

steel distribution poles, please feel free to contact any of the persons identified in the above

guidelines.

Update of Bulletin 50-3 (D-804) – 12.47/7.2 kV Construction Standards

Presently RUS is updating Bulletin 50-3, “Specifications and Drawings for 12.47/7.2 kV Line

Construction.” This bulletin was last updated in 1983. A first draft of the bulletin with proposed

changes has been completed and is being circulated within RUS for comments.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

16

RUS is proposing some major changes in the update of this bulletin. All of the construction

assembly numbers will be changed to conform to RUS’ updated standard format numbering

scheme as explained in Bulletin 1728F-800, “Assembly Unit Numbers and Standard Format”.

This is the same standard numbering format used in Bulletin 1728F-803, “Specifications and

Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV Line Construction” which was published in the Federal Register in

December, 1998. RUS realizes that it will take time for borrowers to become familiar with the

new numbers and also that most borrowers will need to make changes in their computer

software. Thus, RUS will allow adequate time between the date that the future new 12.47/7.2 kV

construction standards is published and the date it will be made effective. Also to help

borrowers, the new standards book will contain an appendix which shows the conversion of the

old assembly numbers to new ones when applicable.

Just like new Bulletin 1728F-803, the new 12.47/7.2 kV construction standards book will be

divided into 19 sections wherein each section pertains to a different type of assembly unit. Nearly

all of “M” (miscellaneous) assemblies will either be eliminated or renumbered for ease in

locating in the book. The future new bulletin will also contain “design parameters” on most

drawings and tables showing the maximum line angle allowed on pole-top assemblies. Also, just

as in Bulletin 1728F-803, stirrups will be allowed for certain construction conditions, a 3 inch

square, curved washer will be required for all primary and neutral deadends, and a 2 1⁄4 inch

washer will be required under the shoulder of all 7.2 kV crossarm pins. The last two items are

needed to provide greater strength for assemblies and allow greater line angles, respectively.

Please note that the above changes in the new 12.47/7.2 kV construction standards book are

proposed changes and will not be required or finalized until the new book is published as a

proposed rule, all comments are addressed by RUS and then published as a final rule. Your

questions, comments and suggested are welcomed by RUS.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Jim Bohlk, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1967.

Bulletin 1728F-803, Specifications and Drawings for 24.9/14.4 kV - Corrections

In December, 1998, RUS published Bulletin 1728F-803, "Specifications and Drawings for

24.9/14.4 kV Line Construction." We have identified the following errors since the first printing

of this bulletin. Please make the following changes in all of your copies of 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 insulator. Thus, all of the line angles are incorrect; they are

smaller than they need to be. The attached table (Exhibit 1) has the correct designated

maximum transverse load value entered and the subsequent, calculated line angles (which
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

17

are greater) and are now correct. Please make copies of the attached table and replace

TABLE VII in each copy of Bulletin 1728F-803.

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

(item “f”) 8 inches from the end of the arm and on Assembly “VD1.83L” the clamp

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

drawing.

On Assembly “VA5.21,VA5.31” the neutral tying guide should be “L2-2G” and not

“LG.2G.”

Change the quantity (QTY) of material items on the following assemblies:

Assembly Item Description Change From Change to

VC2.51 “a” Insulators, white 1 2

VB3.1 “d” 3” square, curved, washer 2 3

“o” Bolts, eye 2 3

“ek” Locknuts 2 3

VB6.21 “d” 3” square, curved, washer add 2

“d” 2 1⁄4” square washer 12 10

VC4.2L “o” Bolts, eye 12 8

“ek” Locknuts 12 8

VC5.21, 31 “d” 3” square, curved, washer add 1

“d” 2 1⁄4” square washer 11 10

VC6.21, 31 “d” 3” square, curved, washer add 2

“d” 2 1⁄4” square washer 12 10

E1.1, E1.01 “d” 3” square, curved, washer add 1

“d” 2 1⁄4” square washer 1 0

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Jim Bohlk, Electrical

Engineer, Distribution Branch, at (202) 720-1967.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

18

MATERIAL and PROCUREMENT

RUS Acceptance of Fiberglass Crossarms

RUS is now including fiberglass crossarms in RUS Informational Publication (IP) 202-1, "List of

Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification Borrowers." RUS has

developed a requirements sheet for the acceptance of fiberglass crossarms and has invited a

number of manufacturers to submit applications for acceptance.

Fiberglass arms have to comply with the following requirements to be considered for acceptance

by RUS for inclusion in the RUS List of Materials:

• Meet the same load capacity as the standard wood crossarms (unbraced);

• Meet the same cross section as the wood crossarm;

• Meet the same environmental requirements as the wood crossarms.

• Meet the same accelerated weathering requirements as wood crossarms.

If you would like more information, have any questions, or wish to obtain a copy of our "Items

Required in an Application for RUS Acceptance of Fiberglass Crossarms" sheet, please contact

H. R. Lash, Chief, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-0486 or Norris Nicholson, Electrical

Engineer, Transmission Branch, at (202) 720-1924.

RUS Bulletin 1724E-216, Guide Specification for Standard Class Spun

Prestressed Concrete Poles.

RUS has published Bulletin 1724E-216, "Guide Specification for Standard Class Spun

Prestressed Concrete Poles," dated July 6, 2000. This guide specification provides a basis for

procuring direct embedded standard class spun prestressed concrete poles. If poles are

competitively bid, use of this specification will help to eliminate ambiguities which might arise

in the evaluation process.

This purchase specification covers the technical aspects of design, materials, manufacturing,

inspection, testing, and delivery of direct embedded standard class spun prestressed concrete

poles. It is recommended that this specification (1724E-216) be limited to poles that are not

guyed, not subjected to unbalanced lateral loads, or do not have deflection limitations or other

special limitations. For concrete pole applications that are subject to these considerations, it is

recommended that the owner use RUS Bulletin 1724E-206, "Guide Specification for Spun,

Prestressed Concrete Pole and Concrete Pole Structures."
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

19

Standard Class Pole

In some cases, utilities prefer to specify that certain spun concrete poles be designed according to

a standardized loading criterion, much like the standard classifications for wood poles.

Bulletin 1724E-216 was developed to establish a standard classification system and to assist the

owner in procuring a standard class concrete pole which is properly designed for the intended

loading criteria. Since it has become a widespread practice in the industry to design and

manufacture poles which are based on the wood pole classification system of the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI 05.1), the concrete pole classifications developed in this

specification generally follow the wood pole classification system. However, to avoid confusion

with the wood pole classifications, the concrete pole classifications have a unique naming

system. The standard classes of concrete poles are found in Table 1, which follows.

TABLE 1

Strength Requirements

Standard Class

Designations For Spun

Concrete Poles

Minimum

Ultimate Moment Capacity

At Five Feet From Pole Tip

(Ft.-Kip)

Tip Load

(Lbs.)

C-12.0 96 12,000

C-11.0 88 11,000

C-10.0 80 10,000

C-09.0 72 9,000

C-08.0 64 8,000

C-07.1 57 7,125

C-06.2 50 6,250

C-05.4 44 5,450

C-04.7 38 4,700

C-04.0 32 4,000

C-03.4 27 3,375

C-02.8 23 2,825

C-02.3 19 2,325

C-01.9 15 1,875

In some cases, the owner may design a transmission line based on wood pole classifications as

described in ANSI 05.1 and then wish to order concrete poles which meet the wood pole

equivalent loadings. Because of the differences in overload factors applied to wood poles in

comparison to concrete poles, the owner needs to be sure that the overload factors are properly

accounted for in the design of the concrete poles.

“Wood pole equivalent” is a term that may be defined in a number of ways. For purposes of this

commentary, the term “wood pole equivalent” is defined as a standard class prestressed concrete
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

20

pole which is equated by required ultimate loading to an ANSI 05.1 standard class wood pole.

The equation is made by a ratio of the overload factors (OLF) applicable for each pole type and

loading criteria.

TABLE A-1

WOOD POLE EQUIVALENCY

BASED ON 2.5:4 RATIO

(0.625 Equivalency Factor)

(1997 NESC Grade B District Wind Loading)

(Equivalencies based on approximate groundline strength)

Design

Wood Pole Class

Based on 4.0 OLF

Select

Concrete Pole Class

Based on 2.5 OLF

H6 C-07.1

H5 C-06.2

H4 C-05.4

H3 C-04.7

H2 C-04.0

H1 C-03.4

1 C-02.8

2 C-02.3

3 C-01.9

TABLE A-2

WOOD POLE EQUIVALENCY

BASED ON 1.1:1.5 RATIO

(0.733 Equivalency Factor)

(1997 NESC Grade B Extreme Wind Loading)

(Equivalencies based on approximate groundline strength)

Design

Wood Pole Class

Based on 1.5 OLF

Select

Concrete Pole Class

Based on 1.1 OLF

H6 C-09.0

H5 C-08.0

H4 C-07.1

H3 C-05.4

H2 C-04.7

H1 C-04.0

1 C-03.4

2 C-02.8

3 C-02.3
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

21

TABLE A-3

WOOD POLE EQUIVALENCY

BASED ON 1:1 RATIO

(1.0 Equivalency Factor)

(Ultimate-to-Ultimate Comparison)

(Equivalencies based on approximate groundline strength)

Design

Wood Pole Class

Select

Concrete Pole Class

H6 C-12.0

H5 C-10.0

H4 C-09.0

H3 C-08.0

H2 C-07.1

H1 C-05.4

1 C-04.7

2 C-04.0

3 C-03.4

The design and purchase of concrete poles as an equivalent to wood poles can be vague even

with clear instructions. As such, the owner should be sure that the equivalency is properly

determined. Once the equivalency is determined, the owner should specify the standard class

concrete pole based on the classifications detailed below. In doing this, the manufacturer will

not be involved in the equivalency process and the ambiguity should be eliminated.

Conclusions concerning wood pole equivalencies – The designer may avoid the confusing

concept of wood pole equivalency by using the procedure below to select the standard class pole

from the table below:

• Calculate the induced design moment to which the pole will be subjected using expected

applied loads with overload factors.

• Determine the equivalent tip load for this moment.

• Select the pole from Table 1 of the Specification. (Remember: In utilizing standard class

spun concrete poles, a complete structural analysis is still required for all structures. All

appropriate loading criteria are considered in the analysis. Once the required concrete

pole strength is determined, a standard class spun concrete pole that meets the actual

loading conditions can be selected).

Examples as to how to determine which standard class spun concrete pole to use are summarized

below. These examples also appear in the Bulletin.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

22

Example 1: For the TUC-1 pole structure and loading conditions

General information:

Line voltage: 138 kV

Structure type: TUC-1 Concrete Pole Structures

Geometry of the structure and location of loads:

Distance from Pole Top, Ft.

OHGW 0.25

Conductor 1 7.50

Conductor 2 17.50

Conductor 3 27.50

At Ground Line (assumed) 70.00

Pole-End 80.00

Overall pole length is 80 feet. The above dimensions assume a 10.0 foot embedment depth for

the concrete pole (using standard rule for wood poles of 10 percent pole length plus 2 feet).

Assume top of the pole has a 12 inch diameter, and the groundline diameter is 30 inches.

Overload Factors (OLF's) used in this example:

From the 1997 NESC (All Loading Districts):

Vertical 1.50

Transverse Wind 2.50

Longitudinal Loads 1.65

Wind on Pole 2.50

Transverse Line Angle 1.65

For Extreme Wind Loads: 1.10

Conductor and OHGW Data:

OHGW: 3/8”HSS

R.B.S = 10,800 lbs.

138 kV Conductor: Drake (795 26/7 ACSR)

R.B.S = 31,500 lbs.

Vertical Span 900 ft.

Horizontal Span 750 ft.

Line Angle 0 degrees
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

23

Load Cases:

Load Case A: NESC Medium District Loads with an unbalanced

longitudinal load of 700 lbs. at each

conductor

Load Case B: 80 mph Extreme Wind Load (1.1 OLF applied)

Loading Information (summary):

1997 NESC Medium Loading Data

Transverse Vertical

Cond. Tension (kips) (lb./ft.) (lb./ft.)

Drake – 138 kV 7.91 0.536 1.516

OHGW – 3/8 HSS 2.56 0.287 0.463

Extreme Wind Loading Data (16 psf)

Transverse Vertical

Cond. Tension (kips) (lb./ft.) (lb./ft.)

Drake – 138 kV 6.54 0.9091 1.0940

OHGW – 3/8 HSS 1.23 0.4800 0.2730

Calculate forces and moments at the groundline:

1997 NESC Medium District Loading

Load Due

to Wind

on Wire

(kips)

Load Due to

Line Angle

(kips)

Total Transv.

Load W/OLF

(kips)

Moment Arm

(ft.)

Ultimate

Moments

@Groundline

(ft.-kips)

OHGW .22 0 0.54 69.75 37.5

Conductor 1 .40 0 1.01 62.5 62.8

Conductor 2 .40 0 1.01 52.5 52.8

Conductor 3 .40 0 1.01 42.5 42.7

Groundline 0.0

Totals for Wire Loads 3.55 195.8

Wind on the Pole 1.23 36.8

Moments due to unbalanced vertical Wire Load 8.2

Moment due to deflection for weight of pole and for wires

 (p-delta moment) (Approximated)

29.1

Moments due to rise of insulators negligible

Total Transverse Shear and

 Moments at Groundline 4.78 270.2
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

24

For the unbalanced longitudinal load, the shear is 2.1 kips and the longitudinal moment is

121 ft.-kips (0.7k @ each conductor.)

TOTAL RESULTANT GROUNDLINE MOMENT = 296 ft.-kips

Extreme Wind Load (no longitudinal load)

Similar calculations are performed for the extreme wind load.

TOTAL GROUND LINE MOMENT FOR THE EXTREME WIND LOAD = 324.1 ft.-kips

Conclusions: The Extreme Wind Loading load controls design.

Determine which “standardized” concrete pole design to use:

Distance 2 ft. from top to groundline = 70 ft. – 2.0 ft. = 68 ft.

Load 2 ft. from the top to cause a 324 ft.-kip moment

 at groundline: = 324 ft-kips/68 ft. = 4770 lbs.

Based on the above calculated tip load, use a C-04.7 pole

 (The strength is within one percent of the required strength)

Perform a quick check to verify the assumed embedment depth using Bulletin 1724E-205,

“Design Guide: Embedment Depths for Concrete and Steel Poles.”

Example 2: An existing 115 kV single pole line is composed of Douglas Fir wood poles. In

several locations, concrete poles are to replace woodpecker damaged wood poles. The

existing damaged poles are 80-ft class 1 wood poles with the TUS pole top assembly.

Determine which standard size spun concrete pole should be used to replace the wood pole.

Extreme wind design load is 16 psf (80 mph). The line is located in the heavy loading

district. The conductor is 795 Drake and the overhead groundwire is 3/8" HSS.

1997 NESC heavy district loads with an overload factor of 4 controlled the design of the original

wood pole line. A quick comparison of the unit loads for the extreme wind and the NESC heavy

district load with overload factors for concrete, indicates that the 1997 NESC heavy district and

not the extreme wind load will control the design of the concrete pole. Because extreme wind

does not control the design, the engineer may use Table A-1.

Table A-1 indicates that a C-02.8 may be used. However, in order to account for the additional

moment due to deflection from the dead weight of the heavy concrete pole and the loaded weight

of the conductors, the engineer should select a pole, one class greater in strength from this table.

A standard class C-03.4 should be used.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

25

Example 3: Same as example 2, except the line must sustain 100-mph extreme wind loads.

1997 NESC heavy district loads with an overload factor of 4 controlled the design of the original

wood pole line. A quick comparison of the unit loads for the extreme wind and the NESC heavy

district load with overload factors for spun concrete poles, indicates that the 100 mph extreme

wind load will control the design of the spun concrete pole (an overload factor of 1.1 is used for

extreme wind loads). Because the extreme wind load with an overload factor of 1.1 is greater

than the 1997 NESC district load with an overload factor of 4.0, extreme wind will control the

design. Table A-2 should be used to select the appropriate pole.

In order to account for the additional moment due to deflection from the dead weight of the

heavy spun concrete pole and the loaded weight of the conductors, the engineer should select a

pole class that is higher in Table 1. A standard class C-04.0 should be selected.

In example 2, calculations for the actual line conditions may actually show that a C-02.8 may be

used to replace the 80 class 1 wood pole. Likewise, the engineer might find that a C-03.4 might

be adequate for example 3 if calculations are performed using actual line conditions.

RUS Recognition and Acknowledgment- This bulletin is the result of considerable effort of

the Transmission Subcommittee of the NRECA T&D Engineering Committee. Committee

members include:

Dominic Ballard, East Kentucky Power Coop., Winchester, KY

John Burch, Florida Keys Electric Coop., Tavernier, FL

Doug Emmons, Hoosier Energy REC, Bloomington, IN

Donald Heald, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.D.A, Washington, DC

Bill Hetherington, Lee County Electric Coop., North Fort Myers, FL

Robert Johnson, Arkansas Electric Coop., Little Rock, AR

Charles Lukkarila, United Power Association, Elk River, MN

Charles "Bubba" McCall, Georgia Transmission Company, Tucker, GA

Robert Oldham, Southern Maryland Electric Coop., Hughesville, MD

Art Smith, Patterson & Dewar Engineers, Decatur, GA

John Twitty, Alabama Electric Coop., Andalusia, AL

David Turner, Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX

RUS wishes to express special thanks to Working Group of this subcommittee who were

especially instrumental in the preparation of this specification:

John Twitty Bob Oldham Bubba McCall Art Smith

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

August 2000

26

ICEA Issues New Standards for Power Cables

The Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA) has issued several new standards for soliddielectric insulated power cables. Several of these standards are joint-standards with the

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). The new standards have been

submitted to ANSI for recognition as American National Standards.

The new ICEA standards reflect a change in ICEA’s standards writing objective. They are

written as “application standards” rather than “insulation material-based standards” of the past.

These new standards have been updated to reflect the latest conductor constructions, insulations

and jacket materials being used to manufacture wires and cables. The advantage of having an

application standard is that all insulations suitable for use on a specific product are contained in

one document. With material-based standards, only one type of insulation and its requirements

are defined. If a different insulation was to be considered, a separate standard would be required.

The new ICEA / NEMA published standards are:

ICEA S-95-658 / NEMA WC70 Nonshielded 0-2 kV Cables

ICEA S-96-659 / NEMA WC71 Nonshielded 2001 V-5 kV Cables

ICEA S-93-639 / NEMA WC74 Shielded Power Cable 5-46 kV

New ICEA standards for power cables used by the electric utility industry are:

ANSI / ICEA S-94-649 Concentric Neutral Cables Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-97-682 Utility Shielded Power Cable Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-105-692 600 Volt Single Layer Thermoset Insulated Utility

Underground Distribution Cable

ICEA S-81-570 Direct Burial, 600 Volt, Ruggedized Insulation

ICEA / NEMA joint-standards and ICEA standards are available from Global Engineering

Documents at the following address:

GLOBAL ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS

15 Inverness Way East

Englewood, CO 80112 USA

Telephone: (800) 854-7179 or (303) 397-7956

E Mail: global@ihs.com

http://global.ihs.com (go to Doc.Search, ICEA or NEMA WC)

As a result of the new ICEA / NEMA application standards being issued, the older, morefamiliar materials-based ICEA / NEMA standards are being withdrawn. This is necessary to
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

27

eliminate duplication and because the materials-based standards are no longer being maintained.

The withdrawn ICEA / NEMA standards are :

ICEA S-66-524 / NEMA WC7 Cross-Linked-Thermosetting-Polyethylene

Insulated Wire and Cable

ICEA S-68-516 / NEMA WC8 Ethylene-Propylene-Rubber Insulated Wire and

Cable

ICEA S-61-402 / NEMA WC5 Thermoplastic-Insulated Wire and Cable

ICEA S-19-81 / NEMA WC3 Rubber-Insulated Wire and Cable

ICEA recently issued several other application standards for wire and cable, a standard for test

methods and for test frequency. These standards are also available from GLOBAL. The titles of

these standards are:

ICEA S-75-381 / NEMA WC58 Portable and Power Feeder Cables for Use in Mines

and Similar Applications

ICEA T-26-465 / NEMA WC54 Frequency of Sampling Extruded Dielectric Cables

ICEA S-76-474 Neutral-Supported Power Cable Assemblies With

Weather-Resistant Extruded Insulation, 600 Volts

ICEA S-73-532 / NEMA WC57 Control Cables

ICEA S-70-547 Weather-Resistant Polyolefin-Covered Wire and Cable

ICEA S-82-552 / NEMA WC55 Instrumentation and Thermocouple Wire and Cable

ICEA T-27-581 / NEMA WC53 Standard Test Methods

Contact GLOBAL for copies of these standards and a complete listing of ICEA standards and

NEMA standards.

These changes are summarized in the table that follows. If you would like more information or

have any questions, please call Trung Hiu, Electrical Engineer, Distribution Branch, at

(202) 720-1877.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

28

MATRIX – ICEA WIRE & CABLE STANDARDS

WITHDRAWN STANDARD TITLE REPLACEMENT STANDARDS TITLE

ICEA S-66-524 / NEMA WC7 Crosslinked-Thermosetting-Polyethylene

Insulated Wire & Cable

ICEA S-95-658 / NEMA WC70 Nonshielded 0-2 kV Cables

ICEA S-96-659 / NEMA WC71 Nonshielded 2001 V-5 kV Cables

ICEA S-93-639 / NEMA WC74 Shielded Power Cable 5-46 kV

ICEA S-94-649 Concentric Neutral Cables Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-97-682 Utility Shielded Power Cable Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-105-692 600 Volt Single Layer Thermoset Insulated

Utility Underground Distribution Cable

ICEA S-81-570 Direct Burial, 600 Volt, Ruggedized

Insulation

ICEA S-68-516 / NEMA WC8 Ethylene-Propylene-Rubber Insulated

Wire & Cable

ICEA S-95-658 / NEMA WC70 Nonshielded 0-2 kV Cables

ICEA S-96-659 / NEMA WC71 Nonshielded 2001 V-5 kV Cables

ICEA S-93-639 / NEMA WC74 Shielded Power Cable 5-46 kV

ICEA S-94-649 Concentric Neutral Cables Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-97-682 Utility Shielded Power Cable Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-105-692 600 Volt Single Layer Thermoset Insulated

Utility Underground Distribution Cable

ICEA S-61-402 / NEMA WC5 Thermoplastic-Insulated Wire & Cable ICEA S-95-658 / NEMA WC70 Nonshielded 0-2 kV Cables

ICEA S-19-81 / NEMA WC3 Rubber-Insulated Wire & Cable ICEA S-95-658 / NEMA WC70 Nonshielded 0-2 kV Cables

ICEA S-96-659 / NEMA WC71 Nonshielded 2001 V-5 kV Cables

ICEA S-93-639 / NEMA WC74 Shielded Power Cable 5-46 kV

ICEA S-94-649 Concentric Neutral Cables Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-97-682 Utility Shielded Power Cable Rated 5-46 kV

ICEA S-105-692 600 Volt Single Layer Thermoset Insulated

Utility Underground Distribution Cable
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

29

Coop Supply Professionals?

Managerial experts believe that in today's dynamic business climate, only those organizations

with trained and proven professionals will survive. If so, then some of today's cooperatives must

rethink current attitudes towards staffing, developing and endorsing professional supply

management (purchasing, warehousing, etc.)

Supply personnel are a vital link in any successful operations chain and yet cooperative supply

functions usually have fewer human and physical resources when compared to other

departments. An electric system's procurement function should be adequately staffed so as to

seek out greater sources of supply, maximize existing ones, closely administer contracts, forecast

material requirements and anticipate market conditions. Increased efficiency is obtained by

having a board-sanctioned centralized materials management program. Note the word

centralized? It is the root core of any successful effort, of which the American Management

Association states: "Multiple purchasing authority is inefficient because it results in duplication

of efforts, dilution of the benefits of concentrated purchasing strength, demoralization of

purchasing personnel, and confusion among company employees and vendor's representatives."

So how do today's coops promote this enhanced agenda? Well first, each coop should take a

good close look at its existing processes and ask questions such as: Are purchasing, inventory

control, and warehousing/stores represented in top level planning affecting future operation's

procurement needs? Is the professional development and certification of supply personnel

encouraged? Is there a formal inventory control system in place? Are competitive procedures

used? Are purchasing and materials management policies and procedures documented?

Once established, an effective procurement program should be perceived as a source of revenue

rather than an expense. Here's how: Say for example your coop's last reported percentage of

gross profit was 8% (margins/income), meaning that in order to make one dollar of profit, your

coop had to generate $12.50 of revenue. Fact: $1 saved through effective purchasing is equal to

$1 free and clear of true profit. If efficient purchasing reduces your coop's cost of goods (for

example...$7 million annually) by only one 1%, this savings of $70,000 is equal to the

purchasing function alone generating revenues of $875,000 annually! ($70,000 saved x $12.50).

There is an organization that is uniquely committed to the education, certification and enhanced

professionalism of cooperative supply personnel. The Rural Electric Utilities affiliate of the

National Association of Purchasing Management (NAPM-REU) has been doing this since 1992.

Since then, NAPM-REU has gained national recognition for having the largest percentage

membership growth, exceeding Certified Purchasing Manager certification goals, and being a

"best in class" affiliate. Many of its members have gained individual national recognition.

Cooperative employee Dick Rich of Seminole Electric Cooperative in Tampa, Florida, recently

served as president of NAPM, a 47,000 member international organization founded in 1915. To

find out more about NAPM, please visit its web site at: www.napmreu.org.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

30

If you would like further information or have any questions, please call Carl Liles of Western

Farmers Electric Cooperative at (405) 247-3351, E-mail C_Liles@wfec.com, or Harvey Bowles,

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

Close the Loop On Recycling: Buy Recycled

As many of you may know, the President issued Executive Order 13101 which directed the

Federal Government to begin purchasing products that contain recycled content. The reason

behind this Executive Order was to help create markets for the variety of goods and services

being recycled throughout the United States today.

Many of us participate in recycling by neatly placing our cans, bottles, newspapers, and plastic

containers into our recycling bins once a week or twice a month. However, this is only the first

phase of recycling, and without available markets to reutilize these items all we’ve really done is

neatly piled garbage into separate bins. With the purchasing power and clout of the Federal

Government, the Executive Order stimulates markets and provides vendors with a demand for

products made with recycled content. It is important to note that by using recycled content

products, manufacturers save not only energy but also precious raw materials.

One of the best examples of recycled content material is copier paper. As a result of the

Executive Order, the Federal Government now utilizes recycled content paper for 98% of its

copier paper usage. Additionally, many items have always contained recycled content, from

aluminum beverage cans to products made from steel.

RECYCLED CONTENT

Many of the components and materials utilized in the utility industry have the potential to

contain recycled content. Products made from the following materials may have recycled

content as indicated:

• Aluminum - 0% to 100% recycled content (depending on manufacturing process).

• Concrete - that contains recovered coal fly ash (Recycled content varies by product as

specified by ASTM standards and specifications from the American Concrete Institute).

• Fiber Glass - 0% to 95% recycled content (depending on manufacturing process).

• Glass - 0% to 25% (depending on manufacturing process).

• Plastic (PVC, LDPE, HDPE, PET) - 0% to 100% recycled content (depending on

manufacturing process).

• Steel - 25% or 100% (depending on manufacturing process. Products made from steel

always have recycled content).
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

31

In summary, it’s up to each of us to direct our purchasing offices to preferentially select products

made with recycled content as long as they fulfill the needs of the particular function,

performance, durability, price, and meet applicable specifications. As more and more recycling

happens throughout the United States, our leadership in buying recycled content products will

help to create the necessary markets so that we can close the loop and ensure that recycling

works and that we are buying recycled.

If you would like further information or have any questions, please call Chip Foley, Director,

Government Relations, Steel Recycling Institute, at (202) 496-9686, E-mail

wjfoley@worldnet.att.net, or Harvey Bowles, Chair, Technical Standards Committee “A”

(Electric), at (202) 720-0980.

ENVIRONMENTAL

Environmental Report Preparation

On December 11, 1998, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) revised its environmental compliance

regulation 7 CFR Part 1794, "Environmental Policies and Procedures." This new environmental

regulation replaced the previous version that was published on March 13, 1984. A substantial

number of changes affecting the Electric Program and its applicants were included in the new

Regulations. For example, only those actions subject to direct approval of financing assistance

are subject to environmental review - the approval to use general funds not subject to

reimbursement and approval of a lien accommodation are no longer subject to environmental

review. In addition, a number of projects classified as categorical exclusions requiring the

preparation of an environmental report have been downgraded to categorical exclusions normally

not requiring the preparation of an environmental report. Most notably are the following project

types:

• Rebuilding of power lines or telecommunications cables where road or highway

construction requires the applicant to relocate the lines either within or immediately

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

§1794.21(b)(14).

• Phase or voltage conversions, reconductoring or upgrading of existing electric

distribution lines or telecommunication facilities, provided that the project remains in the

same right-of-way and is not relocated.) Refer to §1794.21(b)(15).

Construction work plans and amendments with only these types of projects and no new

construction will only require a project description of the proposed facilities. Even though an

environmental report is not necessary, the applicant is still responsible for considering impacts to

threatened and endangered species, if applicable. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be the

only agency that need be contacted.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

32

For construction projects requiring the preparation of an environmental report, applicants should

follow guidance in RUS Bulletin 1794A-600, “Guide For Preparing the Environmental Report for

Categorically Excluded Projects”. The Guide, along with the Environmental Regulation, is

available on the RUS web site at

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

The following is a summary of guidelines for environmental report preparation and common

problems found in the review of environmental reports

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PREPARATION GUIDELINES

1. Project Description

This section should contain a brief description of the facilities proposed in the

construction work plan. Specific project codes 200, 300 (if relocated), 400, 800 and 900 will

require the preparation of an environmental report. The method of construction should also be

described briefly. The amount of area to be cleared for a project should be described.

Common Problems and Solutions

Problem: Projects in the ER are not specifically identified or do not match the projects

identified in the CWP and listed on the RUS Form 740c. Solution: Identify the projects in the

ER and ensure that all projects are included. Carry over projects from previous CWP's should be

identified as previously approved projects.

Problem: Location relevant to road right-of-way is not always included. Solution:

Define whether the projects are located within or immediately adjacent to the road right-of-way

or some distance from the edge of the right-of-way.

2. Project Alternatives

The no action alternative discussion should include the potential impacts of not providing

service or improving facilities and should be tied to the need for the project. Alternative

transmission routes and substation sites may need to be identified especially where

condemnation may be necessary to obtain the required easements.

Common Problems and Solutions

Problem: Alternative transmission line routes/substation sites not identified on a map or

evaluated, especially if such projects are expected to be controversial or cause adverse impacts.

Solution: Ensure that the projects/alternatives are located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

map and appropriately evaluated.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

33

3. Existing Environment Description

Information should be presented that will enable RUS to make a determination of

potential impacts of the projects. The approximate locations of the proposed projects and

alternatives should be shown on USGS maps. Photocopies of the maps are acceptable. The

specific location of any substation site should be identified and described.

Common Problems and Solutions

Problem: USGS maps with the projects identified are not included in the ER. Solution:

Include the appropriate map in the document. A USGS map contains information that is useful

in evaluating impacts.

4. Environmental Impacts Discussion

At a minimum there should be a discussion of the non-NEPA issues. Agencies contacted

should include, but are not limited to the following: National Conservation Resource Service

(wetlands, important farmland, prime rangeland and forest land), State Historic Preservation

Officer (cultural resources), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (threatened and/or endangered

species, their critical habitat and wetlands), Army Corps of Engineers (floodplains and wetlands),

and State Wildlife Agency (threatened and/or endangered species and wildlife concerns). These

are the minimum agencies to contact.

Other areas of potential impacts include land use, vegetation, socioeconomics, and coastal barrier

areas, if applicable. Note that projects crossing federally managed lands should be identified.

Projects crossing lands managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, or the National Park Service may require additional environmental review before

a Special Use Permit is issued by the agency. Borrower response to Federal, State and local

agency comments should be included in this section.

Common Problems and Solutions

Problem: The same standard letter is sent to all agencies contacted. Solution: Letters to

the agency should be specific as to the information required, i.e., cultural resource information

should not be requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information concerning

mitigation measures currently used should be included in the discussion.

Problem: Borrower correspondence to the agencies not included in the ER. Solution:

Copies of borrower's letters to each agency requesting information should be included along with

the agency response. The cooperative should keep the original copies of agency correspondence.

Problem: Not all agency response letters are included in the ER. Solution: All

responses should be received and included in the ER before the ER is sent to Washington for

review and approval. Some agency responses are not included in the ER because response was

not received within 30 days. If an agency does not respond within 30 days, a follow-up contact

should be made by telephone to ensure the letter was received and to determine if the agency had
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

34

comments or not. Written documentation of follow-up telephone conversations or meetings with

agencies should be included in the ER.

Problem: Agency responses are not addressed in the ER either in the appropriate

impact sections of the ER or in a separate section. Solution: After receiving the appropriate

information from an agency, the applicant/consultant should analyze the information and

appropriately address any comments the agency includes in its response. It is not enough to just

contact the agency and get a response. Commitments to conduct surveys for threatened and/or

endangered species or cultural resources should be addressed along with commitments to

mitigate impacts to specific resources.

Problem: Public notification has not been completed where projects will impact

wetlands, floodplains or cultural resources. Solution: Contact RUS if there is a question on the

need for a notice.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Dennis Rankin,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff at (202) 720-1953 or

E-mail: drankin@rus.usda.gov or Larry Wolfe, Senior Environmental Protection Specialist at

(202) 720-5093 or E-mail: lwolfe@rus.usda.gov.

Environmental Review of Minor Projects

On December 28, 1999, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published a direct final rule regarding

post-loan policies and procedures for Insured Electric Loans. It increased the allowable amount

for minor projects from $25,00 up to $100,000. The effective date of this direct final rule was

February 11, 2000. Minor projects are defined as projects costing less than $100,000 that are not

included in an RUS approved borrower’s construction work plan.

These projects still require environmental approval before funds can be advanced. The

borrower must check the applicable environmental statement on the RUS Form 219 – Inventory

of Work Orders (IWO). A project description must be provided and the borrower must do one of

the following to satisfy RUS’s environmental requirements.

• If applicable check the statement that the project is a categorical exclusion of a type

described in §1794.21(b) which normally does not require the preparation of an

environmental report (ER); or

• If applicable, state that the project is a categorical exclusion of a type that normally

requires the preparation of an ER and the ER is attached to the IWO. Note that projects

that would normally be classified as a project code 200 will require an ER. Also

conversion projects (project code 300) will require an ER if the project is to be

relocated on a new right-of-way.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

35

The following items represent common problems that will cause processing delays, may cause an

IWO for minor projects to be returned for additional information or may cause the project to be

disallowed:

• The cost of construction in column 4 on the RUS Form 219 is greater than $100,000.

• The project description is inadequate or so vague that the reviewer cannot identify the

project or determine its proper classification.

• The manager does not sign the environmental certification.

• The appropriate environmental certification is not checked.

• If the second certification is checked, the ER is not attached to the RUS Form 219.

• An ER is not provided for projects classified as code 200 projects (new tie lines) or 300

projects (conversions) that will be relocated.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Dennis Rankin,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff at (202) 720-1953 or

E-mail: drankin@rus.usda.gov.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

36

Summary: The State of the Art in Raptor Protection - A Historical Perspective

The following table represents a brief historical perspective of raptor electrocution/collision

issues. Sheila Fazier of Southern Engineering presented the information in detail at the Raptor

Electrocution and Collision Prevention Workshop in Alaska on April 13-14, 2000.

DATE EVENT

1860 First reports of collisions

1922 First reports of electrocuted eagles

1928 First perch guards installed

1940 Re-designed perch guards installed

1960 Osprey nesting hazards identified

1972 REA Bulletin 61-10 published

1973 Additional studies identifying at-risk poles

1975 "Suggested Practices For Raptor Protection On Power

Lines" published

1977 Effectiveness of perches recognized

1978 Nesting platforms installed

1980 Studies identifying at-risk behavior

1981 "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection – The State of

the Art in 1981" published

1982 Recommendations for routing new lines

1984 Transmission tower benefits recognized

1988 Studies identifying collisions risks done/transmission

routing bibliography developed

1991 Use of suspended insulators recommended/Wind turbine

risks identified

1994 Mitigating Bird Collisions With Power Lines: The State of

the Art In 1994 published/ Animal Caused Outages

published

1996 "Suggested Practices For Raptor Protection – The State of

the Art in 1996" published

1997 Southern Engineering Web Site developed

1998 Steel distribution pole hazards identified

1999 Awareness and mitigation efforts increase, but

electrocutions still a problem

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Dennis Rankin,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff at (202) 720-1953 or

E-mail: drankin@rus.usda.gov or Sheila Frazier, Southern Engineering Company at

(404) 352-9200 or E-mail: pwrsup@soeng.com.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

37

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Enforcement

Disturbed by the continuing large numbers of raptors, particularly eagles, electrocuted along

power lines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has begun to step up enforcement of

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA),

and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The first utility cited for violation of the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act was Pacific Gas and Electric of California. In 1993, the utility was fined $1,500 for

violations and agreed to retrofit lines to safer standards. In 1998, Sand Point Electric of Alaska

was fined $500 and was likewise compelled to retrofit dangerous structures. Most recently,

however, a plea agreement between the United States Department of Justice and the USFWS

with Moon Lake Electrical Association (MLEA) of Utah ushered in an entirely new era of

enforcement. Under the agreement, MLEA was given three years of probation, ordered to pay

$100,000 in fines and restitution, and was required to retrofit structures dangerous to migratory

birds. MLEA was also required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the

USFWS and to hire a qualified consultant to develop an Avian Protection Plan.

MLEA was charged with six counts of violating the MBTA and the BGEPA. Although the

MLEA was charged with killing 17 large raptors (including, but not limited to, golden eagles), at

least another 21 raptors in excess of the 17 enumerated in the charges had been electrocuted over

a period of several years and found under the MLEA's power lines. In a pre-trial motion, MLEA

argued that it had not deliberately killed any of the raptors and was, therefore, not liable to

charges under either the MBTA or the BGEPA. MLEA argued, in part, that the MBTA and

BGEPA were intended to apply only intentionally harmful activities such as those entailed in

hunting, poaching, and trapping. District Court Judge Lewis Babcock denied this motion. Judge

Babcock found that the language of the MBTA stated that it shall be unlawful at any time, by any

means, or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill any

migratory bird. It does not restrict application to deliberate types of killing normally associated

with poaching or hunting. While Judge Babcock allowed that a small fine might take care of

innocent technical violations, a case such as that of MLEA raises more serious issues.

Specifically noted by the judge was the fact that MLEA failed to install inexpensive retrofits on

2,450 of 3,096 poles in the area in question. Additionally, Judge Babcock also rejected MLEA's

claim that it was subject to selective enforcement of the law, noting that conscious exercise of

some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation so long as the

selection was not deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other

arbitrary classification (45 F. Supp. 2d 1070).

Violations of the MBTA are examples of strict liability crimes, meaning that a party can be

convicted under the statute without demonstration of specific intent or guilty knowledge. In

contrast to the MBTA, the BGEPA proscribes behavior by which an entity knowingly or with

wanton disregard for the consequences of its act takes a bald or golden eagle. Citing numerous

precedents, Judge Babcock ruled that “take” includes any act of killing without respect to

method. Further, the judge found that a determination of whether or not MLEA had acted

knowingly or with wanton disregard in the killing of the eagles was a matter for the jury's

determination and therefore not subject to challenge by a pre-trial motion (45 F. Supp. 2d 1070).
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

38

This is the first significant case law of a utility being criminally prosecuted under the MBTA and

BGEPA.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Dennis Rankin,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff at (202) 720-1953 or

E-mail: drankin@rus.usda.gov or Richard Harness of EDM International, Inc. at (970) 204-4001

or E-mail: rharness@edmlink.com.

Raptor Electrocution/Collision Workshops

The Rural Utilities Service (then REA) participated in a number of raptor electrocution/collision

workshops in the late 1980's. These workshops, which were sponsored by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), were held in Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, and South

Dakota. In addition, REA held environmental workshops in Nebraska (2), Kansas (3), New

Mexico (2), Arizona (1), Colorado (1), Texas (4), Montana (1), Utah (1), and Oregon (2). Raptor

electrocution prevention was discussed at each of these environmental workshops. Due to recent

developments with the raptor electrocution concerns, including the legal decision involving

Moon Lake Electric Cooperative, a number of recent raptor electrocution/collision workshops

were held. A summary of these workshops follows:

RAPTOR PROTECTION ON POWER LINES: THE STATE OF THE ART IN ARIZONA.

Phoenix, Arizona. April 30, 1999.

• The workshop was sponsored by the Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the Salt

River Project, the Western Area Power Administration (Western) and the USFWS.

• The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the problem of raptor electrocution and bird

collisions in the state of Arizona.

• Approximately 150 people representing Federal and State agencies, utilities, consultants,

conservation groups, suppliers, wildlife rehabilators, and interested individuals attended

the workshop.

• There was a discussion of enforcement laws, both Federal and State. Reporting forms

and methods were discussed. Wildlife rehabiltators indicated a willingness to help in the

identification and collection of birds.

• High risk factors such as large species, immature birds, wet weather conditions, social

behavior, lack of alternative roosts and nesting problems were discussed. Low risk

factors included small birds and forested areas.

• Electrocution problems were usually found on 69 kV and lower voltage lines.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

39

• Radio and television interference, compact line designs and new construction designs

were considered in developing new mitigation. APS has developed a new pole top perch

for Harris hawks.

• Existing mitigation measures, such as pole top caps, perch guards, insulating wraps,

alternative designs and pole top pins, and their effectiveness were discussed

• The development of an information management system including standardizing

reporting forms and methods and identifying utility structures and their locations were

discussed.

RAPTOR ELECTROCUTION PREVENTION WORKSHOP. Denver, Colorado.

November 17-19, 1999.

• The workshop was sponsored by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and Western.

• Approximately 55 people representing Federal and State agencies, consultants, rural

electric cooperatives (CO, NE, NM) and suppliers attended the workshop.

• The purpose of the workshop was to discuss raptor electrocution prevention policies and

measures, bird collisions, and nest removal policies and permits for cooperatives in

Colorado.

• The video “Raptors At Risk” was discussed. Also, other reports/videos on raptor

electrocution were identified.

• The USFWS discussed raptor protection laws and voluntary compliance procedures for

states in USFWS' Region 6.

• Some of the actions that hamper efforts to obtain a realistic identification of the extent of

the electrocution problem include carcass removal by scavengers, the feather trade

(killing birds illegally and selling the feathers), the general lack of reporting dead birds,

and the lack of standardized reporting procedures.

• The different types of permits (salvage and depredation) were discussed and possible

procedures/problems were identified.

• Steel distribution poles and raptor protection measures were discussed

• Data collection procedures and raptor reporting forms for Colorado were discussed. RUS

and USFWS are working on a reporting form.

• Two cooperatives presented their raptor protection policies that were approved by their

respective boards as standard operating policies. The USFWS also talked about the

development of either a nationwide or statewide memorandum of agreement for raptor

electrocution prevention.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

40

AVIAN INTERACTION WITH UTILITY STRUCTURES. Charleston, South Carolina.

December 2-3, 1999.

• The workshop was sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute.

• The purpose of the workshop was to evaluate the state of the science with regards to bird

collisions, causes and prevention measures of bird electrocutions, impacts of bird

activities on power delivery, methods to assess the extent of avian interactions/mitigation

effectiveness and to identify research priorities for electric utilities.

• Approximately 100 people representing Federal government agencies, utilities,

consultants, suppliers, educational institutions, conservation organizations attended the

workshop.

• Twenty-five formal presentations were made covering a wide variety of topics dealing

with avian interactions with utility structures.

• Results of the workshop will be available on EPRI’s website (http://www.epri.com) under

the environmental section or contact rcarlton@epri.com.

RAPTOR ELECTROCUTION AND COLLISION PREVENTION WORKSHOP. Seward,

Alaska. April 13-14, 2000.

• This workshop was sponsored by EDM, International, Inc., in cooperation with the

Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Darden & LaRue, Kaddas Enterprises,

RUS, Southern Engineering, USFWS, University of Montana, and Western.

• The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the problem of raptor electrocutions/collisions

in the state of Alaska and develop preventive measures to minimize the problem. In the

previous year, a number of bald eagles had been electrocuted and the USFWS is currently

investigating the situation.

• Approximately 100 people representing Federal and State agencies, utilities, consultants,

suppliers and educational institutions attended the workshop.

• Topics included types of raptors and electrocution factors, preventive measures, case

studies, reporting forms, RUS raptor guidelines, laws and permit requirements, use of

steel distribution pole, collision problems, and electrocution problems associated with the

canning industry.

• Reporting forms and procedures were identified and are currently being developed for

utilities in the state of Alaska

• At all these workshops, the USFWS reported that it is serious about enforcement of

raptor/bird protection laws; however, it is willing to work with utilities to aleviate the

problem. Only three species of birds (starlings, sparrows and pigeons) are not protected
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

41

by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Standard reporting forms and methods need to be

developed. RUS is currently working with the USFWS and other groups to develop

reporting forms that can be used by rural cooperatives and other utilities. Utilities need to

be proactive in their approach to the raptor electrocution/collision problem.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Dennis Rankin,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff at (202) 720-1953 or

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

Raptors at Risk Video

Raptor electrocution continues to be one of the major wildlife concerns of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), especially in states west of the Mississippi River. Raptors (birds of

prey) are a group of birds, which includes eagles, falcons, owls, kites, osprey, and vultures. The

USFWS Division of Law Enforcement has documented the electrocution of 1,030 migratory

birds from the states of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,

Utah and Wyoming. These birds of prey are protected through several laws, which include the

Eagle Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Violations

of these laws can result in fines and/or imprisonment.

The USFWS has elevated the electrocution issue to one of its top priorities. The recent court

decision involving Moon Lake Electric Association has given the raptor electrocution/bird

collision issue high visibility. News articles discussing the Moon Lake court decision, the raptor

electrocution problem and solutions to make power line structures raptor friendly on the have

appeared in major newspapers throughout the country. In addition, the Cable News Network

(CCN) aired a segment on the electrocution problem and its potential solutions.

When the Western Area Power Administration (Western) was been asked by some of its

customers for guidance on raptor electrocution prevention, Western formed the Raptor

Protection Video Group (Group) who developed an excellent video for these customers and

others. The Group consists of consultants, wildlife organizations, utilities, and Federal agencies,

including EDM International, Swift Creek Consulting, Sonora Environmental Consulting,

Southern Engineering Company, the North American Falconers Association, the National

Audubon Society, Southern California Edison, Montana Power Company, the Rural Utilities

Service (USDA), the USFWS (USDI) and Western (DOE). Many other organizations and

individuals contributed to the cost of making this video.

The purpose of the video is to educate the public and the industry about this issue and identify

inexpensive, easy to install solutions to minimize/prevent raptor electrocution.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

42

There is a nominal charge of $12.00 for production, shipping and handling. Checks should be

made payable to EDM International, Inc. The video can be obtained at the following address:

EDM International, Inc.

4001 Automation Way

Fort Collins, CO 80525-3479

Phone: (970) 204-4001

Fax: (970) 204-4007

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Dennis Rankin,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Staff at (202) 720-1953 or

E-mail: drankin@rus.usda.gov; Richard Harness of EDM, International at (970) 204-4001 or

E-mail: rharness@edmlink.com; or John Bridges, Western Area Power Administration, at

(720) 962-7255 or E-mail: bridges@wapa.gov.

ADMINISTRATIVE and OTHER

The RUS Website

The World Wide Web is the gateway to the information highway. The use of a personal

computer that is connected to the World Wide Web enables one to easily find and retrieve data,

rules, regulations, periodicals and other publications. The Rural Utilities Service maintains a

website that serves its borrowers and others interested in the rural utility infrastructures. The

website is not static, but rather it is dynamic, changing sometimes almost daily, to provide

up-to-date information.

RUS Website: http://www.usda.gov/rus

The Electric Staff Division has responsibility for the Electric Program portion of the website.

This allows us to better respond to your needs and to post information to the webserver in a more

timely fashion. The Electric Program home page is found at:

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

To help you navigate around the Electric Program web pages, the home page provides a

description of the various pages.

Visit the Loans/Rates page which provides a "thumbnail sketch" of the Electric Program's loan

offerings and includes a table showing municipal rates for the current quarter. This page is

updated at the beginning of each quarter. Although this information is printed in the Federal

Register, it is available first on the RUS website.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

43

The Service page provides an overview of the Electric Program, its customer – oriented program

delivery, outlines the various divisions and their roles, and provides "box scores" of the Electric

Program's current Fiscal Year loan program. The box score is updated at the beginning of each

month.

Have you wanted to contact RUS, but did not know where to start? The Contacts page starts off

with the office of the Assistant Administrator. Each division – Northern Regional Division,

Southern Regional Division, Power Supply Division, and the Electric Staff Division – has a

listing of the staff within that division. You may also select a particular state to see a listing of

the staff responsible for that state. These pages have names, titles, phone numbers, fax numbers,

and E-mail and postal mail addresses.

The Regulations page contains RUS regulations affecting electric borrowers as well as proposed

regulations that are open for public comment.

The Bulletins page contains RUS Electric Program bulletins in various formats – Word, PDF,

text, and HTML. New bulletins are generally available on the website prior to the printed copies

being distributed.

Looking for engineering information? Check out the Engineering page. It contains various

items of interest to the rural electric engineering community.

A number of forms are available in Excel format on the Forms page thanks to the Southern

Regional Division. Also available are various model documents used in your loan package.

There are also links to the RUS Forms 7 and 12 data collection support and Frequently Asked

Questions pages.

Do you need a copy of the latest List of Materials? Check out the List of Materials page. The

List is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and is updated after every meeting of the

Technical Standards Committees. The file includes bookmarks and links to help you find what

you are looking for. We hope to convert the List to a database format during the year 2000. This

will provide search and query capability and you should be able to link to it from other software.

Have you ever thought about putting your talents to use for RUS or know someone that would?

Consider working for the Rural Utilities Service. Check the Employment Opportunities page

for Electric Program vacancy announcements.

As you leave the Electric Program web pages, the Exit/Links pages provide you with links to a

number of RUS electric borrowers (both distribution and G&T), as well as electric industry and

government resources, including state commissions, Federal agencies, and other sites of interest.

Do your kids know about RUS? Invite them to look at the RUS “kids page” -

http://www.usda.gov/rus/educate.htm and meet Rus the Surfin’ Squirrel. There are safety tips,

games, as well as other information about the RUS programs.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

44

Be sure to check out the rest of the RUS website for information about the other RUS programs -

Telecommunications Program (including the RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant and

Loan Program) and the Water and Environmental Programs.

The RUS Electric Program website is a work in progress. It is in a state of constant revision.

Check it often. If you have trouble finding what you want, send an e-mail to:

electric@rus.usda.gov

Please include your name, e-mail address, telephone number, and company affiliation in the body

of your message so that we may be able to contact you for additional information, if necessary.

The RUS website is your website and we want to provide the information you need. Please

provide us with your suggestions.

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

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

New Data Collection System

RUS is developing a new “Web Enabled” Data Collection System (DCS) to collect and validate

the RUS borrowers’ operating report data (Forms 7, 12 and 479). RUS has been collecting

operating data by mailing a floppy disk to borrowers and having them mail the information back

on a floppy disk for several years. The new system will save time by using the Internet to

communicate. The new system is modeled after the one developed by the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) to collect several of their forms including FERC Form 1. RUS

is planning to deploy the new system in November, 2001.

When the RUS system is complete, a letter will be sent to all borrowers informing them that they

can obtain the new system from the RUS Web Site. Borrowers will then be able to download

and install the system on their local computer or their network. Each time borrowers run the

program it will check across the Internet to see that they have the latest version of the program.

When they have completed the form they will submit the information across the Internet to a

secure RUS server using a PIN issued by RUS. To meet the requirement for a signed copy, we

are investigating the use of electronic signatures. The server will then execute a program, which

will check to see that the report is complete. The server will then E-mail the borrower and an

RUS analyst the results of this check. The RUS analyst will then execute a program that will

bring the information across the USDA firewall and perform a complete set of checks on the

data. If problems are encountered at any stage of the review process, an E-mail will be sent to

the borrower and the borrower will need to amend and resubmit the form.

The Form 7 and Form 12 are being revised and the revisions will be included when the new

system is complete. The amount of data required on the Form 7 is being significantly reduced.

The Form 12 is being revised to have a special plant form for Combined Cycle plants and the
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

45

Sales and Purchases information is being revised to include information about the type of sale or

purchase and the energy and demand charges.

If you would like further information or have any questions, please call Marshall Duvall, Staff

Engineer, ESD, at (202) 720-0096.

RUS Electric Engineering Seminar and NRECA’s TechAdvantage

The RUS 2000 Electric Engineering Seminar was held in Kissimmee, Florida, on

March 14-15, 2000 in conjunction with NRECA’s TechAdvantage 2000. Presentations were

made concerning changes in RUS regulations, industry restructuring, and RUS’

telecommunications and water programs as well as discussion of new technology. Copies of the

seminar papers are available on the RUS website at:

http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/engineering/eng-sem-2000.htm

This seminar, along with NRECA’s TechAdvantage, gives the rural electric engineering

community an outstanding opportunity to meet and discuss topics that affect the rural electric

cooperatives and their member-consumers every day. TechAdvantage 2001 will be held in

St. Louis, MO, from March 7-11, 2001. For more information about TechAdvantage, see its

website at:

http://www.techadvantage.org

RUS is planning to hold its 2002 Engineering Seminar in Dallas, TX, in March, 2002, in

conjunction with NRECA’s TechAdvantage 2002. We will provide more information about this

seminar as it becomes available.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Fred Gatchell, Deputy

Director, ESD, at (202) 720-1398.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

46

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 final rule,

published March 20, 2000, changed RUS' load forecasting regulations. The changes are

intended to reduce the overall administrative burden of reporting load forecasts to RUS.

The changes will also allow RUS to accept less detailed analysis for smaller borrowers.

For more information, please call Georg Shultz of ESD at (202) 720-1920.

• 7 CFR 1721, “Post-Loan Policies and Procedures for Insured Electric Loans.” This

direct final rule, published December 28, 1999, changed RUS' regulations concerning

advance of funds. Specifically, we have changed the rules as follows:

∗ The threshold limit for a “minor project” has been increased from $25,000 to

$100,000, and

∗ The limitation of RUS funding to 130% of the project cost estimate without prior

RUS approval has been eliminated.

A minor project can be funded from an RUS loan even though it was not included in a

borrower's approved loan, Construction Work Plan (CWP), or CWP amendment. By

increasing the threshold limit for a minor project to $100,000, borrowers will have more

flexibility to use their RUS loan funds for priority projects that were not anticipated at the

time of the loan or CWP. A minor project must be consistent with the purposes permitted

by the loan contract, and total advances cannot exceed the total loan amount.

RUS implemented the “130% rule” in 1985 to improve control over use of RUS loan

funds. In recent years, the majority of cases of noncompliance with this rule relate to

distribution line extensions and miscellaneous equipment needed to serve new

consumers. Since borrowers have little or no control over how many new customers will

need to be connected and have no choice but to connect them, RUS approval to exceed

130% of the original estimate for this type of work is superfluous. For other major

projects, borrowers have been providing good cost estimates unless the project has been

changed significantly, in which case borrowers generally submit a CWP amendment for

RUS approval. Since total advances still cannot exceed the total loan amount, we have

determined that the 130% rule is no longer needed and that the associated administrative

burden on the borrowers can be eliminated.

Since no adverse comments were received, this direct final rule became effective on

February 11, 2000. See also the related article in this issue of the Items of Engineering

Interest, "Environmental Review of Minor Projects." For more information, please call

Charles Philpott of the Northern Regional Division at (202) 720-1432.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

47

• 7 CFR 1724, “Electric Engineering, Architectural Services and Design Policies and

Procedures.” This proposed rule, published April 24, 2000, will revise the requirements

regarding RUS approval of plans and specifications for buildings. RUS is proposing that

the requirement for RUS approval of architectural plans and specifications for buildings

be eliminated and that instead the borrower’s architect or engineer be required to state

that the design complies with certain specific standards. This change is being made in

order to provide better service to borrowers.

No comments have been received, so the final rule should be published shortly. For more

information, please call Fred Gatchell at (202) 720-1398.

• Bulletin 1728F-806, “Specifications & Drawings for Underground Electric

Distribution” (incorporated by reference). The final rule covering the revision of this

bulletin was published on May 26, 2000. This is an update of an existing bulletin, which

was known as Bulletin 50-6 with the same title.

This bulletin provides the specifications and drawings that are to be used by borrowers in

the construction of underground distribution facilities. It is one of the RUS standards that

help borrowers build safe, reliable, and economical electric facilities in rural America.

We have made a number of changes to this bulletin, including the addition of two new

drawings (UC2-1 and UC2-2) which provide alternative construction arrangements for

the interface between overhead and underground facilities. We have also deleted

23 drawings and the URD Inspection Form, which are obsolete and no longer needed.

We have also incorporated a number of design changes in the drawings, including some

that were recommended by the Underground Subcommittee of the NRECA T & D

Committee and some suggestions that we received through the public comment process.

We have also revised some of the clearances to conform to the latest code requirements.

We have updated the references to the referenced codes, specifications and standards to

reflect the latest editions of these documents. Changes to a number of drawings showing

caution, warning, and danger signs were needed to reflect the latest codes and standards

concerning signs. Finally, we have revised or redrawn a number of drawings for greater

clarity and ease of use.

For more information, please call Trung Hiu of ESD at (202) 720-1877.

• 7 CFR Part 1792, Subpart C, “Seismic Safety of Federally Assisted New Building

Construction.” This proposed rule, published May 26, 2000, would revise the existing

regulations concerning seismic safety. The proposed revision would update and simplify

the seismic safety requirements for new building construction using RUS or Rural

Telephone Bank (RTB) loan, grant, or guaranteed funds or funds provided through lien

accommodations or subordinations approved by RUS or RTB.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

48

The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and its associated Executive Order

require that federally assisted new building construction meet certain seismic safety

standards. These requirements are intended to reduce risk of loss of life and property

damage caused by earthquakes. The Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety in

Construction and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) have

been created to coordinate these efforts. 7 CFR Part 1792, Subpart C, which was

originally issued in 1993, implements these requirements for RUS.

The proposed revision changes the list of acceptable model codes and standards that new

buildings need to conform to in order to meet seismic provisions. In order for a model

building code to be acceptable, the code must contain requirements equivalent to the 1994

NEHRP Recommended Provisions. The 1997 ICBO Uniform Building Code (UBC) and

ASCE 7-95, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, have been

found to be acceptable for seismic safety purposes.

The proposed revision also eliminates the post-construction seismic certification and

simplifies the requirements concerning the acknowledgement that the seismic safety

provisions of the applicable model code are incorporated in the design of the building.

For more information, please call Don Heald at (202) 720-9102.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS:

• Bulletin 1724E-104, “Reduced Size Neutral Conductors for Overhead Rural

Distribution Lines,” dated September, 23, 1999. This bulletin covers the principal

considerations applicable to reduced size neutral conductors and outlines a procedure for

their selection and installation. This is an update of an existing bulletin, which was

known as Bulletin 61-4 with the same title.

The bulletin includes suggested procedures for the selection of neutral conductor size

under various loading scenarios. It also provides guidance concerning line staking and

conductor sagging when using reduced size neutral conductors. Tables of the more

common conductor combinations used in RUS standard construction are also included in

the bulletin.

For more information, please call Jim Bohlk of ESD at (202) 720-1967.

• Bulletin 1724E-216, “Guide Specification for Standard Class Spun Prestressed

Concrete Poles,” dated July 6, 2000. This guide specification provides a basis for

procuring direct embedded standard class spun prestressed concrete poles. For more

information, see the article of the same title included in this issue of the Items of

Engineering Interest.

For more information, please call Don Heald of ESD at (202) 720-9102.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

49

• IP 202-1, “List of Materials Acceptable for Use on Systems of RUS Electrification

Borrowers,” published in July, 2000, and its quarterly supplements. This document

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:

For Rules: http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/regs.htm

For Bulletins: http://www.usda.gov/rus/electric/bulletins.htm

PUBLICATIONS IN PROGRESS

Timber Specifications: RUS is in the process of revising the following three bulletins that

cover pressure treating of 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 at the

time of 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,
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

50

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, 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 more information, please call Georg Shultz of ESD 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 more information, please call Jim Bohlk of ESD at (202) 720-1967.

• Bulletin 1724D-112, “The Application of Shunt Capacitors to the Rural Electric

System.” This bulletin examines the application of shunt capacitors on rural distribution

systems and serves 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. This is an update of an existing bulletin,

which was known as Bulletin 169-1 with the same title.

For more information, please call Chris Tuttle of ESD 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 more information, please call Harvey Bowles of ESD at (202) 720-5082.

• Standard Contract Forms. RUS is planning to update, consolidate, and streamline our

standard forms of contracts. This would include the elimination of unneeded forms,

making forms suitable for “subject to” or “not subject to” RUS approval, making
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

51

construction contract forms suitable for “labor only” or “labor and material,”

standardizing tables and information pages and incorporate them as separate attachments,

maximizing consistency among forms, and updating and clarifying contract provisions as

necessary. These changes are being made to improve the usefulness of the standard forms

of contract.

For more information, please call Fred Gatchell of ESD at (202) 720-1398.

Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee

In 1991, NRECA established its Transmission and Distribution Engineering Committee (T&D

Committee) to work with RUS (then REA) 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.

If you would like more information or have any questions, please call Harvey Bowles, Chair,

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

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

Exhibit 1

53

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.
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

Exhibit 2

54

Selected Metric Conversion Factors

TO CONVERT FROM: TO: MULTIPLY BY:

Inch (in) Centimeter (cm) 2.54

Foot (ft) Meter (m) 0.3048

Mile (mi) Kilometer (km) 1.609

Kip (1000 lb) Newton (N) 4,448

Pound (lb) Newton (N) 4.448
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

APPENDIX A

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

ELECTRIC STAFF DIVISION

55

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

Harvey L. Bowles Chair, Technical

Standards Committee “A”

(202) 720-0980 hbowles@rus.usda.gov

VACANT Technical Committee Assistant

(202) 720-0980 _______@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

John Pavek Chief

(202) 720-5082 jpavek@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

Transmission Branch

H. Robert Lash Chief

(202) 720-0486 blash@rus.usda.gov

Betty Sharpe Secretary

(202) 720-0486 bsharpe@rus.usda.gov

Mike Eskandary Electrical Engineer

(202) 720-9098 meskanda@rus.usda.gov

Donald G. Heald Structural Engineer

(202) 720-9102 dheald@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 August, 2000
THIS PAGE IS

INTENTIONALLY

BLANK
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

57

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Committee Chair

Overt L. Carroll Clark Energy Co-op. Winchester, KY

NRECA Staff Coordinator

Steve Lindenberg NRECA Arlington, VA

Materials Subcommittee

Michael Pehosh, Chair Ozarks EC Fayetteville, AR

Harvey Bowles RUS Washington, DC

Charles Emerson Trico EC Tucson, AZ

Phil Gelhorn East Central EA Braham, MN

Charlene Ham Rusk County EC Henderson, TX

Joseph Jones McCall-Thomas Engr. Co. Orangeburg, SC

George Keel RUS Washington, DC

Carl Liles Western Farmers EC Anadarko, OK

John Mitchell Rappahannock EC Fredericksburg, VA

Glenn Sell Union Rural EC Marysville, OH

Scott Wehler Adams Electric Co-op Gettysburg, PA

Overhead Distribution Lines Subcommittee

Allan Glidewell, Chair Southwest Tennessee EMC Brownsville, TN

Jim Bohlk RUS Washington, DC

James Byrne Poudre Valley REA Fort Collins, CO

Jim Carter NRECA – WQC Spartanburg, SC

Weldon Gray Concho Valley EC San Angelo, TX

Jon Hodge Trinity Valley Electric Co-op Athens, TX

Tom Hoffman Agralite Electric Co-op Benson, MN

Gregory Lindsly Dixie EMC Baton Rouge, LA

Brian Nelson Intercounty ECA Licking, MO

Gene Smith SGS Witter, Inc. Lubbock, TX

Terry Rosenthal Laclede EC Lebanon, MO

James Stewart Stewart Engineering, Inc. Anniston, AL

Tom Suggs Natchez Trace EPA Houston, MS
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

58

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Substation Subcommittee

Bill Kahanek, Chair Lower Colorodo River Auth. Austin, TX

Jim Bardwell SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

George Chapman Patterson & Dewar Engr. Decatur, GA

Mike Eskandary RUS Washington, DC

Jerrod Howard Central Electric Pwr. Co-op Columbia, SC

Ken Malone Middle Tennessee EMC Murfreesboro, TN

Tom Myers Berkeley EC Moncks Corner, SC

Paul Rupard East Kentucky Power Co-op Winchester, KY

System Planning Subcommittee

Kenneth Winder, Chair Moon Lake Electric Roosevelt, UT

Mark Evans Volunteer Electric Co-op Decatur, TN

Ronnie Frizzell Arkansas EC Corp. Little Rock, AR

David Garrison East Central Oklahoma EC Okmulgee, OK

Wayne Henson East Mississippi EPA Meridian, MS

Troy Little Four County EPA Columbus, MS

David Moore Tri County EC Azle, TX

David Obenshain Piedmont EMC Hillsborough, NC

Michael Smith Singing River EC Lucedale, MS

Brian Tomlinson Conserv Electric Corinth, TX

Chris Tuttle RUS Washington, DC

Fred Twilliger Central Electric Co-op. Parker, PA

System Protection Subcommittee

Chair (Vacant)

Alan Blackmon Blue Ridge EC Pickens, SC

Harvey Bowles RUS Washington, DC

Ed Giesler Tri-County EC Portland, MI

Ron Gunnell Randolph EMC Asheboro, NC

Terry Lee South Mississippi EPA Hattiesburg, MS

Ken Murphy Tallapoosa River EC LaFayette, AL

Jim Newberg Missoula EC, Inc. Missoula, MT

Joe Perry Patterson & Dewar Engr. Decatur, GA
Items of Engineering Interest

August 2000

APPENDIX B

NRECA TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

59

MEMBER ORGANIZATION LOCATION

Thomas Slusher Union EMC Monroe, NC

Jim Skeen Plumas-Sierra Rural EC Portola, CA

Mike Smith SGS Witter, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

Transmission Lines Subcommittee

Bill Hetherington, Chair Lee County EC, Inc. North Ft. Myers, FL

Dominic Ballard East Kentucky Power Co-op Winchester, KY

John Burch Florida Keys EC Tavernier, FL

Doug Emmons Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. Bloomington, IN

Don Heald RUS Washington, DC

Robert Johnson Arkansas EC Corp. Little Rock, AR

Charles Lukkarila Great River Energy Elk River, MN

Charles (Bubba) McCall Georgia Transmission Corp. Tucker, GA

Bob Oldham Southern Maryland EC Hughesville, MD

Art Smith Patterson & Dewar Engr. Decatur, GA

David Turner Lower Colorado River Auth. Austin, TX

John Twitty Alabama EC Andalusia, AL

Underground Distribution Subcommittee

John Rodgers, Chair Nodak EC, Inc. Grand Forks, ND

Keith Bartels Martin & Associates, Inc. Mitchell, SD

Russ Dantzler Mid-Carolina EC Lexington, SC

Berl Davis Palmetto EC Hilton Head, SC

Vince Heuser Nolin RECC Elizabethtown, KY

Trung Hiu RUS Washington, DC

William Murray Berkeley EC Moncks Corner, SC

Ace Necaise Singing River EPA Lucedale, MS

David Rudolph Cass County Electric Co-op Fargo, ND

Blaine Strampe Federated REA Jackson, MN

Ed Thomas Utility Elec. Consultants Raleigh, NC

Keith Thomason Middle Tennessee EMC Murfreesboro, TN