*Yingli Wen, Chair, Con Edison
*Jacques Coté, Vice Chair and Writing Group Chair, Hydro Quebec
*Rich Vencus, Writing Group member, North East Utilities
*Ed Gulski, Delft University
Steve Graham, Duke Energy
*Ben Lanz, IMCORP
*John Densley, ArborLec
*Henning Oetjen, HDW Electronics
*Ralph Patterson, Power Products & Solutions (NETA)
*Nigel Hampton, NEETRAC
*Martin von Hermann, Von Corporation
*Frank de Vries, Alliander
*Craig Goodwin, HV Diagnostics
*Mark Fenger, Kinectrics
*Bruce Bernstein, Bruce Bernstein Consulting
*Jean-Francois Drapeau, Hydro-Quebec IREQ
Bruce Olson, High Voltage Inc.
*Brent Richardson, Dow Chemical
*Jerry L. Landers, Von Corporation
*Wayne Chatterton, UtilX
*John Hans, Commonwealth Edison/Exelon
*Nagu Srinivas, UtilX
*Bill Thue, Consultant
*Martin Baur, Baur
*Joshua Perkel, NEETRAC
*Grace Jiang, 3M
Rick Stagi UtilX
Frank Petzold, SEBAKMT
Steffen Fuchs, HIGHVOLT
Al Mendelsohn, Power Delivery Solutions
Luigl Testa, TECHIMP
Mohammad Eyad Alsibai, High Voltage Inc.
Tim Wall, Alabama Power Co.
Mike Faulkenberry, Georgia Power Co.
Sacha Markalous, Doble Lemke
Jade Wong, Con Edison
Brian Marz, HV Diagnostics
Michael Dyer, SRP
Michael Smalley, We Energies
Farris Jibril, Westar Energy
Steven Graham, Duke Energy
Plato Apergis, Hipotronics
Dennis Wozniak, Retired
Dawn Zhao, Aetna Wire
Minutes
Working Group Chair Yingli Wen welcomed the participants to the meeting and reviewed the scope of IEEE 400. She then presented the IEEE patents slide providing an opportunity for participants to identify patent claims, patent application claims, or patent application claims of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of this standard. None were identified at this time.
Vice Chair and Writing Group Chair Jacques Coté reviewed the progress and remaining schedule of revising IEEE400 and presented the activities of the writing group since the Fall 2009 meeting (Draft 5) and current status of(Draft 7). Jacques then described the major changes in Draft 7 from Draft 5. The changes are summarized below:
• In “Section 3 Definitions and Acronyms”, the definitions of different types of tests were reorganized so that similar types or related techniques had been grouped together. In addition, a definition for “Factory Test” was added. The definition for “verification test” was replaced by the definition for “ground verification test.” Accordingly, the description on “verification test” in Section 5 was revised and the title changed to “ground verification test.”
• “Section 5.7 Economic Aspects” has been eliminated.
• A statement was added to the “Introduction” to ensure consistency with the “point” documents: “If there is a conflict between this document and the “point” documents, the “point” document should be considered as the definitive reference.” The same statement was also added to the beginning of “Section 6 Field Testing Methods.”
• In Section 6, a distinction between off-line and on-line partial discharges (PD) was made and it was suggested that the two types of PD test techniques should be separated.
• The Writing Group Proposed to remove Table 15 in “Section 7 Applicability of Test Methods”, which suggests whether a testing technique is good or poor for a particular cable system. Comments received from some working group members had questioned the validity of these recommendations.
The following discussions took place during the meeting:
- Nagu Srinivas clarified that everyone can join the working group, but only IEEE Standards Association members can vote.
- Jacques Coté asked the attendees to comment on the change from “verification test” definition to “ground verification test” definition. Ben Lanz said it was a good idea. John Densley commented that it could be called “ground clearing verification” or “no ground verification” as well. Craig Goodwin said the definition was clear and “ground verification” was understandable. Other names suggested were “inadvertent ground verification” and “low impedance ground verification.” Majority of the group consented that “ground verification” was acceptable.
- John Densley asked regarding the statement on consistency between the Omnibus document and the point documents (see above) whether that would mean the document would not need to be revised when changes were made in the point documents. Bill Thue commented that it would make future revision easier.
- Bruce Bernstein commented that the document should list advantages and disadvantages without causing controversy. Ben Lanz said that was a good point and that we should not said a technique “will” or “will not” do something. Instead we should use “likely” or “not likely”.
- Yingli Wen suggested asking the manufacturers to provide a list of advantages and disadvantages for their applicable techniques.
- Bruce Bernstein commented that Table 11 mixed the two testing techniques, on-line and off-line PD, which measure different things and the Table should be separated into two tables. He agreed to send comments on the Table within a few weeks after the meeting.
- Regarding the Writing Group’s suggestion to remove Table 15, Jean-Francois Drapeau commented that the Table should be removed and, instead, the document advise the user to consult experts when needed. Bill Thue commented that the Table should stay but be moved to an Annex if it has any value. Jacques Coté suggested placing the Table in an Annex citing its source as well as including a statement advising the user to consult experts. Ben Lanz commented that the experts who contributed to the NEETRAC Knowledge Based Survey (KBS) should be disclosed to show its credibility. Jean- Francois Drapeau asked if the results of the KBS would be available to everyone. Nigel Hampton agreed to provide a write-up for an Annex supporting the Table. In a vote to decide if a Table based on the KBS should be placed in an Annex, 17 out of 24 working group members voted “Yes.”
- There was a discussion on the next steps. Jacques Coté suggested that a new Draft 8 (including a new Section 7 and an Annex C with KBS Table) would be sent to WG members in early May for a 3-week period for comments. The Writing Group would then prepare Draft 9 and ask the members to have an electronic vote on going for initial sponsor ballot in May 2010.
Following the discussions, Jacques presented the following revised timeline.
• October 4, 2007 PAR Requested
• October 5, 2007 PAR Approved
• October 2008 Working Group formed; working copy initiated
• May 2009 Draft for discussion in ICC Spring 09 meeting
• September 2009 Continued document development (revising) and discussions
• March 2010 Draft 7 for discussion in Spring 10 meeting
• May 2010 Submit draft for initial sponsor ballot
• Fall 2010 Revise draft based on vote
• Spring 2011 Revise draft based on vote
• September 2011* Complete document for submittal to RevCom (Originally scheduled in the PAR)
Yingli and Jacques thanked the attendees for their participation. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
The minutes were prepared by Yingli Wen and Jacques Coté.
Attendance
43 persons attended, including 22 members (denoted with a “*”) present.
**Yingli Wen, Chair, Con Edison
*Jacques Côté, Vice Chair and Writing Group Chair, Hydro Quebec
*Rich Vencus, Writing Group member, North East Utilities
*Bruce Bernstein, Bruce Bernstein Consulting
*Wayne Chatterton, UtilX
*Frank de Vries, Alliander
*John Densley, ArborLec
*Jean-Francois Drapeau, Hydro-Quebec IREQ
*Mohammad Eyad Al-Sibai, High Voltage Inc.
*Mark Fenger, Kinectrics
*Steffen Fuchs, Highvolt
*Graig Goodwin, HV Diagnostics
*Ed Gulski, On-site Solutions
*Grace Jiang, 3M
*Ben Lanz, IMCORP
*Eberhard Lemke, LDIC Germany
*Brent Richardson, Dow Chemical
*Bruce Olson, High Voltage Inc.
*Ralph Patterson, Power Products & Solutions (NETA)
*Martin von Hermann, Von Corporation
*Dexter Tarampi, BC Hydro
*Rick Stagi, UtilX
Matthew McConnell, USNRC
Paul Winter, Omicron
Eric Bulington, Anixter USA
Eric Wall, Anixter USA
Gary Toman, EPRI
Oscar Morel, UtilX
Brieana Reed-Harmel, Peterson Co.
Rich Brinton, Novinium
Deb Dixon, WCNOC
Rich Foust, WCNOC
Steven Graham, Duke Energy
Denje Thomas, Exelon
L. Chantrell, PGI Geca Tapes
Pierre-Marc Leblanc, General Cable
Wolfgang Hauschild, Highvolt
Richard Ellis, CMI
Timothy P. Hayden, National Grid
Thomas Parker, NEETRAC
Scott Trites, Huntsville Utilities
Rick Williamson, Aetna Wire
Jade Wong, Con Edison
Minutes
Working Group Chair Yingli Wen welcomed the attendees and announced that this working group would proceed with a vote to initiate Sponsor Ballot. She then presented the Agenda and provided an opportunity for participants to identify patent claims, patent application claims, or patent application claims of which the participant is personally aware and that may be essential for the use of this standard. No patent claims, patent application claims, or holders of patent claims or patent application claims have been identified at this time.
Vice Chair Jacques Côté presented the Writing Group‟s activities and development progress.
The changes in Draft 10 were summarized:
Significant changes:
- Inadvertent grounding tests have been deleted (text in Section 5.2)
- PD : conventional and unconventional deleted -> left to IEEE 400.3
- Advantages/Disadvantages Tables have been reviewed to be as fair as possible
Minor changes:
- IEEE MEC and Legal Review: Word Usage (shall, can and may, ensure, etc.), References, Copyrights and Trademarks, …
- Many small changes for clarity and editorial issues
Jacques Côté announced that a working copy of the document in PDF will be posted in the password protected area of the ICC website.
The attendees had a discussion on Draft 10 with following comments.
In general, the attending members agree that the current draft (Draft 10) is very close to completion. The discussions were focused on the following two areas.
- Craig Goodwin mentioned that the factory test results are not significant to field tests and it should be mentioned not to consider factory test results; Jacques Côté answered that there were many warnings in the text to state exactly this fact: factory test results are generally not directly comparable to field test results. Rich Vencus said that he preferred to see reference to factory tests. He commented that we need to have something to compare the field test data to and factory tests would serve as points of reference. Yingli Wen agreed and commented that since there are no established criteria for field testing, we need to remind the users of the existence of factory tests while cautioning that field test results, in general, are not comparable to factory test results. Mark Fenger suggested referring to a CIGRE document explaining the difference between the tests. Mark to send reference.
- A discussion took place regarding Appendix C. Ed Gulski raised his concern that Appendix C can be misleading, particularly Table C1 which shows many entries of “No Data Available.” Ben Lanz did not think the Table (Table C.1 of Draft 10) has much value because of the lack of available data. Martin von Hermann suggested modifying the Table to change “No Data Available” to “No data available in the KBS”. Attendees generally agreed. Yingli Wen mentioned that since the NEETRAC CDFI report will be in the public domain, perhaps we should remove Annex C from the Guide and refer the users to the CDFI report. A number of members agreed that should be the way to go. The Working Group decided to leave it for the ballot process to determine since a vote took place at the Spring 2010 meeting to include this Table.
Following the discussions, Yingli Wen proceeded with a vote to initiate Sponsor Ballot. She asked the WG members to raise their hands and a count was made. There were 20 WG members in the room. Jacques Côté announced that quorum was achieved (Total of 37 WG members, quorum is 19). The vote then took place: 19 positives, 1 negative. Therefore, the chair will initiate Sponsor Ballot. A Ballot Group will be formed and an invitation to join will be sent via the IEEE-SA “My Project” site.
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 PM.
