February 1, 2006 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Daniel Beebe, Jeff Hardie, Russell Brickell, and Larry Frost |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Dan Wilkus, Moncef Hadiji, and Jeff Oliver |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None present |
Chairman Frost called the meeting to order at 6:13 pm.
New Board Member Daniel Beebe was introduced and welcomed by all Members in attendance.
Minutes
The minutes of the November 2, 2005 meeting had been mailed to all members. All members present had viewed the minutes prior to the meeting. Brickell made a motion to accept the minutes and Beebe seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
A letter from Mayor Highberger appointing Mr. Beebe to the Board had been received. A copy of an email sent by Patrick Shepard to Mayor Highberger announcing his resignation from the Board due to scheduling conflicts had also been received.
Unfinished Business
Staff read the items that were tabled from last meeting and it was decided to proceed in chronological order.
Hardie asked about some others listed in the minutes, but Frost stated those had been resolved.
Frost stated if anyone had something new, we could also discuss those items.
210.12(B) had been pulled for further discussion by Chairman Frost.
Staff mentioned that from the information presented to him during a recent IAEI seminar that the change allows the protection without the necessity of a service change.
Frost questioned if this would change anything with regards to old bedrooms where no wiring changes would be made.
Staff stated that at the present time a service change or upgrade would not require anyone to upgrade the branch circuit protection to AFCI’s for the bedroom circuits. The requirement only applied to the extension of the bedroom circuit or rewiring of the existing bedroom. After January 1st. 2002 AFCI protection has always been applied to newly constructed bedrooms such as those that are part of an addition.
Hardie asked if we were basically talking about the exception.
Beebe answered that it was part of the exception. Beebe mentioned that he had done an extensive search on the internet and had found no such device.
Frost stated that he would like to see the metallic cable part struck from the exception. He feels that cable with a metallic sheath does not offer much more protection than romex would.
Hardie stated that mc cable could be smashed, but was concerned that without some flexibility, it would be difficult to install in a closed wall if that was necessary.
Beebe added that fishing wouldn’t be an issue given the limited length of conductors to 6 feet; most installations would be in close proximity to the panel.
Frost said he wouldn’t have an issue with flexible metal conduit, which would still allow some flexibility and provide a greater degree of protection.
Beebe added that a staple improperly driven in the first six feet wouldn’t be picked up by the downstream AFCI device.
Frost added this is where fires originate.
Frost made a motion to place a period after metal raceway and strike “or a cable with a metallic sheath”. The motion was seconded by Brickell and passed unanimously.
Frost asked what the date of January 1, 2008 was about in that section.
Staff stated that all AFCI’s will need to be of a combination type by that time. They are capable of sensing parallel and series arcing events. Currently the ones on the market sense parallel arcing events.
225.17 was brought up for discussion in regards to providing the same requirements for through the roof support of service drops and applying that too outside feeder and branch circuits.
Beebe stated that the drop is subject to the same dead load as service drops and should be constructed to handle whatever “Mother nature” may impose upon it.
Some discussion regarding the reference to the service article that had already been amended may cover the situation.
Frost questioned whether or not 225.17 could be removed and that would refer them back to the already amended article for through the roof applications. After some further review Frost added that the two articles are almost word for word and we could amend 225.17 to mimic the amendment to 230.28.
Frost made a motion to rewrite 225.17 to include the exact language used in the amendment to 230.28. This would allow someone to look in the outside branch or feeder section and find the requirements for that application. The motion was seconded by Beebe and passed unanimously.
Staff stated the next tabled issue was 250.50 that dealt with concrete encased electrodes. The only change was the word “available” had been changed to “present”. If it remains as written this would require even new residential sites to provide a connection to the rebar system as it would be present on site during construction.
Beebe asked which electrode could be removed, since the rebar could serve as the supplemental electrode required for the water service.
Staff stated it would not be necessary to drive a ground rod if the rebar was used as a supplemental electrode. It was not known if a rod would still be necessary to meet Westar requirements.
Hardie questioned whether or not it was a good idea to possibly impose a lighting strike onto the rebar system within a slab on grade structure.
Beebe countered with the explanation that the weight of the house being in contact with the earth and the surge or strike would be dissipated over a much greater area than with a ground rod.
Frost commented that the greater area lessens the ohm value of the system and with rods not being tested it is unknown at what ohm value they may be.
Beebe questioned how it would be enforced.
Staff responded that footing inspections are performed and it would have to become part of that inspection.
Hardie asked if a 20 foot ground ring would be needed.
Staff responded a #4 awg copper connected to at least 20 feet of rebar contained in the lowest point of the footing or rebar properly tied together to create at least 20 feet would meet the requirement. It can also be met by placing 20 feet of #4 awg copper in contact with the bottom of the footing. The logistics of making the connection could present a challenge to someone; most likely the Electrical Contractor wouldn’t be the one making the connection.
Beebe added that based on his information it was simply the best system for grounding. He knew that a typical ground rod clamp was rated for direct burial, but didn’t know if that would be sufficient for connecting to rebar.
Staff envisioned the use of the standard rebar clamp used to bond the swimming pool walls and decks. This clamp provides the necessary separation of the dissimilar metals and is rated for concrete encasement. Prior to the new change and exception some jurisdictions were requiring that the concrete be removed to allow connection to the rebar, it was not the intention of the Code making panel to have this done, but some places were requiring it.
Hardie stated that we are saying it is a new structure electrically and existing structures would remain exempt.
Frost commented that location of the free end of this conductor could present some problems. In most cases the location of the electrical service won’t be known until the rough in stage of construction. He thought if it could be located as close to possible to the water entry it could be bonded within 5 feet of the entry and allow a single GEC to run from the water service back to the service. On slab construction it shouldn’t pose any issues to bring it up where the water service comes up.
Members concurred that the superiority of the system will outweigh the grumbling that will be associated with requirement.
Frost had heard that Johnson County was going to retain the amendment, so it would be a requirement there.
Staff had heard the same thing throughout the Kansas City area at a recent IAEI Mo-Kan Chapter meeting.
Beebe stated if he wanted to drive a rod and include it into the system he always can. He liked the assurance the rod provided knowing he was the installer of it and connected it into the system himself.
Frost didn’t see much difference from the concrete guy installing this than the pool guy putting in that bonding connection. Frost said he is up to the challenge of what ever discussions this might cause for the Board.
Beebe reiterated the superiority of the system and that alone would far out weigh any complaints the Board might receive. It is difficult for the installer to tell what his ground rod goes into; Beebe has had instances where it went into a sewer without his knowledge.
Frost stated it might prevent some instances he has seen where lightning has struck an apartment building and taken out all the electric appliances. Who is to say a system such as this wouldn’t have prevented that. Frost added that some problems may be encountered with the connection of the cable and telephone systems, they typically connected to the ground rod.
Beebe made a motion to leave 250.50 as written in the 2005 NEC. Brickell seconded and motion passed unanimously.
Update on Code Change Seminar was to hope for better luck next time.
Frost questioned Members to see anyone had any other sections to bring up. Frost suggested that one more sweep be made through the Changes Book to catch any missed items. Frost asked if a list of amendments had been made yet.
Staff suggested that he create a draft document prior to the next meeting for the Board to view. Staff will distribute public input documents to the local supply houses.
Hardie asked if any public entity may have an interest in viewing these changes or would be affected by them. Hardie was concerned that some “sleeper” issue might emerge and cause some hardship.
Frost stated all meetings are open to the public.
Brickell loaned his Change book to Beebe so he could complete a sweep. Brickell works in the same office as the Staff Liaison, so he has access to a book when necessary.
A motion to adjourn was made by Frost and seconded by Beebe. Motion passed unanimously and meeting was adjourned at 7:07 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke
Secretary