March 5th.
2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT: |
|
Russell
Brickell, Tim Kaufman, Larry Frost, BJ LaBounty and Daniel Beebe |
|
MEMBERS
ABSENT: |
|
Jeff
Oliver and Jeff Hardie |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF
PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke
|
|
PUBLIC
PRESENT: |
|
Chad
Luce, Westar Energy |
|
|
|
|
Chairman
Frost called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.
Minutes
The
minutes of the October 3rd, 2007 meeting had been emailed to all
members. Beebe made a motion to accept the minutes Kaufman seconded the motion,
the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
A letter
had been received from Westar Energy regarding a change in the 2008 NEC that
they would like to see amended. Chad
Luce, Manger of Customer and Community Relations was present to explain more on
the reason for the letter. Mr. Luce went on to explain that in Article 90.2(5)
(b) of the 2005 NEC the words “or by other agreements” was contained in the
code text. In the 2008 NEC these words
were omitted but not shown as a change in the materials used to evaluate the
changes and guide the Board in their review.
Luce continued to explain that in most circumstances Westar works within
right of ways and or legal easements established by the property owner agreeing
to have electric service provided and thereby allowing Westar access. Westar’s staff attorney and standards people
are concerned that distribution poles and associated equipment located on
private property could come under the jurisdiction of the NEC as opposed to
being under the NESC code that is utilized by Westar.
Mr. Luce
provided some optional language to replace “or by other agreements” if
something more descriptive was preferred. Luce asked for consideration on
behalf of Westar to either place “or by other agreements” back into the 2008
City of Lawrence Code amendments or utilize the language provided by Westar
into an amendment to the code.
Staff
asked how they viewed this prior to the 2002 NEC that based on his research
that is when it first appeared in the code.
Mr. Luce
was unable to provide an answer at this time. Luce thought the focus was more
on the change from the 2005 to the 2008 than what had been in the code in
previous editions.
Frost
asked if the language located in 90.2 (B) (5) (a) would allow Westar the exclusive
rights to operate in those areas.
Luce
responded that the legal department of Westar did not think that would allow
for distribution lines and poles to be exempt from the NEC requirements.
Brickell
asked if a legal agreement was required on private property to install service
lines.
Luce
responded that when customers sign up for electric service they are giving
Westar the necessary access to install and maintain the utility provided lines
and equipment. The agreement is part of the KCC regulations. The alternate language provided by Westar is
more specific and refers to those particular agreements used for distribution
lines and associated equipment not part of the customer supplied service.
Frost
asked if some resolve was desired at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Luce
said he was present to explain Westar’s position and ask for consideration
during the review process. He also asked
staff to make him aware of the progression to allow him time to review the
change if accepted for content and clarity.
He asked the Board if they had any questions on this matter or about
Westar in general. (Luce left)
Beebe
wondered what inspired it to be placed in the code previously and what prompted
the removal. He didn’t think that
question was answered.
Brickell
voiced his preference of the strictly legal version provided by Mr. Luce as it
specifically limited their operations to exactly what they should be
doing.
Unfinished Business
Frost
asked if we would be looking for two new members, one journeyman and one
contractor.
Staff
responded that Jeff Hardie and Jeff Oliver positions would become vacant as of
March 31st, 2008. These open
positions would be identified on the City of Lawrence web site at that
time. Staff has had only one inquiry
regarding the vacancies.
Frost
advised members to be on the look for potential candidates.
Staff was
unaware if anyone was on waiting list, but would check with City Hall. Occasionally the Mayor may select from other
than the suggested list.
Beebe
responded that they will need to be regular attendees to be effective. We may be well advised to inform them of the
requirements, especially this year.
New Business
Frost made
mention of the preparation to begin the review of the 2008 NEC for adoption and
asked staff to expand on that item.
Staff
responded the first item was to distribute books to members. Staff has also prepared a list of the 2005
amendments in comparison to the 2008 NEC.
It appears that only one amendment will be encompassed by the 2008
NEC. The code basically adopted in their
language what our amendment had said.
Frost
thought the group could look over the change analysis prior to the next
meeting.
Brickell
added that could be a good start and then we would look through the analysis to
see what changes have been made and if any additional amendments would be
required.
LaBounty
asked about some language used in the document and staff clarified.
Brickell
mentioned some problems the Fire Department Inspectors have with receptacle
outlets placed inside cabinets in bathrooms found in some sororities. The hair dryer cord is continually closed in
the door causing excessive cord damage.
They have been hard pressed to find a solution to the problem.
Beebe
highlighted some items he had seen within the change book. He sees some issues with GFCI protecting all
receptacles in garages and unfinished basements. Beebe thought some appliances would not
operate on GFCI protection if they were older models. This may lead to nuisance
tripping and very possibly go undetected until the contents of the freezer or
refrigerator spoils. GFCI protection was
also extended to sump pumps which may cause flooding if a nuisance trip went
undetected.
Staff
asked if the nuisance tripping from power outages was still a problem.
Beebe
thought the smart lock type device currently used didn’t have those
problems.
LaBounty
asked if Beebe had looked at the arc-fault requirement changes.
Beebe responded
that he questioned what they meant by similar room, but hadn’t looked closely
at the changes. Beebe in turn posed a
question to Brickell regarding reports on the reduction of residential fires by
using AFCI protection.
LaBounty
stated the manufacturers have flooded them with documents highlighting their
effectiveness.
Brickell
stated most electrical fires are caused by cord abuse. Brickell mentioned that he may change the
tracking methods of electrical fires to indicate what type of circuit caused
the ignition and that would help track the effectiveness of the AFCI’s.
Beebe
voiced concerns that some persons might stretch the limits of the branch
circuit that must be protected by the AFCI in order to have a lower bid. In many cases it will come down to who
provides the lowest bid that will pass inspection and meet the code
minimum. He thinks houses can be wired
to meet the minimum but they still miss the mark on practical operation. Once everyone is paid it’s too late to do
anything about it.
LaBounty
commented that people are still being stuck with the minimum standard in
housing. If minimum is all that is
required that’s what most of them do.
Frost
mentioned that it may be necessary to limit the number of openings on a
circuit, or at least on the circuits with AFCI protection.
Staff
stated the office doesn’t require load calculations on residential
projects. These documents are required
on commercial. He cautioned that a load
calculation may not provide the information necessary to require an increase in
the number of branch circuits, but it would put an exact number on the service
size required. Staff added that it may be time to think about limiting the
number of openings that can be placed on a circuit; we may have reached that
point.
Brickell
commented the number of things connected to a receptacle in today’s world has
increased dramatically. Brickell echoed
the concerns of having too many openings on any one branch circuit.
LaBounty
echoed Brickell’s comment on the number of items connected to a receptacle
typically using a plug in strip of some kind.
Frost
stated that the City of Columbia Missouri has limited openings on branch
circuits for as long as he can remember.
Beebe
suggested what ever method is chosen it must be easy to enforce and be
recognized quickly on the inspection if the correct number of circuits is
there.
Frost
shared a story where an AFCI detected a nail in a conductor on a new home where
it would have gone undetected until something possibly could have caught on
fire.
Staff
commented that a lot of the driving force behind AFCI’s is workmanship. Many jurisdictions allow a licensed company
to employ whom ever they want supervised or not to perform wiring. Staff doesn’t think in Lawrence where we have
a required ratio of licensed workers on the job to unlicensed workers that we
see the issues that many inspectors even in Kansas City see.
Beebe
doesn’t like the 20 feet square feet limitation on receptacles placed on
balconies. He feels if they have access to the area that a receptacle should be
placed there to limit the use of cords, especially for decorative lighting. Members
echoed his sentiment.
Frost
closed the meeting with the directive of reviewing the change book and
highlighting things they wish to discuss as well as looking at the amendment
document.
Adjournment
LaBounty made a motion to adjourn,
seconded by Kaufman; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at
7:00 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Phil Burke
Secretary