May 7th.
2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS
PRESENT: |
|
Russell
Brickell, Daniel Beebe and Larry Frost |
|
MEMBERS
ABSENT: |
|
BJ LaBounty and Tim Kaufman (Board
currently has two vacancies) |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF
PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke
|
|
PUBLIC
PRESENT: |
|
None
present |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Frost
called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm.
Minutes
The
minutes of the April 2nd, 2008 meeting had been emailed to all members. Frost made a motion to accept the minutes Brickell seconded the motion, the
motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
The two
vacancies are still open at this time. Staff had received copies of two letters
that were sent to Jeff Hardie and Jeff Oliver in appreciation of their service
to the Board. Staff had not contacted the City Manager’s office prior to the
meeting to see if anyone had expressed an interest in serving.
Staff made
note of the recent adoption of the 2008 NEC by the City of Topeka. He had contacted their office to see if any
amendments had been placed into the body of the code. Staff was emailed a copy of the amendments
which only involved the change requested by Westar.
Beebe
asked which version presented by Westar did they elect to include.
Staff
responded it was the statement provided by Westar’s legal department, they
didn’t elect to just change the two words.
Frost
commented he was surprised they had already adopted it.
Unfinished Business
None
New Business
Frost said
our main business appears to be the continued review of the 2008 NEC, he asked
Brickell where they had left off from last meeting.
Brickell
responded they had dealt with all the current amendments and were discussing
items of interest from the changes book.
Frost
asked if they had made it all the way through the comparison document.
Beebe
responded the only item of interest from that discussion was the absorption of
one of the amendments the Board made regarding branch AFCI protection and the
type of conduit or cabling that could feed those. Beebe thought the list would stand as long as
Frost had no objections.
Staff
stated the minutes reflected the approval of the transfer of the current
amendments into the 2008 draft, minus the one that was encompassed by the 2008
NEC.
Frost
queried the Board on where they preferred to begin, at the front of the change
book or the front of the 2008 NEC.
Brickell
responded he thought it best to use the change book as a guideline.
Beebe has
been researching the time required for GFCI protection to reach the five basic
areas in dwellings that they are now required. He stated it required 18 years
to achieve the current requirements.
Beebe considers the AFCI requirements to be on a much faster track than
that and is wondering why it is moving so quickly.
Staff was
unsure if the code making panels believe in the AFCI technology that much or if
there is a desire by communities to have this protection in place sooner.
Beebe has
read some articles that always seem to refer to the AFCI’s and their effects on
older homes. He wonders how their
presence in new housing is going to do anything for the homes that are over 50
years old, which according to one article, makes up 50% of the housing
available. Beebe recently had a service
call related to an AFCI tripping where a staple had been driven too tight at
the time of installation and over time had cut into the cable. This type of low level fault could have gone
undetected for some time on a standard breaker.
Brickell
stated a lot of their (Fire Department) problems are with older homes. He added that providing the protection now
will improve safety of the newer homes going forward.
Frost
mentioned that many jurisdictions are slow to adopt the newer codes and in some
communities they may not implement a newer code for six to eight years. Frost added while he’s not sold on AFCI’s he
has seen them provide the protection stated by manufacturers.
Brickell
commented on the NEC code process and added that changes are a slow
process. The proposal for this may have
been presented a long time ago.
Staff
added the majority of issues with the 2008 will be the additional requirements
imposed on the home building community. This
code has hit the residential side of things more extensively and he wouldn’t be
surprised to see an influx of concerns from the affected parties.
Beebe
stated that cost should not be a factor.
He is concerned about making sure a house functions properly without all
the safety factors continually nuisance tripping and creating problems for all
concerned. As an electrician he just
knows he needs the parts and doesn’t concern himself with the cost. He furthered his comment to the materials he
has read recently and they all focus on older homes. Although he doesn’t like the requirement, the
county often requires the use of AFCI’s on panel change outs in older homes
where possible.
Staff
commented that it may be difficult to protect all the code required circuits on
a panel change out without some additional wiring corrections. It may be difficult to sell a property owner
or homeowner on the additional work required to correct a bedroom circuit that
initially trips the AFCI.
Staff
added that he has consulted with Westar regarding the inter-system bonding
termination point. He had met with the
local representatives and they thought this might need to be handled by the
standards staff in Wichita or may be under their review currently. The local representatives thought this may be
something that might be part of the meter base at some time and made available
by them.
Beebe
stated that has been a concern of his, regarding who would be responsible for
making sure a working connection is available to the low voltage installers.
Frost
responded they would be relying solely on the neutral connection to the meter
base on that type of installation.
Beebe
stated that with the concrete encased electrodes and PVC conduits, the number
of places to get a good bond is disappearing.
Frost’s
concern would be if Westar would lose their neutral and what might happen to
the low voltage equipment then.
Beebe
added that Westar may not want that liability.
Staff
stated that Westar mentioned some issues they have had with the low voltage
equipment being energized by line voltage through some type of malfunction.
The Board
briefly discussed the merits of 200.2(B)
The Board
discussed the implications of 210.4. The
Board highlighted the cost increase of sharing a neutral requiring a two pole
breaker and or a three pole breaker in the instance of a three phase
circuit. The final electrical inspection
would need to have the panel cover removed to check for the grouping and the
correct breakers. The grouping may limit the accidental opening of a shared
neutral. It may change the way some commercial occupancies are circuited. It was noted the two pictures are different
one showing the proper type breakers and the other picture showing the improper
breakers, possibly a mistake. The group
consensus was to reflect on this change further.
The Board
discussed the implications of 210.8 (A).
The previous edition of the Code had some exceptions to the required
GFCI protection. It was brought out that
most people will use whatever receptacle outlet is available and this
protection may be warranted. The group consensus was to reflect on this change
further.
The Board
will reflect further on 210.12(B) on the new arc-fault requirements.
The Board
discussed implications of 210.52(E) (3). A motion was made by Frost to strike the
exception to 210.52(E) (3) to allow balconies, decks, or porches under 20
square feet to not have the receptacle required by 210.52(E) (3), seconded by
Beebe, motion passed unanimously.
The Board
discussed further 210.8 (A) (2) & (A) (5) and the exceptions removed. Many times the garage door opener receptacle
is used for appliances. The Board
discussed the safety that may be achieved through leaving it as written. The sump pump may be able to be resolved
through our current amendment to have them on individual circuits. Some newer garage door openers have built in
battery back up, so the possibility of a nuisance trip wouldn’t create much of
an issue. The Board agreed to begin at 210.60 at the next meeting.
Adjournment
Frost made a motion to adjourn,
seconded by Beebe; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:09
pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Phil Burke
Secretary