June 4th, 2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Russell Brickell, Daniel Beebe, Larry Frost, Tim Kaufman, Mel Lisher, and BJ LaBounty.
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT:
|
|
Tom Cox
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None present |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Frost called the meeting to order at 6:09 pm.
Minutes
The minutes of the May 7th, 2008 meeting had been provided to all members. Beebe made a motion to accept the minutes, Brickell seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
Two letters had been received in regards to the appointment of Mel Lisher and Tom Cox to fill the current vacancies in the Board roster. The Board extends their welcome to these two new members.
Frost inquired about the letter forwarded to members about some fire products sales representative wishing to address the Board.
Staff has not heard back from the representative, but had contacted him via email to have him placed on the agenda when he wished to speak to the Board.
Unfinished Business
Staff had placed on the agenda an item regarding the IRC and its interplay with the current review. A recent discussion in the office had actually brought to light that the 2006 IRC would still be governing the construction of one and two family dwellings in Lawrence, irregardless of the adoption of the 2008 NEC. Staff thought this may lessen the difficulty in reviewing some areas of the 2008 NEC that have been pulled for further discussion.
Frost asked what the time frame for review of the 2009 IRC would be.
Staff is unsure of when this time might be, but it would be safe to say the desire of our department is to keep as current as possible.
Beebe commented some of the items we have been discussing may be too soon.
Frost asked what code the Fire Department is on.
Brickell responded that they are using the 2006 IFC.
Frost asked if they want the Board to continue the review and push through the 2008 NEC.
Beebe stated that many of the issues we have been discussing wouldn’t have any effect until later when we are reviewing the 2009 IRC.
Frost added that the issues would still be in play for multi-family occupancies, just not for one and two family dwellings. Frost furthered stated one of the main ideas of the I Codes was to have one book for the builders. He doesn’t think they would want to amend the current IRC to reflect our adoption of the 2008 NEC.
Brickell said that the Building Board is able to amend the code, whether they want to is another matter.
Staff doubts that anyone wants to amend the other code mid-season.
Brickell added that it would simply be where the 2008 NEC would govern all installations other than those in one and two family dwellings. It is basically the same now; the only difference is the 2006 IRC is based on the 2005 NEC which happens to be the current electrical code in use for the City of Lawrence.
LaBounty thought it best to continue to move forward and not lag behind.
Frost is hopeful that the Building Board doesn’t lag behind to where the Electrical Board would be reviewing the 2011 NEC and amending the 2009 IRC to reflect the 2008 NEC.
Brickell stated that some of the protective measures contained within the 2008 NEC may be an asset to the transient population typically residing in the multi-family housing.
LaBounty responded that Lawrence is somewhat a minority in that they amend the Codes significantly prior to adoption where that majority of other municipalities just pick an effective date for the new code and it goes into effect as written.
Frost had been led to believe that the whole idea behind the I Codes was to create a more seamless transition between all the Codes. It appears that it is going to be more like it was before than their philosophy indicated during I Code meetings. Frost wondered if Topeka was under the I Codes and how they handled the 2008 adoption.
Staff had copied a sheet from their internet site showing that they are still using the 1997 UBC and the 2008 NEC was applied to all installations whether residential or commercial.
Staff thought that the time lag might prove beneficial in providing a period of testing in the multi-family sector of the increased arc-fault protection requirements in the 2008 NEC and see if things function as planned. If nuisance problems are encountered this could help in making the decision when reviewing the next IRC.
Lisher inquired about the history of AFCI’s and if the Board had seen any evidence on their effectiveness. He had heard of some areas that had amended them out.
Beebe provided a document that he had found helpful that wasn’t from a manufacturer’s viewpoint.
Frost added that he has seen them work and is now a fan of AFCI technology.
New Business
Frost briefly touched on the process the Board had been using to pinpoint changes that require more attention. Lisher was provided with books. The Board picked up the review where they left off at the last meeting 210.52 (G).
The Board briefly discussed 210.62 show windows. Staff thought the issue was some had been placed above drop ceilings and passing the cord through the ceiling created a violation. Frost wondered if the 18 inch dimension would always be attainable.
The Board briefly discussed 215.2 (A) (1). LaBounty didn’t think from a manufacturer’s standpoint that would be an issue. Beebe thought it might be a concern with harmonics.
The Board briefly discussed 215.6. Staff thought this change was part of eliminating an exception for existing conditions allowed in the 2005 NEC.
The Board briefly discussed 220.82. Frost asked if that pertained to gas dryers on the laundry circuit. It appears you don’t have to count the motor of the gas dryer in the feeder calculation if connected to the required laundry circuit.
The Board briefly discussed 230.71. Frost wondered if the disconnect had to be part of the listed equipment. LaBounty thought it had to do with the 6 disconnect rule. Beebe stated the article had to do with the number of disconnects. Consensus was it was just to clarify that surge arrestor disconnects are not part of the 6 disconnect rule.
Frost asked how far some members had been in the book. Beebe had been up through approximately 154 without much concern, other than 122. The Board briefly discussed 250.94. Beebe asked if staff had heard back from Westar regarding the issue. Staff responded that he had not. LaBounty asked if we had talked with Sunflower regarding the terminal point. Lisher asked if PVC was used most often as service entrance conduit. Staff responded most use PVC on underground entrances into the home, limiting the access of a grounded point. Staff added that the local Westar representative thought the Wichita office may be looking into how to handle this situation. Topeka has been requiring a #6 awg placed outside for a connection of the cable/TV/phone grounding system for awhile.
Frost asked if we enforce 300.5(B) in relationship to under slab conduits. Staff responded that we do, it happens on a fairly regular basis.
The Board briefly discussed 310.15(B) (2) (c). Beebe thought the 12 to 36 inch range would result in a tripping hazard on the roof. LaBounty asked what the change was regarding. It was explained further that it is regarding the increase of ambient temperature inside of a conduit that is installed on a rooftop, thereby reducing the current carrying ampacity of the installed conductors. Beebe had a concern related to their being no length requirement that it would apply to all conduits regardless of lengths. Several responded the temperature of the ambient air within the conduit would be similar no matter what the length and would affect the ampacity. Brickell thought the radiant heat from the roof is the larger concern; he thought some of the direct heat from sunlight may be reflected off by the conduit finish.
The Board briefly discussed 314.4. Frost asked if people aren’t grounding boxes or why this would be in a change. LaBounty questioned if this had anything to do with the recent addition of a MC Cable with an internal grounding strip.
The Board briefly discussed 314.24. It appears some attention is being given towards devices that are of greater depth when it comes to box fill requirements.
The Board briefly discussed 314.27. Beebe asked what concern the rating of the box is if the plaster ring is not rated. LaBounty stated that most all boxes and the rings together should be rated at least 50 pounds.
Frost questioned the use of NM cable in conduit as shown in 334.12 (A) (1). Brickell thought it had to be contained within a fire rated conduit when placed in a rated area. Some had thought it had been prohibited to be installed in conduit. Frost checked the 2005 NEC and it allows it to be installed in conduit for physical protection.
Frost queried the Board on how long they wished to continue the review tonight.
Beebe questioned the use of flexible metal conduit in wet locations as shown in 348.12 (1). Lisher commented he hadn’t seen this use much. Staff thought it was more common on pre-packaged cooler/freezer units with the compressors on the top of the enclosure.
Frost asked if they have ever come up with a definition for physical damage. Staff was not aware of any definition. Staff found the idea varies greatly among inspectors from various localities.
Frost suggested that the group examine pages contained within the remainder of the 300’s and the 400’s, approximately pages 194-268. If nothing comes up from that we can then move onto the 500’s during the meeting. The 500’s begin on page 270 of the change analysis book.
Adjournment
Beebe made a motion to adjourn, seconded by LaBounty; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke
Secretary