September 3rd. 2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Russell Brickell, Mel Lisher, Tom Cox, Larry Frost, Tim Kaufman, and Daniel Beebe
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT:
|
|
BJ LaBounty |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None present |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Frost called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.
Minutes
The minutes of the August 6th, 2008 meeting had been provided to all members. Brickell made a motion to accept the minutes, Beebe seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
None received.
Unfinished Business
No unfinished business was presented.
New Business
Frost made mention of an IAEI newsletter he received that listed some neighboring States that have adopted the 2008 NEC without amendments. Frost queried the members if they had found any problems with Chapters 8 & 9 of the analysis book.
Cox commented on the new requirement for at least one communication outlet installed in each dwelling.
Members added that in most all cases it would be an exception to not install phone and cable outlets. They added that some people will reduce these items to cut costs, but most homes typically contain more than one.
Brickell thought it may have been overlooked in past code cycles and it was found not to be contained in the code and someone thought it important enough to be added.
Frost asked about the grounding requirement for low voltage equipment and if anything had been decided.
Staff responded that he had added it to the list of pending actions to be discussed tonight. He thought all these grounding point items were related.
Some discussion ensued regarding what the minimum size conductor required to be put in place for the grounding of this low voltage equipment. It was discovered through some research that a #6 awg would be required.
Frost directed the members to the pending actions listed on the agenda.
Staff has done some work on the draft document and these were discussed but not resolved. Staff highlighted 210.8(A) and (A)(5) as having the current exceptions deleted and thus requiring all 15 and 20 amp receptacles in garages, accessory building and in basements be gfci protected.
Brickell added that it appeared only fire and burglar alarms would be permitted to be connected to a non-gfci protected receptacle.
Cox said one of the first things he learned was never to plug a freezer or refrigerator into a gfci.
Beebe added that the new equipment has a much lower potential leakage current available to limit nuisance tripping. He’s not fully convinced and expressed concerns about existing equipment moved into a new home that has been wired to meet these requirements.
Cox added that he wouldn’t trust his freezer plugged into a gfci while he was away. If they trust them enough why not have them on the alarm system also.
Staff thought it might be based on personal contact with the appliance on a more consistent basis than someone would have with an alarm panel.
Frost doesn’t like the idea of the garage door opener being plugged into a gfci. He thought the lack of outlets in older homes may have persons using the door opener receptacle for other things causing the change in the code.
Brickell thought the more control the better in what he has seen, if it can be abused someone will find a way to do it. Misuse of cords is always an issue on his inspections.
Lisher added some things are hard to control regardless what is done.
Frost is more concerned with the garage door opener and the calls that will be received when people can’t get into their house. Some folks use it as their only entry door.
Cox doesn’t mind the garage door opener issue since they can always open that manually. He just doesn’t want the call when someone’s freezer of meat has spoiled.
A multi-member discussion ensued related to the fact that the code that governs one and two family dwellings in Lawrence is the IRC. Until such a time the Building Board adopts a new IRC that contains the 2008 NEC language and that language is amended this won’t affect one and two family dwellings. It was also noted that the NEC would be in effect for multi-family dwellings and consistency of amendments between the IRC and NEC would be desirable.
Frost added that we can do the work now or later, doing it now would make it much easier later.
Lisher stated if the appliances have improved so much the potential for harm should be much less than before.
The consensus of the membership was to table 210.8(A) (2) & (A) (5) for future discussion.
The next pending action to review was 210.12(B) dealing with the expansion of arc-fault protection.
Beebe began by comparing the number of years it has taken for gfci’s to be required in all the current locations in a home to that of AFCI requirements taking much less time to be implemented. He added in most of the literature he has read that AFCI’s would be more effective in protecting older homes.
Cox stated if people can’t afford the new protected home they will end up purchasing something older and still not have the protection until they remodel or upgrade the structure.
Brickell is in favor of the expansion and making it retro-active.
Beebe doesn’t see cost as an issue even though he is a homeowner. He thought some other restraints could be placed on the trim level of many homes.
Lisher added that with the current market for residential properties he is concerned with their cost. He is more concerned with the entry level house price.
Frost questioned the group asking how many additional breakers it would add to a standard 3 bedroom home such as a slab on grade.
Cox stated that most houses of that size when wired by them would utilize 20-25 spaces.
Frost focused on the example floor plan in the analysis book and didn’t think you would be adding more than 3 or 4 AFCI breakers.
Cox added that if their value isn’t proven it doesn’t matter how many are added. If an AFCI wasn’t in place would the house burn down?
Frost stated something like that would be hard to determine, would one burn down if we didn’t have GFCI protection.
Beebe commented that he is caught off guard a little to discuss AFCI’s since he doesn’t have most of his literature with him. He has gathered information from several sources other than the manufacturers.
Cox provided some documents on AFCI’s to the membership and will make copies to be distributed at next month’s meeting.
Beebe isn’t a big fan of AFCI’s but understands his role is to do what is best for the public and act in their interest. He still has the concern that some people will load these AFCI’s circuits beyond what should be useable just to save some money on the number of breakers they put in. Beebe expressed that if this is passed some measures need to be put in place to make sure everyone is operating on an even playing field in respect to the number of breakers installed.
Cox added that it’s not only the breaker that adds expense, in some instances it would change the way they wire a house.
The members brought up a point regarding the change in the code that requires shared neutral circuits to be placed on a multi-pole breaker, a change from the 2005 NEC.
The membership continued to discuss the implications of the changes in AFCI protection and the number of circuits that might be added. It was further noted that the expansion does not include kitchens, bathrooms, garages, or unfinished basements.
Cox provided an example of an AFCI tripping and changing it out for a standard breaker, would that be considered a hazard.
Frost said if the AFCI was tripping due to a nail in the conductor and the nail is constantly getting hot, it could start a fire.
Brickell stated that scenario causes fires all the time. He added that the fire department doesn’t currently track fires in that specific of categories; it may just be listed as electrical.
Staff stated that AFCI technology looks at the circuit signature waveform and can detect if arcing might be occurring in the circuit. Circuit breakers operate on current levels and a return path is required for them to sense the current levels, you won’t see a return path on an arcing fault to a driven nail.
Frost said he had been through all this before with the costs and value of the code changes.
Cox added that some might stop building here because of the costs.
Frost countered that if one builder stops another one will start; he doesn’t see this
changing the affordability of housing in Lawrence to the degree they are claiming.
He furthered added that the only way to make money on wiring houses is by volume.
Lisher added that is has been that way a long time. He is still not a fan of AFCI’s.
Cox said he has gone from opposing the costs of AFCI’s to wondering why add just a few more rooms, why have any at all.
Brickell stated the result we are looking at would have been a compromise among a similar group of people, just like the Board is discussing it and trying to figure out what is best. He said if we start the requirement now sooner or later they will be in most homes, it will take a long time but that is how things work.
Frost added that the Board could suggest that they be installed when doing a service change. He doesn’t think they will work on all circuits in older homes depending on the wiring method. It may provide for a lot of nuisance calls and unhappy customers unwilling to pay their bill.
Cox provided an example of their recent upgrade to part of a 150 year old home. They didn’t completely rewire the home, but upgraded the remodeled area. He thought in some cases the cycle of implementing these into older homes could take a long time.
Frost commented that the many surrounding jurisdictions are adopting the AFCI requirements as written, even some of those that hadn’t enforced it prior to this code.
Lisher said Douglas County has started requiring that all bedroom outlets be on the AFCI breaker, previously they had just required the receptacles in bedrooms on AFCI protection.
Frost brought up that it is really a moot point since the IRC with the 2008 NEC language in it won’t be adopted for at least a couple of years.
Brickell added that it could easily be 2010 prior to adoption and enforcement of the new IRC which would contain the AFCI expansion.
The membership decided to table 210.12(B) for further discussion.
Some discussion ensued regarding the ease of use of the tamper proof receptacles. Members that had used the receptacles stated they were no different to use than standard receptacles. Some thought they should only be put in if the owner desired.
The membership decided to table 406.11 for further discussion.
The members went on to discuss 250.94.
Lisher questioned if this would affect very many companies that provide cable and communications or are we just talking about a few local providers.
Members responded that the number of providers is more than just local.
Beebe wanted to know who was required to supply it and maintain it.
Staff stated that Westar would not be providing it.
Beebe stated if his job would be failed because he didn’t provide it, then who will maintain it down the road or what exactly do I have to have in place to comply.
Staff thought it should either be something listed and specifically suited for the purpose, or some bare bones one that everyone would have the components on hand to make.
Brickell added that it is clearly spelled out in the text of the Code of what things will meet the requirements.
Beebe said they make a lot of recommendations other than the listed product shown
in the change book.
Frost advised members to be ready for discussion and possible action on the items tabled. Copies of information related to these items will be brought to the next meeting for distribution and review.
Adjournment
Cox made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Beebe; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke
Secretary