October 1st. 2008 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Russell Brickell, Mel Lisher, Tom Cox, Larry Frost, BJ LaBounty , and Daniel Beebe
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT:
|
|
Tim Kaufman |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke, Barry Walthall |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Abbey, Alex, and Adam from KU School of Journalism |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Frost called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.
Minutes
Frost made mention of a typographical error located on page 5.
Staff responded that the error will be corrected prior to submission to the City Commission. He thanked Frost for his attentive review of the minutes.
The minutes of the September 3rd. 2008 meeting had been provided to all members. Brickell made a motion to accept the minutes, Cox seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
None received.
Unfinished Business
Lisher distributed some items he had copied off regarding changes in the 2008 NEC, mainly AFCI expansion and tamper-resistant receptacle requirements. Lisher stated these were from the Home Builders Association and outlined some of their concerns.
New Business
Frost commented that from what this said that Douglas County won’t be including these requirements when they adopt the 2008 NEC.
Lisher stated that Douglas County will be enforcing what is contained in the 2005 NEC in regards to arc-faults. Lisher added that Johnson County is planning on staying with the 2005 NEC until the 2009 IRC comes out.
Beebe opened the discussion by voicing his concern with all reports always coming back to the issue of money. He is tired of money always being cited as the reason arc-faults shouldn’t be installed. Beebe doesn’t think money should be the determining factor when weighing the costs associated with a potential loss of life or irreplaceable possessions.
Cox asked what would be another determining factor.
LaBounty quoted from a CPSC study regarding tamper resistant receptacles and the cost only being $50 per home. He also has some other information regarding arc fault protection.
Beebe asked if there was a difference between tamper resistant and tamper proof; he has been hearing some conflicting language.
LaBounty explained that tamper proof would most likely be referring to something that is locked out and not useable. Tamper resistant would refer to something that is operational as long as the correct plug is inserted and requires no special knowledge to operate.
Beebe said the language has led to misinformation about the cost of these receptacles.
Cox asked what the tamper resistant receptacle should cost.
LaBounty stated that retail cost on a standard tamper resistant receptacle should be approximately $2.25 each.
Cox questioned a report that stated it would only cost $50 dollars per house. What does a standard receptacle cost?
LaBounty said that cost would vary depending on the contractor’s price or the price to the end user.
Lisher thought that most standard receptacles on the wholesale side would be in the 39 cent range.
Cox added that from 50 cents to $2.50 and the increase would only be $50 dollars in an entire house.
LaBounty agreed with Beebe in regards to costs increases being a non issue.
Cox stated that he believes cost is an issue.
Frost added that as a Board cost shouldn’t be a determining factor.
Beebe stated that cost may be an issue for the Board since the make-up of the Board requires Contractors.
Frost countered by saying cost is an issue to Contractors, but safety if the only factor for some on the Board.
Lisher asked where safety stopped and common sense came in, where does it stop. Lisher added that it just keeps expanding, more and more requirements.
Frost replied that technology keeps pushing the level higher and higher, just seems to be the way it is anymore.
LaBounty offered a comparison to automobiles and how seat belts and air bags were probably looked at the same way years ago. He added that most people look very seriously at the safety features of cars when selecting which one to buy.
Cox said that was his point in regards to the arc faults and other new requirements. If someone wishes to have all these items they can pay to have them installed. If someone chooses to purchase a home with less safety items to lower the cost that would be their desire the choice is up to them, much like purchasing a vehicle. He doesn’t like having no choice.
Brickell stated that the code is a minimum standard and the City has chosen this as the level required for all citizens. If safety wasn’t a concern we wouldn’t have any codes in place.
LaBounty stated they are coming anyway, why postpone what will eventually happen.
Brickell added that they are proven to be effective in older homes, and all homes will eventually be older and this is why it is important not to ignore the opportunity to start.
Frost mentioned that the new combination types are supposed to be more effective in older homes. He added that at some point it may be necessary to require arc-faults to be added when a service change is done. Frost has always believed the Board should adopt the NEC as written with as few changes as possible.
Brickell expressed that the NEC represents a bare minimum that all these experts could live with.
Lisher added that many people don’t do the bare minimum.
Cox stated that the NEC might have started that way but it seems that it has gone beyond that.
Frost thought if a later NEC addition takes the requirement out then those that oppose it now would be happy campers, this type of thing could happen. Frost reiterated that until the new housing code is adopted the home builders won’t be affected unless they are involved in multi-family construction. The Board should know more about how the increased requirements have gone when that Code is before them for amending.
Brickell added that in the event something did happen to someone in a dwelling and you were called to testify why you amended the national standard, you should have a good reason. It is very common for injured persons to seek all possible avenues for compensation when investigating these types of accidents.
Cox added that other jurisdictions must not be concerned with that.
Lisher brought up that Johnson County didn’t want them installed since no tester exists for the arc fault.
LaBounty didn’t think the list was completely accurate in regards to arc fault requirements. Some of the locations listed are in areas he had thought they were required.
Frost has some concerns in the language that would govern the tamper resistant receptacle installation, the words “similar room or areas” could create some issues in regards to enforcement.
Lisher voiced a concern about the outlets on island and peninsulas and those cords looped down to reach them.
Beebe made a motion not to amend the arc fault article as contained in the 2008 NEC, motion was seconded by Brickell, vote was four in favor, two against, motion passed.
Cox asked for an explanation of the letter consolidating into one board.
Barry Walthall stated that a staff member had made a suggestion to combine all the current Boards into one board. Walthall continued that the idea was a suggestion and had some merit based on reduced staff time to man each Board as well as the added time away from the Board to type minutes and other associated business. Walthall further added that some concerns by other Boards were the possibility of reduced expertise in their particular area of concern. Walthall presented an example of a recent amendment that required the action of not only the Building Board but also the Plumbing Board. Walthall directed the members to the spreadsheet that outlines some of what other jurisdictions are doing. Walthall mentioned that they have met with the Plumbing Board and the Building Board. It is not something that will be unilaterally imposed; the Boards would decide how it is made up if and when it becomes a feasible option.
Frost asked if staff had thought about all the expertise that would be missing from the Board; this group (Electrical Board) has a lot of experience.
Walthall stated that this was one of the biggest concerns of the Building and Plumbing Boards. He has hopes that a diverse and knowledgeable Board could be developed. Walthall added that the Contractor perspective would still be on there, but may not be an electrical contractor.
Frost had a concern regarding not all people are in tune with what is happening in the field. Someone from an office perspective may not be in sync with what is going on. Frost said everyone around this table is out there in one way or another.
Walthall described the size of the board as being somewhere between seven and possibly eleven members.
Brickell questioned the cost of books with an eleven member board and purchasing approximately four books each, wouldn’t that cost more.
Walthall responded that he had run the numbers with eleven and the costs were about the same as what they spend now.
Frost asked “so where does the City save”?
Walthall responded that they would save in staff overtime.
Frost said some staff would still be needed for the combined board.
Walthall agreed that some staff would still be required; one thought might be to have the meetings during the day if possible.
Frost questioned the use of comp time.
Walthall says that is always available, but as a manager it is sometimes easier to pay overtime then plan for the inspector being gone from work. Either way it is going to be a cost.
Beebe sees some merit in the system, but is not sure if feasible. Some of the issues we are currently dealing with might be resolved but a host of others may be created.
Frost reiterated that one avenue of thought would be not to look at these code changes until the Building Board catches up with the 2009 IRC, only review when the international changes are being looked at.
Walthall understood the point of Frost but still believes maintaining a reasonable adoption time line has worked well with the Electrical Board. Lawrence has typically been the leader in adoptions in the local area and he sees that as a good thing.
Walthall had told the Plumbing Board if the other Boards looked upon it favorably that a group comprised of various Board members would be formed to look into the forming of one board. Walthall added that if support was similar from the Mechanical Board the idea would probably be dropped.
Frost stated that he was not exactly for it but wasn’t completely against the idea. A single board may lessen the number of amendments, but some things could also get overlooked.
Walthall used the arc fault issue currently under review as one of those items people feel very passionate about. Walthall thought the attention paid to that particular item by this Board is justified, but a single board may not view it as that important. Walthall thanked the Board for their time and excused himself from the meeting.
Frost addressed the KU students in attendance to ask if they had any questions or comments before the Board proceeded.
Frost stated the next item for discussion was the 210.8 (A) and (A) (5) dealing with gfci protected receptacles.
Some general discussion was held regarding a new entry into the bonding system termination point requirement in the 2008 NEC. Staff had provided a sheet showing another product that meets the intent of this change. Members thought this product had some merit since it was a stand alone device with a cover and aesthetically pleasing.
Beebe made a motion that the exceptions contained in the 2005 NEC be added to the 2008 NEC text to allow single receptacles for dedicated appliances such as refrigerators and freezers, as well as sump pump receptacles.
Cox asked about the garage door opener receptacles.
Beebe agreed that they should be included also, but they may not be contained in those exceptions and would need to be added somehow.
General discussion ensued regarding whether or not the 2005 language would cover the garage door opener receptacles. Members rifled through the 2005 NEC and associated handbook to locate the referenced language to find a solution. It was thought that maybe using the 2005 language would exempt the garage door opener receptacles because of the height.
Beebe’s motion died for lack of a second.
Brickell made a motion that the exceptions contained in the 2005 NEC be added to the 2008 NEC text to allow single receptacle outlets installed to service refrigerators, freezers and or sump pumps would be exempt from GFCI protection. Cox seconded motion and it passed unanimously.
LaBounty made a motion that all garage door opener receptacles be of the single type. Cox seconded motion and it passed unanimously.
Frost noted the next item was 250.94 and opened up the discussion regarding the new requirement. The membership agreed that if the product installed met the NEC it would pass inspection. The membership thought that if Westar was not in favor of any items being attached to the meter base it would be best to remove that option from the 2008 NEC language. This would restrict what is allowed in Lawrence and comply with Westar practices.
Brickell made a motion to strike (1) of 250.94 in the 2008 NEC and re-number (2) and (3) accordingly. LaBounty seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Frost noted the next item was 334.12 and opened up the discussion regarding the new requirement. Brickell expanded on the definition of type I and II buildings. The membership really didn’t think anyone would go to the trouble of doing this. Most thought if the NM or NMC was contained in conduit it would match the other types of wiring methods allowed in these buildings. The membership decided it was a non-issue.
Frost noted the next item was a code change proposal regarding 210.52 (C) placement of receptacles on islands. The membership discussed the proposal at length and thought if a cooktop or sink was installed in an island it should have one on each end regardless of the space behind the sink or cooktop.
Brickell made a motion to strike from the 2008 NEC the text of 210.52 (C); “and the width of the countertop behind the range, counter-mounted cooking unit, or sink is less than 300 mm (12 in.), the range, counter-mounted cooking unit, or sink”.
Cox seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Frost noted the next item up for discussion was 406.11 regarding tamper resistant receptacles in dwellings.
Cox made a motion to strike 406.11 from the 2008 NEC. Lisher seconded the motion and Frost called for a vote. Cox and Lisher in favor, Frost, Beebe, Brickell, and LaBounty not in favor, motion failed.
Further discussion ensued in regards to making some changes but not necessarily striking the whole thing. Concerns were brought up regarding interpretation by enforcement officials as to receptacle placement. The membership really didn’t think it should apply to receptacles that are not accessible, behind appliances and similar areas. Information contained in some of the literature pointed that tamper resistant receptacles are not required in locations such as daycares, preschools, etc. by the NEC. Several members said those requirements are often handled by the State. The membership decided to table 406.11 for further research and later discussion.
Frost noted the next item up for discussion was 701.11. Staff wanted to have the Board double check the intent of our amendment and make sure it was in line with other articles and their intent.
The members were left with the charge to review 406.11 and craft language to reflect what they would like to see. Someone will check the State requirements regarding tamper resistant receptacles in daycares, preschools and similar areas.
Adjournment
Beebe made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Cox; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted, Phil Burke, Secretary