November 16th. 2009 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Mel Lisher, Tom Cox, Russell Brickell, and Verlon Myers
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT:
|
|
BJ LaBounty, Tim Kaufman, and Daniel Beebe |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Jeanie Brown |
|
|
|
|
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm. by Co-Chairman Brickell.
Minutes
The minutes of the July 1st. 2009 meeting had been provided to all members. Myers made a motion to accept the minutes, Cox seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
None received.
Unfinished Business
Training opportunities will be offered in Lawrence on December 11th with one site at the Holidome and the other site will be at the Holiday Inn Express on south Iowa. The Holi-dome site will offer training in the mechanical and plumbing trades. The Holiday Inn Express site will be for electrical professionals. Each training class satisfies the continuing education requirements for Lawrence.
The electrical class would be an out of pocket expense for those that attend, the training at the Holidome could be used as the required training for qualifying parties and will be paid for by the City of Lawrence, unless you have attended the JOCO training.
Myers asked if one at the Holidome included 2009 IRC training.
Staff thought some of the training utilized the 2009 IRC, he was not certain if the content was based entirely on the 2009 IRC.
Cox asked if any decision had been made on receiving credit towards continuing education for serving on the board.
Staff responded that the decision was that it would not count towards the continuing education requirements. He had sent it via email but had not mailed hard copies to Cox and Lisher regarding the decision.
Lisher asked if February training was planned for Johnson County.
Staff thought one session had just finished and there should be one in the spring, which is usually held in February.
New Business
Brickell stated that the first item up on the new business was the hearing of an appeal. He then allowed Jeanie Brown to state her cause for appeal.
Ms. Brown thanked the Board for hearing her appeal. She stated that hindsight was twenty-twenty in regards to the lighting installation. Her pool contractor had installed this type of fixture in the Kansas City area without issues and the electrician was also from outside of Lawrence and did not research the code before installing them here. She further stated they were purchased at Home Depot® and operated at 12 volts and 7 watts per each lamp. She asked the Board to consider allowing them to remain installed.
Brickell asked Ms. Brown if she was asking that these be considered as an alternate method to the code. He furthered by saying the Board cannot override or allow a violation of the current code to exist. The question is either that the code was interpreted correctly and you provide an alternate solution or that you don’t agree with the interpretation of the code.
Cox added that it appears based on her letter that since they are installed on a GFCI she may be considering that as an increased safety measure.
Brickell asked if anyone had questions for Ms. Brown.
Questions on the distances of the lights were outlined by Ms. Brown.
Myers asked if the electrical contractor was local or not.
Ms. Brown responded that he was not local.
Cox added that when Ms. Brown stated she had not been aware of the code that was not something she would have been responsible to know, that was the electrical contractors’ job to make a code compliant installation.
Lisher questioned whether or not these were approved to be placed in the masonry wall.
Ms. Brown produced the box that the lights came in a passed it around.
Brickell called for further comment from anyone.
Cox stated that he would have to side with the code, and doesn’t see this as an alternate method that could be approved.
Ms. Brown asked if this type of fixture would have been available at the time the code was written.
Lisher asked if the secondary was ground fault protected.
It was discussed further about primary ground fault protection not providing protection beyond that point and on to the secondary.
Brickell made note that no listing mark was shown on the fixture box.
Myers discussed a news letter topic regarding some teenagers that were severely shocked in a similar situation at a boat dock. He is not comfortable amending the code to allow this type of installation. Myers added that it appears this circuit may have at least a 5 amp potential, and it only takes 200 milli-amps or so to stop someone’s heart.
Myers made a motion to uphold the City code and not allowed the installation to remain as installed, seconded by Cox; motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Brown asked what she should do now to get it corrected.
Myers stated that she should contact her electrician and work out a solution from there.
Discussion ensued among those assembled to what may be a viable solution. A concern was raised regarding the lack of a listing on the installed product, which would make using them a violation regardless of where they are installed. More discussion on whether a dry niche type fixture could be installed in their place. Some of these lights wouldn’t be in violation given their location, but it is unsure on how they were cabled and what affect removal of the ones near the pool would have. The discussion continued on what type of stone this was and where the cable was routed. The electrician should be consulted initially to make the corrections because he is the one that installed the violation.
Cox added that the company he works for would be obligated to make the necessary corrections to bring them into compliance or remove them to negate the violation.
Ms. Brown stated that they haven’t corrected the interior wet niche bonding conductor yet. She wondered if adding the green wire to the low voltage lights would help the situation.
Staff stated that this redundant type grounding conductor is part of the approved system and must be installed as noted on the correction notice. The secondary of the low voltage lighting system is not designed to have a grounding conductor installed and that wouldn’t change the violation.
The next item was the IRC review. Staff commented that he was assuming the board would want to keep the same amendments that the 2008 NEC contained and just apply the one and two family dwelling ones to the IRC.
Myers said he had opened up the IRC but hadn’t done much reading in it yet. He wondered if it tracked directly from the 2008 NEC.
Staff said it is basically word for word out of the 2008 NEC. In some instances they will combine wiring methods into a chart as opposed to having them listed in different sections. The numbering is completely different than the NEC, since the electrical is just a portion of the whole IRC.
Some discussion ensued about the quality of the CO 2 detectors and their implementation into the IRC for 2009. Myers has been using a couple different low voltage type models that have proven effective. He said they have had some questions on mounting heights. Brickell has experienced issues with the plug in type detectors when running alarm calls while serving on the fire department. (CD has a bad spot, lost last 3-4 minutes)
The group decided that since the December meeting is less than two weeks away it wouldn’t be necessary to meet at that time. Staff will work on creating a document on proposed amendments to the 2009 IRC and the next meeting time will be based on the availability of that document.
Adjournment
Myers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Lisher; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke, Secretary