March 30, 2017 Minutes (Development Services Conference Room)
|
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Verlon Myers, Chris King, Alben Stilley, Eric Hethcoat, Mel Lisher, Robert Heacock
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Ex-Officio Adrian Jones – Senior Plans Examiner |
|
|
|
Lee Queen – Building Inspector |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
James
Myers - Lawrence Home Builders Association Dave Everhart – Latimer Sommers Engineers Robert Green – First Construction Jason Kellogg – First Construction Bobbie Flory – Lawrence Home Builders Association |
Call to Order
Chairman Hethcoat called the meeting to order 4:05 p.m.
New Business
Review February 23rd, Minutes
Review Minutes from EBOA February 23rd, 2017. Hethcoat moved to “Approve minutes from February 23rd meeting”. Seconded by Myers. Motion passed 6-0.
Review request for code modification
King noted that in his review of the previous minutes, the members discussed Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) quality control and nuisance tripping issues. He asked if the currently installed AFCIs still had those issues.
Myers said that AFCIs still had nuisance tripping. He read an article that some in the industry were exploring the possibility that harmonics are causing them to trip.
Jones said that his research indicated that most of the tripping incidents have been caused by poor installation practices and incompatibility with appliances. The number of tripping occurrences has been greatly reduced since the introduction of the 1999 National Electrical Code (NEC).
Stilley said that the contractors cost of the breakers is $36. The install cost is dependent upon the size and length of the circuit and the brand of the breaker. It can be anywhere from $65 to $100.
Myers asked if the proposed amendment would affect residential construction.
Jones replied that it would not affect one- and two-family dwellings. If the Board wanted to extend the proposed amendment to one- and two-family dwellings it would have to amend the ordinance adopting that code. The currently proposed amendment is to the 2014 NEC.
King asked if anyone has had any problems with the nuisance tripping.
Lisher said he had not had any problems with AFCI tripping. He had a discussion with a person from one of the code committees this week. The person said there were so many extra steps necessary to install AFCIs he wasn’t sure the devices even worked and there was no way to test them. He has not had any problems but he knows the electricians that do a lot of service work love them.
Myers said he still receives complaints when he’s teaching across the state. Every electrician that has had to deal with a nuisance tripping incident was not going to file a formal complaint.
King said he’s hearing that there are problems but he’s not seeing the data on a national level that shows there is an issue with the devices. From his standpoint, he wants the device to stop fires. There’s not going to be any data to show the number of fires prevented. When the breaker trips, the electrician is called to fix the potential fire hazard.
Hethcoat noted there was an issue with AFCIs and GFCIs wired in series.
Jones concurred and added that the issue came up during adoption of the 2014 NEC. The Board mitigated that issue by amending the GFCI requirements.
Lisher said there was also a restriction for AFCI circuits on the length to the first outlet which is 50 feet for 14 wire, and 70 feet for 12 wire.
Myers said he feels the industry rushed to judgement and got the code making panel to accept them.
Hethcoat asked Everhart what has been his experience with nuisance tripping.
Everhart replied that as the project engineer, his office is one of the first called if there is a problem with the electrical system. He does over 50 multi-family projects a year, all over the country, and he has not received a complaint about nuisance tripping. The majority of the projects adhere to the 2011 NEC, which excludes kitchens and bathrooms from AFCI protection. In regards to the 50 and 70 feet restriction in apartments, you’re usually not hitting those lengths to the first outlets because the panels are usually centrally located.
King asked First Construction about maintenance with AFCIs.
Green said he just has not heard of issues with the devices.
Everhart added that he believes the technology has improved over the last ten years.
Hethcoat asked Jones if he could summarize his review of the previous board discussions.
Jones said his review of the board minutes going back 17 years indicate the same recurring issues which are cost, protection of circuits, and reliability. There was extended discussion and public comment when AFCIs were first introduced to one- and two-family dwellings with the adoption of the International Residential Code (IRC), and again when the code required more circuits in single-family homes to be covered. In other years, the amendments were carried without much discussion.
Davis stated the project that precipitated the request for a code modification is unique here in Lawrence, which is why the amendment has not been revisited. Other jurisdictions, such as Kansas City and Denver, are building wood-framed 4-story buildings with Type NM cable.
King said following the February 20th meeting, he contacted NFPA to inquiry about the evolution of code requirements regarding the use of Type NM cable, and specifically, as it relates to 3-story wood-framed structures. Mark Claude, with NFPA, explained that the uses of Type NM cable permitted in the 1999 NEC were tied directly to wood-framed construction methods in the 1997 Uniform Building Code and 1997 Uniform Fire Codes. The UBC and UFC recognized that higher wood-framed structures would have higher fuel loads on the upper floors. To reduce the level of fuel loads, as well as the protection of occupants on those floors, the use of Type NM cable was restricted. King said there was also a challenge with sprinkling around the time of the 1999 NEC. The codes were looking to balance each other. As the fire protection code and building practices improved in the IBC and IFC, restrictions in the NEC on the use of Type NM cable was lessoned.
Myers said he could remember five fires in and around the location of the downtown district. He said he is not an advocate of the use of Type NM cable in the downtown district. The restriction was to preserve the downtown district and keep it safe. The challenge as he sees it is to accept it, or not to accept it. There was a recent example fire in Overland Park, KS, that destroyed an apartment complex and 21 homes. That structure was similar to the one under construction at 8th and New Hampshire St. If a similar fire occurred downtown, that is what we could have on our hands.
Davis asked if the fire in Overland Park was started as a result of Type NM cable.
Everhart replied that his firm did the engineering on that project. The fire was a result of a welding accident. That structure did not have sprinkler and sheetrock protection. He said in regard to Kings point in the evolution of the code, it is rare to see a code requirement become less restrictive, such as the use of Type NM cable, but in terms of a global perspective the other parts of the code have become more restrictive. He thinks even with Type NM cable we are providing a more safe building.
Jones said that the Building Safety Division will support the proposed code modifications. Support of the reduction on restrictions on the use of Type NM cable is conditioned on the increased fire safety provided by AFCI protection of the branch wiring. It is the general opinion of Staff that amendments to the codes should be minimal. In regards to the use of Type NM cable, the restriction was carried over from the Uniform Codes into the International Codes. As King noted, the codes have balanced out and properly constructed buildings are safer under the I-Codes. With respect to the AFCIs, the devices have been in the code for 6 code cycles, or more than 17 years. The code writing bodies get feedback from contractors, designers, manufacturers, and building officials. If the devices are not functioning, it usually takes about two code cycles and they are withdrawn or the requirements change. All the while the manufacturers are continually looking to improve the product, and installation practices improve. The fact that the AFCIs have remained in the code, and the use has expanded, indicates the devices are safe and effective.
Captain King stated that per Fire Marshal Jim King, the Fire Department prefers to adopt model codes, including the NEC, as written, with any local amendments predicated on clearly demonstrated evidence that an amendment is necessary for safety reasons.
Hethcoat said that in reading through the minutes on the subject of AFCIs, he sees that the cause of concern was in single-family dwellings. In the 2005 NEC, 2008 NEC, and even 2011 NEC, there was cause for concern of expanding the coverage of ACFIs from a bare minimum to basically the entire dwelling. Even the 2014 NEC expanded that to the kitchens and laundry. In newer homes, he sees that as less of an issue. In older homes, he can see that as an issue due to grounding problems. He can see the nuisance tripping on older homes. He agrees with Jones in that the AFCIs first amendment was in the 2005 NEC, and then again in the 2008 NEC, and we kept it in the 2011 NEC citing the same reasons. In the 2014 NEC, it looks like the Board kept the amendment citing the same reason as in the 2011 NEC. If the code cycle has gone through time and time again, and other multiple jurisdictions and agencies are adopting the code as written, they’re obviously not having the same kind of problems that we’re attesting to. Most of the comments come from single-family homes and not multi-family apartments. According to a note in previous minutes, it took GFCIs 17 years to catch up to the current codes. Now we’re dealing with the AFCI and it has been 17 years. He said he thinks he will support Jones and the Staff and say that after all that has taken place we can’t really define what the problem is or how the problem is dealt with. It will cause some projects to cost more to put in more AFCIs but if it’s providing a higher level of protection, and if the occupant or contractor is doing something that’s causing the tripping, then that’s not the codes problem. His idea is to allow the AFCIs as written with the kitchen, laundries, and bathrooms removed.
Lisher asked how the amendment would affect apartments currently under construction.
Jones replied that it would not be retroactive to apartment projects three-stories or less under construction.
Flory stated the LHBA wrote a letter to the Board about this proposed amendment. They had just become aware of the issues so she didn’t have the opportunity to poll the builders about their callbacks of AFCIs. In the letter, they did not make comment regarding buildings over three-stories, or the wiring. It was related specifically to the AFCI protection up to three-stories. We felt like this Board had already approved that issue and the buildings and wiring were safe. It seems that staffs opinion was that if Type NM cable was to be allowed then AFCI protection will have to be provided as a tradeoff. Nothing has really changed in structures up to three-stories. The wiring remains the same but AFCI protection is being added back in. It does raise the cost of construction. That’s a huge issue in Lawrence right now. In fact, there is another Board, the Affordable Housing and Advisory Board, who works just like this Board but is currently working on a different topic: How can we bring the cost of housing down? The cost of a new single-family home is around $350,000 or $360,000, which is really high. Adding back in AFCIs when everyone is not all in total agreement on whether they are effective or might prevent fires is a big expense if the topic not proven or not known for sure. LHBA is not commenting on wiring above three-stories. LHBA also appreciates that this is not involving one- and two-family dwellings.
Myers said that with GFCIs, contractors can actually purchase a tester. There is no tester for AFCIs; you’re putting something out there that is thought to work.
King asked if they were U.L. listed and tested.
Myers replied they were factory tested.
Stilley stated that as a contractor he does not like AFCIs. UPS systems, a bad lightbulb, and anyone unplugging a vacuum will trip them. But he doesn’t believe there is a member present that wants a life on their hands.
Lisher agreed but added that he just needs proof that they work.
Everhart noted that most of the AFCI breakers they install have a test button on them. He asked if Lisher was speaking of a device that could test them.
Myers asked if the restriction on Type NM cable was removed, will commercial buildings be allowed to use Type NM cable.
Jones replied, yes, within the conditions listed. Jones said the options would be to accept or deny the proposal, or craft an amendment to the proposal.
King said he’s hearing concerns regarding downtown construction. He asked if Type NM cable would be allowed in two-story structures downtown.
Jones replied that if the proposal was accepted as is then, yes, Type NM cable would be allowed in commercial buildings. The residential occupancy and height restrictions would be removed. Any commercial remodel project in the downtown district would be allowed to use Type NM cable.
King said his direction was to follow the code closely as written, but in concerns for the downtown area, he feels it may be necessary to amend the proposal.
Hethcoat asked Heacock if he had any concerns.
Heacock stated his only concern would be if AFCIs had a cycle life failure. Does the device tend to drift off or does it fail suddenly.
Myers said that question would need to be answered by each manufacturer.
The board discussed AFCI and GFCI manufacturing and tripping issue.
King asked Jones if he had any concerns regarding the downtown district and the use of Type NM cable.
Jones replied that the 2014 NEC, as written, would allow Type NM cable in all occupancies of Type III, Type IV, or Type V construction. That would mean that commercial buildings on Massachusetts St. would be allowed to remodel using Type NM cable. If that was a concern, the Group R restriction could be maintained.
Hethcoat moved to strike the height restriction on Type NM cable and leave all other verbiage the same. Seconded by King. Motion passed 5-1.
Hethcoat asked Flory to clarify that the LHBA was not in favor of extending the use of AFCIs in commercial buildings and the reason was cost.
Flory confirmed that the LHBA was not in favor of the code request. The reasons were increased cost, the lack of reliability, the unknown effectiveness, and whether it’s actually proven to reduce fires. Cost being the biggest factor.
Hethcoat moved to accept the proposed amendment to modify the code to allow AFCIs as determine in the 2011 NEC. Seconded by Stilley. Motion passed 4-2.
Hethcoat moved to adjourn the February 26, 2015 meeting of the Electrical Board of Appeals. The motion was seconded by Lisher. Motion passed 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Attachments: