January 7th. 2009 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 |
|
|
|
|
Chairman Frost called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Minutes
The minutes of the October 1st. 2008 meeting had been provided to all members. Brickell made a motion to accept the minutes, Kaufman seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
None received.
Unfinished Business
Frost asked about the agenda item regarding tamper resistant receptacles being required in certain occupancies by means other than the NEC.
Staff responded it had been brought up at the last meeting if other government agencies or similar licensing agencies had required these to be installed in daycares or preschools. One of the articles brought in by Lisher pointed to the fact that these aren’t a requirement in the NEC for those types of occupancies.
Brickell stated that KDHE requires tamper resistant receptacles or similar devices to be installed in those types of locations.
Frost mentioned some jobs required them on the plans, which may have been part of the architect or engineers design.
Lisher questioned if some height requirement had been required.
Frost recalled that all of them were required to be tamper resistant.
Staff had added an agenda item regarding the use of 310.15 (B) (6) of the 2008 NEC. He had attended some training in December and this was part of a discussion on some of the 2008 NEC changes. His interpretation of this table had obviously been incorrect according to the intent of the committee. The NEC committee that deals with this area has been trying to clarify the application of this table for numerous code cycles. In many instances nothing will change, but it would affect the installation of large single family services utilizing more than one panelboard to supply dwelling loads.
Frost viewed it as more of an enforcement issue.
Beebe commented that it has become more of an issue recently.
Staff added that if adopted as is and understanding the intent the enforcement would have to be in line with the NEC. Staff had looked through various editions of previous NEC’s and the actual wording has changed very little other than some clarification in several editions, especially the 2008. Staff had done some preliminary calculations following the intent of the table and the major changes are found when using copper conductors, in Lawrence aluminum conductors are typically found in these installations.
Beebe asked what amount of difference it would make.
Staff responded in most cases it was a single AWG change, such as instead of being able to use 2/0 Copper by the table you would be required to install 3/0 copper based on 310.16 in a multiple panelboard installation.
Lisher asked for further explanation on the affect of the wording change.
Staff added that they have defined “main power feeder” in the text preceding the table. To be able to use the table for deration purposes the conductors must supply all the loads to the dwelling unit. In most cases any service that divides up the dwelling loads among more than one panelboard or load center would not meet the intent of a single set of conductors supplying all loads of the dwelling unit. Staff thought it best to be brought up to the Board for discussion, but isn’t suggesting the need for any action. It appears this was the intention of the table all along. Staff is not aware of any problems that have arisen with the way it is currently being interpreted.
Discussion ensued on how this was interpreted in the past and utilized. Examples discussed were some of the larger homes with large panelboards feeding multiple panels within the homes. Most all jurisdictions that the Members were aware of follow the same interpretation we have been using. The majority of these homes are built in districts that require underground entrances supplied by Westar, so in many cases the table couldn’t be used at all. Definition of main power feeder was discussed further. Applications using aluminum seem to be about the same as now, but using copper in some instances would require a larger size than is currently being required. It was further noted that this would not impact one and two family dwellings until the IRC is updated. The impact on three families and up would be minimal in the majority of applications. The NEC Handbook was also consulted for more clarity.
New Business
Cox questioned the Board regarding who would put tamper resistant receptacles in their own house if they weren’t required. Responses were varied.
Frost pointed to several of the articles that have been circulating among the Members. Frost has them installed on at least one floor of his home.
Frost asked if a clarification had been made as to where the tamper resistant receptacles would have to be installed. Members echoed a similar concern about placement. Members began researching the NEC to allow for further discussion. Section 406.11 contains the requirement and refers to all areas specified in 210.52.
Kaufman thought that all the required receptacles in a dwelling are contained in 210.52.
Beebe suggested it be limited to bedroom receptacles in dwelling units. He mentioned the articles he has read always listed the bedroom when a location was given. His thoughts are that 210.52 is a very large scope to install them in.
Cox mentioned that all areas in 210.52 would cover bedrooms. He would rather see all areas or no areas. He doesn’t want to be concerned with which receptacles are okay for all different areas.
Beebe thought that bedrooms were a much more defined location by the code and it would be easy to distinguish these from any other area. Typically if they install a closet and a smoke detector it is considered a bedroom.
Cox asked about playrooms or other areas that may be more frequented by children. He wants to take as much thinking out of the requirement as possible.
Staff raised the question as whether with the increase in arc fault protection that tamper resistant receptacles had as much merit, would the arc fault trip quick enough to protect a child if they were to insert a foreign object into the outlet. Most thought the danger would still be present and each individual can tolerate different levels of shock intensity.
Frost doesn’t mind the requirement being left in, but does have some reservations about all receptacles being covered.
Beebe asked Frost where he would like to draw the line on placement.
Members generally discussed about height restrictions, or some other limitations. Some thought leaving out bathrooms and kitchens. Others still thought it should be left out all together. Many other jurisdictions have voted it in entirely, but not without some lengthy discussions. The City of Topeka has adopted it in its entirety.
Brickell made a motion to leave it as written in the NEC, motion was seconded by Cox.
Cox said he feels the same about arc faults as he does about tamper resistant receptacles, if they work, put them everywhere, if not, don’t. Whatever is decided it should be easy for the tradesmen to remember where they are required, best to take the thinking out of it.
Staff asked if a tamper resistant single receptacle was available. Some provisions made by the Board for door openers, refrigerators and freezers located in garages would make this necessary.
Kaufman questioned if the garage door opener receptacle would be covered or not, it isn’t specified by 210.52. The City of Lawrence requires one, but it’s not specifically stated in 210.52 but would be contained in the ordinance.
More discussion ensued regarding what is a required receptacle. Further reading by all Members pointed more to the areas listed in 210.52 not specific receptacles.
Lisher added that freezers and refrigerators used in garages may not be an issue anymore. He has found they won’t warranty some models if not placed within the home. As explained to him the newer refrigerant doesn’t allow them to be placed in unconditioned spaces. He also questioned about changing out receptacles in existing homes.
Beebe called for a vote on the motion, Frost restated the motion and called for a vote, four voting aye, two voting nay, motion passed.
Brickell thought it could be retroactive if desired, the scope doesn’t limit to new or existing.
Adjournment
Frost made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Lisher; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:13 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke, Secretary