April 11th, 2012 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Mel Lisher, Mark Herr, Verlon Myers, Kyle Windisch, Eric Hethcoat, and Chris King
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT:
|
|
none |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
Minutes
Meeting was brought to order at 6:03 pm, by Myers. A motion was made to retain last year’s Chairman and Co-Chairman, Verlon Myers and Chris King respectively. Herr seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Minutes from the January 4th, 2012 meeting had been provided to all members. Herr made a motion to accept the minutes, Lisher seconded the motion; the motion passed unanimously.
Correspondence
The only letters received were those appointing Windisch to the Board and one thanking Daniel Beebe for his service.
Unfinished Business
The pool question from last meeting in regards to corrections made to a pool installation following an appeal was discussed. Staff has made contact with the homeowner and she has had the corrections made and will contact the office for inspection when the pool company is scheduled to open the pool this spring.
Staff let the group know about the upcoming KOMA training next week, each member received an announcement. Attendance is highly encouraged for next week, if not you could attend on the alternate date.
New Business
Mark Herr announced that the Army is relocating him to Sioux City Iowa and he will need to resign his post. He continued that he has enjoyed his limited time on the Board and wishes us continued success with our review.
Staff distributed the 2011 NEC’s and the analysis to all members.
A discussion ensued about how to approach the review and how to breakdown the review process.
Staff had provided an outline of the current amendments and where they stand in relationship to the 2011 NEC. In the past this type of document has helped with our amendment part of the review. On occasion a new Code ruling will overtake one of our amendments and allow us to shorten up our City Code.
Staff mentioned that he and King have been discussing some issues with our fire pump amendment and how it doesn’t mirror the Fire Code. The amendment hasn’t seen enforcement as written and basically contradicts the design of a fire pump type protection system. It may be a situation where time has caused it to be outdated and the effort was just not taken to research it thoroughly. King didn’t see the line of thinking in not allowing it to be separate. King also mentioned that some pumps are also required to be provided with a back-up, but that is somewhat a gray area. Some language in the NFPA speaks to the reliability of the source and how many interruptions the building supply may see in a certain period of time. Hethcoat said the majority of the generators for these buildings just cover the life safety aspects and without requirements for doing more that is how most of them are sized. Myers questioned King on what type of buildings require fire pumps. King discussed the need in large structures to maintain pressure and flow at the sprinkler heads and how that is achieved through a pump system. Hethcoat outlined an example of a multi-story building and how the pressure loss per floor is calculated and how that can be further affected by head design and quantity. Lisher asked about what size of motors we would be seeing in these applications. Hethcoat said a recent design of his required a 25 horsepower motor. Windisch added that other loads shouldn’t be a concern as long as the fire pump is operational. King was going to discuss the topic further with his department chiefs and would bring some directive back on their wishes. Staff thought the requirement may have pre-dated some of the currently required testing and alarm functions of these systems and their electrical supplies.
The review began with the amendments;
Language has been received by Westar that they would like to have inserted into 90.2 (B) (5) (d) on their behalf. Members didn’t see how that changed something that isn’t covered under the Code anyway, but don’t see a problem in doing so.
100 is just amended to reflect the definition for story and basement are taken from the currently adopted IBC.
110 is un-amended
210.8 (A)(B)(C) GFCI protection is amended to allow a single receptacle for sump pumps, refrigerators/freezers, and garage door openers in those garage and basement areas. Previous reviewers didn’t like the idea of having a sump pump on a gfci and nuisance trip prior to a rain event. No one wanted the homeowner with soggy carpet coming before the Board requesting a change. A slight change in wording in the 2011 may cause one of our amendments in this area to go away. The one in question would be for hotels and motels to place the GFCI in each individual room, not share protection with another remote GFCI receptacle. The majority of members couldn’t believe someone would try that to begin with, but minimums are often surprising. The consensus was that another room would not be considered readily accessible and that should allow us to eliminate the hotel/motel amendment.
Herr suggested that we vote on each individual amendment.
Hethcoat made a motion to retain the single receptacle as currently amended into the new Code and strike the current amendment relating to the hotel and motel GFCI placement. The motion was seconded by Lisher and passed unanimously.
210.12 Arc-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection. Some discussion ensued regarding why the increase in areas from the previous Codes. Myers mentioned that he still hears complaints during his classes held across Kansas. Lisher was of the opinion that they were just spending people’s money and the reliability doesn’t justify the additional cost. Myers had heard that some of the data submitted to the NEC was skewed and didn’t present a clear picture of where these fires were occurring and what type of electrical system they had. King added that many fires are caused by cooking and faulty appliances. Windisch asked if the only reason for not doing the whole house was cost. Several responded that they were more concerned with nuisance tripping. Lisher and Heathcoat both added the manufacturers can’t tell them what causes the nuisance tripping. Windisch questioned that if it doesn’t work as it should why do we even install them in the bedroom. It’s unfortunate that they won’t work on most of the older systems where they are probably needed the most. Herr made a motion to retain the current amendment in providing arc-fault protection to bedrooms only and that it can be provided by either type of listed and labeled arc-fault devices. The motion was seconded by Lisher and passed unanimously.
Adjournment
Lisher made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Herr; motion passed unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:24 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke, Secretary
Attendance Sheet
|
Members |
01/04/12 |
4/11/12 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Mark Herr |
Absent |
Present |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Hethcoat |
Present |
Present |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris King |
Present |
Present |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mel Lisher |
Present |
Present |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verlon Myers |
Absent |
Present |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kyle Windisch |
Not appointed yet. |
Present |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Beebe |
Present (last mtg.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|