November 1, 2006, minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Russell Brickell, Jeff Oliver, Jeff Hardie and Tim Kaufman
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT:
|
|
Daniel Beebe, BJ LaBounty, Larry Frost
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Phil Burke |
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
None present |
|
|
|
|
Co-Chairman Brickell called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.
Minutes
The minutes of the October 4th, 2006 meeting had been emailed to all members. All members present had viewed the minutes prior to the meeting. Oliver asked about the flat fee and was informed regarding the history and action by the Board. Oliver made a motion to accept the minutes and Hardie seconded the motion, the motion passed unanimously.
Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business to discuss.
New Business
Brickell briefly explained about the desire of the Building Board to have the electrical section included into the upcoming adoption of the 2006 IRC. He mentioned that a review had been conducted by the Board when they were looking at the 2003 IRC and at that time the Electrical Board had voted not to have the electrical section included. Brickell made reference to the information mailed to members by Staff that included the information from that review.
Staff provided another document that showed what articles in the 2006 IRC would require amended to match the current City of Lawrence Electrical Code. The list contains 7 articles that would require amending to place the IRC electrical section in line with the City’s current electrical code.
Brickell commented that all the content of the 2005 NEC that pertains to one and two family dwellings is what the 2006 IRC electrical section is comprised of.
Staff had brought along a 2006 IRC for viewing. He expressed that it is the exact thing we have amended in creating the City of Lawrence Electrical Code and would be very easy to modify in the 2006 IRC, since the Board’s review was very recent.
Hardie asked how difficult would it be to obtain a copy of the 2006 IRC?
Brickell responded that during the all trade board meetings Neighborhood Resources Director, Victor Torres stated that if the books were needed by the Boards they would be provided. He said all we would need to do is have Staff request them.
All members echoed Hardies’ desire to have a copy of the 2006 IRC to gain familiarity with the Code. Staff was directed to request copies of the 2006 IRC for all current Board members.
Hardie asked if all the drilling, notching and boring requirements were in the IRC.
Staff responded that they were. He further commented that someone with a 2006 IRC and amendments would be able to perform work in one and two family dwellings easily. Electricians with a 2005 NEC and amendments would be able to perform work in all areas easily.
Hardie asked if the IRC was sectionalized similar to the NEC.
Brickell stated that it was sectioned, but had a different numbering system than that of the NEC.
Staff stated that he found the 2006 IRC to be much more complete and with fewer errors than was found in the 2003 IRC. He found several instances in the 2003 where it wasn’t transcribed as written and even had language from previous editions of the NEC contained in it.
Brickell inquired about the passing of the 2005 NEC and amendments, if that had been completely passed.
Staff stated that it had been approved by the City Commission in August and had an effective date of September 1st. 2006.
Hardie asked if one had an opposition to one of the particular items in the IRC, would this be the time to bring that forward. Hardie referred to the use of service entrance cable on services that is not permitted in the City of Lawrence. He wanted to know what the history of that amendment was.
Oliver stated he would also like to discuss the same amendment.
Staff offered his knowledge of the history of the amendment, but recognized several persons in the room might be more familiar with the history given his limited time here. He had understood that this had been a preferred method used by many electricians in Lawrence and was presented as an amendment to ensure the continuance of this practice. He thought this amendment occurred sometime during the time Tim Pinnick was the Electrical Inspector.
Oliver inquired if the deletion or changing of this current amendment was within the scope of the Electrical Board.
Brickell stated that it was within the powers of the Board, but questioned whether or not we wanted to have two different standards. He commented further that it may be something the Board wants to limit to residential only, and the IRC would be the Code governing those installations. Depending on what the Board wants to accomplish may dictate how we should proceed.
Hardie stated it might be something we could leave in effect for commercial occupancies, but remove for residential.
Staff responded that he wasn’t sure that this type of wiring method could even be used in commercial occupancies. He cautioned that he would have to consult the NEC before giving a definitive answer.
Oliver stated that not amending that section in the IRC would make it allowable in one and two family dwellings. Any other occupancy would be subject to what is allowed by the NEC.
Hardie mentioned that if service cable was allowed it would result in a cost savings on service changes. He thought that the labor savings would be significant in some instances. His envisioned the use of service cable limited to inside the structure, not what is on the outside. Hardie stated that he would be in favor of changing this one item.
Oliver commented that he understood the amendment was originally aimed at apartment buildings and that allowing it on one and two family dwelling wouldn’t change that.
Staff voiced a concern that in many cases some type of protection would be necessary for service cable. The NEC requires that cables subject to physical damage require protection, but details of what is considered subject to physical damage are unclear. He foresees some type of language needed to provide for clear understanding of what locations will require the service cable to be protected by some type of raceway.
Hardie thought some of the language of the NEC would address the problem, such as where it requires protection of cables up to eight feet above grade.
Staff is under the impression that this only applies to cables emerging from below grade. He is concerned they would be coming out of the bottom of the meter-base with service cable and running down to the rim board and going through to a panel on the basement wall. Would this be considered subject to physical damage since it is below the meter-base and is accessible from ground level, the NEC isn’t clear on this point. Even if the service cable is above an accessible level, nothing would prevent someone from putting an extension ladder against the cable if it was installed on the exterior of the building and un-protected.
Hardie thought that the issue may need to be given more thought and time allowed to create and amendment that would address physical protection of these cables.
Oliver commented that Lawrence is the only jurisdiction that does not allow the use of service cables as service entrance wiring methods. He thought we were the only ones that also had a restriction on how far the service conductors could go into a structure before terminating to a panel or disconnecting means. Oliver didn’t think that the NEC addressed when the service had to be terminated in the structure.
Hardie mentioned that while working in the Wichita area years ago they were allowed to run most anywhere until a good spot was found for the panel.
Staff commented that he would not like to see those type of practices allowed in this jurisdiction. He noted that the NEC does state the service disconnecting means be either outside the structure or “inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors”. Staff thought the protection issue was key and some people may not adhere to good practices if not spelled out in the amendment.
Brickell voiced his concern regarding this type of installation in structures and thought the idea should be discussed more. He thought interpretations should be spelled out regarding protection since someone other than the current Electrical Inspector may be enforcing the Code down the road.
Oliver asked that if a disconnect was used on the outside he would still not be allowed to use SE (service entrance cable) from that point into the house?
Staff responded that from the disconnect on SE would be allowed since those conductors would be considered feeder conductors.
Oliver mentioned a job performed by his Company that had this listed as a violation.
Staff recalled the instance and no disconnects were used, therefore the SE was installed as service entrance conductors and not feeders. Staff thought the Electrician had come directly out of the back of the current transformer cabinet through the structure wall and into the top of the service panels. The Electrician was under the six foot requirement but the installation required raceway and conductors instead of SE cable.
Oliver stated that since this is a little clearer to him now, all anyone would really be gaining is six feet of SE cable and that may not justify the change.
Staff noted that in the jurisdictions where he has worked they didn’t limit the use and all that is really lost in his opinion is a degree of flexibility. In most cases this would only be a hindrance on existing homes where access is usually an issue.
Hardie commented that given all the ways that this could be abused and the amount of work it would require to make it possible he thought it would best be left as is for now.
Brickell suggested that it be looked at when the next Code adoption is under way and see where the Code stands on the issue at that time. It may be addressed more clearly by that time and allow the Board to make a better decision.
Staff has only seen difficulties with this amendment when out of town contractors don’t make an effort to find out what the local amendments are. It is usually after the fact when they come into the office to find out why they were disapproved on the inspection.
Hardie stated that finding out local amendments where ever you are is a good practice and keeps you from doing the work twice.
Oliver made a motion to amend the 2006 IRC to reflect the current City of Lawrence Electrical Code in regards to one and two family dwellings. Motion was seconded by Hardie, motion passed unanimously.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Kaufman and seconded by Oliver; motion passed unanimously and meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Phil Burke Secretary