Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Electrical Committee Minutes & Agendas ELECTRICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES February 9, 2011 1:30 p.m. 2nd Floor South Conference Room CALL TO ORDER: Due to lack of quorum,this meeting was cancelled. ROLL CALL: Members Present: William Lauderdale, Ronald Ruffle and Ron Sessions. Members Absent: Tom Lohbauer and Pat Hines. Staff Present: Raoul Johnson and Gary Line UNOFFICIAL DISCUSSION: Raoul Johnston handed out the new 2011 NEC books to the attending members. He also handed out a list of the code sections that he wanted the members to be made aware of, not necessarily to amend,but just to be aware of the changes. Raoul also handed out a handout regarding Cable Trays indicating that it is his suggestion that the Commission make an exception to allow use, with control, on occasion, cable trays on specific future heavy industrial projects with heavy electrical. It was clear that the city would not allow the abuse of cable trays and would take measures to protect them and label them accordingly. Cable Trays will be discussed at the next meeting but the Commission members could review Article 392 prior to that time. Ron Sessions asked what the differences were between the 2008 and the 2011 NEC. Raoul indicated that they were similar with some items that might be amended out, i.e., arc faults and tamper resistant outlets (to be put in locations like day care centers and pediatricians' offices but not required in single family homes). Raoul indicated that he would put together a packet of minutes from all meetings to be clear of discussions of the 2008 code and what to look at. Respectfully submitted, f Sandra L. Kolba Recording Secretary r Notice of Meeting Electrical Committee's Meeting February 24, 2011 2:00 P.M. The Electrical Committee's meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 24, 2011 in the 1st Floor Community Development Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin. Agenda Electrical Committee's Meeting r1st Floor Community Development Conference Room, City Hall 150 Dexter Court, Elgin 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from last meeting 3. Review/Discussion of code changes and amendments for 2011 N.E.C.. 4. New Business 5. Adjournment Notice of Meeting Electrical Committee's Meeting March 17, 2011 2:30 P.M. The Electrical Committee's meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 17, 2011 in the 1St Floor Community Development Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin. Agenda Electrical Committee's Meeting r1st Floor Community Development Conference Room, City Hall 150 Dexter Court, Elgin 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from last meeting 3. Review/Discussion of code changes and amendments for 2011 N.E.C.. 4. New Business 5. Adjournment ELECTRICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES March 17, 2011 2:30 p.m. 1st Floor South Conference Room CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Tom Lohbauer at 2:35 p.m. in the First Floor South Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Tom Lohbauer, William Lauderdale, Pat Hines and Ron Sessions. Members Absent: Ronald Ruffle Staff Present: Raoul Johnson, Steve Bone and Gary Line MINUTES: A motion was made by William (Bill) Lauderdale to approve the February 10, 2010 minutes, seconded by Pat Hines. Motion passed unanimously. Prior to start of the discussion of the code changes, Tom Lohbauer suggested that the Commission take a "field trip"to Siemens and look at the cable tray installation. Raoul Johnston indicated that he and Gary had a meeting with the contractors and told them what they wanted so that, when the city came to do its inspections, they would know what we were looking at and they will have it all laid out. Gary Line indicated that they were supposed to call when the trays went in and before installation of cable but that they did not do that. Also prior to discussion of the code, Tom suggested that if anything in any of the code is not clear, the Commission should make it clear in the code. Raoul also indicated that the amendments will need to be rewritten with articles. He said that he would be calling upon the members of the Commission for help in rewording and clarification each amendment . r REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF CODE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS FOR 2011 N.E.C.: Each item was individually discussed: 1. Section 110.24,Available Fault Current. Raoul indicated that there was one change — field marking. Available Fault Current needs to be labeled in the field and needs to be changed accordingly when modified. Gary indicated that this change cannot be in the form of using a marker to change the information. Tom suggested that adhesive labels be used as they would stay in place. Bill Lauderdale agreed with that suggestion and added that that type of label wouldn't fade. It was agreed that the labels would indicated the date and correct fault current per the review at that time. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 2. Section 210.8, GFCI Protection. Raoul indicated that the change is that there are more requirements on such as dwelling units #7 and areas other than dwelling units. He indicated that he had no issue with the changes. Gary was most concerned about GFCI protection above showers and tubs in bathrooms even though manufacturer instructions require it, people don't pay attention to the requirements. Tom was concerned about the use of GFCI in sump pumps but Bill was concerned that, if the GFCI went bad, the pump would not work. Tom also brought up floor heaters in bathrooms and wondered if the city had seen much of that. Gary indicated that he had occasionally seen it in r"" dwelling units only and indicated that he believed that a GFCI should be required. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 3. Section 210.12,AFCI Protection. Raoul suggested that Section (A) and (B) be deleted because the city requires the running of only conduit. All agreed because the city has good conduit rules. Gary disagreed and suggested it stay as it reads. Raoul suggested rewriting the section for just bedroom receptacles. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 4. Section 210.52 C4 and C5, D Outlets. This section referred to receptacles in countertops and/or islands with cook tops. Tom indicated that he had no issue with this section other than the suggestion to strike and/or prohibit 5(D) bathrooms countertop receptacles. After discussion about bathroom countertop receptacles, all agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 5. Section 210.52 I, Outlets. Raoul indicated that the code added outlets in foyers which made sense in some of the newer homes with foyers and/or large entryways. Tom said that any room over 60 square feet, which many of these foyers are, should require an outlet. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 6. Section 225.27, Raceway Seals. Raoul asked what was generally used on these type of seals and all responded that Duct Seals is their preference. Tom indicated that some use silicone seals but all agreed that this section should specifically require Duct Seals. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul rindicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 7. Section 225.3o. Number of Supplies. Raoul was confused by the second paragraph of this Section. Tom had a picture of an example and used a generator in a garage that feeds one circuit back to the house as an example of what was meant by that paragraph. A question arose whether the generator would be used as an emergency system but it was agreed that it would be used as an optional standby system. Tom thought that the Section was good and Raoul indicated that it was good as long as all electricians understood it. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 8. Section 225.52, Disconnecting Means. The discussion on this Section also included discussion of Section 225.56, Inspections and Tests. Raoul indicated that there were a lot of changes in this Section. Gary wondered whether the city would witness the test or just accept a certificate that it was tested and Raoul indicated it was okay to just accept a certificate that the test passed. Tom reminded the Commission that this Section was for over 600 volts and wondered if the city had anything like? All indicated that the answer to that is no. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 9. Section 230.40, Number of Service-Entrance Conductor Sets. Tom indicated that this was just a labeling change on switches. Raoul said that this Section contained additional wording to make the Section clearer. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 10. Section 230.44, Cable Trays. Gary indicated that there should be no unprotected conductors in cable trays. Raoul suggested that this Section be completely deleted. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. ii. Section 240.15 B 2, 3, 4, Underground Conductors. Raoul indicated that Section 4 was added and that it basically talked about DC current which is not common. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 12. Section 240.87, Noninstantaneous Trip. Gary said that he felt that this Section was okay as written. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. After discussion on this Section, Raoul suggested that the Commission take a look at Section 240.91(B) and suggested that, if calculations are made and marked, that would be good but difficult for the plan review process. He suggested that this Section should be deleted. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 13. Section 250.30, Grounding Separately Derived Alternation- Current Systems. Raoul indicated that there was a change to the first paragraph as there were a lot of revisions. He said he didn't think that there were any problems with this Section but just looking for feedback to sure that there were no issues. Tom and Gary indicated that this Section basically just defined terms and now specified names for everything. Tom felt that this was a good Section. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. A discussion was had by the Commission on the Ufer Ground. It was asked what happens if a foundation is already in and backfilled but the Ufer Ground was not installed in the rebar in the foundation. Tom said that the Ufer Ground is a good ground but that there are so many choices when it comes to good grounding methods and the important thing is that it gets grounded, not how it is grounded. Gary indicated that there are many other methods if the Ufer Ground is missed. Pat wondered whether footings were inspected before the concrete was poured and Raoul and Gary indicated that they were but many times the concrete was there to be poured without the Ufer Ground and that it would be difficult for contractors to call in an electrician when they were waiting for concrete to be poured. Tom suggested that something be put into the Code for situations such as these to include other options. 14. Section 250.52 A2, C3, Grounding Electrodes. Tom indicated that the change in this Section was just to define it more. Bill felt it should stay as is. Gary and Raoul indicated that discretion should be used before or after a pour. Tom suggested that something should be put into the Building Code. Bill suggested that some rebar should remain exposed so the electrician could put in the Ufer. Gary agreed that the location would be on the plans. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. After discussion was had regarding grounding rods, it was agreed that the city's amendment of Section 250.53, Grounding Electrode System Installation, requiring 10' x 3/4" ground rods , be taken out and that an amendment be added to allow the use of two 8' x 5/8" grounding rods. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 15. Section 250.92, Bonding Services. Tom indicated that this Section was changed to clarify things again. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 16. Section 300.4 E, Cables, Raceways, or Boxes installed in/under Roof Decking. Tom indicated that this Section was requiring that conduit be placed at 1-1/2"below the roof because, i.e., when reroofing, screws could possibly go through and damage the wiring in the conduit or, if the fire department had to cut through the roof to vent a fire, the conduit would be damaged. Gary asked what the additional cost of the labor to lower the conduit by 1-1/2"would be to the electricians and all indicated it would be very significant. Raoul suggested that this paragraph (E)be taken out. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 17. Section 300.4 H, Structural Joints. Tom indicated that this Section was fairly straightforward and suggested it remain. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. 18. Section 300.22,Wiring in Ducts. Tom indicated that the changes made to the Section were mainly for clarification purposes only. Raoul asked what about plenums? Discussion on plenums ensued and it was agreed that this section more clearly defined plenums. Gary suggested that paragraph C2 regarding cable trays in plenum ceilings be deleted. Raoul suggested that, if look at this issue, the Commission would also need to look at 1 Wiring Methods. All agreed and Raoul suggested that the Commission should put together a blanket amendment regarding conduit and wiring methods being only allowed in EMT and rigid conduit. Tom agreed that this was a good suggestion rather than going through each section and discussing wiring methods. Raoul concluded by asking if the Commission wanted to delete this Section but it was agreed by the Commission not to completely delete it but to amend plenums to only low voltage cables. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 19. Section 310.15B2,Ambient Temperature Correction Factors. It was agreed by the Commission that, due to a lack of time to discuss this Section in detail, it would be tabled until the next meeting. Raoul indicated that he and Gary would put something together regarding this Section and bring it to the next meeting for discussion. 20. Section 380.23, Insulated Conductors. It was agreed by the Commission that, due to a lack of time to discuss this Section in detail, it would be tabled until the next meeting. Raoul indicated that he and Gary would put something together regarding this Section and bring it to the next meeting for discussion. 21. Article 392, Cable Trays. It was agreed by the Commission that, due to a lack of time to discuss this Section in detail, it would be tabled until the next meeting. Raoul indicated that he and Gary would put something together regarding this Section and bring it to the next meeting for discussion. 22. Section 400.5 A,Ampacity for Flexible Cords and Cables. Tom indicated that this was a misused and misunderstood section of the Code. It referred mainly to cords hanging down from the ceiling for use in machinery. He wondered if it applied much within the city and Raoul indicated that places like Menards and Lowes wanted to use this method for its display areas but, instead, the city suggested a power pole be installed for plugging the displays into. Gary indicated that he understood the application of this Section and suggested that it remain as is. After discussion on this section, all Committee members agreed that it was a good section and should remain as is. . • . r- 23. Section 404.2 C, Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. A discussion ensued regarding whether to delete Exceptions (1) and (2) of this Section. All agreed with this suggestion and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. At this point of the meeting, it was agreed that the rest of the Sections at issue would be discussed at a later meeting. NEW BUSINESS: There was no discussion of any new business. Next meeting date was briefly discussed and will be scheduled at a later date although all Commission members suggested the next meeting should be scheduled during the second week of April. Raoul indicated that he would send out a notice of the next meeting at a future date. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Bill Lauderdale to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m., and the motion was seconded by Pat Hines. The motion passed unanimously. Re ectfully submitted, 61/1‘ dra L. Kolba Recording Secretary 5— c — f ! r r Notice of Meeting Electrical Committee's Meeting May 6, 2011 2:30 P.M. The Electrical Committee's meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 6, 2011 in the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin. Agenda Electrical Committee's Meeting 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall 150 Dexter Court, Elgin 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from last meeting 3. Review/Discussion of code changes and amendments for 2011 N.E.C.. 4. New Business 5. Adjournment • e Nl 1 ELECTRICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES May 6, 2011 2:3o p.m. 2nd Floor South Conference Room CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Tom Lohbauer at 2:35 p.m. in the First Floor South Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Tom Lohbauer,William Lauderdale, Ronald Ruffle and Ron Sessions. Members Absent: Pat Hines Staff Present: Raoul Johnston and Gary Line MINUTES: A motion was made by William (Bill) Lauderdale to approve the March 17, 2011 minutes, seconded by Ron Ruffle. Motion passed unanimously. REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF CODE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS FOR 2011 N.E.C. (Continued): Based on the items that were left open for discussion at the last meeting, Raoul handed out several sheets with the recommended changes and asked that all members of the Committee take a look at them when they go home. Raoul then asked that the members of the Committee to send him e-mails with their suggestions, changes, recommendations, additions and/or deletions. The discussion began regarding the remainder of the items on the January 17, 2011 list of items to be discussed: 23. Section 404.2 C, Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Although this Section was discussed at the last meeting,the Committee revisited this Section and came to the same conclusion to delete Exceptions (1) and (2) of this Section. All agreed l and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 24. Section 404.9, Provisions for General-Use Snap Switches. Raoul indicated that this applied to plastic boxes and Tom asked if the City allowed plastic boxes. Raoul and Gary agreed that it did not. So, by default, this Section would not affect the City's code. Gary suggested that something should be added to the affect that it would require pigtails unless there was the use of a self-grounding switch and all devices require either pigtails or self-grounding. This should also be included in the language for Section 406.10 C & D. All agreed and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 25. Section 406.4 D 4, Replacements,Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter Protection. Gary indicated that this was for replacing receptacles. He said it will allow arc-fault but that there were currently none available on the market. Raoul indicated that it should be required in a bedroom receptacle only. Gary suggested that this Section be deleted in its entirety. After discussion, it was agreed by the Committee to delete this Section and Raoul indicated that he would amend accordingly. 26. Section 406.4 D 5, Replacements, Tamper-Resistant Receptacles. Raoul suggested that this Section should be deleted out except for commercial applications such as child care, a doctor's office, and sleeping units such as a hotel. All e"''` agreed and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 27. Section 406.12, Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. After discussion on the last Section, it was agreed that this Section should be amended to include bedrooms only. All agreed and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 28. Section 406.13, Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Guest Rooms. It was also agreed that, based on the discussion of Section 406.4 D 5, this section should remain as written. 29. Section 406.14, Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Child Care Facilities. It was also agreed that, based on the discussion of Section 406.4 D 5, this section should remain as written. 30. Section 410.130 G, Disconnecting Means. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 31. Section 517.13 B, Insulated Equipment Grounding Conductor. After discussion of the Committee members, it was agreed to pull equipment grounding conductor is residential applications but that the City would have to get the word out to contractors. It was agreed to add equipment grounding connectors to all installations . . including commercial/industrial as well a residential. All agreed and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 32. Section 517.18, General Care Areas. Raoul indicated that a couple of sentences were added. Tom indicated that the sentences were added to keep continuity. After discussion, it was agreed that this section should remain as written. 33. Section 590.6, Ground-Fault Protection for Personnel.After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 34. Section 604.6 A 2, Conduits. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 35. Section 645.4, Special Requirements for ITE Room. Raoul indicated that this Section was good except that he suggested that Exception 3 be taken out. After a brief discussion, all agreed and Raoul indicated that he would create an amendment and bring it to the Committee for review. 36. Section 680.26 B 7, Fixed Metal Parts. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 37. Article 690, Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Raoul indicated that he is not familiar with this system and that, to date, the city does not allow it. Tom indicated that the Section is extensive and detailed. Gary indicated that, as long as the system is identified and listed, it should be okay. Tom suggested that, although there is no need to use this Section currently, it should be left in. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 38. Article 694, Small Wind Electric Systems. Raoul indicated that he also is not familiar with this system and that, to date, the city does not allow it. Tom again indicated that the Section is extensive and detailed. Gary indicated that, as long as the system is identified and listed, it should be okay. Tom suggested that, although there is no need to use this Section currently, it should be left in. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 39. Section 708.10 C 2, Critical Operation Power Systems, COPS Feeder Wiring Requirements, Fire Protection Feeders. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. 40. Section 708.14, COPS, Wiring of HVAC, Fire Alarm, Security, Emergency Communications, and Signaling Systems. After discussion, it was agreed that this section was good and should remain as written. Although intending to finish the list of items, due to the extensive time that would be needed to discuss the next Section and also Ron Ruffle's need to leave the meeting, it , . was agreed that the remaining four items on the list of the Sections at issue would be discussed at a later meeting. NEW BUSINESS: There was no discussion of any new business. Next meeting date was briefly discussed to be scheduled on Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. Raoul indicated that he would send out a notice of the next meeting at a future date. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Ron Sessions to adjourn the meeting at 3:45 p.m., and the motion was seconded by Ron Ruffle. The motion passed unanimously. Re- ectfully submitted, p 1 /r • dra L. Ko .a Recording Secretary Date: /7"--// r t Notice of Meeting Electrical Committee's Meeting May 17, 2011 2:00 P.M. The Electrical Committee's meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2011 in the 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall, 150 Dexter Court, Elgin. Agenda Electrical Committee's Meeting 2nd Floor South Conference Room, City Hall 150 Dexter Court, Elgin 1.Call to Order 2.Approval of minutes from last meeting 3. Review/Discussion of code changes and amendments for 2011 N.E.C.. 4. New Business 5. Adjournment rk ELECTRICAL COMMITTEE MINUTES May 17, 2011 2:00 p.m. 2nd Floor South Conference Room CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Tom Lohbauer at 2:08 p.m. in the First Floor South Conference Room. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Tom Lohbauer, Pat Hines, William Lauderdale, and Ron Sessions. Members Absent: Ronald Ruffle Staff Present: Raoul Johnston, Steve Bone, Gary Line and Sandy Kolba MINUTES: A motion was made by William (Bill) Lauderdale to approve the May 6, 2011 minutes, seconded by Tom Lohbauer. Motion passed unanimously. REVIEW/DISCUSSION OF CODE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS FOR 2011 N.E.C. (Continued): 41. Section 77o.11o, Raceways for Optical Fiber Cables: Raoul indicated that there were a lot of changes, although nothing bad. Tom said that they are starting to use Optical Fiber Cables more. Raoul wondered if there would be any affect in ducts or plenums and Tom indicated that as long as they are listed and the raceways were grounded. Tom wondered if low voltage was permitted and Raoul indicated it wasn't unless it was for a fire alarm. Gary said we need to look at support,bends and raceways in new buildings. Raoul said that he would explore implications of the requirement of permits and whether it would be more beneficial than counterproductive. The consensus of the Commission was that this was good and should remain as written. 42. Section 800.110, Raceways for Communication Wires and Cables: Raoul said that there were a lot of changes as well on this code. Tom asked Gary if there have been problems in the field with data cables and Gary answered that, if any, it was mostly in sealing penetrations. Raoul said that, during other inspections, they see other stuff penetrating other assemblies. Tom said that cables are more sophisticated so should look if safe, for example in fire rated walls. He said that the NEC does a better job than the Commission could do. Tom asked Gary if he can tell when walking through and Gary responded that they were too high unless they were at desk level and still they are hard to see. The consensus of the Commission was that this was good and should rik remain as written. 43. Section 820.110, Raceways for Coaxial Cables: Similar discussion was had on this section as the previous section. The consensus of the Commission was that this was good and should remain as written. 44 • Section 840, Premises-Powered Broadband Communication: Similar discussion was had on this section as the previous section. The consensus of the Commission was that this was good and should remain as written. Raoul asked if there was any further feedback from anybody regarding these last Sections. Tom said that these were pretty exotic systems and you have to know what you are doing and it must be done by specialized sub-contractors. Raoul said that no permits are required but will look at staff as to how to proceed in the future. These go in after the building is up so it may be difficult to monitor at the time of issuance of the original permit. A thought was made that the city can indicate at the time of issuance of the permit that low voltage needs to be permitted when ready to install. Tom asked if that would be before final occupancy? Raoul indicated that he will discuss this matter with staff and come back with some feedback. The Commission revisited a few of the Sections that it had addressed at prior meetings: 24. Section 404.9, Provisions for General-Use Snap Switches: Pat asked what about these being used in car washes. Gary said that there are times to allow steel or plastic. Raoul said that he would allow that on a case-by-case basis. He indicated that McGrath carwash used PVC. Tom indicated that plastic has a problem with breakage. Raoul indicated that this section should not be amended out in case it might need to be used under certain circumstances. The consensus of the Commission was that it was good and should remain as written. The first handout was a compilation of the Articles previously discussed requiring changes and Raoul reiterated those changes in draft amendments. Further discussion as follows was had on each Article: Article 110.24(a) Field Marking: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 210.12(A) Dwelling Units: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 210.52(D) Bathrooms: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 225.27, Raceway Seal: Gary suggested that the "D" in Duct and the "S" in Seals be changed to "duct seals" as Duct Seals is a brand and didn't want it to look like a specific brand should be used. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written except for that minor change. Article 240.91(B) Devices Rated Over 800 Amperes: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 300.4(e) Cables, Raceways, or Boxes Installed in or Under Roof Decking: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 300.22(B) Ducts Specifically Fabricated for Enviornmental Air: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 300.22(C)(1),Wiring Methods: Gary wanted to be sure that everyone understood it. All read it and felt that they understood it. Article 300.22(C)(2) Cable Tray Systems: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Article 404.2(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads: was a compilation of the Sections previously discussed requiring changes and Gary reiterated those changes in draft amendments. Further discussion as follows was had on each Section: Tom asked if there were any other issues to be discussed on this handout and everyone seemed fine with the suggested changes. The second handout was a compilation of the Sections previously discussed requiring changes and Gary reiterated those changes in draft amendments. Further discussion as follows was had on each Section: Section 230.25, Service Masts: Gary indicated that he wanted to make this Section consistent with ComEd requirements — anything 100 amps or smaller, use 2-1/2", and anything over 100 amps, use 3", rigid only in both cases. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written with those minor changes. Section 230.27 Means of Attachment: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 230.31(B) Minimum Size: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 230.43: Gary suggested that the following changes be made: 15 — okay to stay; 17 — add"allowed for directional boring only"; 18 and 19 — okay to delete. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 230.45 Overhead Conductors: Gary suggested that service will be continuous with no junction boxes in a service room and only allowed when approved by the building official. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 230.46, Spliced Conductors: Gary felt that this Section should be reworded to add"No joints in service entrance conductors. Bill felt that the Section was clear enough as written. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 23o.70(A)(1) Readily Accessible Location: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 230.72(C), Access to Occupants: Tom thought that this exception was in the Building Code and should stay in; Raoul indicated that he would add that exception in. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written other than the exception. Section 230.79(C) : Pat had a question about changing to 100 amp panel and the need for load calculations. He asked if it could be clarified since he wasn't here at the last meeting. Gary said that the intent was on new construction, not rewires. Pat wondered if it was already in the amendments and the answer was that it has been there since 2005. Gary indicated that Naperville requires a spreadsheet of load, one with the permit and one on final inspection. Raoul said that, on service upgrades,the city should be provided with load calculations and, if not available at the time of permit, it would be r" required at the time of the final inspection. Tom asked if this amendment should or should not be taken out and Raoul indicated that adding a sentence regarding service upgrades needing a load calculation at the time of final inspection should be added. Section 550.10(I)(1): Tom said that this is regarding the mast and asked if ComEd had anything. All agreed it was okay as written. Section 550.10(I)(2): Gary wondered if the Commission should leave in rigid non- metalic? Raoul indicated that the city had no jurisdiction inside a mobile home. The biggest issue was whether underground PVC was buried sufficiently so as not to be hit. Bill agreed that it should be left in. Raoul indicated that he had met with the Willow Lake Estates representatives and installers. Since they couldn't indicate which meter went with which trailer, Raoul told them that he wanted a disconnect on the outside of each trailer which they will do. Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 550.15(H) Under-Chassis Wiring (Exposed to Weather): Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 55o.16(C)(1) Exposed Non-current Carrying Metal Parts: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 550.25(B) Mobile Home Service Equipment: Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. Section 550.32(A): Pat said that four spaces, rather than two spaces, should be left unused. After discussion, it was agreed to delete the underlined section and leave as is. Section 550.32(B)(8): Consensus of the Commission members was that this Amendment was good as written. The third handout was a list of the Articles that had changed but not yet discussed that Gary had compiled that he felt needed to be looked at by the Commission: Article 338: After brief discussion, it was agreed to delete. Article 352: It was agreed to take this on a case-by-case basis and should say it should "be underground or with the building official's approval." Article 353: It was agreed to leave in "directional boring only." Article 355: After a brief discussion, it was agreed to delete. Article 360: NEC already limited it to 6'; it was agreed to keep this in. Article 362: Gary said it was already allowed for low voltage; it was agreed to keep this in for now. Article 366: Bill suggested that this be taken up on a case-by-case basis. Tom said we should keep this Article but say"delete non-metallic or use by express permission only by a building official." Tom thought that the request should be in writing and Raoul agreed and the request should also include a reason why it should be approved for PVC instead of rigid conduit. Pat asked about chrome plating places such as a big commercial freezer or wash down locations. Raoul agreed that in corrosive environments in commercial only, not residential. Article 368: Tom wondered why this should be amended. He felt that it should be kept as is. Raoul indicated that the Commission may want to go through the list under Article 368.56(A). Tom thought that it should say, "refer to Elgin Amendments, Sec. ..." Raoul will amend that section. Article 370: It was agreed to keep as is. Article 372: It was agreed to keep as is. Article 374: It was agreed to keep as is. • Article 376: It was agreed to keep as is except by specific permission. Article 378: It was agreed to keep with use of low voltage only. Article 380: It was agreed to keep as is. Article 382: It was agreed to delete. Article 384: It was agreed to keep as is for those rare instances when asked to use. Article 386: It was agreed to keep as is. Article 388. It was agreed to delete. Article 390: Tom believed that we need this Article; all agreed to keep as is. Article 392: Tom felt that it should be kept for low voltage such as data phones, cables,but not for power. He said that Europe uses cable trays. Gary said that, based on his inspections at Siemens, it was a neat job but hard to check the bonding connections. He said it was a nightmare from an inspector's view. Raoul said the city will not allow to be used on a regular basis. All agreed to keep as is. Article 394: This Article was deleted long ago. Article 396: Tom asked if festooning systems came under this Article. Pat said that it was for the wire between the house and garage; no overhead wire allowed, all underground except for ComEd service entry. All agreed to delete. Article 398: It was agreed to delete. Article 400: It was agreed to keep as is. Tom brought up Article 700. The Building Code indicates that any place there are two or more exits it requires emergency lighting with two head remote outside. Tom felt that this should be added to the Electric Code. Raoul felt that a good place to add it in would be under Article 700.16 and should be phrased similar to IBC and should be required at all required exits. NEW BUSINESS: There was no discussion of any new business. Next meeting date was briefly discussed to be scheduled on Thursday, May 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. Raoul indicated that he would send out a notice of the next meeting at a future date. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Pat Hines to adjourn the meeting at 4:10 p.m., and the motion was seconded by Ron Sessions. The motion passed unanimously. r Respec lly submitted, $ i • .� �,� S ndra . of•a Recording`ecretary ,417 Date: . -, I .. f r