Fire Station & AFCI

[jxofaltrds]

IMO, we can argue this forever as there could be an argument for hostiles, homeless shelters, etc as well as firestations and other places. I really think this should be addressed somewhere as I really don't understand why a person sleeping in a motel room with no cooking should not be granted the same protection as someone renting a room with permanent cooking facilities.

You changed my mind. I'll bring it up at our next meeting in Sept.

 

[nhfire77]

This is new. Your first definition was someone was paid to be there. Now it has switched to who pays the bill. Neither matters.

You have a provisions for cooking, a bed, a bathroom; then by the NEC you have a dwelling unit. Who pays the tab and who is being paid while there matters not.

I will clarify: Its not living if you being paid to be there, so a hotel room with a person actually on the clock would not be a dwelling unit. Since its almost always occupied by folks just temporarily living there the space is classified as such. That is never the case in a fire station.

This is also a matter of perspective. There are plenty of AHJ's that do not enforce the AFCI's. Maybe the acknowledge its a dwelling unit but don't enforce it, I don't know. Its not interpreted as a dwelling unit by everyone through the eyes of the NEC by everyone and will remain a gray area based on the inconsistent interpretations

I am of the perspective of the person on the inside of the fire station, I guess my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[gadfly56]

I will clarify: Its not living if you being paid to be there, so a hotel room with a person actually on the clock would not be a dwelling unit. Since its almost always occupied by folks just temporarily living there the space is classified as such. That is never the case in a fire station.

This is also a matter of perspective. There are plenty of AHJ's that do not enforce the AFCI's. Maybe the acknowledge its a dwelling unit but don't enforce it, I don't know. Its not interpreted as a dwelling unit by everyone through the eyes of the NEC by everyone and will remain a gray area based on the inconsistent interpretations

I am of the perspective of the person on the inside of the fire station, I guess my opinion doesn't matter.

Look, the definition is "living facilities". It doesn't say "while you're living there". If no one ever set foot in the building after construction, it would still contain "living facilities". It's NOT about the activity taking place, it's about the physical elements present.

 

[resistance]

Exactly!! A house is still a house rather someone's living there or not. It?s just not a home?..

 

[ActionDave]

It's NOT about the activity taking place, it's about the physical elements present.

:thumbsup:

 

[iwire]

Look, the definition is "living facilities". It doesn't say "while you're living there". If no one ever set foot in the building after construction, it would still contain "living facilities". It's NOT about the activity taking place, it's about the physical elements present.

Thank you!

 

[kwired]

Tell people who are stationed someplace remote for weeks or months at a time that they do not live there while performing their duty, regardless of what accomodations they may have.

 

[petersonra]

The NEC does not define the word "living" and none of the dictionary.com defintions seems to apply.

I am not sure in context of the phrase "provision for living" just what it might even mean.

 

[ActionDave]

It would be hard to put into words, but you would know if you saw it, right?