Smoke detector circuits

[wireguy8169]

Did not see this in the archives and the code does not that I found say anything against it. If I put smoke detectros on the same cirucit as the refrigerator would that be against the NEC, is it just not advisable (if so why), or doesnt really matter. The local I am working it does not say anything about where to pull the power from just that it can not be on its own circuit.

Thanks

 

[iwire]

Yeah, that would be a violation.

You could put it on with the kitchen lights.

 

[wireguy8169]

iwire, even if they have rec. on the circuit its an old building and nearly every circuit I have tried has rec, but they do also have lighting would that cut it.

Thanks

 

[raider1]

iwire, even if they have rec. on the circuit its an old building and nearly every circuit I have tried has rec, but they do also have lighting would that cut it.

Thanks

The kitchen refrigerator must be installed either on one of the required small appliance branch circuits or on an individual branch circuit that only supplies the refrigerator.

Check out 210.52(B)(1) and Exception #2 and also 210.11(C)(1).

Chris

 

[Dennis Alwon]

You can wire the smoke to most standard circuits. The kitchen recep. is a taboo, as mentioned, as well as central heating system, bath room recep. Take it off a lighting circuit that has bedroom recep. or something other then the kitchen recep. on it.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Yeah, that would be a violation.

You could put it on with the kitchen lights.

Only if the kitchen lights are AFCI protected.

 

[jxofaltrds]

The kitchen refrigerator must be installed either on one of the required small appliance branch circuits or on an individual branch circuit that only supplies the refrigerator.

Check out 210.52(B)(1) and Exception #2 and also 210.11(C)(1).

Chris

I agree. If this was the ONLY way to add smokes I would approve it if the circuit was AFCI protected.

Reason 1. Common sense says that having smokes is better than no smokes. And I would use 90.4 as an EXCEPTION and not as common practice.

Reason 2. For Ohio only.
"101.4 Reasonable application.

The rules of the board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose. When the residential building official finds that the proposed design is a reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code, it shall be approved"

Reason 3. For Ohio only.
"1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:
1.1. The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the health, safety and welfare of the public;
1.2. The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;
1.3. The technical feasibility of the residential building code; and
1.4. The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the public?s ability to purchase affordable housing."

Remember that the NEC is a 'sub code' of the building code.

 

[iwire]

Reason 1. Common sense says that having smokes is better than no smokes. And I would use 90.4 as an EXCEPTION and not as common practice.

First I bet you are an inspector not the AHJ.

Second you would have to provide that special permission in writing which I doubt you have the authority or the desire to do.

 

[jxofaltrds]

First I bet you are an inspector not the AHJ.

Second you would have to provide that special permission in writing which I doubt you have the authority or the desire to do.

You are correct. Not an AHJ. But I hold that certification.

Yes I would put it in writing and would not blink an eye at doing so. Why?
Let anyone here tell me how that installation would NOT be safe. Or why it would be unsafe.

If anything having the smokes on the frig circuit would probably be the best circuit to have it on. No smokes ---- no cold food.

 

[jetlag]

You are correct. Not an AHJ. But I hold that certification.

Yes I would put it in writing and would not blink an eye at doing so. Why?
Let anyone here tell me how that installation would NOT be safe. Or why it would be unsafe.

If anything having the smokes on the frig circuit would probably be the best circuit to have it on. No smokes ---- no cold food.

The code says lighting circuit , couldnt one argue the frig has a light ? just because it is always blown is not the NEC fault :grin::grin:

 

[electricmanscott]

You are correct. Not an AHJ. But I hold that certification.

Yes I would put it in writing and would not blink an eye at doing so. Why?
Let anyone here tell me how that installation would NOT be safe. Or why it would be unsafe.

If anything having the smokes on the frig circuit would probably be the best circuit to have it on. No smokes ---- no cold food.

This from the guy that will argue code technicalities unrelentingly.

 

[wireguy8169]

Thanks great input as usual, I will just go with one of the living area circuits, doubt the customer wants to add AFCI's. The reason I asked is, I know if the fridge goes out the resident will know and it will get reset, I will just make sure that know matter what living area circuit I put it on it has at least some lighting so it will not go unnoticed for long should the breaker trip.

 

[jxofaltrds]

The code says lighting circuit , couldnt one argue the frig has a light ? just because it is always blown is not the NEC fault :grin::grin:

Where does it say lighting circuit. I can not find that.

 

[kbsparky]

There are some areas -- like Delaware -- where the smokes HAVE to be on their own circuit. You can't use AFCI protection on that circuit, either.

And, the breaker has to be locked in the on position.

IMO, this is taking things too far: If the breaker trips, one cannot tell from simply looking at it (unless it is a QO type) that it's tripped out. By being on a dedicated circuit, there would be no other indication that the circuit has tripped, unless one were to check the indicator lights on the smokes themselves.

Something that is unlikely to occur, as many units (like BRK) are not readily visible unless you are looking directly in line of sight at the pilot light.

 

[Hendrix]

There are some areas -- like Delaware -- where the smokes HAVE to be on their own circuit. You can't use AFCI protection on that circuit, either.

And, the breaker has to be locked in the on position.

IMO, this is taking things too far: If the breaker trips, one cannot tell from simply looking at it (unless it is a QO type) that it's tripped out. By being on a dedicated circuit, there would be no other indication that the circuit has tripped, unless one were to check the indicator lights on the smokes themselves.

Something that is unlikely to occur, as many units (like BRK) are not readily visible unless you are looking directly in line of sight at the pilot light.

That's BS. Who came up with that ??????????

 

[One-eyed Jack]

You are correct. Not an AHJ. But I hold that certification.

Yes I would put it in writing and would not blink an eye at doing so. Why?
Let anyone here tell me how that installation would NOT be safe. Or why it would be unsafe.

If anything having the smokes on the frig circuit would probably be the best circuit to have it on. No smokes ---- no cold food.

90.4 in part states that the authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibilty for making interpretations of the rules.
I would say that makes you the AHJ.

 

[jxofaltrds]

This from the guy that will argue code technicalities unrelentingly.

Yes. And I believe that my above comments still meet the code.

90.4 "***** or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety."

Unless the reference to the smokes being required to be on a lighting circuit is correct.

I have looked for this and can not find it. If someone has a link to this information I would like to read it.

 

[jxofaltrds]

90.4 in part states that the authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibilty for making interpretations of the rules.
I would say that makes you the AHJ.

As far as enforcement I agree. The BO has the responsiblity for the final interpretations.

 

[iwire]

90.4 in part states that the authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibilty for making interpretations of the rules.
I would say that makes you the AHJ.

No not every inspector is an AHJ, that is why the NEC makes a distinction between them.

Of course most of them feel like they are the King. :grin:

 

[raider1]

No not every inspector is an AHJ, that is why the NEC makes a distinction between them.

Of course most of them feel like they are the King. :grin:

Its good to be King.

Chris