AHJ y

[iwire]

RE: smokes being on a dedicated circuit. I'm pretty sure that is prohibited by the NFPA 72. It requires the smokes to be on a general lighting circuit.

Does NFPA 72 even apply to residential smoke alarms?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

We actually don't install AFCIs on lighting circuits, so that's where we pull off of.

I'm confused. What code cycle are you on?

2008, been on it since 2010

I don't understand

The 2008 code requires AFCI protection for branch circuits that supply outlets in most of the rooms in the house. Light fixtures are installed at outlets and the lighting branch circuits require AFCI protection under the 2008 NEC.

 

[kenman215]

I don't understand

The 2008 code requires AFCI protection for branch circuits that supply outlets in most of the rooms in the house. Light fixtures are installed at outlets and the lighting branch circuits require AFCI protection under the 2008 NEC.

You're absolutely right, the light box locations are considered outlets and the lights themselves, utilization equipment. Let's just say my company has been in the area 50+ years and the owner is personal friends with just about every inspector in the area. Benefits of those friendships I suppose. If I viewed it as substandard work, I'd probably make some noise about it, just as the inspectors would call us on it if they did as well. But after talking to a couple of them about it, they both seemed like they'd rather have smokes on a lighting circuit that wasn't AFCI protected.

 

[mjf]

I actually try not to dedicated the smokes on purpose. My thought is that if some stupid HO pulls all of the batteries and the circuit trips for some reason, they could feasibly never know if they're off, so I always put them on with something else, nonAFCI protected of course.

I am in NY also and ALL bedroom outlets are required to be AFCI protected......unless you have a local amendment.


posted before I read the part about your bosses over friendly relationship with the AHJ's. I'm not a lawyer but i believe that still leaves the company with liability for illegal installations even is signed off by AHJ.

 

[kwired]

You're absolutely right, the light box locations are considered outlets and the lights themselves, utilization equipment. Let's just say my company has been in the area 50+ years and the owner is personal friends with just about every inspector in the area. Benefits of those friendships I suppose. If I viewed it as substandard work, I'd probably make some noise about it, just as the inspectors would call us on it if they did as well. But after talking to a couple of them about it, they both seemed like they'd rather have smokes on a lighting circuit that wasn't AFCI protected.

Still has been wrong from nearly day one of AFCI requirements existing in the NEC.

Inspectors should not be allowing certain circumstances that are violations just because they are friends with a particular contractor or owner. Though it does happen sometimes it is not right.

 

[mgookin]

Still has been wrong from nearly day one of AFCI requirements existing in the NEC.

Inspectors should not be allowing certain circumstances that are violations just because they are friends with a particular contractor or owner. Though it does happen sometimes it is not right.

It sounded to me like they just enjoy very good communication and that it would be more offensive or embarrassing than anything else if either party did something wrong.

 

[kenman215]

Still has been wrong from nearly day one of AFCI requirements existing in the NEC.

Inspectors should not be allowing certain circumstances that are violations just because they are friends with a particular contractor or owner. Though it does happen sometimes it is not right.

I don't and can't dispute that it's not compliant, but clearly you didn't read my post thoroughly. The inspector didn't not call it as a favor, he preferred that the smokes be on a lighting circuit that was not AFCI protected.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

I don't and can't dispute that it's not compliant, but clearly you didn't read my post thoroughly. The inspector didn't not call it as a favor, he preferred that the smokes be on a lighting circuit that was not AFCI protected.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I can understand maybe wanting the smoke alarms on a non AFCI circuit - but the more recent the NEC edition used the more the number of lighting outlets there are that require AFCI protection as well.

Regardless this is not an inspector's individual decision to make - it needs to be agreed upon and made a rule by the AHJ he works for. Inspector's job is to enforce his AHJ's rules, not make them up as he goes.