Egress/Exit lighting branch circuit

[WCEI]

1). Does the NEC address the branch circuit that these lights must be connect to in buildings such as church fellowship halls, or office buildings?

I am assuming that this is not directly addressed by the NEC, but rather somewhere else in the IBC?

2). I did a brief search of the forums on this topic but never found a thread that directly addressed my question. If such a thread exist, would you please direct me to this?

We had an inspector in one locality require that the egress fixtures be connected to the lighting branch circuit for that area. A few weeks later, an inspector in a different locality required that the egress lighting fixtures be connected to a branch circuit other than the area lighting branch circuit. I could follow the rational of the first inspector, but I'm clueless as to what motivated the second inspector to make this requirement.

All of Virginia uses the IBC, and thus the NEC, (currently the 2014 NEC). Localities can not adopt exceptions or additions, so consequently one of these two localities/inspectors was mis-informed.

 

[roger]

The first inspector was correct, the second inspector needs some schooling. Read 700.12(F)

The branch circuit feeding
the unit equipment shall be the same branch circuit as that
serving the normal lighting in the area and connected ahead
of any local switches.

Roger

 

[WCEI]

Thank you Roger. I was desperately trying to save face by searching to see if this was a new requirement.
Nope! Just rearranged in the code a little from 2011. So then I looked back, and then back, and then back some more. I see it's in the 1984 code, and I assume it was in there before that. I've got a 1969 code and it's not in that one, unless it's elsewhere other than 700.12. The bottom line is that I don't have an excuse for not knowing this requirement.
Thank you again.

 

[roger]

You're welcome and welcome to the forums.

Roger

 

[LarryFine]

Welcome to the forum! Where in VA are you?

Yep, same circuit, and should be obvious why.

 

[WCEI]

Dinwiddie County.
Address is Church Road, but my shop is actually in an area called Poole Siding. Poole Siding was a railroad siding in a bygone era.

How about you?

And thanks to you and Roger for the welcoming words. I've been on the forum a few times over the years, but work usually pulled me away, and I fell out of the habit of visiting the forum.

 

[hillbilly1]

The first inspector was correct, the second inspector needs some schooling. Read 700.12(F)



Roger

It is where the code wording is poor, I know what the intent is, but is a poor design. Really needs to be panelboard feeding lighting or such. Using the individual circuits is impractical in large rooms, and is rarely done as such. Most engineers design it as a separate circuit out of the same panel feeding lighting, or a control circuit as such to energize emergency lighting from an alternate sourced panel.

 

[roger]

It is where the code wording is poor, I know what the intent is, but is a poor design.

Actually the wording is fine and it's good design.

Really needs to be panelboard feeding lighting or such.

So if the panelboard is still energized but the local lighting circuit trips the room is in the dark, this would be bad design.

Using the individual circuits is impractical in large rooms, and is rarely done as such.

Maybe where you are but in my experience the designers always used a local lighting circuit. As far as being a large room the designer can choose to use more than one circuit to feed the egress fixtures and in my experience this is what is done.

Most engineers design it as a separate circuit out of the same panel feeding lighting,

Once again, maybe where you are but not the case in the states I have worked. The engineers designing the way you describe are ignoring the code and with the possibility of leaving the room in the dark they are putting themselves in a bad situation concerning liability.

or a control circuit as such to energize emergency lighting from an alternate sourced panel.

You seem to be thinking about something other than Battery back up lighting.

Roger

 

[hillbilly1]

Actually the wording is fine and it's good design.

So if the panelboard is still energized but the local lighting circuit trips the room is in the dark, this would be bad design.

Maybe where you are but in my experience the designers always used a local lighting circuit. As far as being a large room the designer can choose to use more than one circuit to feed the egress fixtures and in my experience this is what is done.

Once again, maybe where you are but not the case in the states I have worked. The engineers designing the way you describe are ignoring the code and with the possibility of leaving the room in the dark they are putting themselves in a bad situation concerning liability.

You seem to be thinking about something other than Battery back up lighting.

Roger

Ever done work in a Best Buy? Toys R Us? Older Lowes stores? Sam’s Club? Walmart? Older Home Depot’s? I can go on..... They all use a separate circuit to power the battery emergency lighting.

 

[roger]

They are all in violation of 700.12(F). In your opinion does being a large chain store make them designers?
The designers of these type stores could very easily make them code compliant.

I have been involved with a Lowes and the battery backup units were in fact fed from local lighting circuits.

We didn't go after box stores normally, left them to the outfits that chased them. Most of my work was in buildings with EPS systems, hospitals, manufacturing plants, casinos, etc..... but in places where battery type lighting was used it was fed from local lighting circuits.


Roger

 

[growler]

The first inspector was correct, the second inspector needs some schooling. Read 700.12(F)
Roger

I looked as far back as the 1996 code and it has the same statements. Local area lighting circuit.

That's the way I have always hooked up the battery powered exit and emergency lights.

 

[qcroanoke]

Ever done work in a Best Buy? Toys R Us? Older Lowes stores? Sam’s Club? Walmart? Older Home Depot’s? I can go on..... They all use a separate circuit to power the battery emergency lighting.

And they can. Since there is obviously more than 3 circuits controlling the lights in an area that large.

 

[LarryFine]

Dinwiddie County.
Address is Church Road, but my shop is actually in an area called Poole Siding. Poole Siding was a railroad siding in a bygone era.

How about you?

I'm in west Henrico, in Raintree, off of Ridgefield Pkwy. between Gaskins Rd. and Pump Rd.

 

[texie]

And they can. Since there is obviously more than 3 circuits controlling the lights in an area that large.

You get the prize.

 

[tom baker]

Yes there is an exception for having the EM ckts on a separate circuit if the area has more than one branch circuit and must be equipped with a lock on feature, 700.12 (I) 2 3, revised for 2020

 

[roger]

And they can. Since there is obviously more than 3 circuits controlling the lights in an area that large.

Roger

 

[hbiss]

I had a church meeting hall one time where the exit/egress lighting circuit was taken from BEFORE the main disconnect through something (as I remember) looked like a fuseable disconnect without the disconnect, just a plug fuse. Never saw that before. Circa 1960 or so.

-Hal

 

[hillbilly1]

I had a church meeting hall one time where the exit/egress lighting circuit was taken from BEFORE the main disconnect through something (as I remember) looked like a fuseable disconnect without the disconnect, just a plug fuse. Never saw that before. Circa 1960 or so.

-Hal

K Mart did that in the old stores, the emergency lighting ran through a fusible disconnect ahead of the main.

 

[hillbilly1]

And they can. Since there is obviously more than 3 circuits controlling the lights in an area that large.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[hillbilly1]

I went behind another contractor on behest the tenant on a brand new DC, the emergency lights were coming on when the lights were shut off by EMS. The contractor wired the fixtures correctly, they pulled an extra wire to feed the inverter in the fixture, the only problem was the breakers were remote control, so there was no legal way to keep the charger circuit hot without changing to contactor control. Don’t know why the original contractor didn’t bring this up to the engineer. I redesigned it so the “smart” breaker would control each group of lights, while bypassing all other “smart” breakers in order to get the 24 hour power to the inverter.