• We will be performing upgrades on the forums and server over the weekend. The forums may be unavailable multiple times for up to an hour each. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we work to make the forums even better.

Emergency Lighting in Sleeping Unit / Dormitory

Status
Not open for further replies.

RossS

Member
Location
Research Triangle, NC USA
Occupation
Electrical engineer
Would like opinions on interpretation of 700.15.

We did a college sorority house and put a can light with emergency backup just inside the door to each sleeping unit. The can light was on a dedicated emergency lighting circuit, served both by normal switched power and power supplied by an emergency lighting inverter. The egress path shown on the Life Safety Plan extended to the farthest wall in the farthest on sleeping unit, rather than ending in the corridor outside the room. We interpreted that as meaning the dorm room door was on the Path of Emergency Egress, and that normal egress path light levels are required inside the room, and that it applied to each dorm room.

The inspector disagreed, citing 700.15, which says, "No appliances and no lamps, other than those specified as required for emergency use, shall be supplied by emergency lighting circuits."

What would you all say is the meaning of, "specified as required for emergency use?"
Specified how? Specified by whom?

Building Code states that egress paths must be illuminated at all times the area is occupied, but lists sleeping units as an exception. But that only means the sleeping unit doesn't have to be illuminated at all times the room is occupied. As to whether the path of emergency egress extends into the sleeping unit and the room requires emergency lighting, both codes are quiet or ambiguous.
 

James L

Senior Member
Location
Kansas Cty, Mo, USA
Occupation
Electrician
I think the indpector is reaching a bit. However, they aren't technically required because the area is listed as an exception.

I honestly believe it's another case where the exact language of the code doesn't quite match the intent.

But I'm curious who put together the Life Safety Plan? That Plan may make the E-light required, if it had to be approved for permitting.
 

RossS

Member
Location
Research Triangle, NC USA
Occupation
Electrical engineer
Thanks for your reply.

The Life Safety Plan was also ambiguous - to me. It showed the "Common" path of egress from the farthest point, which happened to be in a sleeping unit. I then performed an acrobatic brain fart and interpreted "common" to mean typical, which of course is wrong.

Regardless, being electrical people, we took the path of least resistance and complied with the AHJ's judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top