Help with article 760

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

marc deschenes

Senior Member
I have a friend who is also an electrician who believes that residential single and multiple station smoke detectors do not require arc fault protection because of art. 760.21 in the 2005 code. I have tried to tell him that non power limited circuits originate at a fire alarm panel not a load center . I even showed him an E-mail I received from Mark Ode at U.L. stating that the smokes used in residential settings of the single and multiple station type are not a fire alarm system.

Can anyone help me help this guy?
Thanks Marc
 
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Help with article 760

Well, if Mark Ode that serves on the code making panel of Article 760 can't sway your freind, I don't know who could!

I talked about this with Noel Williams, who is an author for the NFPA, specifically, limited energy systems, such as in Article 760. I have also talked with Mike Holt on this, he agrees as well. You can also look at the ROC and see Noel's comments that really helped clear this up, when he quoted the NFPA 72 (of which he is very well versed) and showed that a dingle station smoke alarm is not powered from a non-power limited fire alaram control panel and therefore doesn't meet the NFPA 72 definition of a fire alarm system.
 
physis

physis

Senior Member
Re: Help with article 760

I've never looked at this section.

I looked at the definition for "Non-Power-Limited Fire Alarm Circuit (NPLFA). Rather than a definition we're told that it is whatever complies with 760.21 and 760.23. So the wild goose chase begins at 760.21. Still trying to find out what an NPLFA is, I need to go to chapters 1 through 4. Ok, fine. I'll just read the whole book again. Maybe somehow I'll know what an NPLFA is after doing that.

I feel pretty confident that an NPLFA isn't allowed to be supplied by a GFI, but I'm not sure what I would need to do to find out what an NPLFA is.
 
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Help with article 760

This is from the ROC:

The substantiation in both the proposal and the comment appears
to be addressing concerns with AFCI protection for branch circuits supplying
single and multiple station smoke detectors. These devices are self-contained
assemblies that incorporate the detector, the control equipment, and the alarmsounding
device in one unit operated from a power supply either in the unit or
obtained at the point of installation. Article 760 does not cover either single or
multiple station detectors but rather addresses fire alarm systems employing a
fire alarm panel.
Section 760.21 applies to the branch circuit supplying a fire alarm system and
not to individual single or multiple station smoke detectors. Branch circuits
supplying single or multiple station smoke detectors in a bedroom must comply
with the requirements in 210.12.
Click to expand...
 
physis

physis

Senior Member
Re: Help with article 760

I'm still confused after reading that. Based on the ROP it appears that there is an issue of understanding this.

Section 760.21 applies to the branch circuit supplying a fire alarm system and
not to individual single or multiple station smoke detectors.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I think. The question is regarding the branch circuit, not the smoke detector. Am I reading it wrong? It seems to agree that there's a problem but goes on to say that the problem doesn't exist.

Or am I just temporarily confused by this?
icon10.gif
 
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Help with article 760

Hi Sam.
What I beleive is trying to be expessed here is that the branch circuit supplying a a single station smoke alarm is simply a branch circuit--Article 210. Now, if you have a full blown non power limited fire alarm system, the circuit supplying the fire alarm control panel is a branch circuit--Article 210. The circuits after the fire alarm control panel are fire alarm circuits--Article 760. With that being said, the rules of Article 760 can supplement or modify the rules of Article 210 (particularly Section 210.12). That is what is happening here.

The proposal was trying to make it so a single station smoke alarm, such as those found in dwellings, would not be AFCI protected. The problem is, Article 760 has nothing to do with these circuits, because they are not within the scope of the Article, which is for fire alarm systems.
Does that make any sense?
 
M

marc deschenes

Senior Member
Re: Help with article 760

I was told once that there is no such thing as a stupid question , What does R.O.C. stand for ?
Ryan thanks, I had no Idea that Mr. Ode was on the panel , I'll pass it on .
I told this guy that it would be like applying art 430 to a general lighting circuit , in other words , first a motor the 430 , first an alarm panel then 760.
This electrician is a sharp guy and good electrician , I'm not sure why he can't see this .

Thanks again , Marc
 
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Help with article 760

Marc, you're very welcome. And of course, you are right, there is no such thing as a stupid question. Lord knows I have asked my fair share of questions that some would consider stupid.

The ROC is the Report On Coments. The way the code change process works is this:

You make a proposal. It is then reviewed by the Code Making Panel (CMP) in charge of that Article. Once they vote on it, a document called the Report on Proposals (ROP) is created and distributed. The public may review the ROP and make comments to the CMP as they see fit. These comments are then reviewed by the ROC to see if there is a valid argument to change the mind of the CMP members and change their vote. Once that is done, a document called the ROC is created.

The nice thing about the ROP/ROC is that you get the true intent of what a proposed code chagne is trying to accomplish.
Ryan
 
George Stolz

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: Help with article 760

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
I was told once that there is no such thing as a stupid question , What does R.O.C. stand for ?
Click to expand...
ROP = Report on Proposals
ROC = Report on Comments

Two stages of the code-writing process. We submit proposals, the Code-making-panels review them and initially accept or decline them, and they produce a report on the proposals they received. They wait for comments from the peanut gallery (public at large, etc), and then make a final opinion on a proposal and issue a report on comments received.

Look at the "Proposals For The 2008" section of this forum for an idea of how to use the system, and look at the proposal sheets in the back of your code book.

I just found out we had a voice when I got here, and am loving it. Everything I say will be shot down, but it will feel good to be heard. :)

This electrician is a sharp guy and good electrician , I'm not sure why he can't see this .
Click to expand...
It's not an uncommon view. But it is an incorrect one. :)
 
H

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
Re: Help with article 760

We had this discussion with the inspectors in the county where I live. They approached the electric board and asked them to exempt smoke detectors from the AFCI requirement. Their reasoning is that they wanted the smoke detectors to work even if there was an Arc Fault on the circuit.
The questioning from the board went something like this:

Board: In your opinion do AFCI's work?

Inspector: Yes, there is evidence that they are effective.

Board: So what you are saying is that if the circuit supplying the smoke detectors develops an arc fault, you want the circuit to remain energized even though it may cause a fire that may have been prevented by an AFCI?

Inspector: No, we would rather that the fire be prevented.

Board: Then you would like us to require that the smoke detectors in dwelling bedrooms be AFCI protected.

Inspector: Yes.

Board: Isn't that what the NEC requires as written?

Inspector: Yes.

So the question is why would anyone NOT want the smoke detectors AFCI protected? The only possible answer is that AFCI don't work. If they don't work then they should not be required anywhere. If they do work, use them as the NEC has required them and stop looking for loopholes to get around it.
 
L

luke warmwater

Senior Member
Re: Help with article 760

Originally posted by haskindm:

So the question is why would anyone NOT want the smoke detectors AFCI protected?

One argument would be that Arc Faults are less-likely to happen on an individual smoke alarm circut than they are on an individual receptacle circut?


The only possible answer is that AFCI don't work.

I do not agree that AFCIs don't work.

If they don't work then they should not be required anywhere.

I might agree to that.

If they do work, use them as the NEC has required them and stop looking for loopholes to get around it.

My State has ammended the AFCI Code to Exclude smoke alarms, so I for one, do not have to look for loopholes. The smokes are installed on an individual, non-AFCI protected circut.
Click to expand...
 
P

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Re: Help with article 760

Personally I think smoke detectors ought to be on a seperate BC that is not on a GFCI or AFCI. That way if someone trips the BC OCPD in a bedroom, the smokes still work. IMO, GFCIs and AFCIs are not especially reliable and ought not to be on important circuits like smoke alarms.

I suppose one reason to put smoke detectors on a general use BC is so that if the BC OCPD trips it will be noticed and corrected.
 
H

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
Re: Help with article 760

IMHO any jurisdiction that allows smoke detectors in a dwelling bedroom to be installed on a non-afci protected circuit is exposing itself to a tremendous amount of liability. The first time there is a fire that can be traced to the non-afci protected circuit, a smart lawyer is going to question the wisdom of NOT using this piece of safety equipment that is generally available, and required in other jurisdictions, and required by a nationally known code that the local jurisdiction decided to ignore.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems that would be a very easy case to make.
I saw a letter that was sent to a legal group advising its members that it may be possible to sue an electrical contractor (in the event of a fire) if they did not OFFER the homeowner the option of installing AFCI on all circuits even if they are not required by the NEC. That gives you an idea of the mind set of the legal profession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top