NEC code errata
- Thread starter comfort
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: NEC code errata
No errata necessary that I know of as my 2002 NEC uses the word outlets in 210.12 not the word receptacles.
Outlets includes lights, smoke detectors etc.
No errata necessary that I know of as my 2002 NEC uses the word outlets in 210.12 not the word receptacles.
Outlets includes lights, smoke detectors etc.
Re: NEC code errata
The errata for all NFPA data is found here: http://www.nfpa.org/Codes/tias_errata.asp
Looking quickly, I did not see anything.
But, if you read the text of the code, yes, AFCI protection is now required for ALL outlets in bedrooms, not just the receptacle outlets like in the 1999 NEC. This is easily done by feeding the bedroom lights from the same branch circuit AFCI CB that feeds the receptacles, and feeding all the smokies from one of these circuits(if there is more than one). Just a little re-thinking of circuit installation, shouldn't be any real cost increase except for the AFCI CBs.
BTW, any closet lights are not in the bedrooms, and therefore don't need AFCI protection, but could be on the same circuit, nonetheless.
The errata for all NFPA data is found here: http://www.nfpa.org/Codes/tias_errata.asp
Looking quickly, I did not see anything.
But, if you read the text of the code, yes, AFCI protection is now required for ALL outlets in bedrooms, not just the receptacle outlets like in the 1999 NEC. This is easily done by feeding the bedroom lights from the same branch circuit AFCI CB that feeds the receptacles, and feeding all the smokies from one of these circuits(if there is more than one). Just a little re-thinking of circuit installation, shouldn't be any real cost increase except for the AFCI CBs.
BTW, any closet lights are not in the bedrooms, and therefore don't need AFCI protection, but could be on the same circuit, nonetheless.
russellroberts
Senior Member
- Location
- Georgia
Re: NEC code errata
I use earlydean's approach,and have had no problems with it. And it keeps things pretty simple.
Russell
I use earlydean's approach,and have had no problems with it. And it keeps things pretty simple.
Russell
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: NEC code errata
Basically nothing has changed other than multi wire circuits would not be a good idea.Other than that i wire bedrooms the same as we always have.Preferance is HR to the switch (often a 2 gang).Makes it easy to get at as switch won't be blocked by furniture.Grab smoke off the switch (usually only a few feet away).
Basically nothing has changed other than multi wire circuits would not be a good idea.Other than that i wire bedrooms the same as we always have.Preferance is HR to the switch (often a 2 gang).Makes it easy to get at as switch won't be blocked by furniture.Grab smoke off the switch (usually only a few feet away).
biggladant
Member
- Location
- Kansas
Re: NEC code errata
If an arc fualt breaker fed all smoke alarms in a house and there was a fire wouldnt the breaker trip and then only the alarms sensing smoke go off?
If an arc fualt breaker fed all smoke alarms in a house and there was a fire wouldnt the breaker trip and then only the alarms sensing smoke go off?
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: NEC code errata
Why would the breaker trip? If it was because the fire has breached the integrity of the conductors on the circuit, the alarm should have sounded long before.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: NEC code errata
Yes the smoke should work but if the circuit feeding the smoke did have a arc that burned through the interconnect wire or a short circuit happened. then only the smoke that detected the fire would sound. This would be a good reason to have them on there own circuit. as a dedicated smoke circuit would be less likely to ever be over loaded and the current draw is so low that it would be less likely to cause an arc. I think I heard that the 2005 code cycle will not allow smokes to be on the AFCI circuit. But we will have to wait and see.
Yes the smoke should work but if the circuit feeding the smoke did have a arc that burned through the interconnect wire or a short circuit happened. then only the smoke that detected the fire would sound. This would be a good reason to have them on there own circuit. as a dedicated smoke circuit would be less likely to ever be over loaded and the current draw is so low that it would be less likely to cause an arc. I think I heard that the 2005 code cycle will not allow smokes to be on the AFCI circuit. But we will have to wait and see.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: NEC code errata
Wayne, the Indiana Electrical Code, Section 12 still has the AFCI requirement for receptacle outlets only so the lighting outlets and smoke detector outlets are not required to be protected.
Wayne, the Indiana Electrical Code, Section 12 still has the AFCI requirement for receptacle outlets only so the lighting outlets and smoke detector outlets are not required to be protected.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: NEC code errata
Thanks Charlie
I have read most of the IAC 675.17 and 675.12 and allot of the Indiana codes governing the application of building laws for the state of Indiana. Also the fact that Indiana has removed the wording of 90.4 that requires all local AHJ's to get state approval of a variance in the code before it can become a local code(IC 22-13-2-3
). (which some still ignore) But there is one code that the local AHJ's can adopt into law that does not need state approval and that is smoke alarms(IC 22-13-2-5
(B)(1)(2) ). Go figure?
[ January 25, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
Thanks Charlie
I have read most of the IAC 675.17 and 675.12 and allot of the Indiana codes governing the application of building laws for the state of Indiana. Also the fact that Indiana has removed the wording of 90.4 that requires all local AHJ's to get state approval of a variance in the code before it can become a local code(IC 22-13-2-3
). (which some still ignore) But there is one code that the local AHJ's can adopt into law that does not need state approval and that is smoke alarms(IC 22-13-2-5
(B)(1)(2) ). Go figure?
[ January 25, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: NEC code errata
I should have added that I am shocked at how many local AHJ's don't know or are not aware of these laws too. At least until there confronted by a law suit.
I should have added that I am shocked at how many local AHJ's don't know or are not aware of these laws too. At least until there confronted by a law suit.
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: NEC code errata
Perhaps we need a better smoke detector.Techknowledgy is able to have them send a RF signal to each other in the event one goes off.When we get that worried that the wire might burn before the detector goes off,then we could run the smoke circuit in emt and put it on its own afci.This is more of a cost factor item.Just how much are we willing to spend to make them 100% perfect.
Back in the early 80's we started with just a battery operated smoke outside the bedrooms.Time showed us that was not enough.Now we have battery backup and linked together.Am sure in time someone will improve on this and get it required.
Perhaps we need a better smoke detector.Techknowledgy is able to have them send a RF signal to each other in the event one goes off.When we get that worried that the wire might burn before the detector goes off,then we could run the smoke circuit in emt and put it on its own afci.This is more of a cost factor item.Just how much are we willing to spend to make them 100% perfect.
Back in the early 80's we started with just a battery operated smoke outside the bedrooms.Time showed us that was not enough.Now we have battery backup and linked together.Am sure in time someone will improve on this and get it required.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: NEC code errata
I doubt we will see RF technology used for smokes anytime soon, just my opinion but to many outside influences can mess up RF signals.
Many towns use RF technology for Master boxes but these are supervised systems that will report trouble to the main console when a Master box goes out.
Wouldn't the smoke detector itself be a puddle of plastic on the floor long before the NM behind sheet rock fails?
I doubt we will see RF technology used for smokes anytime soon, just my opinion but to many outside influences can mess up RF signals.
Many towns use RF technology for Master boxes but these are supervised systems that will report trouble to the main console when a Master box goes out.
Wouldn't the smoke detector itself be a puddle of plastic on the floor long before the NM behind sheet rock fails?
jimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: NEC code errata
If they used it they would be multiple frequency like the remotes for fans.The cost factor will likely keep the idea from happening soon.
I too feel that the fire would likely be very involved before the wire burned that badly.
If they used it they would be multiple frequency like the remotes for fans.The cost factor will likely keep the idea from happening soon.
I too feel that the fire would likely be very involved before the wire burned that badly.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: NEC code errata
When I was describing the possibility of wires shorting out in the circuit feeding the smoke, I was describing when the short would occur in one of the outlet box's or switch box's or even in the attic from squirrels or mice or even rat's if you may. but this could happen way before any smoke ever detects a fire, taking out the interconnect wire. Most smokes don't just get there signal via the interconnect wire it has a return wire that also carries the return path of the signal which is the neutral. if the neutral is shorted to the hot, and voltage is shot down the neutral to the smokes the interconnect wont work anymore. I have had this happen when a over loaded connection burned a neutral apart leaving the neutral at 120 volts from the load off the hot. the interconnect was fried and had to replace all the smokes. Yes it would be very remote but still a concern. If the smokes are powered on there own circuit it would be less likely because of the current draw that a smoke presents would not likely cause this type of damage.
This was just A thought that I through out there.
I have said before that they could make smoke's more people proof by making them with a non removable rechargeable lithium ion battery with a ten year life that at the end of life the smoke would sound a warning that the unit has to be replaced. and there can be a wireless interconnect but it would take research to perfect it but it would allow easier replacement's in older structures and could even notify close neighbors (as long as the frequency was standard) to the fire or bad cooking LOL
When I was describing the possibility of wires shorting out in the circuit feeding the smoke, I was describing when the short would occur in one of the outlet box's or switch box's or even in the attic from squirrels or mice or even rat's if you may. but this could happen way before any smoke ever detects a fire, taking out the interconnect wire. Most smokes don't just get there signal via the interconnect wire it has a return wire that also carries the return path of the signal which is the neutral. if the neutral is shorted to the hot, and voltage is shot down the neutral to the smokes the interconnect wont work anymore. I have had this happen when a over loaded connection burned a neutral apart leaving the neutral at 120 volts from the load off the hot. the interconnect was fried and had to replace all the smokes. Yes it would be very remote but still a concern. If the smokes are powered on there own circuit it would be less likely because of the current draw that a smoke presents would not likely cause this type of damage.
This was just A thought that I through out there.
I have said before that they could make smoke's more people proof by making them with a non removable rechargeable lithium ion battery with a ten year life that at the end of life the smoke would sound a warning that the unit has to be replaced. and there can be a wireless interconnect but it would take research to perfect it but it would allow easier replacement's in older structures and could even notify close neighbors (as long as the frequency was standard) to the fire or bad cooking
LOLjimwalker
Senior Member
- Location
- TAMPA FLORIDA
Re: NEC code errata
Wayne, i very much see your point.And we do have the right to run a seperate afci circuit for smokes.This is one of them we can go over the nec min..Now if we all had to do this then no problem,we would all add the cost into our bid.There is no way on track homes that we could just eat this extra cost.And if you offered this to a customer they might get scared that they we are selling them a otherwise unsafe home or they think we are scamming them.On our own without NEC involved just how many customers would take afci as an option ? HOW MUCH ? forget that.They would rather spend it on fixtures they can see and enjoy.Do we as EC tell the supply house we want the best smokes they have ? YEA RIGHT.
If we see RF interlink smokes it will be because we could save time and money or NEC requires it.
Your idea of better batteries sounds far more likely to fly.Easy up grade too.
Wayne, i very much see your point.And we do have the right to run a seperate afci circuit for smokes.This is one of them we can go over the nec min..Now if we all had to do this then no problem,we would all add the cost into our bid.There is no way on track homes that we could just eat this extra cost.And if you offered this to a customer they might get scared that they we are selling them a otherwise unsafe home or they think we are scamming them.On our own without NEC involved just how many customers would take afci as an option ? HOW MUCH ? forget that.They would rather spend it on fixtures they can see and enjoy.Do we as EC tell the supply house we want the best smokes they have ? YEA RIGHT.
If we see RF interlink smokes it will be because we could save time and money or NEC requires it.
Your idea of better batteries sounds far more likely to fly.Easy up grade too.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: NEC code errata
Good point Steve, I was busy with making sure he understood outlets where not just receptacles.
Bob
Good point Steve, I was busy with making sure he understood outlets where not just receptacles.
Bob
- Status