Smoke Detector poll

[Uncle Bob]

Pack,

Nitpicking doesn't help with the poll. No one; including you and me; know all the code requirements 100%; and you know that. We have four choices and pick the one that best describes us.

I beleive that the addition of "the fullest extent we can" ; helps us understand the limitations of code enforcement (without losing our job).

Min&Max's example of; " By re-evaluating our interpretation of the building code and replacing personnel" and, Fatboy's statement " Pick your battles" depict the difficulty we must deal with while attempting to insure code compliance as best we can "without losing our job".

How did you vote?

Did you vote in favor of enforcing the codes?

Did you vote in favor of compromising the codes?

I don't think you would have trouble finding and reading the code section; so I believe you know what the requirement are.

As a Master Code Professional (MCP); your comments on the subject would; I'm sure; be welcome.

Uncle Bob

 

[TJacobs]

I find 2006 IRC 313.2.1 clear, no interpretation needed. I found the 1998 IOTFDC 316.1.1 clear also...must be a fault of mine.

I have no problem accepting battery detectors when no electrical work is being conducted. I have no problem accepting battery detectors when the room being altered has no electrical work being conducted. I have no problem accepting battery detectors when the room being altered has no electrical work being conducted even if there is an attic or basement.

If the anti-sprinkler crowd wants to hang their hat on smoke detection, then smoke detection we shall require, as close to 100% as possible.

 

[rktect 1]

So you voted that you are willing to compromise?

 

[SCBO1]

It seemed so much easier with the older code, when using the 1997UBC, if repair was over $1,000.00 and a permit is required, the smokes kicked in, but now

a water heater install turns a permit into a trip to the banker for a loan.

But that's the code!

 

[Min&Max]

"....which could provide access...". I would interpret that just because an attic, basement or crawlspace is present doesn't necessarily mean that an electrician "could" perform the task of interconnecting all required smoke detectors. Many older attics are sealed, many old crawlspaces barely have room for the snakes that inhabit them let alone an electrician and not all basements allow access necessary to complete the task. In my jurisdiction the code says what I interpret it to say---and thats the code!!

 

[TJacobs]

It seemed so much easier with the older code, when using the 1997UBC, if repair was over $1,000.00 and a permit is required, the smokes kicked in, but now a water heater install turns a permit into a trip to the banker for a loan.

But that's the code!

What would you need a loan for, a Kidde $10 smoke alarm? Come on...if I tell you the value of the permit is $999 I don't need the $10 smoke alarm?

 

[Min&Max]

TJacobs,

Do you actually believe you can have a $10.00 smoke detector installed for $10.00?! Do you really think the electrician is going to work for free?! Try a minimum of $50.00 an hour plus material.

 

[TJacobs]

TJacobs,Do you actually believe you can have a $10.00 smoke detector installed for $10.00?! Do you really think the electrician is going to work for free?! Try a minimum of $50.00 an hour plus material.

Previous post: I have no problem accepting battery detectors when no electrical work is being conducted. I have no problem accepting battery detectors when the room being altered has no electrical work being conducted. I have no problem accepting battery detectors when the room being altered has no electrical work being conducted even if there is an attic or basement.

Why would I need an electrician to install a battery-powered smoke alarm? Is a Kidde 110-v smoke alarm $10?

If jurisdictions are making people install complete hardwired smoke detection on a water heater replacement, I would say God bless them, but I don't think that is the intent of the code. However, I don't feel too bad requiring the installation of complete battery detection on a water heater permit when missing...not a hardship...no sparky required.

 

[TJacobs]

So you voted that you are willing to compromise?

No, Choice #1.

 

[TimNY]

NY PMC [based on 2003] requires this anyway. Required whether you have a permit or not. The permit is how you get into the home to insure compliance. I would not go to 303 unless the appendix directed me there. I don't have to worry about thet.. because of the PMC. YMMV.

 

[mark handler]

If you add the numbers you get More than 100%

65.52%

27.59%

0%

6.90%

 

[Yankee]

If you add the numbers you get More than 100%65.52%

27.59%

0%

6.90%

That explains why we are here on the weekend posting on this forum,

we are the 100%+ 'ers

 

[RJJ]

Interesting! I didn't vote 100%, but try to get as close as possible. I agree with Pack: No one can hold the line all the time. Sometimes you need to meet in the middle. Personal opinion has no place, but some time common sense needs to be applied.

 

[JMORRISON]

If you have attic access and require hardwire detectors do you require the blown insulation be replaced/repaired after the electrician is done?

If I replace the 9v batteries every 6 months or yearly why I am I powering the detector with 120v?

 

[TimNY]

JM simple.. the code protects people from themselves. There are any number of provisions in the code that would not be necessary if everybody did what they were supposed to. My opinion is the hard-wiring is there because the majority of homeowners never change their batteries.

They also have 10-year lithium batteries.

 

[mtlogcabin]

New construction 100%

Existing is a different breed.

Section R313.2.1 Alterations, repairs and additions. When alterations, repairs or additions requiring a permit occur,

I take this to mean the building therefore a water heater or furnance change out would not trigger smoke detectors throughout the house so I voted "willing to work with"

Part of that process is to educate them about the wireless interconnected smoke detectors that are on the market.

 

[NH09]

We go by section R314 in the 09' IRC, prior to adopting the 09' we went on a case by case basis. There are some wireless devices out there that work really well, the base station is hard wired and the rest are battery operated. They satisfy section R314.4 exception 2 and are still "interconnected".