# Smoke Detector poll



## rktect 1 (Sep 16, 2010)

Looking to see how people who work for cities/villages/municipalities are handling section 313 if I post an anonymous manner in which to poll them.

So how does your village/city enforce section 313, smoke detectors, with anything other than a BRAND NEW single family residence?  Talking additions or addition of one outlet to a wall or new plumbing fixture.  Anything that triggers section 313.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 16, 2010)

I replied 100%, but I did want to comment we will flex a bit if it would involve removing building finish to hardwire/inter-connect.


----------



## Mule (Sep 16, 2010)

Question on the poll though. What is there other than a single family residence thay is not in the IRC? Duplex but still SFR....


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 16, 2010)

This is where I firmly believe, if they ain't touching anything in the existing, then leave it alone. We would however require battery operated smoke detectors for coverage..... I believe that meets or exceeds the intent of the code especially looking at exisitng structures......Any alterations (to the point of sheetrock removal) and additions would have to be hardwaired w/ battery backup --- but would not neccessarily be required to connect to the smokes in the existing (unless they were already interconnected)


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 16, 2010)

What is not brand new SFR?

Add one outlet to a wall in the existing homes kitchen.  Triggers a permit.  Permit requires section 313 to be enforced.

Or do some plumbing work to your existing powder room where you change faucets and sink.  Triggers permit.  Permit requires section 313 to be enforced.


----------



## Frank (Sep 16, 2010)

We also have a retrofit ordinance requiring smoke detectors in all R sleeping units and common area fire alarms in certain multifamily and transient sleeping facilities.  Multifamly and transient was required to be installed by October 1, 1985.

Single family retrofit deadline is triggered when sold or rented to another person.

Retrofit units can be battery operated and require at a minimum outside of bedrooms and one on each level for dwelling units and in hotel/motel sleeping rooms.


----------



## FM William Burns (Sep 16, 2010)

All codes have finally met to require inside and out as previously mentioned.  The electrical bible and all formal interps also require them on AFCI with secondary backup


----------



## Min&Max (Sep 16, 2010)

Common sense goes a long way in determining to what extent the remodel requires installation of smoke detectors. The exceptions in R313.2.1 of the 2006 IRC gives a reasonable means to exclude minor projects from full blown compliance for detectors. To require detectors in the examples given by rktect 1 is crazy talk.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 16, 2010)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> Common sense goes a long way in determining to what extent the remodel requires installation of smoke detectors. The exceptions in R313.2.1 of the 2006 IRC gives a reasonable means to exclude minor projects from full blown compliance for detectors. To require detectors in the examples given by rktect 1 is crazy talk.


It's pretty clear.  Common sense dictates the two scenarios I described require upgrading the house.  If you are actually aplying this code section.

Exception #1  Inter connection and hard-wiring of smoke alarms in existing areas shall not be required where the alterations or repairs do not result in the removal of interior wall or ceiling finishes exposing the structure UNLESS there is an attic, crawl space or basement available which could provide access for hard wiring and inter connection without the removal of interior finishes.

It's very straight foreward.

Got an attic?  yes Got a basement?  yes  Got a Crawl space? yes

Want one outlet in the powder room?

Require one permit and don't forget the smokes while you are at it?

Which is exactly why I started this poll so I do appreciate you posting your thoughts.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 16, 2010)

I apply it 100% as written in 2009 IRC (I think it has changed to section 314, and some exceptions added)


----------



## High Desert (Sep 16, 2010)

I don't know why anyone would not require the 100% provisions on a life/safety system.


----------



## incognito (Sep 17, 2010)

With a all or nothing attitude/policy you are seeing only a fraction of what you could/should be seeing. Homeowners/contractors will not get permits if you turn a simple $100.00 project into a $500.00+ ***-kicking. Believe what you want, but your citizens are less safe because of draconian all or nothing attitude/policy.


----------



## Inspector Gift (Sep 17, 2010)

I agree with High Desert!


----------



## Yankee (Sep 17, 2010)

incognito said:
			
		

> With a all or nothing attitude/policy you are seeing only a fraction of what you could/should be seeing. Homeowners/contractors will not get permits if you turn a simple $100.00 project into a $500.00+ ***-kicking. Believe what you want, but your citizens are less safe because of draconian all or nothing attitude/policy.


right, but your example (in my experience) is the 1 in 500 situation. Wonder when the last time I saw a $100 job (permit or not!). Clearly we all use a bit of judgement, however 99% of jobs that kick in this requirement are several thousand dollar+ WANT jobs, not NEED jobs.

Your point is well taken and in a global way I agree and keep that in mind.


----------



## docgj (Sep 17, 2010)

I answered 100%, but need to question...What code addition are you using 2006 IRC section 313 is smokes 2009 IRC section 313 is sprinklers? I assumed 2006? Just a note... PA exempted interior work from the permit process unless it involves structural. So we don't have the chance to enforce on many remodels.

docgj


----------



## Mac (Sep 17, 2010)

I believe provision AJ604.1 for existing buildings was added to get older homes retrofitted with modern smoke alarm systems. Theoretically there are way more existing homes than newly built, thus we can provide increased life safety where it is sorely needed.

So I answered 100%, and battery operated smokes are acceptable as noted below:

AJ604.1 Smoke alarms. When interior alterations occur, or when one or more sleeping rooms are added or created in existing dwellings, the individual dwelling unit shall be provided with smoke alarms located as required for new dwellings; the smoke alarms shall be interconnected and hard wired.

Exception: In other than bed and breakfast dwellings, smoke alarms in existing areas shall not be required to be interconnected and hard wired where interior wall or ceiling finishes are not removed to expose the structure.


----------



## Min&Max (Sep 17, 2010)

At one time the attitude in this community was to have a very narrow interpretation of the building code. The building safety department was universally despised and hated---and no one took out permits unless it was a front yard project or new structure. Even had electrical panals replaced "hot" to avoid having the inspections done. By re-evaluating our interpretation of the building code and replacing personal, we have increased the number of permits we issue across the board and had access to many more homes. Do not make the mistake of believing your community is "safer" because you have narrow interpretations of the code.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Sep 17, 2010)

I voted for 100% enforcement of course.  I checked; and my opinion and/or personal druthers are not an amendment to the codes.

There were some backlashs to the requirements of this section of the 2006 IRC, R313; and the 2009 IRC, R314 exempted all plumbing and mechanical systems;

"Exemptions:

2.  Installation, alteration or repairs of plumbing or mechanical systems are exempt from the requirements of this section. "

Keep in mind that States can amend this out; and in some States the local AHJ can amend this out.

Get the special interests and manufacturers out the code writing process.

Uncle Bob


----------



## packsaddle (Sep 17, 2010)

Despite the surface bravado of some inspectors, no inspector enforces the codes (in totality) to 100 percent.

I would love to debate any inspector who thinks he/she enforces the codes to 100 percent.

It would be a short debate.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 17, 2010)

High Desert said:
			
		

> I don't know why anyone would not require the 100% provisions on a life/safety system.


From what I just read, it appears that ICC just reduced a life/safety system per the exception shown in the 2009 IRC compared to 2006.

I didn't know this and may ask the building commissioner to amend our adopted code to read the same.


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 17, 2010)

packsaddle said:
			
		

> Despite the surface bravado of some inspectors, no inspector enforces the codes (in totality) to 100 percent.I would love to debate any inspector who thinks he/she enforces the codes to 100 percent.
> 
> It would be a short debate.


Let's assume that I meant as close to 100% as absolutly possible within reason and having a margin or error of +/-5%


----------



## rktect 1 (Sep 17, 2010)

Right now the poll indicates that 67% of us are enforcing section 313 of the 2006 IRC to it's fullest.  Maybe some of you are doing 2009 IRC to it's fullest.

The reason I really started this was to see if what inspectors and AHJ's tell me they are doing versus what contractors tell me they are being required to do.  Since this village went to the 100% enforcment policy on this issue, pretty much a day does not go by where someone calls me and states the standard "other villages don't require this" or "is this something new?, I haven't heard of it" or "other villages only make us put in battery powered smokes" or similar.

So it really got me thinking about it.  It took me in the direction of following the money.  Who stands to benefit from this?  Outside of the manufacturers, I would say either the contractor or the electricians, right?  So if this requirement is supposed to be enforced 100%, why didn't I get more calls from electricians demanding I enforce this section so that they could easily make more money?  I never got that call, not once.  If anybody had a stake in this it was them and they don't seem to think it's worth mentioning when a village does not enforce it.  And lets face it, in this economy, when you have an adopted code that says "do it" the electricians only stand to gain, yet no calls from them.  The general contractors on the other hand keep calling me to complain.  When they get done they then have the homeowner complain.

It has led me to believe that more villages do not enforce this section to 100%.  So like I said I wanted to see what was what.  So far 67% say yes, 28% say compromise.  And nobody has chosen that battery operated work just fine even though contractors seem to be under the impression more villages allow this.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 17, 2010)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> Let's assume that I meant as close to 100% as absolutly possible within reason and having a margin or error of +/-5%


I would assume the above when answering the question. There isn't anything in life that is truely 100%, that is a "reach for" number.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 17, 2010)

"Despite the surface bravado of some inspectors, no inspector enforces the codes (in totality) to 100 percent."

I agree.......we all have some wiggle room, sometimes. Pick your battles.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Sep 17, 2010)

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 (Sep 17, 2010)

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 (Sep 17, 2010)

So you voted that you are willing to compromise?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 17, 2010)

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 (Sep 17, 2010)

"....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 (Sep 17, 2010)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 17, 2010)

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 (Sep 17, 2010)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 17, 2010)

rktect 1 said:
			
		

> So you voted that you are willing to compromise?


No, Choice #1.


----------



## TimNY (Sep 18, 2010)

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 (Sep 18, 2010)

If you add the numbers you get More than 100%

65.52%

27.59%

0%

6.90%


----------



## Yankee (Sep 18, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If you add the numbers you get More than 100%65.52%
> 
> 27.59%
> 
> ...


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

we are the 100%+ 'ers


----------



## RJJ (Sep 18, 2010)

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 (Sep 20, 2010)

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 (Sep 20, 2010)

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 (Sep 20, 2010)

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 (Sep 20, 2010)

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".


----------

