prewire alarm question

[apostolakisl]

Lou, maybe in your area, LV is not inspected or looked at, but up here, it's definately inspected and checked over, both in the rough and in the completion stages. Firestopping is always verified no matter what, and the normal SOP is the contractor that made the holes is the one responsible for firestopping around here, which is really firecaulking more than anything else.

Some municipalities are tougher than others, but some won't even issue a C of O unless any cables/wires are terminated at a device, in other words, if you have a 4/22 sticking out of the wall, they won't issue unless it has a device attached or a blank plate covering it.

Also, most municipalities up here will issue a homeowner's permit for electrical (within reason) however whether or not the LV is covered under that permit or under a secondary permit for LV only is the AHJ's call. All the AHJ's I have dealt with will treat a HO rough the same as a pro run job.


As far as video and set top boxes and running cabling for such, Motorola and the other manufacturers came up with an agreement that the next generation of boxes will support both coax and category cabling and be able to be switched for either, as the legacy installs have coax already installed. If you're unsure at the moment, I'd honestly recommend running both, as the cabling isn't expensive and even installing a 4" box and single gang mud ring is a trivial expense to allow enough room to work with behind the wall.

Certainly any locale can write laws anyway they want. But, frankly, if they are telling you how to do your LV, they are just abusing power. What possible reason could there be? The purspose of codes is to ensure a certain level of safety for the occupants of the structure and the community that surrounds it. What could they be inspecting for in LV that has anything to do with that? A LV install could certainly cause a threat, but that threat would be the result of the LV install basterdizing one of the other installs. Like mixing HV and LV, that would be covered under the HV rules. Or drilling holes through firewalls, that would be covered by the fireblocking rules.

So, I would be very curious to hear what the LV chapter of the inspection manual has in it.

 

[Del91574]

Lou, I think you're missing the point I made and going off on a tangent and calling it abuse of power.

The ICC, IRC, BOCA and others (what is enforced in your area varies) dictate firestopping (blocking is another entity) and building details, they do not dictate electrical installations. Codes do not ensure a level of safety, nor do they ensure an adequate installation or building, they are the MINIMUM that is allowed. The NEC and NFPA do the same, dictate the minimum acceptable and prescribe such. I can't speak for your area, but here, for new construction and permit-required projects, there is usually a building official that covers each one of the trades, and LV and HV are inspected at the same time, unless the fire marshal is involved.

LV wiring is covered in detail in the NEC. It's less stringent than HV in some respects (conduit fill, box sizing, etc.) however it references a lot of the same articles for workmanship, clearances, working areas, and how the wire is to be run to be protected from physical damage.

What I've witnessed is inspectors not abusing power, but actually following what is prescribed within code. I've seen them make HO's and EC's that didn't care pull out speaker wire not listed for inwall use. I've seen them force people to remove cabling located within plenums and return air spaces. I've (thankfully) seen them tell people to remove a siren from a cold air return (think about the nice smoke that'll give off in a fire). I've also had them back us (EC's) up when a HO, architect or interior designer wants us to cram a panel or equipment in a small broom closet somewhere (working areas and clearances).

As a FYI, LV is covered specifically in all of these articles in the NEC I am listing, and any code official and municipality worth their salt would know and enforce such. Not an abuse of power, just how FEDERALLY, it is prescribed, and whether or not your particular municipality chooses to turn a blind eye. You have to remember code is the minimum that is allowed, and the local AHJ can't dictate anyone to install less than is listed in it, actually the opposite is true. NFPA 72 dictates fire alarm and life safety aspects which narrow the focus down specifically on those specific systems.

The bastardization statement is entirely wrong, and I would tell anyone to go to their local gas station that has a canopy over the pumps and see if there's a camera installed on it, or an intercom installed as a separate system out to the island, then tell me if it's installed using explosionproof/intrinsically safe methods or devices. All major violations that a good enforcement official would catch, and honestly, very dangerous in nature, and only affects the LV installation itself. I would also say the same for anyone that works around an airport, hangar or similar, and note the number of violations that are specific to LV, but a hangar or airport is far harder for most people to take a look at.

NEC article numbers for your reference:
110.25
200
250
300
310
312
320
330
344
348
352
358
362
368
376
378
392
408
500
501
502
504
511
514
516
517
720
725
760
770
800
820
830