I had an inspector, in a municapality still on the 2005 NEC, request I put the smoke detectors on an AFCI breaker in a 3-house new-build project.

Although this makes a certain degree of sense, granted the definition of "oulet" in a bedroom was altered in '05 to be defined as any place wire sees a junction box, I have never had this request before. I've built about 15 new residential projects since '05, and not once have the smokes been required on an AFCI.

Have I just been lucky that an inspector hasn't required this thus far, or is this actually an uncommon request elsewhere in the country?

As always, thanks for your replys

P.S. I always, as a habit, dedicate a 15A circuit for all the smokes in a house and never couple them to another bedroom branch circuit.

Based on the def of 'outlet', I have to agree with the inspector. We do not have AFCI required here in NJ yet....butit's coming very soon!

Oh boy John, are you in for it!

The problem isn't the so much the routing and increased cost (up to 1000% $ increase) of the AFCIs as compared to a standard breaker, it's also the 10%-20% failure rate of the AFCI breakers within the first year. On this same project, with 4-5 AFCIs on each of the 3 houses, I've already had to replace one of the originally installed AFCI breakers, and the meters went in a week ago!

Hopefully, the manufacturers will start to concentrate on improving the reliability of their products now that they've spent so much of their time and resources pushing through the code changes.

Good luck!

The '08 adoption here is supposed to include AFCI finally; as of Friday, I have not heard of a firm adoption date.

The EC's were upset & boisterous at a Continuing Ed course I did, about finally having to bite the AFCI bullet. As an AHJ, I had a few jobs were AFCI's were optionally installed by the plans/specs, & I have not heard of any complaints..yet.

THe Jersey guys are getting hit with AFCI, Tamper, Weather, all at once, pending the '08 adoption.

"I have not heard of any complaints"

I heard that from a property manager Friday, while discussing a tenant who -literally- was leaving bodies in the parking lot. I was objecting to my truck being inside the crime-scene tape at the time. Oh, well, that's another story ... suffice it to observe that the 'right' folks are often the last to know.

Whatever the issues in the AFCI debate, the NEC has called for all bedroom 'outlets' to be AFCI protected since the beginning of the AFCI rules. "Outlet" has been defined, from the start, as a point where electricity is used, so lights and smoke detectors are 'outlets' in the NEC, just as much as receptacles are. Switches, by comparison, are not considered outlets (even if the switch is a dimmer, or an illuminated one).

Passing inspections is another matter. With all due respect to inspectors, I have exactly ZERO faith in the inspector catching even the most glaring of goofs. It has been my observation that inspections are unnecessary for the conscientious tradesman - and inadequate for the rest.

NEC aside, AFCI's have been the subject of much local ammendment. It has been common for locales to exempt smoke detectors from the AFCI requirements. In a similar manner, I have often observed bedroom light not being AFCI protected (contrary to local code), and not being caught at inspection (presumably due to the difficulty of testing).

All I can say is: the AFCI experience underscores the need to get involved. With all the fuss over AFCI's, there are comparatively few proposals or comments made to the code committees each cycle. We ought to be drowning them with our objections!

Hey Reno- Couldn't you sugar coat it some???

I feel your pain - too bad about you being in the crime seen and all but I think lashing out at the inspectors was not the way to vent.

For the record, the AFCI's work, they save lives and it's about time the installers start doing a better job of wiring them up. Stop whining. The guys short out the neutrals to the EGC in the box and don't pay attention to their workmanship, etc. etc and then blame the devices. The competent installers are not having problems and Michigan has been asking for AFCI's since the 2003 adoption.

George, I apologize if I came off as ranting against inspectors. I didn't mean it that way.

Rather, I have a great objectio to those whose attitude is "it's OK if the inspector doesn't catch it." I expect professional work, without regard for whether or not there will be an inspection.

Whether someting works, or not, or is a suitable matter for making law, are issues for another thread. I was trying very hard to avoid the whole AFCI debate.

Rather, my point was ... know the code in your area - AND be part of the process. It's a bit late to be just discovering the scope of the AFCI rules - apart from whether you agree with them.

With all due respect George, I'm well aware of proper installation of AFCIs. The fact that, once replaced, all of the AFCIs that I replaced them with are still active, leads me no other option but to believe that they do, in fact, have an inordinate failure rate.

Had the same circuit caused a failure on a replacement AFCI, I would have to direct the blame to myself and my installation practice and circuit wiring. However, this is not the case, so the AFCIs appear to be the issue.

Although they may be a good idea, I still believe that the manufacturers are slow in improvement and fast in legislation.

No apology needed Reno, I know from reading your post over the years that your a very fair individual. We both remember going through this with GFCI's and that the manufacturers are far from innocent. As "Zapped" stated, if you have a tripping situation, one needs to find out the source of the problem and then make the adjustment accordingly.

As for inspectors they are guilty of not properly testing the AFCI breakers by pushing the test buttons on the breakers and then checking to see if the circuits are indeed disconnecting. Might even get them to stay fit by climbing stairs.

Oh, I have something to look forward to when the '08 is adopted here and AFCI's are mandatory.

When time was of an essence the resi inspectors here would trip the AFCIs on the way in, verify all bedroom outlets were dead (or a representative sample) then reset them on the way out.
You would think that now that we are only starting a handful of houses a month they would do a more thorough inspection but I think they just downsized the department to the point that the inspectors are just as busy.
My wife says they were just as superficial on the inspection of her new guard house as they were when she was closing 2 houses a week.
That "shelf under the panel" we were talking about a while ago passed. It was even worse than the original thing I saw. They took the shelf out and put in a base cabinet, before the final.

I do wish you would have said " SOME inspectors" and not generalized that statement. I am a commercial inspector and I do get to inspect multi family dwellings and groups of townhouses if they use meter stacks verses individual meters. Any dwelling I inspect I inspect the complete unit first then head to the panel and trip the AFCI's then go check to see if everything in the bedrooms is off including the smoke detectors. Yes that means running up the steps again - sometimes it's 3 or 4 floors up, but I consider that as part of my job!
Not all inspectors are lazy-

LS, don't pick on George ... he was only responding to my comments. My comments were not intended as an attack on inspectors ... rather, it was in the context of my expressing contempt for those tradesmen who rely upon the inspector to police their sloppiness (or even cheating).

As I see it, it's not the inspectors' job to ensure that the tradesmen are 'up to speed;' it's the professional who makes sure that he's current with codes and practices. As for those who deliberately see what they can slip by the inspector .... in my mind, they are little different from the shoplifter who 'forgets' to place everything in the cart on the counter.

No, unfortunately, all inspectors are indeed NOT lazy

Seriously, I am much more happy when an inspector is nit-picky and complete in his/her inspection. I live in a house too, and would like to think that it has no hidden time-bombs related to a lazy contractor and/or an equally lazy inspector.

I believe in the inspection process, and I appreciate a competent inspector who takes his job seriously. Hats off...

When I'm working on the maintenance/repair side, I find things on (passed) new construction that make the hair on the back of my neck do a little dance, and it scares me to think of the poor people whos safety is at risk.

I was very lucky in my state inspector job that the guy installing equipment was usually the guy who would have to live with it so we were partners, not adversaries and the inspection process was really more of a consultation than an enforcement. I tried to keep that same attitude when I was working with contractors on the jobs where they didn't have "in house" electricians and managers. I found most contractors really do want to do the right thing since it is their license, reputation and money on the line.
On a state job, the contractor is really the only one you can sue if something goes wrong.
I also had the luxury of time, not something most inspectors have and I really like looking at electrical stuff. I was willing to climb up and look at things a lot of guys would inspect from the ground. Just the fact that they knew I was going to be looking around a while kept people honest. I also made it clear right away that they could call me for an opinion any time they wanted to. I really like to think the inspector and the installers are partners with safety as the ultimate goal.

LuckyShadow or George:

What do you use to test the AFCI CB's??

The test button....or a 'tester' and if so..what kind??

The Canadian Electrical code prohibits smokes on a circuit protected with an AFCI or GFCI. I have been wondering why the US and Canada differ since most code rules for the two countries have the same intent regardless of the language use to write the rule.
CEC requires Smokes to be connected to a branch circuit that supplies a combination of plugs and lights. Lights being important since most people will turn the breaker back on if the lights don't work.

Mikesh, I suppose it comes down to two things: vocabulary, and design.

First, it is important to distinguish between "smoke detectors" and "fire alarm systems." The common household units, that have the sensor as well as the horn contained within, and where each unit has its' own battery back-up, is a "smoke detector."

The fancy systems that wire back to a little red panel, and are usually coupled with burglary alarms and monitored by an alarm company, are 'fire alarm systems.'

The distinction is critical, as our alarm code prohibits a fire alarm system from being GFCI or AFCI protected, and they are required to have a dedicated circuit.

Smoke alarms, by contrast, can be powered by any circuit - at least, in theory. However, these 'smokes' are required to all sound when one goes into alarm. In practice, this is accomplished by placing them on a dedicated circuit, and running an additional wire between the units so they can communicate.

Since we are required to have 'smokes' in every bedroom, and bedrooms were the first place AFCI's were required ... the 'smoke' circuit also was AFCI protected.

Code issues aside, we also have a trade practice of placing lights on a different circuit from the receptacles. There are two reasons for this preference: the first is that it is simply easier to have the sundry lights, even serving multiple rooms, and their switches on their own circuits. A secondary reason is the desire for a tripped breaker (serving an appliance) to not leave you in the dark.) Often, lights will be on a 15 amp circuit, while receptacles will be on 20 amp circuits.

I have an Ideal Suretest. That is not classified as a tester but rather a indicator. It does trip the AFCI breakers, which can come in handy on a 4 story townhouse. The only true and correct testing method is the test button on the breaker.
If I use the suretest I will reset the AFCI breakers that tripped and test them with the test button. I also trip the AFCI for the smokes. I test any and all AFCI or GFCI breakers in the panel by using the test button.

"When time was of an essence the resi inspectors here would trip the AFCIs on the way in, verify all bedroom outlets were dead (or a representative sample) then reset them on the way out."


We had at least one inspector that wouldn't do you the service of re-setting GFI's. I had a number of call backs that resulted.

Most common scenario: Inspector trips GFI and tests load side outlets. Moves on to bigger and better things. (according to more that one builder that and the panel labeling was all they checked)
Two days later HO moves all of their worldly possessions directly in front of GFI on garage wall, not noticing it's presence and completely obscuring it from view.
One more day later I get a call from builder complaining that a garage or exterior outlet isn't working.

It took me a couple of trips out to catch on and start diagnosing it over the phone.



I would have thought the remote AFCI testers would be capable of producing arcs and be the best test for an arc fault circuit.

The fact of the matter is that a "Smoke Detector" is a component of a fire alarm system. A "Smoke Alarm" is a single station unit containing a detector, a notification device and a back up battery. Smoke alarms are sometimes hooked up as multiple units in residential occupancies. See definitions in NFPA72

Question was: How do I test AFCI's and my answer is by using the test button on the breaker per manufacturers' instruction. I am not aware of any "Testers". only AFCI indicators.

GFCI's I use the orange Etcon GFCI tester.

As for GFCI protection on Household Fire Alarm systems, the code prohibits it. As for Smoke alarms on AFCI's - Use a low voltage system then you don't need it. Code says 120v. system.

The approved test method for both. The TEST button.
Per manufacturers literature.

Now my question is:

After you push the AFCI and or the GFCI test buttons as 'recommended' by the manufacture.


Do you Check and confirm that the affected devices are off?

Do you then go back and confirm that the affected devices worked in the first place?

Do you remove the batteries from the smoke 'Alarms' and ensure that they are on the AFCI ckt?

Do you Trace out All(both or more) SABC?

(You= Inspectors.)

Leland, I guess my answer would be I don't get that in depth with the inspections I make. I do make sure the polarity of GFCI's is correct and that the device trips and all devices down stream also trip when I plug in my Etcon tester and push the test button.

As for the AFCI's on the smokes,there is a different LED display when they are on battery.

At some point in the grand plan of things it is the responsibility of the installer to make sure things work. For example, appliances (furnace, water heater, range, etc) may not work or perform as expected. This is not the responsibility of the inspector, not a code violation, but instead it is a maintenance issue.
Another example is the common problem that I see with a circuit being double protected with two GFCI receptacles in the same circuit and wired such that tripping one will disconnect power to the second one. Not a code violation but causes confusion to the person testing or using this installation. Not an code problem.

Agree with all the above.
Most Towns here have 1 inspector each. So town to town is different.Some just stand at the front door,others crab about a tilted wall plate.

It is our responsibility to install correctly.For some reason I would be offended if an inspector tore into as I described.