NFPA 70 + NFPA 13 conflict

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dnem

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
I'm having a conflict between something I'm enforcing and something a fire marshall is enforcing. . I'm telling a contractor that according to 250.50 + 250.52(A)(1), he needs to clamp the sprinkler main to a 250.66 sized electrode conductor and run it back to the service. . Even if he doesn't have the 10' earth contact, according to 250.104(A)(1) he needs to do the same thing [but call it bonding instead of electrode].

The fire marshall is telling him to remove the bond on the sprinkler main according to NFPA 13 chapter 10.6.8

Is there really a conflict between NFPA 70 + NFPA 13 in this matter ?

If yes, how is this commonly resolved ?
 
I'm not familiar with NFPA 13 but aren't the sprinkler pipes and water pipes already connected somewhere anyway?
 
infinity said:
I'm not familiar with NFPA 13 but aren't the sprinkler pipes and water pipes already connected somewhere anyway?
Click to expand...
if its a pipe carrying water it needs to be bonded anyway. if its clamped with beam clamps to the purling then its already bonded since we have to bond the steel as well
 
dnem said:
Is there really a conflict between NFPA 70 + NFPA 13 in this matter ?

If yes, how is this commonly resolved ?
Click to expand...

we try to get the fire marshal and the bldg official on site at the same time, then at the right time, someone starts chanting "fight !, fight !, fight !" until they duke it out to decide who should prevail. Afterwards, we all have a beer and a good laugh.
 
cschmid said:
why do you need to bond the sprinkler system with a seperate bonding jumper..it is an isolated system and it connects to a bonded water supply..
Click to expand...


That was my thought. Usually it's mechanically connected to the water system anyway so bond or don't bond should it really make any difference?
 
I don't have it in front of me right now, but I was given a copy of a code that says we are forbidden from making any electrical connection to sprinkler piping.
 
cschmid said:
why do you need to bond the sprinkler system with a seperate bonding jumper..it is an isolated system and it connects to a bonded water supply..
Click to expand...

Do you mean to say:
"why do you need to bond the sprinkler system with a seperate bonding jumper..it is not an isolated system and it connects to a bonded water supply.."

I can't tell if it's bonded because it disappears into the poured floor slab. . They didn't call me before the pour so our procedure is to require bonding between all that appears isolated.
 
I realize David's question concern's a dispute in the printed Holy Writ.

From a practical mechanical and electrical perspective, however, what problems are avoided when a sprinkler water supply is not connected to the grounding electrode system?

What is the technical basis for a requirement in NFPA 13 to override NFPA 70 250.50 + 250.52 and / or 250.104?
 
dnem said:
Do you mean to say:
"why do you need to bond the sprinkler system with a seperate bonding jumper..it is not an isolated system and it connects to a bonded water supply.."

I can't tell if it's bonded because it disappears into the poured floor slab. . They didn't call me before the pour so our procedure is to require bonding between all that appears isolated.
Click to expand...

I believe I stated it correctly it is an isolated system the only water that flows through it is for an emergency (FIRE) it serves no other purpose..has no electrical attached to it and it is connected to a bonded source..

so why does it need bonding??

edited: it is also attached to the metal building by metal straps and the metal of the building is also bonded..in a residencial install that is not normally the case but it is still bonded at the source of connection to the water system..
 
Last edited:
dnem said:
I'm having a conflict between something I'm enforcing and something a fire marshall is enforcing. . I'm telling a contractor that according to 250.50 + 250.52(A)(1), he needs to clamp the sprinkler main to a 250.66 sized electrode conductor and run it back to the service. . Even if he doesn't have the 10' earth contact, according to 250.104(A)(1) he needs to do the same thing [but call it bonding instead of electrode].

The fire marshall is telling him to remove the bond on the sprinkler main according to NFPA 13 chapter 10.6.8

Is there really a conflict between NFPA 70 + NFPA 13 in this matter ?

If yes, how is this commonly resolved ?
Click to expand...
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=NFPA+Catalog&pid=1307&link%5Ftype=search&order%5Fsrc=A647&src=nfpa
-Click on "More Information" above the order box
-When the new page loads, click on all other visitors (at the bottom of the list)
-Fill out information to become a free member
-Click on "I Agree" to open the NFPA 13

I'll give you the first sentence of NFPA 13 10.6.8 "Under no case shall the underground piping be used as a grounding electrode for electrical systems".

Check out 10.6.7 as well.

Personally, when the NEC refers to underground water, they aren't talking about sprinklers. It might be worth bringing it up to the inspector, he may not be familiar with NFPA 13.
 
Just for effect

Just for effect

You could always ask the EI to sign a waiver holding himself responsible for the electrocution deaths of all the people in the building when the sprinklers go off and there is voltage running on the sprinkler piping.:roll:

Before you say it, yes I know, the chance of it happening is so close to zero that you can effectively say it won't happen. However, it follows the same principle as setting water heaters to 140 degrees F. Anything less has a chance (again, close to zero) of being a breeding ground for deadly bacteria. The argument with the water heater worked the last time it was tried. :grin:
 
DanZ said:
I'll give you the first sentence of NFPA 13 10.6.8 "Under no case shall the underground piping be used as a grounding electrode for electrical systems".

Check out 10.6.7 as well.

Personally, when the NEC refers to underground water, they aren't talking about sprinklers. It might be worth bringing it up to the inspector, he may not be familiar with NFPA 13.
Click to expand...

All that says is that it can not be used as part of the GEC, but would'nt it still need to be bonded?
 
i agree, yes it needs to be bonded- but would be bonded if attached to a bonded water line or attached to a bonded metal shell (building)
 
cschmid said:
I believe I stated it correctly it is an isolated system the only water that flows through it is for an emergency (FIRE) it serves no other purpose..has no electrical attached to it and it is connected to a bonded source..
Click to expand...

"it is an isolated system"
"and it is connected to a bonded source"

How can both of these statements be true ? . If its connected to a bonded source, then its not isolated, all of the metal is connected together and once you bond the watermain, the whole thing is bonded.

If its not isolated, then 250.104(A) doesn't come into play. . 250.104(A)(2) uses the specific word "isolated" and all of 250.104 is dealing with what remains isolated after your electrodes are attached to the service. . If my watermain electrode is connected to the service, then I look at other isolated pipes under 250.104. . If the sprinkler is "connected to a bonded source" watermain by continuous metal, then the sprinkler is not isolated from that bonded source.
 
cschmid said:
so why does it need bonding??

edited: it is also attached to the metal building by metal straps and the metal of the building is also bonded..in a residencial install that is not normally the case but it is still bonded at the source of connection to the water system..
Click to expand...

SmithBuilt said:
Is the sprinkler system bolted to the steel building?

And isn't the building steel bonded?
Click to expand...

mayjong said:
i agree, yes it needs to be bonded- but would be bonded if attached to a bonded water line or attached to a bonded metal shell (building)
Click to expand...

If it's riding on strut and strapped with strut clamps, is it bonded to the steel thru the red paint coating on the sprinkler pipe ?
 
C3PO said:
All that says is that it can not be used as part of the GEC, but would'nt it still need to be bonded?
Click to expand...

You might have the right answer here. . That might be the correct interaction between these sections of NFPA 70 + 13. . But that throws me right into an electrode vs general bonding conversation with a fire marshall. . I honestly doubt he understands the difference and I don't know if he's open to learn anything from an electrical inspector.
 
DanZ said:
http://www.nfpa.org/catalog/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=NFPA+Catalog&pid=1307&link%5Ftype=search&order%5Fsrc=A647&src=nfpa
-Click on "More Information" above the order box
-When the new page loads, click on all other visitors (at the bottom of the list)
-Fill out information to become a free member
-Click on "I Agree" to open the NFPA 13

I'll give you the first sentence of NFPA 13 10.6.8 "Under no case shall the underground piping be used as a grounding electrode for electrical systems".

Check out 10.6.7 as well.

Personally, when the NEC refers to underground water, they aren't talking about sprinklers. It might be worth bringing it up to the inspector, he may not be familiar with NFPA 13.
Click to expand...

He knows NFPA 13, that's why he's bringing it up to the contractor. . His fire certification is based on enforcement of NFPA 72 + 13. . He's telling the contractor not to bond the sprinkler, I'm telling the contractor to bond the sprinkler. . The contractor doesn't want to get in the middle and I agree. . I need to talk to the fire marshall directly. . But I need to understand NFPA 13 10.6.8 before I do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top