NFPA 70 + NFPA 13 conflict
- Thread starter dnem
- Start date
- Status
jrannis
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Lauderdale/ Miami
dnem said:
I would install a disconnect with
an NFPA 13 label in the off position and
a NEC 70 label in the on position
Hand them a lock and walk away.:grin:
M. D. said:David ,..not for nothing ,..but you have,.without intent ,.. confused me beyond my capability to comprehend what your position on this issue is..
I hope your discussion with the Fire Guy will be more succinct..:smile:
I know !
Nobody can keep their brain 100% on line without any hiccups.
250.104(A) is water metal system and has no "likely to become energized" wording. . Direct bonding is always needed. . But a specific bonding wire isn't necessarily required if its already directly bolted/clamped to the building steel.
250.104(B) is non-water or water but non-system [water pipes that don't form a metal system such as nonconductive fitting sprinklers]. . This one does have "likely to become energized" and "equipiment grounding conductor ... serve as the bonding means" wording. . If it's got a motor, it's already bonded. . No further bonding required.
cschmid said:
We're talking about water pipes that don't form a metal system such as nonconductive fitting sprinklers, right ? [250.104(B)]
The equipment ground of the circuit can serve as the bonding means if the equipment is connected to the piping. . The piping is only protected by the equipment ground when the equipment ground is connected to something, like a motor, that's in contact, bonded, to the piping.
Above drop ceilings are the best example of commonly left open junction boxes and close-by metal pipes. . The hot from another circuit can energize the pipe without the equipment ground also being in contact. . The equipment ground needs to be attached to a piece of equipment [such as a motor] that is attached to the pipe system for it to be the piping bond required by 250.104(B).
cschmid
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern cold country
so dave you are saying a flow switch that has a ground does not meet the requirement..it can only be a motor..last time I worked on one the flow switch was 120 v and was mounted in a metal fitting..the switch was brass as well..
cschmid said:
"a flow switch that has a ground does not meet the requirement"
If someone took that position, I would disagree.
"it can only be a motor"
I would disagree with that also. . I see nothing in 250.104 that would support that.
The [non-water or water but non-system] pipe is physically connected to equipment that is grounded by an equipment grounding conductor [the grounded flow switch]. . The pipe has a 250.104(B) bond as is. . Nothing further is needed. . This would apply to a non-conductive fitting sprinkler or natural gas piping.
For a complete water pipe system that would fall under 250.104(A), you would have to look further than the equipment ground and make sure you have a physical bond, either a jumper to another pipe system that is bonded, or maybe a jumper to the building steel, clamp to the building steel, or even a wire back to the panel. . This would apply to a copper hot water system.
M. D. said:
We, like everybody else, have no way to determine what is "likely". . Is it just possible or is it likely ? . Who knows.
We can say with some confidence that the "nearest the point of entrance" [230.71(A)(1)] restriction on the service conductors, combined with the dedicated space [110.26(F)(1)(a)] restriction, makes the service conductors unlikely to energize any particular pipe.
Your largest feeder or branch circuit has the ability to snake around thru the building wherever you want to run it. . At installation or anytime in the future, anybody can leave off a junction box and maybe pull out a joint and walk away.
As I said before, in the real world, the largest breaker in most panels [excluding the main(s)] is usually 300a or less. . 250.122 for 300a is only #4 which is common everyday stuff and also fits in your standard size pipe bonding clamp.
If the contractor wanted to dispute our "use the largest breaker" direction based on the fact that the run has no junction boxes, I wouldn't have any objection to logic. . If the second largest breaker is 300a or less, he pulls out a spool of #4 and everybody's happy.
Also, keep in mind that he doesn't automatically have to run back to the service to pick up his bond. . Maybe just a jumper to the building steel or other electrode. . Hot water pipes are commonly jumped to the cold water of the same system.
M. D. said:
What would the alternative be ?
I guess if you tried to list the options of how to react to the "likely" wording, I can think of at least 6:
1] sized to the service breaker/fuse size
2] sized to the largest feeder or branch circuit breaker/fuse size
3] sized to the largest feeder or branch circuit breaker/fuse size that has a junction box in the run
4] sized to the largest feeder/circuit that comes within x# of feet of the pipe at any point
5] sized to the largest feeder/circuit that has a junction box that comes within x# of feet of the pipe at any point
6] just skip it and don't worry about it
We chose #2 but I think #3 is reasonable.
cschmid
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern cold country
so you are saying that the sprinkler system only has to be bonded by providing a jumper wire from the cooper potable water system to the steel pipe of the sprinkler system..is that not performed by the physical connection of the pipe..
The gas company does not want their lines bonded..they are sending a Minuit amount of electrical charge on the lines to aid in corrosion prevention..the new lines are different material then there old lines. so bonding negates their efforts..I believe they add pieces of non conductive piping at the meters now so when the lines are bonded it does not affect their underground systems..
I am with MD you have left me with some confusion..
The gas company does not want their lines bonded..they are sending a Minuit amount of electrical charge on the lines to aid in corrosion prevention..the new lines are different material then there old lines. so bonding negates their efforts..I believe they add pieces of non conductive piping at the meters now so when the lines are bonded it does not affect their underground systems..
I am with MD you have left me with some confusion..
cschmid said:
Let me try a different approach.
1] conductive fitting sprinkler
2] non-conductive sprinkler
1] conductive fitting sprinkler [system]
This would be covered by 250.104(A), which also covers the cold water system that isn't an electrode [not in contact with earth for 10' or more] and also covers the hot water system. . You must bond these systems in some way.
. The ways listed are [250.104(A)(1)]:
a] service equipment enclosure,
b] service neutral,
c] electrode conductor, or
d] one of the electrodes.
. Both a + b are pretty much the same because it requires you to run your bond wire back to the service [and the enclosure and the service neutral are the same at the service]. . For d you're running a bond wire to an available spot on the electrode conductor. . For c you might not have to do anything because you might already be directly bolted or clamped to the building steel.
For a hot water system that mirrors a cold water system in distribution, a bond to the service or an electrode is not the common way that inspectors enforce, even tho that is what is specified in 250.104(A)(1). . You jump hot to cold and consider it one single system. . The cold water needs a bond to the service or electrode but the hot only needs to be jumpered to the cold [according to the commonly accepted interpretation of 250.104(A)(1)].
2] non-conductive fitting sprinkler [non-system]
This would be covered by 250.104(B), which also covers non-water systems such as natural gas. . You might have to bond but then again you might not have to bond this. . It all depends on how you apply "likely to become energized". . Even if you believe that you have a "likely" scenario, you then have to define "the circuit that is likely to energize". . That all leads to what I've said about largest feeder or branch circuit and junction boxes. . It's all about responding to the very ambiguous word "likely".
Did I do any better this time ?
cschmid said:
No, the sprinkler can't be bonded to the potable water. . You need to bond to the service or an electrode [either by wire or by direct contact]. . The hot is the only pipe that is accepted to be bonded to the cold.
"is that not performed by the physical connection of the pipe"
Building steel electrode to sprinkler ? . Yes, most of the time there is a direct physical connection between building steel electrode and sprinkler. . That direct bond would satisfy all sprinklers, those that fall under 250.104(A) and those that fall under 250.104(B).
What threw me off for a bit was the fire marshall bringing NFPA 13 into the picture. . But I think I've gotten past that bump in the road.
cschmid said:
The natural gas line is 250.104(B) and you need to consider the "equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize the piping". . Have you ever seen a natural gas feed building that doesn't have at least one natural gas powered item that also requires electrical power ? . Gas furnace has both. . If the hot water tank has a blower or circulation motor, it has both. . If there's electrically powered switches or valves, you have both.
If you have one item that has both, then the bonding required under 250.104(B) is already complete by reason of the existence of the equipment ground to that item.
Because of the existence of those equipment grounds, I have yet to enter a building that needs a separate natural gas pipe bond. . So the gas company stays happy.
Last edited:
cschmid said:
One last thing.
We have found that there is almost never a physical pipe connection between the sprinkler and the potable cold water main. . We find the sprinkler main enters the property separately on a separate pipe run and road tap. . There is a separate pipe run and road tap for the potable water main.
If they entered the property together and split at some point, as long as the trunk lines after the split were metal [and if under the slab we could verify that fact], then we could consider both mains as a single system and the potable water main bond would cover both mains.
But we don't see that single tap method used.
Maybe this additional piece of info also helps clarify what I'm saying.
cschmid
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern cold country
Dave much better thank you..sorry about being lost here..I guess we see them on one main and the split is in the building..the other scenario is a separate well house with it own fire suppression pumps and a generator backup..we bond then in the well house but never thought about it when it enters the building..I guess because they are attached to metal structures normally..
sprinklers are not required in all structure here yet..they are new code for apartments now though..this is where the extra bonding would be necessary I believe unless they are feed off the same main in the building..
sprinklers are not required in all structure here yet..they are new code for apartments now though..this is where the extra bonding would be necessary I believe unless they are feed off the same main in the building..
Well, this finally got resolved.
I was thinking the issue was going to just go away because I was hoping for a bond to the building steel thru the supporting threaded rod and clamps. . But it didn't work out that way.
I was back for the shell final yesterday. . The sprinkler piping was factory painted. . Fittings were nonconductive which puts it under 250.104(B) and brings up the "likely to energize wording". . There was no issue with the contractor. . He was ready to handle it however was needed. . The issue was between me and the fire marshall.
In the first round I caught him with a right hook and he went down. :wink: . But seriously, it went alright. . We went into the utility room where the sprinkler main and water mains were. . As we talked I was courteous to the fire marshall. . He interrupted me repeatedly and started giving directions to the fire alarm installer at various times while I was talking to him. . It seemed to me like a power play and I was willing to let him act rudely. . I was not willing to defer to him on bonding and thankful it never came to the butting of heads.
Altho impolite, he ultimately didn't disagree with my direction that the contractor bond one of the pipes to the building steel. . He was obviously partially listening to what I was saying because asked about the difference between electrode and general bonding, altho he interrupted my explanation by my third sentence.
Speaking as an inspector and as a former contractor, speaking with some inspectors is not pleasant, even when an agreement is reached that both parties are OK with.
As a side note, I know that the sprinkler pipe bond to one of the pipes will be of questionable value beyond that one stick of pipe because of the nonconductive fittings. . But there will be some bonding accomplished thru the impure water that will soon be in the pipe [wet system]. . "Likely to be energized" ? . I don't know. . Will one bond to steel be enough ? . I don't know.
And so it ends.
I was thinking the issue was going to just go away because I was hoping for a bond to the building steel thru the supporting threaded rod and clamps. . But it didn't work out that way.
I was back for the shell final yesterday. . The sprinkler piping was factory painted. . Fittings were nonconductive which puts it under 250.104(B) and brings up the "likely to energize wording". . There was no issue with the contractor. . He was ready to handle it however was needed. . The issue was between me and the fire marshall.
In the first round I caught him with a right hook and he went down. :wink: . But seriously, it went alright. . We went into the utility room where the sprinkler main and water mains were. . As we talked I was courteous to the fire marshall. . He interrupted me repeatedly and started giving directions to the fire alarm installer at various times while I was talking to him. . It seemed to me like a power play and I was willing to let him act rudely. . I was not willing to defer to him on bonding and thankful it never came to the butting of heads.
Altho impolite, he ultimately didn't disagree with my direction that the contractor bond one of the pipes to the building steel. . He was obviously partially listening to what I was saying because asked about the difference between electrode and general bonding, altho he interrupted my explanation by my third sentence.
Speaking as an inspector and as a former contractor, speaking with some inspectors is not pleasant, even when an agreement is reached that both parties are OK with.
As a side note, I know that the sprinkler pipe bond to one of the pipes will be of questionable value beyond that one stick of pipe because of the nonconductive fittings. . But there will be some bonding accomplished thru the impure water that will soon be in the pipe [wet system]. . "Likely to be energized" ? . I don't know. . Will one bond to steel be enough ? . I don't know.
And so it ends.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Deleted post simply because it is best if I just be still and not get invloved in this funny thread.
Last edited:
- Status