I was working on the job today and the fire marshal was there doing his sprinkler inspection. He came up to me and asked me if the flowswitch was on a breaker. I told him of course. He proceeded to tell me that the flowswitch CANT be on a breaker. Usually we use a breaker and put a lock on it to keep it on, but he said it had to be directly connected. So to make him happy I put a fork on it and screwed to the bus. Has anyone ever been required to do such a thing? I find it a little ironic considering the NFPA publishes the NEC.

To put it politely he is out of his mind.

There are some rules about breaker locks and GFCI protection.

I would go back and put it on a breaker.

This guy is going to burn down the building he is trying to protect.

The conductors must be protected at their ampacity, or as modified by applicable code articles and sections.

You should ask him to provide a code reference.

I would also make note on your final billing that the Fire Marshal has instructed you to install this wiring without OCP in violation of the NEC and in protest you have complied, or better yet, do as Iwire says and go back and put it on a breaker.

If something were to happen in the future, I wouldn't hold my breath thinking he would come forward and say he instructed you to do this.

You would be standing alone.

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 02-11-2005).]

The fact that the fire marshal told you to do something has almost nothing (well sometimes something) to do with the fire alarm code (NFPA 72) or the national electric code (NFPA 70).
There must be overcurrent protection. The code even requires overcurrent protection for a firepump.

I agree with you guys a 100% I went in circles with the guy for 30 minutes. He said that he wouldn't pass the inspection without it. I know that I have to have OCP on it. The whole thing is just so frustrating. They actually want the flow switch connected before the meter but we told them that is totally out of the question. Well I guess when the forklift hits the pipe shorts its out and starts a fire, the sprinklers will put it out right?? I like the idea of going back and intalling a locking breaker.

This is where your local inspector can be your best friend ! Give the inspector a call and ask him what he thinks about this. I'm sure he will not allow it, thus ask him to talk to the fire marshal. Let the powers to be sort it out.

Be Smart and Do It Right

Are you sure that you both understand what he wants?

We sometimes make a tap ahead of the service's main switch or C/B to a fusible disconnect within 10' of the tap. (usually the disco is painted bright red, & marked "FIRE BELL")
This is used to power the fire (flowswitch, bell etc.) system

Maybe this is what you guys are after?

Electure nailed it. Circuit ahead of the main WITH protection.

That sounds a little better, now you need to apply this code section.

2002 NEC

I have never been asked to do that, but most of the buildings I work in will have the electric sprinkler bell and a water driven sprinkler bell, no power needed for the latter.

[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 02-13-2005).]

The connection should be made after the meter, but before the main (often you'll find a tapped 1/4-20 hole on the bussing right before the main in a "larger" service).
I've had some engineered jobs that specified a #8 maximum size for the tap conductor. Be sure to keep the tap conductor length <10'.
A C/B in an enclosure can be used instead of a disco, but be sure it's "suitable for use as service equipment", capable of interrupting the fault current at the service. (that's why we use exo/fuses), and has provisions for padlocking in the ON position.
Bond the nipple/conduit to it like it were service equipment (bushings), and you should be all set.

I have used a breaker with a lock for this application on every project.

A factory made one from about 1975




[This message has been edited by electure (edited 02-14-2005).]