ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (gfretwell), 139 guests, and 9 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 613
M
mikesh Offline OP
Member
CAN/ULC-S524-01
Rule 3.4.11 states Wiring from sprinklerwater flow devices and supervisory devices, housed in a water (weather) tight enclosure, shall be of a type suitable for "wet locations".

Lately we have been getting verification reports stating that the wiring to flow switches is not weatherproof even when the sprinkler valves are in a dry location. I had always wired according to the location and not used weatherproof wiring method like sealtite but dry flex or FAS armoured cable.

Anyone else noticed this, or getting called. The Building Inspectors want a clean verification report and we want to see they get it but this seems like overkill when the wiring method for the sprinkler room is BX or Loomex.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 183
J
Member
Never had this come back as a deficiency on verification. It seems like the default enclosure for all sprinkler junction boxes are for wet location, never seen one that wasnt - whether low air, tamper or flow. Who has been doing the verifications on the installations in question? I would guess most of the sprinkler rooms in the province do not comply with the ULC S524 rule you quoted.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5