695.6(A) Exception

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
The replies thank you but do not make sense to me. Here is what I have. From the Tap section of a 480/277 Switchboard the EE designed EMT across the building with RHW-2 to controller. I say no per 695.6(A) This should be routed outside the building or in 2" of concrete. My solution is from tap section to a supervised disconnect per 695.4(B) (fused at LRA continuously to provide short circuit protection) in 2" of concrete then from load side of supervised disconnect to controller in EMT with RHW-2 conductors to provide a 2 hour circuit protective means. The EE is the one quoting the exception I mentioned.
 
iMuse97

iMuse97

Senior Member
Location
Chicagoland
I see that exception as applying only to the lines from the POCO to the ATS, whereas it still requires the fire pump feeders from the ATS to the pump to be encased or otherwise protected.
 
R

RUWired

Senior Member
Location
Pa.
iMuse97 said:
I see that exception as applying only to the lines from the POCO to the ATS, whereas it still requires the fire pump feeders from the ATS to the pump to be encased or otherwise protected.
Click to expand...
The feeders, load side of the controller, are not required to be fire rated or encased.
 
E

EdwardSWard

Member
[
PHP: 
QUOTE]The replies thank you but do not make sense to me. Here is what I have. From the Tap section of a 480/277 Switchboard the EE designed EMT across the building with RHW-2 to controller. I say no per 695.6(A) This should be routed outside the building or in 2" of concrete. My solution is from tap section to a supervised disconnect per 695.4(B) (fused at LRA continuously to provide short circuit protection) in 2" of concrete then from load side of supervised disconnect to controller in EMT with RHW-2 conductors to provide a 2 hour circuit protective means. The EE is the one quoting the exception I mentioned.[/QUOTE]

"I say no per 695.6(A)" - I concur.

As for your solution: Seems good as long as EMT & RHW-2 are compliant with 695.6(B) as a 2-hour circuit protective means. Do they? Which UL Guide covers this?
 
R

RB1

Senior Member
Greg,

The exception applies to the feeder conductors referenced in the last sentence of 695.6(A). For multibuilding campus type facilities with a single utility circuit, two feeders are needed establish one of the required sources. A transfer switch would be used to switch between these feeders that serve as the primary source for the fire pump controller/transfer switch. A generator would typically be used as the secondary source. The exception allows the feeder sources ahead of the first transfer switch to be routed through the building. The conductors from the load side of the first transfer switch to the fire pump controller/transfer switch are required to be routed outside the building.

This is a good example of Frankenstein code construction. The original paragraph applied only to service conductors. When multibuilding campus installations were added in the 1999 Code, the last sentence, which applies to feeders, was added. It is frequently misinterpreted as permitting service conductors to be routed through a building. See NFPA 20.
 
D

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
RB1 said:
Greg,

The exception applies to the feeder conductors referenced in the last sentence of 695.6(A). For multibuilding campus type facilities with a single utility circuit, two feeders are needed establish one of the required sources. A transfer switch would be used to switch between these feeders that serve as the primary source for the fire pump controller/transfer switch. A generator would typically be used as the secondary source. The exception allows the feeder sources ahead of the first transfer switch to be routed through the building. The conductors from the load side of the first transfer switch to the fire pump controller/transfer switch are required to be routed outside the building.

This is a good example of Frankenstein code construction. The original paragraph applied only to service conductors. When multibuilding campus installations were added in the 1999 Code, the last sentence, which applies to feeders, was added. It is frequently misinterpreted as permitting service conductors to be routed through a building. See NFPA 20.
Click to expand...

Thank you that is what I tried to explain to the EE. You worded this much better than I did. However, I think the design firm understands. They are correcting the issue per my original citing. Thanks again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top