NYC Fire pumps

[DARUSA]

When I Thout I understand everything for the fire pumps always I find a doubt . I'm working In NYC and my boss says that the pipe feeding the fire pump Disconnect Switch located inside of the electric room have to be Rigid.
I can't find anything about that only that the pipe from the motor control to the pump have to be a rigid pipe but nothing for the service.
My question is. Where in the code says that rigid pipe have to be used from the service entrance to the FPDS?

 

[e57]

I've not had to do a fire pump - but my understanding is that they need to be treated like service conductors (which around here would mean RMC) and that they need to be protected from fire for the survivability of the circuit to keep going when attacked by fire....

 

[cadpoint]

My question is. Where in the code says that rigid pipe have to be used from the service entrance to the FPDS?

It seems it right here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/model/nec.shtml

From the left side of page: electrical Code revisions; from there (my choice was the following) the following shows; NYC Amendments to the 2005 NEC: Description of Changes the 30Kb file which is a 12 page breakdown comparison between the NFPA Article verses and the NYC Code.

But your real answer is http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/ll49of2006.pdf which shows the full verbage, seems a answer is around page 95 of 117. This is a word searchable PDF.

Enjoy.

 

[dcspector]

I dont know about NYC but from the tap section in gear to the supervised disconnect allowed by 695.4(B) (which is fused at LRA and provides short circuit protection) technically should be treated as SE conductors per 695.6(A) installed per 230.6 Now with that said, from that disconnect allowed by 695.4(B) one would be able to install the feeders to the ATS / Controller per 695.6(B)

 

[DARUSA]

I dont know about NYC but from the tap section in gear to the supervised disconnect allowed by 695.4(B) (which is fused at LRA and provides short circuit protection) technically should be treated as SE conductors per 695.6(A) installed per 230.6 Now with that said, from that disconnect allowed by 695.4(B) one would be able to install the feeders to the ATS / Controller per 695.6(B)

Ok but in that case based on 230.6 1 trougt 4 says:

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building.
*
Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:*** *
(1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure*See*related Illustration *
(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick *
(3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III *
(4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure

I thing the use of RMC for this application is a common practice but I can not find were this coming from!!!!!!

 

[dcspector]

Exposed RMC to the disconnect must simply be a local alowable amendment.