Jockey Pump LRC or NOT.

[Fernan]

Looking for clarification. NEC 695 and NFPA 20 is not clear if I have to size the over current protection by the LRC. Thanks,

 

[Npstewart]

Yup, the NEC states you need to factor in the LRA of the fire pump PLUS the LRA of the pressure maintainence pump.

See this site:

http://ecmweb.com/nec/code-basics/electric_power_pump/

 

[Fernan]

So it will be the same for applicatons with non-electric fire-pump motor. The pressure maintainence pump will have OCPD at LRA. Thanks.

 

[david luchini]

No, the jockey pump should not have an OCPD sized to carry the LRC. The jockey pump does not fall under the rules of article 695. See 695.1(B)(2).

The jockey pump motor should be protected in accordance with Art. 430.

 

[iwire]

No, the jockey pump should not have an OCPD sized to carry the LRC. The jockey pump does not fall under the rules of article 695. See 695.1(B)(2).

The jockey pump motor should be protected in accordance with Art. 430.

I agree, the jockey pump is not part of the lifesafety or firefighting equipment.

 

[Npstewart]

I have to respectively disagree with the suggestion that the OCP does not have to be sized to carry the sum of the LRC of the fire pump plus the LRC of the jockey pump (pressure maintainence pump)

To quote a fire pump design guide:
"Overcurrent protective devices for fire pumps are required to be capable of carrying the sum of the locked-rotor current of the fire pump motor(s), and the pressure maintenance pump motor(s)"

Also if you click on the link:
http://ecmweb.com/nec/code-basics/electric_power_pump/

You will see the quote in the interpretation that states
"Power sources [695.3]. You must supply power to fire pump motors from a reliable source that has the capacity to carry the locked-rotor current of the fire pump motor(s) AND pressure maintenance pump motors[/U]. This source must also be capable of supplying the full-load current of any associated fire pump equipment."

That quote is directly from ecmweb.com

If you notice it mentions the fire pump and pressure maintainence pump, and then it says MUST ALSO be capable of supplying the full load current of any associated fire pump equipment.

There is a distinction between the items calcuated with LRC and FLC in the sentence for a reason.

 

[david luchini]

I have to respectively disagree with the suggestion that the OCP does not have to be sized to carry the sum of the LRC of the fire pump plus the LRC of the jockey pump (pressure maintainence pump)

I don't see where anyone suggested that the OCP for the fire pump feeder would not have to be sized to carry the sum of the LRC of the fire pump plus the LRC of the jockey pump, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

The question in the OP is whether the OCP for the Jockey Pump should be sized based on the LRC of the jockey pump. The answer is clearly no. The OCP for the Jockey Pump should be sized based on the FLC of the Jockey Pump motor, in accordance with Art. 430. See 695.1(B)(2).

 

[augie47]

So it will be the same for applicatons with non-electric fire-pump motor. The pressure maintainence pump will have OCPD at LRA. Thanks.

If the fire pump is non-electric, I don't see any need to address jockey pump LRA

 

[inspector141]

OCPD for jockey pump

OCPD for jockey pump

The code has a distinction between jockey pumps fed from a fire pump circuit or a branch circuit serving the fire pump by itself that is separate from the fire pump circuit . If the jockey pump is fed from the fire pump circuit, then the CIRCUIT OCPD must be sized at LRC for both loads, but the independent branch circuit serving the jockey pump must be sized per article 430. Article 695(B) (2), clearly states that jockey pumps are not covered in 695 unless they are fed from the fire pump circuit(s). 695.4(B)(1) ".....when connected to this power supply."
When a jockey pump is NOT connected to the fire pump supply, it is treated as a typical motor per article 430.

 

[david luchini]

Article 695(B) (2), clearly states that jockey pumps are not covered in 695 unless they are fed from the fire pump circuit(s). 695.4(B)(1) ".....when connected to this power supply."
When a jockey pump is NOT connected to the fire pump supply, it is treated as a typical motor per article 430.

I don't see anything in the code to support this statement. 695.1(B)(2) says Jockey Pumps are Not Covered by Article 695. There is nothing about "unless" they are connected to the fire pump power supply.

The Jockey Pump should be protected in accordance with Article 430 if it is connected to the fire pump supply, and it should be protected in accordance with Article 430 if it is not connected to the fire pump supply.

 

[dkidd]

This issue has been brought up a number of times in proposals. Bellow is one the the more recent. The submitter also thinks it isn't clear.

13-53 Log #4181 NEC-P13 Final Action: Reject
(695.1)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: James E. Degnan, Sparling
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
695.1 Scope
(A) Covered This article covers the installation of the following:
(1) Electric power sources and interconnecting circuits.
(2) Switching and control equipment dedicated to the fire pump drivers.
(3) Pressure maintenance (jockey or makeup) pumps, when these pumps are
connected to the same utility service connection as the fire pump.
(B) Not Covered. This article does not cover the following
(1) The performance ?(retain text)?the system.
(2) Pressure maintenance (jockey or makeup) pumps, when these pumps are
not connected to the same utility service connection as the fire pump.
Substantiation: Section 695.1 (B) now states that Article 695 does not apply
to the pressure maintenance pump. This is appropriate because the pressure
maintenance pump does not require the same level of integrity under various
circumstances that is needed by the fire pump. However there is text
throughout Article 695 covering the pressure maintenance pump. This change
clarifies when the text in 695 applies to the pressure maintenance pump. In
effect, it leaves the choice of feeding the pressure maintenance pump from the
same source as the fire pump up to the design engineer.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The choice of the power supply for the jockey pump
remains with the designer, installer, or inspector. A jockey pump can be treated
as any other motor, based on Article 430, and does not require the separation
and continuity of power requirements based on Article 695 for the fire pump
and other related critical loads.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14

 

[iwire]

This issue has been brought up a number of times in proposals. Bellow is one the the more recent. The submitter also thinks it isn't clear.

Thanks dkidd, ROPs are always welcome.

 

[inspector141]

I don't see anything in the code to support this statement. 695.1(B)(2) says Jockey Pumps are Not Covered by Article 695. There is nothing about "unless" they are connected to the fire pump power supply.

The Jockey Pump should be protected in accordance with Article 430 if it is connected to the fire pump supply, and it should be protected in accordance with Article 430 if it is not connected to the fire pump supply.

Did you read 695.4(B)(1)? I quoted the last part of the first sentence, "...when connected to this(fire pump) power supply. The jockey pump is allowed, but not required to be connected to the fire pump circuit. So, if you do indeed connect it to the fire pump circuit, you must use LRC for all pumps of that circuit.
Furthermore, the last sentence states: The requirement to carry the locked-rotor currents indefinitely shall not apply to conductors or devices other than overcurrent devices in the fire pump motor circuit(s).
If the fire pump circuit also serves the jockey pump, then the circuit must be LRC.

I certainly agree that there is some confusion with 695.4, but I don't see any confusion in the requirements of circuiting a jockey pump.

 

[david luchini]

Did you read 695.4(B)(1)?

Yes, I did read 695.4(B)(1). I don't see anything in it that says that the requirements of Art 695 should be applied to the conductor sizing or OCPD sizing for a Jockey Pump. Did you read 695.1(B)(2)? It says Article 695 does NOT cover Jockey Pumps.

I quoted the last part of the first sentence, "...when connected to this(fire pump) power supply. The jockey pump is allowed, but not required to be connected to the fire pump circuit. So, if you do indeed connect it to the fire pump circuit, you must use LRC for all pumps of that circuit.
Furthermore, the last sentence states: The requirement to carry the locked-rotor currents indefinitely shall not apply to conductors or devices other than overcurrent devices in the fire pump motor circuit(s).
If the fire pump circuit also serves the jockey pump, then the circuit must be LRC.

695.4(B)(1) tells you how to size the OCPD for the Fire Pump motor, not the Jockey Pump motor. Read 695.4: "Circuits that supply electric motor-driven Fire Pumps shall be..." The Jockey Pump is a pressure maintenance pump, not a fire pump. Article 695.4 does not apply to the jockey pump's OCPD, only the Fire Pump's OCPD

I certainly agree that there is some confusion with 695.4, but I don't see any confusion in the requirements of circuiting a jockey pump.

It appears that there is confusion, if you believe that the circuiting of a jockey pump motor should be done in accordance with Art. 695 instead of Art. 430. The jockey pump motor conductor sizing and OCPD sizing should be done in accordance with Art 430., based on the FLC of the jockey pump motor, not the LRC.

 

[inspector141]

David- You are trying to simplify a complicated code article by totally ignoring the words in 2008 NEC 695.4(B)(1). Just so you understand: A pressure maintenance pump motor as described in this article is a JOCKEY PUMP.A jockey pump, or a pressure maintenance pump, is a small apparatus that works in conjunction with a fire pump as part of a fire protection sprinkler system. A jockey pump is designed to keep the pressure elevated in a fire suppression system so that the main fire pump is prevented from running unless absolutely necessary. It consists of a motor, a pump, and a controller.
Words mean things! I'll ignore your sarcasm just so we at this forum can actually have a discussion and move beyond 695.1(B).

Rarely do designers, engineers or electricians use the fire pump circuit to also supply the jockey pump. Typically, the jockey pump is fed with its own separate circuit in accordance with article 430. However, unlike you, I apply the entire code when interpreting. So if you want to totally disregard an entire sub-section of the code, then there is nothing I can do about that except point out you error.
I stated repeatedly that a jockey pump is normally fed per article 430, but you chose to ignore that as well.
Certainly, if an engineer chooses to use the fire pump circuit to also supply the jockey pump, the jockey pump would ultimately be wired and fused per article 430. Nobody has suggested an OCPD based on the LRC of the fire pump and its associated motors would be directly connected to the jockey pump without proper OCP per article 430.
I can only assume that is what you thought. But we tried to repeatedly explain there is a separate rule that allows the fire pump circuit to also carry the power for the jockey pump, provided that the jockey pump is ultimately connected per article 430.
There are controllers that have separate OCPD in them for the jockey pump. That means ONE CIRCUIT that serves the fire pump and..........jockey pump, as allowed in 695.4(B)(1).
If you don't agree with the rule, then try to have it changed. If you believe it means something else, then lets here it, but don't act like it does not exist.
BTW, I do not have my 2008 handbook, but the 2011 Handbook, 695.4(B)(2), gives an example of my interpretation on page 1146.It clearly states to add the LRC of the fire pump and the jockey pump to size the LRC for the combined circuit.

 

[david luchini]

David- You are trying to simplify a complicated code article by totally ignoring the words in 2008 NEC 695.4(B)(1).

I think you are trying to over complicate the code by ignoring the simple language in NEC 695.1(B).

Just so you understand: A pressure maintenance pump motor as described in this article is a JOCKEY PUMP.A jockey pump, or a pressure maintenance pump, is a small apparatus that works in conjunction with a fire pump as part of a fire protection sprinkler system. A jockey pump is designed to keep the pressure elevated in a fire suppression system so that the main fire pump is prevented from running unless absolutely necessary. It consists of a motor, a pump, and a controller.

I know exactly what a JOCKEY PUMP is. It is NOT a FIRE PUMP. Article 695.1(B)(2) states that "pressure maintenance (jockey or makeup) pumps" are not covered within the scope of Article 695.

Words mean things! I'll ignore your sarcasm just so we at this forum can actually have a discussion and move beyond 695.1(B).

Exactly what sarcasm are you referring to? It is interesting that you say "Words mean things!" while suggesting at the same time we should "move beyond 695.1(B)". Don't the words in 695.1(B) mean things, or since you don't like what they say are you chosing to disregard them?

Rarely do designers, engineers or electricians use the fire pump circuit to also supply the jockey pump. Typically, the jockey pump is fed with its own separate circuit in accordance with article 430. However, unlike you, I apply the entire code when interpreting. So if you want to totally disregard an entire sub-section of the code, then there is nothing I can do about that except point out you error.

I think this is what psychologists call "projection." You have admitted above that you want to "move beyond 695.1(B)" yet you accuse me of not applying the entire code section when interpreting the code. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I am NOT disregarding an entire sub-section of the code. I am saying that the sub-section is not relevant to the question that was posed in the original post. If, for instance, you have a "direct connected" fire pump in accordance with 695.4(A), then the provisions of 695.4(B) for a "supervised" connection would not apply. This is not "disregarding" a code sub-section, this is using the realization that the sub-section does not apply to the installation.

I stated repeatedly that a jockey pump is normally fed per article 430, but you chose to ignore that as well.
Certainly, if an engineer chooses to use the fire pump circuit to also supply the jockey pump, the jockey pump would ultimately be wired and fused per article 430. Nobody has suggested an OCPD based on the LRC of the fire pump and its associated motors would be directly connected to the jockey pump without proper OCP per article 430.
I can only assume that is what you thought. But we tried to repeatedly explain there is a separate rule that allows the fire pump circuit to also carry the power for the jockey pump, provided that the jockey pump is ultimately connected per article 430.
There are controllers that have separate OCPD in them for the jockey pump. That means ONE CIRCUIT that serves the fire pump and..........jockey pump, as allowed in 695.4(B)(1).

I haven't ignored that. I have stated clearly that Article 430 applies to both jockey pumps that are connected to fire pump feeders or that are connected independently of the fire pump feeder. We clearly agree on this. However, I think you have missed the question in the OP, and have muddied the discussion as a result. The question is whether the OCPD for a jockey pump should be sized base on the LRC. The answer is NO. You seem to be trying to answer a question about how to size the OCPD for a fire pump feeder that also feeds a jockey pump. This was not the question in the OP. Nothing in 695.4(B)(1) tells us anything about how to size the OCPD for a Jockey Pump, it tells us how to size the OCPD for the fire pump source. Article 430 tells us how to size the OCPD for a Jockey Pump.

If you don't agree with the rule, then try to have it changed. If you believe it means something else, then lets here it, but don't act like it does not exist.
BTW, I do not have my 2008 handbook, but the 2011 Handbook, 695.4(B)(2), gives an example of my interpretation on page 1146.It clearly states to add the LRC of the fire pump and the jockey pump to size the LRC for the combined circuit.

Again, what rule do you think that I am disagreeing with? You are applying a rule for fire pump feeder OCP to a question about how to size the OCP for a Jockey Pump. This does not mean that I disgree with the rule in 695.4(B)(1), it means only that the rule doesn't apply to the question that was asked.