Fire Pump Feeder or Service Conductors?

[iggy2]

Working on design to improve the installation of an existing fire pump.

70-2014 695.3(A)(1) allows a tap ahead of the service disconnecting means. The conductors fed by the tap will be service conductors, and NOT a feeder, correct?

If these conductors are service conductors, they must be either 1) outside the building, or 2) encased in 2" of concrete or brick. (see 695.6(A)(1), refers to 230.6(1) or (2)). There is NO allowance for the service conductors to be MI cable that I can see (i.e. MI cable does not equal outside a building) Agree?

(In this case the proposed tap ahead of the service disconnecting means will have to be made in the same vertical section as the main disconnect, since it is an existing installation, and there is no way/place to make the tap otherwise. This will violate that portion of 695.3(A)(1), but is, IMO, better than the existing install which has the FP controller fed via a 200A fused switch feeding the emergency (only) ATS, which also feeds many other loads. We plan to run this by the AHJ, to make sure he is OK with it. If not, then we leave it as-is, and no improvements are made...)

Thanks.

 

[Smart $]

...there is no way/place to make the tap otherwise...

Impractical perhaps, but with enough desire and money, I'd be willing to bet to the contrary.

 

[iggy2]

bump

 

[Smart $]

What is it you want to know? OP seems to be asking if you are interpreting Code correctly. Seems to me you are.

 

[iggy2]

The question is:

70-2014 695.3(A)(1) allows a tap ahead of the service disconnecting means. The conductors fed by the tap will be service conductors, and NOT a feeder, correct?

And then, if they are service conductors, they must be 1) outside the building (impractical...) or 2) encased in 2" concrete.

 

[Smart $]

The question is:

70-2014 695.3(A)(1) allows a tap ahead of the service disconnecting means. The conductors fed by the tap will be service conductors, and NOT a feeder, correct?

And then, if they are service conductors, they must be 1) outside the building (impractical...) or 2) encased in 2" concrete.

That is correct... but there is nothing stopping you from installing a service disconnecting means in those conductors and have the load side become a dedicated feeder under the provision of 695.3(A)(2)

 

[GoldDigger]

That is correct... but there is nothing stopping you from installing a service disconnecting means in those conductors and have the load side become a dedicated feeder under the provision of 695.3(A)(2)

You just have to make sure that the OCPD in the disconnecting means is rated high enough to meet the NEC spec for the fire pump.
A disconnect without OCPD will not change the conductors from service to feeder.

 

[Smart $]

You just have to make sure that the OCPD in the disconnecting means is rated high enough to meet the NEC spec for the fire pump.
A disconnect without OCPD will not change the conductors from service to feeder.

A service disconnecting means is required to have either integral or immediately adjacent ocpd. That's why I specifically used the term.