240.67 & .87 - ARMS (arc mitigation) for Fire Pump Service Switch (1200A+)

L

lielec11

Senior Member
Location
Charlotte, NC
Occupation
Electrical Engineer (PE)
I've seen a couple of posts on this but can't seem to find a solid answer. NYC is (finally) moving to 2020 and with it comes the energy reduction maintenance requirements for 1200A and up OCPDs. Common sense says a fire pump switch would be exempt from this but I do not see anything that says otherwise So I think I might be wrong. Can anyone point me to something that an confirm or deny my suspicion?
 
I have not seen the NYC amendments to the 2020 NEC, but in the model code, a 695, 700 or 701 feeder does not have any exception from 240.67 or .87 which provides additional safety for a worker while doing work on the system.
 
Common sense says the fire pump should not be exempt.
The only time the Arc Reduction should be in effect is when maintenance is being done on the downstream equipment. If the fire pump controller is being maintained it is not in service anyway. If someone is working on the controller shouldn't they expect it to be as low risk as possible?

There is nothing in the NEC nor NFPA 70E that says an Arc Flash Reduction switch cannot be locked. Part of the electrical work permit would be to unlock and operate the reduction switch or employee PPE based on the higher incident energy.
 
ron said:
I have not seen the NYC amendments to the 2020 NEC, but in the model code, a 695, 700 or 701 feeder does not have any exception from 240.67 or .87 which provides additional safety for a worker while doing work on the system.
Click to expand...
There is a document floating around from an NYC town council meeting earlier this year with the proposed amendments. If you'd like a copy I can share it via PM.
 
jim dungar said:
Common sense says the fire pump should not be exempt.
The only time the Arc Reduction should be in effect is when maintenance is being done on the downstream equipment. If the fire pump controller is being maintained it is not in service anyway. If someone is working on the controller shouldn't they expect it to be as low risk as possible?

There is nothing in the NEC nor NFPA 70E that says an Arc Flash Reduction switch cannot be locked. Part of the electrical work permit would be to unlock and operate the reduction switch or employee PPE based on the higher incident energy.
Click to expand...
You're saying two different things here: that the FP should not be exempt, but also that if a worker is maintaining the FP controller it is not in service (i.e NOT live) anyway so any ARMS would be moot. Or am I just misunderstanding your post? If the FP is not running there is no load so why do you need the ARMS protection?
 
lielec11 said:
You're saying two different things here: that the FP should not be exempt, but also that if a worker is maintaining the FP controller it is not in service (i.e NOT live) anyway so any ARMS would be moot. Or am I just misunderstanding your post? If the FP is not running there is no load so why do you need the ARMS protection?
Click to expand...
If service work is being done on an energized Fire Pump controller, reduced arc flash is desirable and not exempt.
Arc Flash protection has nothing to do with loads. It is about faults occurring on the energized components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top