California's short sighted building code.

[ppsh]

Failed an inspection for a detached garage / office. Nothing crazy, 60a subfeed, handful of circuts for lighting and receptacles, 20a mini-split A/C and a "fire pump". I've done a bunch of these before. It's a 200-600 gal tank with a 240v 1-2hp booster pump that sits in the garage or outside the house when there is not adequate water flow available from the city supply or well.

Provided it a dedicated 20a 240v circuit and pull out disconnect next to the pump as usual. Fire Marshall came and said it needed to be on a 240v appliance circuit. Couldn't believe this was in the building code, but sure enough it was.

Don't really see how this can be met legally in most instances. This AC had a maximum 20a OCPD, I guess I'd have to run a 40a circuit to a junction box, then split off to fused disconnects, one for the A/C and one for the pump. Which entirely defeats the purpose of the "logic" behind this. Nothing is preventing the local disconnect from being shut off.

Fire Marshal settled on installing a 240v indicator in the building labeled "Danger, fire pump offline when not lit". Said that nobody has done it before, they just tie it to a dryer or ac breaker. Not upsizing the breaker or anything. Just run the same size wire.

Why a breaker lock isn't an acceptable solution is beyond me.

 

[infinity]

What century did they write this code? 110 and 220 volts these guys are lost.

 

[ramsy]

run a 40a circuit to a junction box, then split off to fused disconnects, one for the A/C and one for the pump.

Fire pump is already served by oversized 40A feeder disconnect, or readily accessible cord & plug disconnect.

Don't really see how this can be met legally in most instances.

Neither do kitchen appliance taps need separate disconnects, per NEC 210.19(A)(3)Ex.1

California's short sighted building code.​

All states adopt the same code from the IRC.

 

[Ponchik]

When the pump is on its own circuit and when the breaker trips, nobody will know of the tripped CB. Probably the reason.

 

[jim dungar]

The requirement appears to require a circuit with an appliance that is likely going to be used regularly.
This has nothing to do with the branch circuits for 'kitchen' appliances.
This for a booster pump not a true 'fire pump'.
The code allows separate monitoring but does not say a sign is required. That must be a local rule.

 

[letgomywago]

I feel like this specific code is against the NEC as adopted by California. Wonder what your state of lawyers will settle on in the future. Probably both sides lawyers will make bank and everyone will loose

 

[Birken Vogt]

Stupid idea, but what if you cherry pick Article 695, run the conductors outside the building and without individual OCPD, just tap off the incoming 60A feeder, sort of like it was a real fire pump?

Or consider it tap rule for outside feeder? Assuming the pump motor itself has its own protection.

Edit: easier yet, since it is only a 60A subfeed, continue 60A wire to the fire pump if it will allow.

 

[acin]

The requirement appears to require a circuit with an appliance that is likely going to be used regularly.
This has nothing to do with the branch circuits for 'kitchen' appliances.
This for a booster pump not a true 'fire pump'.
The code allows separate monitoring but does not say a sign is required. That must be a local rule.

in home systems fire bell from flow switch is connected to the refrigerator circuit

 

[curt swartz]

in home systems fire bell from flow switch is connected to the refrigerator circuit

That is an NEC violation.

 

[winnie]

This sounds like an excessive extension of a clever requirement that is (or was) in the Canadian electrical code.

A commonly used light (say a main hallway light) was required to be on the fire alarm circuit, the idea being that if the fire alarm circuit breaker tripped, there would be an obvious problem that the homeowner would know to fix.

IMHO it is not an overreach to do this sort of thing for a sprinkler booster pump. But the code should be flexible to make it easy to implement the 'create an obvious failure to indicate a hidden failure' aspect.

I agree with the OP: having a 40A circuit to a feeder with 2 20A breakers for this pump and the minisplit defeats the logic, because the 20A breaker to the pump could open with no one the wiser. You need a suitably sized circuit feeding the pump, and then some sort of tap off that circuit to a regularly used load, without any sort of additional OCPD feeding the pump. But the regularly used load can't be so large that if the pump activates while that load is on it trips the supply breaker.

IMHO the code is a good idea in concept, but needs to be rethought in practice.

-Jon

 

[wwhitney]

All states adopt the same code from the IRC.

Sure, but they amend it. CRC R313.3 is entirely a California amendment; the 2021 IRC doesn't show any R313.3 section.

2021 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC) | ICC DIGITAL CODES

ICC Digital Codes is the largest provider of model codes, custom codes and standards used worldwide to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resilient structures.

codes.iccsafe.org

https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-residential-code-2022/chapter/3/building-planning#R313.3

However, it looks like they may have lifted it from NFPA 13D, per the first sentence of R313.3:

R313.3.1 The design and installation of residential automatic sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D or Section R313.3, which shall be considered equivalent to NFPA 13D. . . .

I'll check NFPA 13D next.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

However, it looks like they may have lifted it from NFPA 13D, per the first sentence of R313.3:

R313.3.1 The design and installation of residential automatic sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D or Section R313.3, which shall be considered equivalent to NFPA 13D. . . .

I'll check NFPA 13D next.

I'm not versant with NFPA 13D, but 6.2.1 covers the case of a pump which "is the source of pressure for the water supply for a fire sprinkler system but is not a portion of the domestic water system". 6.2.1(2) says that the pump has to be rated for 240V and wired per the NEC, and 6.2.1(3) says any disconnect for the pump has to be approved.

So presuming that anything like CRC R313.3.5.2.1 Item 2.1 would be in/near NFPA 13D 6.2.1 if it were present, it's not there. So that section is a Californiaism. But based on R313.3.1, you can choose to design and install the sprinkler system per NFPA 13D in lieu of R313, in which case you don't have to contend with CRC R313.3.5.2.1 Item 2.1.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ramsy]

So that section is a Californiaism.

Good find. A Californication for supervised sprinkler-pressure pump on over-sized feeder disconnect and/or cord & plug disconnect.

 

[acin]

That is an NEC violation.

can you give me a code reference ?

 

[curt swartz]

can you give me a code reference ?

210.52(B)(2)

 

[zbang]

That is an NEC violation.

Not if the state adopts an amendment saying to connect it that way.

 

[acin]

210.52(B)(2)

i think exception 2 can include a refrigerator

 

[curt swartz]

i think exception 2 can include a refrigerator

Yes it does. It allows an individual 15 amp circuit to feed the refrigerator instead of connecting the refrigerator to the small appliance circuits. It does not allow the circuit to feed additional outlets.

 

[wwhitney]

Yes it does. It allows an individual 15 amp circuit to feed the refrigerator instead of connecting the refrigerator to the small appliance circuits. It does not allow the circuit to feed additional outlets.

Generally yes. If the refrigerator receptacle is not one that is subject to 210.52(A) or (C), because it meets one of the exclusions at the beginning of 210.52, then it is not limited by 210.52(B). So then the circuit supplying the refrigerator receptacle could supply another load.

If the refrigerator is in a cabinetry enclosure, then one could perhaps argue that 210.52(3) applies. Otherwise, putting the receptacle at last 5-1/2 feet above the floor would mean that 210.52(4) applies.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ramsy]

i think exception 2 can include a refrigerator

Can you calculate those loads, per 220.14(A)&(C)?

220.14(A) Nameplate for refrigerator, and 220.14(C) for pump, with simultaneous motor inrush considered?