Fire Pump Controller OCPD

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chocony

Member
Location
Atlanta
Occupation
Electrical Designer
For Fire pump Controller with ATS, do I need to provide a OCPD for fire pump controller after the vertical switchboard section of Fire pump tap? Some web-sites says "optional" but cannot find a section in NEC. Does Fire pump controller have an integral breaker?

Thank you,
 
Many fire pump controllers have an integral OCPD if they're being used as a service disconnect I believe that would need to be so rated. Is the controller adjacent to the "tap" section?
 
Thank you, Rob. No, the FP controller is located in other location, not adjacent to the switchboard. It sounds like NEC allows the vertical section of the switchboard as a service disconnect per NEC 695.3.
 
chocony said:
Thank you, Rob. No, the FP controller is located in other location, not adjacent to the switchboard. It sounds like NEC allows the vertical section of the switchboard as a service disconnect per NEC 695.3.
Click to expand...
You don't need a separate disconnect/OCPD for the fire pump. The controller has an integral disconnect/OCPD. I wouldn't waste the money, unless you think there is a need to work on the service from the switchboard room to the fire pump controller.
 
gadfly56 said:
You don't need a separate disconnect/OCPD for the fire pump. The controller has an integral disconnect/OCPD. I wouldn't waste the money, unless you think there is a need to work on the service from the switchboard room to the fire pump controller.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the fire pump service disconnect need to be grouped with the other service disconnects? If the fire pump is in another room you would typically see a service disconnect adjacent to the other service disconnects which would feed the controller.
 
They wouldn't need to be grouped because the fire pump would be a separate service under 230.2(A) rather than a single service with multiple, grouped disconnects under 230.40.
 
d0nut said:
They wouldn't need to be grouped because the fire pump would be a separate service under 230.2(A) rather than a single service with multiple, grouped disconnects under 230.40.
Click to expand...
^^^^What d0nut said. And the fire pump controller is listed as a service disconnect.
 
infinity said:
The OP said "tap" which would indicate that it is not a separate service.
Click to expand...
I believe it's always treated as a separate service, however. Look at the rules for running the conductors through a building.
 
gadfly56 said:
I believe it's always treated as a separate service, however. Look at the rules for running the conductors through a building.
Click to expand...
Yes that would also apply. The way I read it if you're "tapping" ahead of the other service disconnects that is still the same service requiring the grouping.
 
infinity said:
What led you to that conclusion? Sounds like you'll be running unprotected service conductors through the building.
Click to expand...
ah, so we do need the OCPD for the FP tap because the service conductors are not grouped together. Which NEC section does it say this?
 
infinity said:
Yes that would also apply. The way I read it if you're "tapping" ahead of the other service disconnects that is still the same service requiring the grouping.
Click to expand...
I see the conductors to the fire pump as an additional set of service entrance conductors. The service disconnect for an addition set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for the other set(s) of service entrance conductors.

They are service conductors and must be installed per one of the provisions of 230.6 between the "tap" and the fire pump controller.
 
It would be worthwhile for you to look at this ongoing thread also:

Fire pump conduit-Concrete encasement

I have a new service entrance rated switchboard in the basement of a historical structure. The basement is completely exposed. The service meter is internal to the board and a fire pump is connected ahead of the main breaker. In my documents I indicated that the conduit needs to be concrete...
forums.mikeholt.com
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I see the conductors to the fire pump as an additional set of service entrance conductors. The service disconnect for an addition set of service entrance conductors are not required to be grouped with the service disconnects for the other set(s) of service entrance conductors.
Click to expand...
Don are you saying that this is an additional service? Since the "tap" is almost always after the POCO metering section of the service switchboard I'm not seeing how it can be anything other than an additional service connect.
 
infinity said:
Don are you saying that this is an additional service? Since the "tap" is almost always after the POCO metering section of the service switchboard I'm not seeing how it can be anything other than an additional service connect.
Click to expand...
The tap should be ahead of the metering section, unless pulling the meter doesn't cause a loss of power to the fire pump.
 
infinity said:
What led you to that conclusion? Sounds like you'll be running unprotected service conductors through the building.
Click to expand...
Yes, you will, which is why one of the methods is to encase the conductors in 2" of concrete.
 
gadfly56 said:
The tap should be ahead of the metering section, unless pulling the meter doesn't cause a loss of power to the fire pump.
Click to expand...
Buildings with larger services will have 10 point meter pans and CT's so the meter connection has no bearing on the power being interrupted. The POCO will likely not allow the fire pump to be unmetered.
 
infinity said:
Don are you saying that this is an additional service? Since the "tap" is almost always after the POCO metering section of the service switchboard I'm not seeing how it can be anything other than an additional service connect.
Click to expand...
I am saying it is an additional set of service entrance conductors as permitted by Exception #5 to 230.40. That sends you 230.82(5).
Since they are service entrance conductors, they need to be protected as required by 695.6(A)(1) which refers you to 230.6(1) and (2).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top