Fire Pump Overcurrent Proction and Disconnect

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bob V

Member
Location
Claverack, NY, USA
NFPA72,Article 695.4(B)(2) (a) (2) states that overcurrent devices for fire pumps shall be listed for fire pump service. My suppliers have not been able to find such a device. Can you explain the requirement (other than the obvious ones spelled out)?

Thank you
 
Bob V said:
NFPA72,Article 695.4(B)(2) (a) (2) states that overcurrent devices for fire pumps shall be listed for fire pump service. My suppliers have not been able to find such a device. Can you explain the requirement (other than the obvious ones spelled out)?

Thank you
Click to expand...
Interesting. A brief Google search suggests that although the NEC now allows a "listed" OCPD to be placed between the source and the fire pump controller, at this time the only OCPD which is explicitly listed for fire pump service is the OCPD inside a listed fire pump controller.
Will wonders never cease?

Is there a solid reason that you need additional OCPD rather than just a listed disconnect?
 
It seems to me that whether I use a disconnect with or without OCPD the requirement that it be 'listed for fire service' still remains. The feeder is inside a building more than 5 feet so it requires OCPD. I don't see any exception anywhere.
 
GoldDigger said:
Interesting. A brief Google search suggests that although the NEC now allows a "listed" OCPD to be placed between the source and the fire pump controller, at this time the only OCPD which is explicitly listed for fire pump service is the OCPD inside a listed fire pump controller.
Will wonders never cease?

Is there a solid reason that you need additional OCPD rather than just a listed disconnect?
Click to expand...

A feeder is required to have OCPD where it gets it's supply and if t is run more than 5 feet inside a buiding. Both of these conditions exist. Also, I don't what difference it makes if the disconnect has OCPD or not? The listing requirement seems to still be in play.
 
Bob V said:
A feeder is required to have OCPD where it gets it's supply and if t is run more than 5 feet inside a buiding. Both of these conditions exist. Also, I don't what difference it makes if the disconnect has OCPD or not? The listing requirement seems to still be in play.
Click to expand...

As far as the code goes, this is a service, not a feeder. Check the requirements for running inside the building.
 
gadfly56 said:
As far as the code goes, this is a service, not a feeder. Check the requirements for running inside the building.
Click to expand...

It does make sense that this could be considered a service. But article 230.70 (A)(1) requires the disconnecting means to be located nearest the point of entry into the building. The location of h disconnect/OCPD was never part of the question. Once you leave the service disconnect it becomes a branch circuit/feeder. I don't see how this changes anything but it sure makes for interesting conversation.
 
Bob V said:
It does make sense that this could be considered a service. But article 230.70 (A)(1) requires the disconnecting means to be located nearest the point of entry into the building. The location of h disconnect/OCPD was never part of the question. Once you leave the service disconnect it becomes a branch circuit/feeder. I don't see how this changes anything but it sure makes for interesting conversation.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a little confusing because 695 calls the conductors after the disconnecting means "feeders" but they are treated as service conductors. Look at 695.6. And 230.70 (A)(1) doesn't apply to fire pump service/feeder conductors. You could run from a tap ahead of the meter all the way to the controller without a disconnect, if you wanted to. In fact, it's frequently done that way.
 
Bob V said:
It seems to me that whether I use a disconnect with or without OCPD the requirement that it be 'listed for fire service' still remains. The feeder is inside a building more than 5 feet so it requires OCPD. I don't see any exception anywhere.
Click to expand...
The exception is rather simple: If the conductors are encased in 2" or more of concrete they are not considered to be inside the building for the purpose of this rule and the rule about service conductors in general.
Just encase the fire pump conductors to within five feet of the fire pump controller, which is a good idea anyway for their protection.
 
GoldDigger said:
The exception is rather simple: If the conductors are encased in 2" or more of concrete they are not considered to be inside the building for the purpose of this rule and the rule about service conductors in general.
Just encase the fire pump conductors to within five feet of the fire pump controller, which is a good idea anyway for their protection.
Click to expand...

Not even that. Once you get into the room containing the fire pump controller, you can use anything; MC, pipe, whatever. Still don't need a disconnect.
 
GoldDigger said:
The exception is rather simple: If the conductors are encased in 2" or more of concrete they are not considered to be inside the building for the purpose of this rule and the rule about service conductors in general.
Just encase the fire pump conductors to within five feet of the fire pump controller, which is a good idea anyway for their protection.
Click to expand...

That isn't an exception in the code. That is another acceptable option for avoiding the use of a disconnect/OCPD. All of the points made in the posts are well taken. But if you look back at my original question it had to do with finding a service rated disconnect/OCPD. I am not looking for a way to avoid using it. I like having the disconnect and the protection and the code permits it. I know what size it needs to be, I just need to find one. I will just ask the AHJ for a ruling on the rating issue.
 
This would not be the first time that the code permitted the use of something that did not (yet?) exist.
There is an allowable breaker type that not only has not been produced but never will be produced. Eventually the Code will catch up to that fact (2020, I believe).
We were just exploring the fact that this at least does not seem to be the case that the Code requires something that does not exist.
I wish you the best of luck in your quest, but am not optimistic for you. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top