Fire Pump Service

[k0y0te]

Currently finishing up construction on a fire pump job where the pump is fed from a dedicated service. Conduits are routed outside per 695. The fire pump is located in an abandoned transformer vault in the basement. Conduits penetrate the exterior basement wall directly into be fire pump controller. All is good, or so I thought.

I show up on site today and the electrical contractor has decided to relocate the fire pump controller to a different wall and routed the service conductors in conduit approximately 5' over to the pump controller. I noted that these conduits will now need to be concrete encased.

His argument is that once the service conductors enter the pump room, they are allowed to be run up to the controller without the concrete encasement. And of course, he has installed an LB where the conduit enters the room which can't be covered in concrete anyway. He says that this is a dedicated fire pump room now and some portion of the conduit can be installed as it runs into the fire pump controller.

I still read the code to say that any portion of the service run within the building would require 2" concrete encasement. Am I missing something?

thanks.

 

[david]

Currently finishing up construction on a fire pump job where the pump is fed from a dedicated service. Conduits are routed outside per 695. The fire pump is located in an abandoned transformer vault in the basement. Conduits penetrate the exterior basement wall directly into be fire pump controller. All is good, or so I thought.

I show up on site today and the electrical contractor has decided to relocate the fire pump controller to a different wall and routed the service conductors in conduit approximately 5' over to the pump controller. I noted that these conduits will now need to be concrete encased.

His argument is that once the service conductors enter the pump room, they are allowed to be run up to the controller without the concrete encasement. And of course, he has installed an LB where the conduit enters the room which can't be covered in concrete anyway. He says that this is a dedicated fire pump room now and some portion of the conduit can be installed as it runs into the fire pump controller.

I still read the code to say that any portion of the service run within the building would require 2" concrete encasement. Am I missing something?

thanks.

what code section are you looking at for the concrete.
The service conductors terminate in a service disconnect with-in 5 ft. of entering the building. This may be an Authority call in determining if the service entrance should be limited to less than the 5 ft.

 

[gadfly56]

Currently finishing up construction on a fire pump job where the pump is fed from a dedicated service. Conduits are routed outside per 695. The fire pump is located in an abandoned transformer vault in the basement. Conduits penetrate the exterior basement wall directly into be fire pump controller. All is good, or so I thought.

I show up on site today and the electrical contractor has decided to relocate the fire pump controller to a different wall and routed the service conductors in conduit approximately 5' over to the pump controller. I noted that these conduits will now need to be concrete encased.

His argument is that once the service conductors enter the pump room, they are allowed to be run up to the controller without the concrete encasement. And of course, he has installed an LB where the conduit enters the room which can't be covered in concrete anyway. He says that this is a dedicated fire pump room now and some portion of the conduit can be installed as it runs into the fire pump controller.

I still read the code to say that any portion of the service run within the building would require 2" concrete encasement. Am I missing something?

thanks.

No. Within the electrical service room AND within the room containing the fire pump you don't need concrete encasement. You could use MC if you wanted. Look at the exception under 695.6 (A).

 

[david luchini]

No. Within the electrical service room AND within the room containing the fire pump you don't need concrete encasement. You could use MC if you wanted. Look at the exception under 695.6 (A).

The exception applies to Feeder Conductors, the question is about Service Conductors.

 

[gadfly56]

The exception applies to Feeder Conductors, the question is about Service Conductors.

Did you not look at the heading? "(A) Supply Conductors". Feeders for fire pumps are treated as service conductors, but they are in fact supply conductors.

 

[k0y0te]

No. Within the electrical service room AND within the room containing the fire pump you don't need concrete encasement. You could use MC if you wanted. Look at the exception under 695.6 (A).

2014 NEC specifically says "Exception to (A)(2)(d)" not just (A) in general. I read that to mean the exception applies to feeders only, not to service conductors.

 

[gadfly56]

2014 NEC specifically says "Exception to (A)(2)(d)" not just (A) in general. I read that to mean the exception applies to feeders only, not to service conductors.

(d) encompasses all the requirements the OP is talking about. He may have said "service conductors" but what he has are "feeders" since they are on the load side of the final disconnecting means. Which is located we don't know where because the OP didn't say, but I'd guess back at the origin of the dedicated service if it's tapped ahead of the meter and switch gear. I mean, what's the expectation here? Concrete encased down the wall, across the floor and enter from the bottom of the controller sitting on top of a concrete puck with the conductors passing up?

Even if you want to stick to service conductors installed under 230.6, there is an exception under 230.6(3) for...transformer vaults. Recall the OP said "...an abandoned transformer vault..."

 

[k0y0te]

(d) encompasses all the requirements the OP is talking about. He may have said "service conductors" but what he has are "feeders" since they are on the load side of the final disconnecting means. Which is located we don't know where because the OP didn't say, but I'd guess back at the origin of the dedicated service if it's tapped ahead of the meter and switch gear. I mean, what's the expectation here? Concrete encased down the wall, across the floor and enter from the bottom of the controller sitting on top of a concrete puck with the conductors passing up?

Even if you want to stick to service conductors installed under 230.6, there is an exception under 230.6(3) for...transformer vaults. Recall the OP said "...an abandoned transformer vault..."

The new fire pump is fed from a dedicated service tapped at the terminals of the transformer. So the only disconnect means is the fire pump controller itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how these could be interpenetrated as feeder conductors. 695.6(A)(2) specifically says "Feeders. Fire pump supply conductors on the load side of the final disconnecting means" which is not applicable to the conductors in question. I totally see how the exception applies to feeders, but not these service conductors.

I very much do NOT want to make the contractor rip this out and redo it, but I am not convinced that the code is being met.

I tried 230.6(3) since this is an abandoned transformer vault, but the room has been modified in the past (door was removed, now it's open to the adjacent mechanical room) so the requirements of 450 part III are no longer met.

 

[gadfly56]

The new fire pump is fed from a dedicated service tapped at the terminals of the transformer. So the only disconnect means is the fire pump controller itself. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how these could be interpenetrated as feeder conductors. 695.6(A)(2) specifically says "Feeders. Fire pump supply conductors on the load side of the final disconnecting means" which is not applicable to the conductors in question. I totally see how the exception applies to feeders, but not these service conductors.

I very much do NOT want to make the contractor rip this out and redo it, but I am not convinced that the code is being met.

I tried 230.6(3) since this is an abandoned transformer vault, but the room has been modified in the past (door was removed, now it's open to the adjacent mechanical room) so the requirements of 450 part III are no longer met.

If it's allowed in your jurisdiction, put in a locked disconnect after the tap and presto! now you meet the exception.

 

[RB1]

230.70(A)(1) requires the service disconnecting means, in this case the fire pump controller, to be installed at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. Article 695 does not modify this requirement. Some jurisdictions allow a prescribed length of service conductor within the building. Our jurisdiction permits up to 15 feet.

 

[gadfly56]

230.70(A)(1) requires the service disconnecting means, in this case the fire pump controller, to be installed at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. Article 695 does not modify this requirement. Some jurisdictions allow a prescribed length of service conductor within the building. Our jurisdiction permits up to 15 feet.

230.70(A)(1) allows the disconnecting means to be outside the building. Negotiate with the AHJ for the value of "readily accessible". I'd suggest that if the service transformer is within a fenced and locked area it's still readily accessible and you could co-locate the disconnecting means there, but YMMV. Problem still solved.

 

[david]

The exception applies to Feeder Conductors, the question is about Service Conductors.

Did you not look at the heading? "(A) Supply Conductors". Feeders for fire pumps are treated as service conductors, but they are in fact supply conductors.

I too believed the question to be addressing service entrance conductors.

Unless the question is addressing concrete to allow the service entrance conductors to be considered outside, I’m not sure what code section would apply to require concrete.

If 5ft is not an acceptable allowance for service entrance conductors prior to a service disconnecting means concrete may be a solution for limiting the length to an acceptable length .Still I think this is an Authority call, before I would be concerned I would run it past the Authority .

 

[gadfly56]

I too believed the question to be addressing service entrance conductors.

Unless the question is addressing concrete to allow the service entrance conductors to be considered outside, I’m not sure what code section would apply to require concrete.

If 5ft is not an acceptable allowance for service entrance conductors prior to a service disconnecting means concrete may be a solution for limiting the length to an acceptable length .Still I think this is an Authority call, before I would be concerned I would run it past the Authority .

That would be 695 (A)(2)(d) as previously mentioned. Concrete encasement is one of three (3) means to accomplish that end.

You can locate a disconnecting means ANYWHERE outside the building, not just "nearest the point of entrance" into the building on the building interior. That becomes the disconnecting means and turns the SEC conductors into supply conductors and the controller is just a downstream disconnecting means.

 

[david]

Currently finishing up construction on a fire pump job where the pump is fed from a dedicated service.

I show up on site today and the electrical contractor has decided to relocate the fire pump controller to a different wall and routed the service conductors in conduit approximately 5' over to the pump controller. I noted that these conduits will now need to be concrete encased.

thanks.

. I read that to mean the exception applies to feeders only, not to

service conductors.

The new fire pump is fed from a dedicated service tapped at the terminals of the transformer............................................... not these service conductors.

That would be 695 (A)(2)(d) as previously mentioned. Concrete encasement is one of three (3) means to accomplish that end.

You can locate a disconnecting means ANYWHERE outside the building, not just "nearest the point of entrance" into the building on the building interior. That becomes the disconnecting means and turns the SEC conductors into supply conductors and the controller is just a downstream disconnecting means.

you can locate a service disconnecting means outside the nearest point of entrance, however it seems clear that is not the OP situation he is asking if service entrance conductors must be protected by concrete because they enter into the building 5 ft., at least that is how I read his post

 

[david]

You can locate a disconnecting means ANYWHERE outside the building, not just "nearest the point of entrance" into the building on the building interior. [/QUOTE]

perhaps anywhere attached to the building, but if the service disconnecting means is "ANYWHERE outside" you may end up with 225.32 Location. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.

 

[david luchini]

Did you not look at the heading? "(A) Supply Conductors". Feeders for fire pumps are treated as service conductors, but they are in fact supply conductors.

Yes, I looked at the heading (A) Supply Conductors...

Did you look at the headings "(A)(1) Service and On-site Power Production Facilities", and "(A)(2) Feeders"?

Did you also see that the exception to which you refer applies only to section (A)(2)(d)?

The OPs fire pump installation is supplied by service conductors, not feeders. 695.6(A)(2) does not apply to the installation, nor does the exception contained within 695.6(A)(2).

 

[gadfly56]

Yes, I looked at the heading (A) Supply Conductors...

Did you look at the headings "(A)(1) Service and On-site Power Production Facilities", and "(A)(2) Feeders"?

Did you also see that the exception to which you refer applies only to section (A)(2)(d)?

The OPs fire pump installation is supplied by service conductors, not feeders. 695.6(A)(2) does not apply to the installation, nor does the exception contained within 695.6(A)(2).

OK, perhaps I was being a tad condescending. I did back track somewhat by suggesting that a disconnecting means be installed outside the building. That would turn the conductors into feeders. In turn, the elements of 695.6(A) would now apply. It's probably a lot cheaper to add the disconnect than to cover everything in the vault with 2" of brick or concrete to the new controller location.

 

[gadfly56]

you can locate a service disconnecting means outside the nearest point of entrance, however it seems clear that is not the OP situation he is asking if service entrance conductors must be protected by concrete because they enter into the building 5 ft., at least that is how I read his post

I get what he's got. I was trying to suggest an addition that would change the conductors from service to feeder.