Fire Pumps Liquidtight Non-Metallic Conduit Required?

[Ravenvalor]

Hello and Happy New Year,,,,

A company that advises companies on their fire pumps would like for me to replace a 2' section of greenfield flexible conduit with liquidtite non-metallic conduit from the rigid raceway to the firepump motor. I did not install this but am questioning the reasoning behind his request and the code article 695.6(D) which does not make this requirement. (This pump may have been installed as long as 30 or 40 years ago).
Also, is this something that I should get inspected? Since this is a fire pump for a factory I would like to reduce my liability.

Thank you,

 

[ADub]

Fire Pumps Liquidtight Non-Metallic Conduit Required?

What's the environment like? Could they maybe be worried about corrosion to any metal containing raceways? The rigid conduit before the transition would insinuate that no the atmosphere isn't corrosive. I'd ask the "advising" party for a little substantiation. I don't see fmc listed in 695.6(d) but metallic sealtite sure is. Is there an equipment ground with the feed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ravenvalor]

Yes there is an equipment ground with the feed.
The environment is nema 1 and non-corrosive.
I will ask him for a code reference?

Thanks,

 

[texie]

Hello and Happy New Year,,,,

A company that advises companies on their fire pumps would like for me to replace a 2' section of greenfield flexible conduit with liquidtite non-metallic conduit from the rigid raceway to the firepump motor. I did not install this but am questioning the reasoning behind his request and the code article 695.6(D) which does not make this requirement. (This pump may have been installed as long as 30 or 40 years ago).
Also, is this something that I should get inspected? Since this is a fire pump for a factory I would like to reduce my liability.

Thank you,

I think you are misreading 695.6(D). It does not permit FMC (Greenfield). I think the larger question is why is somebody asking for compliance with anything relating to Article 695 on an installation this old. Article 695 did not even exist until the 1996 NEC. Prior to that fire pumps had minimal NEC references and most electrical requirements were included in NFPA 20 and I don't think this was a requirement back then. Trust me, there is a whole bunch of other things in a fire pump installation this old that will not comply with today's Article 695. Why would they worry about a piece of FMC that was probably compliant when it was installed?

 

[Ravenvalor]

I think you are misreading 695.6(D). It does not permit FMC (Greenfield). I think the larger question is why is somebody asking for compliance with anything relating to Article 695 on an installation this old. Article 695 did not even exist until the 1996 NEC. Prior to that fire pumps had minimal NEC references and most electrical requirements were included in NFPA 20 and I don't think this was a requirement back then. Trust me, there is a whole bunch of other things in a fire pump installation this old that will not comply with today's Article 695. Why would they worry about a piece of FMC that was probably compliant when it was installed?

Thanks for the input textie. The main problem is that the junction box on the motor is missing a cover. He thought that since we were working replacing the box we might as well bring the rest of the installation up to code.
He was kind enough to text me the code reference last night. It is NFPA 70 2014 edition 430.223.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thanks for the input textie. The main problem is that the junction box on the motor is missing a cover. He thought that since we were working replacing the box we might as well bring the rest of the installation up to code.
He was kind enough to text me the code reference last night. It is NFPA 70 2014 edition 430.223.

What voltage is the motor? That section is in Part XI and only applies over 1,000 volts.

In addition, the referenced section permits FMC and LFMC, but not liquid tight flexible non-metallic conduit.

430.223 Raceway Connection to Motors Flexible metal conduit or liquidtight flexible metal conduit not exceeding 1.8 m (6 ft) in length shall be permitted to be employed for raceway connection to a motor terminal enclosure.

This however a type of code wording that I take exception to. The code is trying to use a specific permission to act as a prohibition to the use of other methods. It doesn't really work that way. Telling me I can do something is not telling me I can't do something else.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Firstly, I have a hard time thinking Section 430.223 would apply to a normal Fire Pump application. I have inspected and or designed many of them for various engineers and I can't tell you a single occasion where the voltage was more than 480 volts. However, I am not going to say they don't exist because I am sure they do. However, as the MOD pointed out, part XI only deals with Over 1000 V, nominal systems unless you are dealing with the 2011 NEC to which was Over 600 Volts and should not matter if the system is 480 volts or less.

Secondly, I don't agree that it is not clear on the permitted use. Again the NEC is not an installation manual it clearly says FMC and LFMC (6' or less) "shall be permitted", not required. I will TRY (as I am sure it will not be accepted) that the slanguage (yes the "s" was intentional) was to provide some flexibility to the application where Section 348.30 and 350.30 are less flexible at the 6' allowance.

Now I am not justifying anything and I am most certainly speaking for the members of CMP 11...but being that nothing prevents other wiring methods from being used, as long as they meet the conditions of specific use, it would appear to me that 430.223 is attempting to allow a length reprieve from 348.30 and/or 350.30. Yes, I know the rules and structure of Section 90.3 and Chapters 1-4 so spare me....but I am just giving you my opinion to the possible notion of 430.223 and why it says what it says. It also possibly serves to remind us of Section 250.118(5) and (6) as well where applicable.

Just my thoughts on it......but I agree...sometimes the NEC would be better to just say it...but then again that would would be an installation manual and thats not what we got in this standard.....

 

[Ravenvalor]

What voltage is the motor? That section is in Part XI and only applies over 1,000 volts.

In addition, the referenced section permits FMC and LFMC, but not liquid tight flexible non-metallic conduit.

This however a type of code wording that I take exception to. The code is trying to use a specific permission to act as a prohibition to the use of other methods. It doesn't really work that way. Telling me I can do something is not telling me I can't do something else.

This is a 3PHASE 550VOLT 73AMP 1775RPM WESTINGHOUSE brand motor

Thank you for the input Don.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Secondly, I don't agree that it is not clear on the permitted use. ...

So you are saying that specifically permitting me to do one thing somehow acts to prohibit me from doing some other thing?

 

[MasterTheNEC]

So you are saying that specifically permitting me to do one thing somehow acts to prohibit me from doing some other thing?

Ummm.....I never said the NEC was devoid of convoluted ideas. I just made a statement in terms of how 430.233 is written and what I feel the intent of it's meaning was to be directed. That one is probably not a good example of your disgust with how things sometimes read, just an observation as to why that specific section was to be used.

 

[Ravenvalor]

Thanks for the great advice.
Do you think that I should get an electrical permit and inspection for replacing the box on the motor and replacing the 2' piece of flex at the motor. I would rather not but if this is a huge liability risk then it is worth opening up this pandora's box.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Ummm.....I never said the NEC was devoid of convoluted ideas. I just made a statement in terms of how 430.233 is written and what I feel the intent of it's meaning was to be directed. That one is probably not a good example of your disgust with how things sometimes read, just an observation as to why that specific section was to be used.

Opps.....430.223...my bad