GF protection on service disconnect for fire pumps

[pisani168]

695 does not allow GF protection on FP equipment. I have a fire pump control panel feeding pumps and the panel has its own OCPD. The panel is fed off a utility transformer. The service entry disconnect has GF protection because the transformer fulfills the requirements outlined in 230. Is this a legal installation or does the GF protection need to be removed.

My guts says that it needs to be removed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gadfly56]

The fire pump should be fed up-line of the premises service entry disconnect.

 

[pisani168]

You are right. In this very case however, the fire pumps have their own service disconnect running independently from the service disconnect for the plant

 

[gadfly56]

You are right. In this very case however, the fire pumps have their own service disconnect running independently from the service disconnect for the plant

OK, you may have to draw me a picture. If I understand, there are two service disconnects, one for the transformer (load side or line side?) and one for the fire pump(s). The fire pump disconnect is upstream of the transformer disconnect. If the fire pump disconnect is GF, it should be changed.

 

[pisani168]

This is the worst drawing I ever made lol Hope it helps

 

[texie]

This is the worst drawing I ever made lol Hope it helps

I think you are saying that the one on the right (DSC) has GFP and the fire pump on the left has no GFP. That's fine.
However, I wonder why you have a service disconnect at all for the fire pump. Typically service conductors are run directly to the service rated FP controller.

 

[gadfly56]

I think you are saying that the one on the right (DSC) has GFP and the fire pump on the left has no GFP. That's fine.
However, I wonder why you have a service disconnect at all for the fire pump. Typically service conductors are run directly to the service rated FP controller.

This is what I usually see as well, but a disconnect is permitted. It can't be grouped with the rest of the gear, and it has to be sized for the locked rotor current even if it isn't fused.

 

[kwired]

GFPE protection is not permitted in any fire pump power circuit.

Short circuit and ground fault protection is still required, it must be able to carry locked rotor current of the motor indefinitely.

 

[jim dungar]

This is what I usually see as well, but a disconnect is permitted.

I had a similar installation, the existing fire pump controller was not service entrance rated and the feeder was being relocated to a new service. Two outdoor disconnects were separated by several feet so the definition of grouping was never brought up. Maybe the locked-on and labeled disconnect made it okay.

 

[infinity]

I had a similar installation, the existing fire pump controller was not service entrance rated and the feeder was being relocated to a new service. Two outdoor disconnects were separated by several feet so the definition of grouping was never brought up. Maybe the locked-on and labeled disconnect made it okay.

Why is being grouped an issue?

 

[roger]

Why is being grouped an issue?

They do not want it to accidently be shut off so installing it remote from the others makes it less likely to be.

Roger

 

[infinity]

They do not want it to accidently be shut off so installing it remote from the others makes it less likely to be.

Roger

Roger, where is that in the NEC? 695.3(A)(1) mentions about not being in the same section of switchboard or enclosure but saying nothing about it being grouped with other service disconnects.

 

[texie]

Where is that in the NEC? 695.3(A)(1) mentions about not being in the same section of switchboard or enclosure but saying nothing about it being grouped with other service disconnects.

695.4(B))(3)(a)(4)

 

[roger]

695.4(B))(3)(a)(4)

Roger