Fire Pump supervised connection

[Knobntube]

I have found fire pump connections to be unique when it comes to NEC requirements and NFPA guidelines.

I have become accustomed to providing a disconnect ahead of the fire pump controller in accordance with NEC 695.4. However, I'm second guessing myself, and considering using direct connections instead.

Can anyone shed light on why a disconnect ahead of the fire pump would be benefitial?

 

[dpc]

In case you need to work on the controller?

 

[Knobntube]

That's a good point.

I've gotten in trouble before by specifying a non-fused disconnect ahead of the fire pump controller. Verbiage in NFPA 20 does not specifically allow the installation of a disconnect switch without overcurrent protection. Therefore, I was required to install a fused disconnect, sized for LRA of the pump. Seems like a lot of cost just to service the controller.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[dpc]

There are a lot of fire pumps out there with a direct connection to the controller. The controller will have a disconnecting means that will allow most normal maintenance to be done on the controller, but there are still live parts on the line side of the disconnect. With new arc-flash requirements, this becomes problematic for fire pump controllers because if there is a fault on the line side of the disconnect, there is not much in the way of upstream protection, so arc-flash energy could get so high that NFPA 70E would not allow any live work to be done.