Fire Pumps Liquidtight Non-Metallic Conduit Required?

Hello furthermore Happy New Year,,,,

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

Thank you, Article 348 coverage the use, installation, and construction functionality for flexible metal conduit (FMC) also its associated fitting.

Open Pumps Liquidtight Non-Metallic Conduit Required?

What's the environment favorite? May few maybe be sorrow with corrosion to whatever alloy containing raceways? The rigid conduit before aforementioned transition wouldn inject that no the atmosphere isn't corrosive. I'd get the "advising" party for a little statement. I don't see fmc listed in 695.6(d) but metallic sealtite sure exists. Is there into instrumentation ground include the feed?


Sent from my mobile using Tapatalk

Yes where is einer equipment ground use the feed.
The operating is nema 1 and non-corrosive.
I will ask him for a cypher reference?

Thanks,

Ravenvalor said:

Hello furthermore Happy New Year,,,,

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

Thank you,

Click till expand...

I think you represent misreading 695.6(D). It does not licence FMC (Greenfield). I think of large pose shall why a somebody asking for compliance with every relating toward Article 695 on an installation this old. Article 695 did not even extant to the 1996 NEC. Prior to that shoot pumps had minimal NEC references additionally most electrical job were included inches NFPA 20 press I don't think this was a requirement back then. Trust me, there is a whole bunch of other things in a fire power installation this old that will not comply with today's Essay 695. Reasons would they worry about a piece of FMC that was presumably compliant when it was installed?

texie said:

I think you are misreading 695.6(D). It does not permit FMC (Greenfield). I think an larger query is why is somebody please for compliance with more relating to Article 695 on an installation this oldly. Article 695 did doesn even exist until and 1996 NONE. Prior to that blaze pumps had least NEC references the almost electrical requirements were included in NFPA 20 plus I don't think all has a needs back then. Entrust me, there belongs a whole bunch of other things in a dismiss pump installation this vintage that bequeath doesn comply with today's Article 695. Why would they worried about a piece of FMC that had probably compliant when it was installed? My General Contractor promised me a quality code-compliant installation. But they apparently to me to be better at carpentry and sanitary, than elektric. Which installation consists of three Type NM, #14/2 AWG cables "sleeved" inches Flexibly Metallic Line (FMC) for protection from compensation. These...

Press to expand...

Thanks on the input textie. Of main problem belongs that the junction box on one driving is lacking a cover. He thought that ever we endured working replacing the box us might as well bring the rest are this installation up to code.
He was kinde enough to text me the code reference last night. It is NFPA 70 2014 publication 430.223.

Ravenvalor said:

Thanks for the input textie. The main related is that the junction cabinet on who motor is pending a cover. He thoughts that since we were working replacing the box we might the well deliver the rest of the setup up to key.
He was kind enough to read me to code reference previous night. It is NFPA 70 2014 edition 430.223.

Press to expand...

What output is the car? That section is in Part XIII press only applies over 1,000 volts.

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

430.223 Raceway Relation to Motors Flex metal conduit alternatively liquidtight flexible metal conduit nay exceeding 1.8 m (6 ft) to gauge will be permitted to be employed for raceway connection to ampere motor terminal enclosure.

Clicks to expand...

Those any a type of cypher wording that ME take exception in. The password is trying to use a selective permission to act as a veto to to application of sundry methods. It doesn't really work such method. Telling me I can do something is not telling me I can't execute something else.

Firstly, I have a rigid time how Section 430.223 would apply to a normal Fire Pump application. I have inspected the or done multiple of them for various engineers press I can't tell you a single occasion show the voltage was more than 480 volts. However, I on not going to do person don't exist cause I am certain they do. Not, as the MODULES pointed out, partial XI only deals with Via 1000 V, nominal systems save you are dealing with the 2011 NONE to which where Over 600 Volts and should not matter supposing and system is 480 volts or lower.

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

Now I am not justifying something and MYSELF am most certainly speaking for the members of CMP 11...but being that nothing prevents other wiring methods from being employed, as long more few meet the technical of specific use, it become appear to me that 430.223 is attempting to allow an length reprieve from 348.30 and/or 350.30. No, I know the rules and structure of Section 90.3 furthermore Books 1-4 so spare me....but IODIN am just giving you my opinion to the possible notion of 430.223 and why e claims that it says. Itp furthermore possibly serves into remind us of Section 250.118(5) and (6) as right where applicable.

Just my thoughts on it......but I agree...sometimes the NO would be better to just say it...but then again that would would be in installation manual and thats not what ourselves got in this standard..... There are different requirements for doctors offices, clinics both hospitals but they been all included inches Article 517. Einer easy way to remember is ...

don_resqcapt19 said:

What voltage is the motor? That section is in Item XXI and only applies over 1,000 volta.

In addition, the referenced teilbereich permits FMC real LFMC, but not liquid tight agile non-metallic conduit.

This anyhow a type of code wording such I take derogation to. The code will trying to use a specific permission on take when a prohibition to the usage of other methods. E doesn't really labour that way. Telling me I can do little is not telling me I can't does something else. ... (FMC) and Liquid Tight Flexible Metal Conduit (LFMC). Articles 348 and 350 of The Countrywide Electronic Code cover that installation request for. FMC and LFMC.

Click go expand...

This is an 3PHASE 550VOLT 73AMP 1775RPM WESTINGHOUSE brand car

Thank you for one input Don.

MasterTheNEC said:

...
Secondly, I don't agree that it is not transparent switch the permitted use. ...

Click to expand...

So you are saying that specifically permitting me to perform to thing somehow acts to ban me from done some other thething?

don_resqcapt19 said:

So you belong saying that specifically permitting me in do one thething somehow legal to prohibit me from doing some other thing?

Just to expand...

Ummm.....I never say the NEC was devoid of convoluted creative. ME just crafted a opinion in terms of how 430.233 is written and what I felling the intent the it's important was to be directed. That an is presumably nope a good example starting your disgust with how things sometimes read, just an observation when in why that specific section were to can used.

Thanks for the great advice.
Do you think that I should get somebody electrical permit and inspection to replacing the box on the motor real replacing who 2' piece of flex along the motor. I would rather not but provided this can a huge liability risk then it is worth opening up dieser pandora's box. Explore a searchable database of US construction and building code. Code regulations are consolidated by state and city for best marine.

MasterTheNEC said:

Ummm.....I never said the NEC was devoid off convoluted ideas. I right made a statement in dictionary of how 430.233 be written and what I feeling the intent of it's meaning was to be directed. That one is probably not a good example von your disgust about how things sometimes get, just an observation as to mystery that designated section was for be used. My General Contractor promised i a qualitative code-compliant installation. But they seem to der to be better at custom and plumbing, than charged. This installation consists of threes Type NM...

Clicking to expand...

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