Emergency Wiring

[mshields]

Being from Mass, we are in the habit of providing MI cable for emergency circuits. Our amendment truncate 700.10,D to apply the rules that follow to all Emergency circuits and then it eliminates option 1 allowing the circuits to be run in normal pipe and wiring when run through sprinklered area's.

But I'm doing a project in Rhode Island where we are adding a 100A-4P Emergency ATS. The generator will be outdoors with two breakers; 225A for Optional Standby loads and a 100A for the Emergency. Contractor will run separate conduits for the two circuits in the buildings main electric room which I think is sprinklered (this is an emergency fix that just came up). Anyway, if it's sprinklered, then (D)1 has us covered for anything.

But even if it's not, since this is not high rise and not an assembly occupancy for more than 1000 people, I gather I don't have to worry about rated feeders at all. Just looking for a sanity check.

By the way, why does the code read "not less than 1000 persons" instead of "not more than 1000 persons". I for one, find that confusing.

Thanks,

Mike

 

[GoldDigger]

By the way, why does the code read "not less than 1000 persons" instead of "not more than 1000 persons". I for one, find that confusing.

I think you mean why "not less than 1000 persons" instead of "more than 1000 persons", don't you?

It all depends on how important you feel the special case of exactly 1000 is.
And, yes, it is confusing.

 

[texie]

Being from Mass, we are in the habit of providing MI cable for emergency circuits. Our amendment truncate 700.10,D to apply the rules that follow to all Emergency circuits and then it eliminates option 1 allowing the circuits to be run in normal pipe and wiring when run through sprinklered area's.

But I'm doing a project in Rhode Island where we are adding a 100A-4P Emergency ATS. The generator will be outdoors with two breakers; 225A for Optional Standby loads and a 100A for the Emergency. Contractor will run separate conduits for the two circuits in the buildings main electric room which I think is sprinklered (this is an emergency fix that just came up). Anyway, if it's sprinklered, then (D)1 has us covered for anything.

But even if it's not, since this is not high rise and not an assembly occupancy for more than 1000 people, I gather I don't have to worry about rated feeders at all. Just looking for a sanity check.

By the way, why does the code read "not less than 1000 persons" instead of "not more than 1000 persons". I for one, find that confusing.

Thanks,

Mike

It seems to me that you are correct, the feeders do not require special treatment in this case. And , yes, that sentence always throws me too.

 

[mgookin]

I think you mean why "not less than 1000 persons" instead of "more than 1000 persons", don't you?

It all depends on how important you feel the special case of exactly 1000 is.
And, yes, it is confusing.

Wouldn't it be "not less than 1,000 persons" or "more than 999 persons"?

What would be easier would be "1,000 or more persons" and that would help everyone understand the intent.

I always had problems with the word "notwithstanding" in law; it's used very frequently.

And another is "either" which if you look up the definition (definitions), means:
a) One of a pair
b) Both of a pair
That word should be thrown out of the English language.
Install a sconce either side of the entry door so nobody trips on the stoop.
How many are you installing?
In Boston it would be two.
Most other places it would be one.
For some reason the New Englanders like the dual use of the word.

 

[GoldDigger]

Wouldn't it be "not less than 1,000 persons" or "more than 999 persons"?

I did not say that they meant the same thing. That is why I mentioned the special case of exactly 1000.

We like to use round numbers just about everywhere (except maybe in tables ).
Now "not less than or equal to 999" would be really odd.

 

[mshields]

I think you mean why "not less than 1000 persons" instead of "more than 1000 persons", don't you?

YES - that is what I meant - sorry to have made a confusing sentence more confusing by virtue of my flawed question