Article 700 revised when?

[GR Litepole]

Does anyone know what year that NEC Article 700 was revised to require only emergency loads fed from the emergency source ATS? We're doing a remodel on a building with non-emergency loads currently connected on the emergency panel. We're not touching the emergency system at all, and I want to know if the AHJ could require the non-emergency loads to be removed from the (Art 700) EM panel and reconnected to the (Art 702) standby panel. I'd assume that the circuiting would be grandfathered in if we're not touching it.

 

[charlie b]

Are you touching any non-emergency loads that are downstream of the emergency ATS (including adding new loads to that branch)? That might give the AHJ reason to require you to separate the loads. Also, the so-called "grandfather clause" leaves it open for the AHJ to declare that the existing installation represents a safety hazard. That would definitely give the AHJ reason to require you to separate the loads.

 

[steve66]

I recently looked into this since I find so many installations that share emergency and non-emergency loads on the same ATS.

If I remember correctly, going back to sometime in the 1980's, the code allowed one ATS, but required separate separate branch circuits for emergency systems.

 

[Richard S]

Does anyone know what year that NEC Article 700 was revised to require only emergency loads fed from the emergency source ATS? We're doing a remodel on a building with non-emergency loads currently connected on the emergency panel. We're not touching the emergency system at all, and I want to know if the AHJ could require the non-emergency loads to be removed from the (Art 700) EM panel and reconnected to the (Art 702) standby panel. I'd assume that the circuiting would be grandfathered in if we're not touching it.

I just pulled out my old 1996 NEC Handbook and this is addressed in 700-9(b). I had a 1993 Handbook, but someone decided they needed it more than me and borrowed it permanently. :rant:

 

[GR Litepole]

Are you touching any non-emergency loads that are downstream of the emergency ATS (including adding new loads to that branch)? That might give the AHJ reason to require you to separate the loads. Also, the so-called "grandfather clause" leaves it open for the AHJ to declare that the existing installation represents a safety hazard. That would definitely give the AHJ reason to require you to separate the loads.

No, we are not touching any of the non-emergency loads that are currently connected downstream of the emergency ATS, nor are we adding any new loads to that branch. The AHJ may conclude that the non-emergency loads may constitute a safety concern if one of those loads cause the MCB to trip in the emergency panel and therefore the emergency lighting wouldn't operate.

 

[GR Litepole]

No, we are not touching any of the non-emergency loads that are currently connected downstream of the emergency ATS, nor are we adding any new loads to that branch. The AHJ may conclude that the non-emergency loads may constitute a safety concern if one of those loads cause the MCB to trip in the emergency panel and therefore the emergency lighting wouldn't operate.

AHJ stated that if during this project we are not making any modifications to the existing emergency system, he would not require the non-emergency loads to be removed from the emergency panels. He did question as to when these branch circuits were added to the panels, and would recommend that the building owner be notified of the current situation, and it is their decision to make the emergency system code compliant. If the emergency lighting failed to activate, and it was then determined that the non-emergency loads were the direct cause, the building owner may be held liable.