electrical conduit passing through a Generator room

[mshields]

Here in Massachusetts, we used to have an amended version of what was then 700.9 (now 700.10) the precluded running any conduit through an emergency electric room (also a Mass contrivance) that wasn't related to the electrical room. I occasionally run into critics who still think this is in force, a thrust easily parried. I've run into a situation now however, where I have to run a conduit from A to B and by far the easiest way to do that would be to run it through a room that presently houses an Emergency generator. Not sure what branches it has coming off it, but it's in a hospital (although serving an administrative building) so buts lets assume if it matters that it has either a Life Safety or Emergency ATS associated with it. If I avoid the dedicated space above any panelboards in that room, is there any reason why I can't do this? I don't know of any.

The generator incidentally is slated to come out in a year or two, making it all the more palatable. Still, that's not imminent so it's really not a factor either way.


Thanks,

Mike

 

[mgookin]

Can you run it through a (horizontal or vertical) fire-rated chase, having a rating equal to the required rating of the room, which is bounded by one of the room's walls and declare it being outside of the room because it is separated therefrom by fire resistant construction meeting the requirements for the room?

 

[Smart $]

...is there any reason why I can't do this?
...

None that I can see.

 

[mgookin]

None that I can see.

I think it's a Mass. amendment question. Or is he saying the amendment was deleted?

 

[iwire]

I think it's a Mass. amendment question. Or is he saying the amendment was deleted?

It for sure was a Mass amendment, I had many great laughs when chain stores or other out of staters would design a job without knowing this. I know of many electric rooms that ended up sub-dived with a two hour fire rated room for the emergency distribution equipment

Mike is the only person I have heard say it no longer applies. The requirement is in my 2011 beside me, and it shows up online in the 2014 draft edition. Maybe I will get ambitious and grab my 2014 book from the truck.

My 2017 NEC with Mass amendments included has been ordered but not printed yet.

 

[iwire]

Here in Massachusetts, we used to have an amended version of what was then 700.9 (now 700.10) the precluded running any conduit through an emergency electric room (also a Mass contrivance) that wasn't related to the electrical room. I occasionally run into critics who still think this is in force, a thrust easily parried.

Mike, help me out here, you said it would be easy.

From my 2014 soft cover Mass amendments

700.10. Make the following two revisions:

I. Revise (D) to read as follows: Emergency Systems shall meet the additional requirements in
(D)(1) through (D)(3).

II. Revised (D)(1) by deleting (1) and renumber (2) through (5) as (1) through (4) respectively.

Section 700.10(D)(1) is deleted,

(1) Be installed in spaces or areas that are fully protected
by an approved automatic fire suppression system

It is that section that lets users of the NEC use the fire sprinkler system as the protection for the emergency equipment for us in Mass we are only left with the following options

(2) Be a listed electrical circuit protective system with a minimum
2-hour fire rating

(3) Be protected by a listed thermal barrier system for electrical
system components with a minimum 2-hour fire
rating

(4) Be protected by a listed fire-rated assembly that has a
minimum fire rating of 2 hours and contains only emergency
wiring circuits.

(5) Be encased in a minimum of 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete

Without a doubt the NEC has changed the numbers (700.10 became 700.12) but I do not see that as meaning the MA amendment is not in place, it just needs to be updated.

Or do you have some info I do not?

 

[Smart $]

I think it's a Mass. amendment question. Or is he saying the amendment was deleted?

That was what I gathered from his post.

 

[david luchini]

Mike, help me out here, you said it would be easy.

From my 2014 soft cover Mass amendments




Section 700.10(D)(1) is deleted,



It is that section that lets users of the NEC use the fire sprinkler system as the protection for the emergency equipment for us in Mass we are only left with the following options



Without a doubt the NEC has changed the numbers (700.10 became 700.12) but I do not see that as meaning the MA amendment is not in place, it just needs to be updated.

Or do you have some info I do not?

Mike was referring to this from the 2008 Code.

700-9(D). Revise to read as follow:
(D) Fire Separation: Emergency system feeders, wiring to elevator machine rooms including the cab lighting disconnecting means, and wiring to fire pumps shall comply with 700.9(D)(1) and (2).
(1) Equipment. All required emergency systems generation and distribution equipment shall be located in two-hour fire resistive rated rooms, closets or shafts. Equipment, conduit, piping, or ductwork alien to the emergency system shall not be located withing these rooms, closets or shafts.

The requirement for a separate 2 hour rated room, closet or shaft for emergency generation and distribution equipment is no longer there in the Mass. amendments.

 

[iwire]

The requirement for a separate 2 hour rated room, closet or shaft for emergency generation and distribution equipment is no longer there in the Mass. amendments.

In my opinion it is still in place via 700.10 or .12 dependent on the year., we do not get to use sprinklers as the protection.

Of course that does not apply all buildings but it does to many.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[david luchini]

In my opinion it is still in place via 700.10 or .12 dependent on the year., we do not get to use sprinklers as the protection.

Of course that does not apply all buildings but it does to many.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

You do not get to use sprinklers as protection for the Feeder-circuit wiring, per the revision to 700.10(D)(1).

The equipment (transfer switches, panelboards, transformers) can be protected by sprinklers or installed in a 2hr rated room, per 700.10(D)(2).
There is no longer anything that prevents conduits not associated with the emergency equipment from passing through that room, as it did in the 2008 amendment.

And the requirements apply to all buildings, as Mass has removed the wording about assembly occupancy or buildings above 75 ft in height.

I haven't looked at the 2017 yet, to see if it is different.

 

[iwire]

There is no longer anything that prevents conduits not associated with the emergency equipment from passing through that room, as it did in the 2008 amendment.

Other than the inspectors.

As I mentioned I have seen this happen a number of times and a lot of money wasted. Factory assembled electrical room with an emergency generator in one end open to the rest of the gear. Suddenly the manufacturer is on site installing a 2 hour separation to get occupncy permit.

Lowes builds a store, puts the emergency ATS and panels in the main electrical room. In comes the inspector and suddenly there is a 2 hour rated wall built around it necessitating additional fire detection.



Perhaps everyone is misinformed and doing things by tradition, its not unheard of but if I was designing anything to do with emergency circuits in MA I would have a conversation with the AHJ first.

My understanding this came about after we had a fire in a main electrical room of a large building in Boston and the emergency equipment was in the same room. The fire took out both power systems and the fire panel pretty much immediately.

 

[david luchini]

Other than the inspectors.

Perhaps everyone is misinformed and doing things by tradition, its not unheard of but if I was designing anything to do with emergency circuits in MA I would have a conversation with the AHJ first.

I think you're right. The inspectors remember the requirement from 2008 and make everyone do it even though it's no longer a Code requirement.

 

[iwire]

Here are some pictures of a job that was permitted under at least the 2011, maybe 2014.

You can see one of the two optional transfer switches on the extreme right, if you look close you can see MI cable running from the switchgear towards the left.

Those MI cables run over to a 2 hour fire rated room withing the main electrical room supplying the emergency ATS.

Does this prove the code is still enforced? No, it could have been a choice made by the designers but it seems to be what the AHJ expects.

YMMV

 

[david luchini]

Here are some pictures of a job that was permitted under at least the 2011, maybe 2014.

You can see one of the two optional transfer switches on the extreme right, if you look close you can see MI cable running from the switchgear towards the left.



Those MI cables run over to a 2 hour fire rated room withing the main electrical room supplying the emergency ATS.



Does this prove the code is still enforced? No, it could have been a choice made by the designers but it seems to be what the AHJ expects.

YMMV

I don't see any sprinkler piping...The emergency equipment is still required to be in a rated room if it is NOT in a space fully protected by an approved automatic fire suppression system.

The emergency feeders are still required to be protected by a 2hr electrical circuit protective system, a listed thermal barrier system, or a listed fire-rated assembly.

It appears that this installation complies with the 2011 or 2014 requirements. I don't see the issue.

 

[iwire]

I don't see any sprinkler piping...The emergency equipment is still required to be in a rated room if it is NOT in a space fully protected by an approved automatic fire suppression system

The building is fully equipped with sprinklers, I have not seen a new building in MA (other than small dwelling units) built without full sprinklers.

The emergency feeders are still required to be protected by a 2hr electrical circuit protective system, a listed thermal barrier system, or a listed fire-rated assembly.

The MI cable handles the requirements for the feeders so if that was all there was too it the separate room for the ATS and disto panel would not be needed

It appears that this installation complies with the 2011 or 2014 requirements. I don't see the issue.

The issue to me is that Mike is trying to design something that may be shot down

I am simply recommending he checks with the AHJ before committing to a design.

 

[david luchini]

The MI cable handles the requirements for the feeders so if that was all there was too it the separate room for the ATS and disto panel would not be needed

I don't follow, the Mass Code requires the protective system for the feeders whether the equipment is in a rated room or not.

The issue to me is that Mike is trying to design something that may be shot down

I am simply recommending he checks with the AHJ before committing to a design.

That's fine. I mentioned earlier that inspectors may be enforcing a requirement that is no longer in the Code.

 

[iwire]

I don't follow, the Mass Code requires the protective system for the feeders whether the equipment is in a rated room or not.

I am not saying the rated room was installed for the feeders

I am saying the separate rated room was installed specifically to protect the emergency ATS and the associated distribution equipment. The MI cable is protecting the emergency feeders.

I have no idea why they used MI to supply the normal power to the ATS, that seems unessasary and I don't usually see that

 

[david luchini]

I am saying the separate rated room was installed specifically to protect the emergency ATS and the associated distribution equipment.

I understand that. I am saying the Code no longer requires the separate rated room for the equipment when the area is protected by an approved automatic fire protection system.

Maybe the inspectors don't know that, and maybe the designers don't know that.

 

[iwire]

I am saying the Code no longer requires the separate rated room for the equipment when the area is protected by an approved automatic fire protection system.

Which brings us full circle

Maybe the inspectors don't know that, and maybe the designers don't know that.

And I mentioned that may well be the case, I think it is wise to iron that out one way or another before proceeding.

If this kind if thing is left undiscussed until final inspections you may be in a stuck with no time to fight a wrong call by the inspector. Customers are never impressed when you cannot get an occupancy permit on time.

 

[david luchini]

I think it is wise to iron that out one way or another before proceeding.

I agree it is wise.

It for sure was a Mass amendment,

Mike is the only person I have heard say it no longer applies.

Without a doubt the NEC has changed the numbers (700.10 became 700.12) but I do not see that as meaning the MA amendment is not in place, it just needs to be updated.

Or do you have some info I do not?

I was just trying to address your confusion about the amendment requirements having changed.