# Massachusetts Electrical Code



## mshields (May 18, 2012)

Wanted to add to a string I started yesterday but I can't find it.  Question I had posed had to do with the Mass codes requirement for 2 hour rated rooms.  I've since been in touch with Fred Hartwell who is on the Advisory Committee for Article 700.  Didn't think he'd mind me sharing it with you.  Here is what he had to say.

From: Fred Hartwell

Date: Thu, May 17, 2012 at 3:49 PM

To: mshields1162@gmail.com

This is the text I wrote as part of Appendix 4 to the Advisory Committee report covering changes made by the BFPR over the Advisory Committee’s objections. We did not suggest making the approach similar for equipment because we wanted to preserve, to the extent possible, our unanimous position that the MEC and the NEC should no longer differ in this part of the Code.

[secretary’s Note: The Massachusetts Electrical Code Advisory Committee unanimously concluded that the change in the NEC required separation rule to a two-hour specification was close enough to our long-standing (since 1984) amendment that we could drop this variance entirely. However, that NEC provision does not apply in low-occupancy and low-rise buildings, and in fully-sprinklered areas. The MI cable interests successfully objected to applying these NEC allowances in Massachusetts. This amendment removes the occupancy loading and height parameters in the NEC for the two-hour provision and therefore it will apply to all emergency system wiring, and it will also apply whether or not there is full sprinkler protection.

Note that the MEC will follow the NEC on equipment separations if sprinkler protection is provided because 700.10(D)(2) is unamended, although here again this provision is extended to all occupancy emergency systems regardless of height or occupancy load due to the changes in the parent language of (D). Note also that the prior MEC language regarding elevator coverage has been removed. This was frequently erroneously interpreted as mandating a two-hour separation on elevators generally, even though applying the wording in that way would exceed the scope of Article 700 for other than elevators deemed to be part of an emergency system. Removing the reference removes this source of confusion.]


----------



## Gregg Harris (May 18, 2012)

Your other post was in commercial building. I came up with the same answer that you have posted.


----------

