208 Volts and 4160 Volt Conductors Pull Box

[infinity]

Is it permissible to have 208 volt conductors and 4160 volt conductors run through the same pull box?

 

[roger]

See 300.2(C)(2)

Roger

 

[kwired]

See 300.2(C)(2)

Roger

I think you meant 300.3(C)(2).

 

[roger]

I think you meant 300.3(C)(2).

I did, thank you.

Roger

 

[infinity]

So according to that section it's permitted.

 

[roger]

So according to that section it's permitted.

Only if the installation meets one of the (a) through (e) conditions.

Roger

 

[infinity]

Only if the installation meets one of the (a) through (e) conditions.

Roger

I'm not seeing how those apply since pull box is not mentioned.

300.3(C)(2) Over 1000 Volts, Nominal. Conductors of circuitsrated over 1000 volts, nominal, shall not occupy the sameequipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway with conductorsof circuits rated 1000 volts, nominal, or less unlessotherwise permitted in 300.3(C)(2)(a) through (C)(2)(d).

 

[petersonra]

(2) Over 600 Volts, Nominal. Conductors of circuits rated
over 600 volts, nominal, shall not occupy the same equipment
wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway with conductors
of circuits rated 600 volts, nominal, or less unless otherwise
permitted in (C)(2)(a) through (C)(2)(e).

The way this is written conductors of circuits over 600V cannot coexist with circuits under 600V in an equipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway, with the exceptions that follow.

Since a pull box is not an equipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway, it would appear to be acceptable.

ETA: must have changed it from 600V to 1000V in 2014 edition.

 

[roger]

I'm not seeing how those apply since pull box is not mentioned.

The way this is written conductors of circuits over 600V cannot coexist with circuits under 600V in an equipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway, with the exceptions that follow.

Since a pull box is not an equipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway, it would appear to be acceptable.

ETA: must have changed it from 600V to 1000V in 2014 edition.

And I agree with both of you.

Roger

 

[electrofelon]

The same thing comes up with PV inverters. For example, fronius typically does not have a separate or divided wiring compartment for the DC and AC sides which is seemingly a violation of 690.31(B), however in this case, the inverter compartment is not covered under that section. However, if one is using 1KV strings (and 600v inverter output conductors), it seems we would have a problem because 300.3(C)(2) does specifically say equipment wiring enclosure.

 

[infinity]

The way this is written conductors of circuits over 600V cannot coexist with circuits under 600V in an equipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway, with the exceptions that follow.

Since a pull box is not an equipment wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway, it would appear to be acceptable.

ETA: must have changed it from 600V to 1000V in 2014 edition.

And I agree with both of you.

Roger

My take on it as well. I asked the question because it just didn't seem right.

 

[infinity]

Any idea what first or second level OCPD devices are?

NYC Code Amendments

ARTICLE 300 Wiring Methods

SECTION 300.3

Subsection 300.3(C)(1)(a) – Add a new subsection 300.3(C)(1)(a) to read as follows:
a) Barriers shall be provided to isolate conductors energized from different sources when system voltage exceeds 250 volts nominal and conductors are protected by first or second level overcurrent protective devices. Sources include service entrance points, secondaries of different transformers,generators and UPS systems.

 

[jumper]

Any idea what first or second level OCPD devices are?

I have a WAG.

Using this sentence:

Ground-fault protection is handled similarly in larger health care facilities. These facilities require two levels of protection, the main service overcurrent protective device (OCPD) and the second level OCPD to assure a feeder breaker opens on a fault condition prior to tripping the main circuit breaker.

From here:http://www.csemag.com/industry-news...systems/a7ce14bfff0263229f5975851bf60461.html

I kinda infer from the context that a first level is the service OCPD and the second is a feeder OCPD. As I sais a guess.

 

[mwm1752]

So does this also apply to vaults which MDP's sit upon --

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable. Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable in which the service conductors are installed.

 

[dkidd]

So does this also apply to vaults which MDP's sit upon -- you seem to be stating that fused & unfused may occupy the same gutter (pull box) without separation

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable. Conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same service raceway or service cable in which the service conductors are installed.

A pull box would not be a raceway.

 

[Bluewyvern]

I believe the definition of raceway in the code would include both conduit and pull box. Thus this would not be permitted.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe the definition of raceway in the code would include both conduit and pull box. Thus this would not be permitted.

I don't think a pull box would be considered a raceway

BTW, welcome to the forum

Raceway. An enclosed channel of metallic or nonmetallic
materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars,
with additional functions as permitted in this Code.

 

[infinity]

A pull box would not be a raceway.

I don't think a pull box would be considered a raceway

I agree definitely not a raceway.

 

[petersonra]

I agree definitely not a raceway.

he may be thinking of a pulling tee which is part of a raceway system, but a pull box is something else.

 

[infinity]

If a pullbox is a raceway then whenever you had more than 3 CCC's in it you would need to apply derating.