700.9(b)

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
What I have is a 36 x 36 junction box. EM and normal source run in through seperate conduits. Normal is spliced and EM passes thru. Can one install a partition in this box and meet the intent of the above mentioned section?
 
This has been discussed before and I don't believe a consensus was ever reached. The question is whether or not a partition provides entirely independent separation of the two sources.

Chris
 
I agree with Chris, up in the air for AHJ interpretation.


My feeling is 'entirely separate' rules out using a partition.

But there are many guys who feel the partition is enough.
 
dcspector said:
Sooooo,,,, I should simply pass the inspection and move on? :-?
Click to expand...

Do you feel that a partition mounted in a j-box keeps the emergency wiring entirely independant of all other wiring and equipment?

Just curious as to how you feel about it.

Chris
 
I personally think that when the NEC says "entirely independant" then you could not be in the same enclosure even with a divider, you would need to have a separate enclosure for the EM wiring. JMHO.

Chris
 
I think Roger has the most compelling arguments for the barrier being enough. :smile: Square D also seems to feel a barrier meets the NEC.

I think the barrier meets the requirements for Article 725 separation and 760 and Chapter 8 but IMO the wording used in Article 700 is stronger and prohibits the use of just a barrier.
 
What if you had a permanent barrier installed seperating the sources and had two covers fabricated one for each section? What was the reason for not keeping the two sources seperate in the first place? I would not approve an inspection if I was not sure that it was code complient.
 
"700.9(B) Wiring.
Wiring from an emergency source or emergency sourec distribution overrent protection to emergency loads shall be kept entirely independent of all other wiring and equipment,"


Webster's 11th edition.
Separate: to set or keep apart

314.28(D). Permanent Barriers.
where permanent barriers are installed in a box, each section shall be considered as a separate box.




Taking the literal meaning of the definitions and the wording used in the two sections above, I would think a permanent barrier serves the purpose intended...to keep the wiring separate and apart.

I would accept a barrier based on this information.
 
I think Article 700.9(B) modifies the general rules found in Chapter 3.

Anything that is in the same enclosure is not IMO 'entirely independent'

But I do respect the other point of view and I may well be wrong. :smile:
 
IMO, what Pierre posted, 314.28(D), makes this a legal installation. It says that "it shall be considered a separate box" which is good enough for me. ;)
 
I think Pierre's got a good case.

I can't see the install, but my concern would be future confusion. Today you know what's what. Tomorrow who knows?

Will this install lead to confusion later?:confused:

If not I'd let it go.


Humbly,
Doug S.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
314.28(D). Permanent Barriers.
where permanent barriers are installed in a box, each section shall be considered as a separate box.
Click to expand...

iwire said:
Anything that is in the same enclosure is not IMO 'entirely independent'
Click to expand...
Bob, if the NEC considers it to be a separate box, doesn't that qualify as a separate enclosure?

Or, do you feel that "separate box" and "separate enclosure" are not the same thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top