700.9(b)

Status
Not open for further replies.
infinity said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree. Pierre is blurring the requirement from entirely independent to separated. These words are not "entirely" synonymous ;)
One definition (and synonym) of separate is divided. So, yes, each portion of a partitioned box can be considered a separate box... but that does not make it an independent box.
 
Smart $ said:
I disagree. Pierre is blurring the requirement from entirely independent to separated. These words are not "entirely" synonymous ;)
One definition (and synonym) of separate is divided. So, yes, each portion of a partitioned box can be considered a separate box... but that does not make it an independent box.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the word "entirely" is a wasted word in this discussion.

"Separated" and "Independent" do not need any additional descriptive words to translate their meanings.

I have sent this question into the CMP members that will be attending the Ellis Cannady IAEI electrical institute next week in Raleigh, I know that it will not be a formal interpretation, (I wouldn't want it to be) but I am curious as to what they will say seeing how SQ D will be represented in the way of Alan Manche.

The others will probably be; Mark Ode, Mark Earley, John Minick, Dave Mercier, and some other CMP members.

I don't know if the question will be addressed but, if it is I'll let everyone know what their consensus is

Roger
 
Last edited:
Let's hope that someone submitted a proposal for the 2011 code cycle to clarify this once and for all. :rolleyes:
 
You should check out this post That I had up before "Conflicting Inspectors!!"

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=109531&highlight=independent+emergency

Be sure to read Charlies post, # 37 http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=995033&postcount=37 he's already had a letter from the NFPA about this very issue.

By the way, I agree with 'Iwires' interpertation, there would not be a need for the word 'entirely' if barriers are ok. Of course the AHJ would have the final say.

Heres the Letter.

National Fire Protection Association said:
National Fire Protection Association
Electrical Engneenng, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 Phone 617-770-3000 • Fax 617-984-7070 • wwwnfpa org

August 30, 2007
Brian E. Rock Hubbell Inc.
Hubbell Technical Center 1613 State Street Bridgeport, CT 06605
Dear Mr. Rock:
Section 6-1.4 (a) of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects does not permit a formal interpretation that involves the determination of compliance of a design, installation, product or equivalency of protection. However, I can provide a staff opinion.

No, Section 700.9(B) of the 2005 NEC? specifies that the wiring of the emergency system from the emergency source or emergency source distribution overcurrent protection to the emergency loads is to be kept entirely independent (physically separated) from wiring of other systems, unless otherwise permitted in 700.9(B)(1) through (4). Therefore, based on the definition of entirely (see Webster's) one channel of a multi-channel raceway is not completely independent from the other channels, due to the physical connection (divider) to the adjacent channels.

Additionally, a multi-channel raceway is a raceway with a divider (not physically separated) - not multiple raceways (physically separated), which is further clarified based on 386.70 and 388.70 "combination raceways" (ones used for signaling and lighting) specifically. Providing the channels were separate raceways, 386.70 and 388.70 would not need to specify the permitted use of separate compartments of surface raceways as a means of separation of signaling circuits from lighting and power circuits.

I hope this satisfies your concerns. Please understand that this has not been processed as a Formal Interpretation, it must be considered as my personal opinion. Please see the statement below.
Important notice! This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services.

Very truly yours,

Mark Cloutier
NFPA Senior Electrical Engineer
MC/ch

James W. Carpenter, Chair, NEC-AAC Jim Pauley, NEC-AAC Julian R. Burns, Chair, NEC-P08 Thomas W. Wood, Chair, NEC-P13 Leona Nisbet 1-70-07-37
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
brother said:
You should check out this post That I had up before "Conflicting Inspectors!!"

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=109531&highlight=independent+emergency

Be sure to read Charlies post, # 37 http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=995033&postcount=37 he's already had a letter from the NFPA about this very issue.

By the way, I agree with 'Iwires' interpertation, there would not be a need for the word 'entirely' if barriers are ok. Of course the AHJ would have the final say.

Heres the Letter.
Click to expand...


That NFPA response if for raceways not boxes. 314.28(D) specifically addresses boxes which makes a divided box no different than two boxes mounted side by side.
 
roger said:
The problem is, the word "entirely" is a wasted word in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps... but it does add emphasis to the word "independent".

roger said:
"Separated" and "Independent" do not need any additional descriptive words to translate their meanings.
Click to expand...
Well apparently they do, or we wouldn't be having this discussion :grin:

The problem isn't solely in the independent requirement. It stems from the vague use of the term "Wiring". Technically, I can run any two individual branch circuits in the same conduit and the "wiring" of each is independent of the other from overcurrent protection device to load. The same is true of an emergency branch circuit in the same conduit as a normal branch circuit. From ocpd to load, they are independent. The same is not true of multiwire branch circuits.

It is only the "unless otherwise permitted" list which implies independent raceways, junction boxes, cable trays, etc. Such a requirement needs to be made explicit.

And furthermore, there is need to be explicit on where the independence line is drawn. For example, if raceway systems and such are to be entirely independent for emergency circuits, does the supporting means of these raceway systems and such also need to be independent?
 
infinity said:
That NFPA response if for raceways not boxes. 314.28(D) specifically addresses boxes which makes a divided box no different than two boxes mounted side by side.
Click to expand...

Couple of friendly points. :smile:

1) Roger has been, at least in the past discussing wire-ways/raceways.

2) 300.3(C) clearly tells us conductors of different systems can be run in the same conduit.

So by that alone we can mix normal and emergency ....... but 90.3 tells us Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 apply generally and chapters 5, 6 and 7 modify or supplement the others.

700.9(B) modifies the general rule found 300.3(C) so that we can not mix normal and emergency systems.

It is my opinion 700.9(B)s use of the word 'entirly' also modifes 314.28(D) so that we must use an entirely separate box, not a box made into two by the use of a barrier.
 
dcspector said:
So Rob from my OP is the installation good to go with a partition? I have allowed myself to be confused.
Click to expand...

Greg, not meaning to answer for Rob but, IMO yes the installation is good to go.


Roger
 
dcspector said:
So Rob from my OP is the installation good to go with a partition? I have allowed myself to be confused.
Click to expand...


That's what the basic disagreement is. Some say yes, some say no. It has always been an accepted practice here to use barriers for this type of installation.
 
roger said:
The problem is, the word "entirely" is a wasted word in this discussion.

"Separated" and "Independent" do not need any additional descriptive words to translate their meanings.

I have sent this question into the CMP members that will be attending the Ellis Cannady IAEI electrical institute next week in Raleigh, I know that it will not be a formal interpretation, (I wouldn't want it to be) but I am curious as to what they will say seeing how SQ D will be represented in the way of Alan Manche.

The others will probably be; Mark Ode, Mark Earley, John Minick, Dave Mercier, and some other CMP members.

I don't know if the question will be addressed but, if it is I'll let everyone know what their consensus is

Roger
Click to expand...

Let us know Roger. I had the opportunity to sit down and converse with Mark Ode here in our Southern Section several months ago in Alexandria. Great guy! Actually the entire panel was one heck of an education for us.
 
Smart $ said:
And furthermore, there is need to be explicit on where the independence line is drawn. For example, if raceway systems and such are to be entirely independent for emergency circuits, does the supporting means of these raceway systems and such also need to be independent?
Click to expand...

You have touched on an issue that has been floaing around in my mind, where is that independence line drawn.

Partitions or barriers?

Separate boxes?

Separate hangers?

Separate routes?

Separated by fire resistant construction?
 
Smart $ said:
And furthermore, there is need to be explicit on where the independence line is drawn. For example, if raceway systems and such are to be entirely independent for emergency circuits, does the supporting means of these raceway systems and such also need to be independent?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, good point, I think to be independent (I'm not going to use the word entirely :wink:) the Emergency wiring would have to be in another structure on an entirely (I will use it here) different foundation. :D

Roger
 
dcspector said:
Let us know Roger. I had the opportunity to sit down and converse with Mark Ode here in our Southern Section several months ago in Alexandria. Great guy! Actually the entire panel was one heck of an education for us.
Click to expand...

I will.

Roger
 
infinity said:
It has always been an accepted practice here to use barriers for this type of installation.
Click to expand...

A fact which can not prove or disprove what we are discussing. In my area there are many things that are always accepted which are also always a technical violation of the NEC.
 
iwire said:
A fact which can not prove or disprove what we are discussing. In my area there are many things that are always accepted which are also always a technical violation of the NEC.
Click to expand...

It does go directly to the point of what is acceptable to the AHJ which is all that really matters. :wink:

I think that we can all agree that the wording in this code section needs some work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top