700.9(b)

[Pierre C Belarge]

Sometimes getting down to the reason for separation may help.

What is the reason for separating the "Emergency wiring" and the "Other wiring"?


Here is one reason:
1. To help reduce the possibility of a fault condition of the "othe wiring" from imposing itself onto the emergency wiring or actually damaging the emergency wiring.

What do others have to say/add?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

After reading this thread, I also say where does "entirely independent" end/start???

 

[brother]

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.

True this is talking about 'raceways' (which is a technicality in my opinion) it still provides a premise for dealing with (emergency systems) boxes. Tell the truth, do you really think that a 'barrier' they use in a common box is any different than a 'barrier' they use for a raceway?? Remember it says all the way to the LOAD. So even if the 'box' with the 'barrier' is the final outlet for the 'load' it must be kept seperate/entirely independent. Even though people keep quoting NEC 314.28(D), no other part of the NEC I can find where they used the entirely independent phrase. If it was ok just using a 'barrier' in the same box I truely believe there would not have been a reason for the phrase. Not to mention where (NEC 725.133 2008) they also specifically says its 'ok' for Class 2 and Class 3 circuits shall be permitted to be installed together with conductions of Class 1 and electric light , power etc.. where they are 'seperated' by a barrier. Why did they feel it necessary to say this??? (Class 2 and 3 deals with voltages) I believe the 'intent' of the 'barrier' permission was only for 'voltages' and not for emergency systems. heres the letter again, dealing with the 'loads'.

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)

 

[brother]

Sometimes getting down to the reason for separation may help.

What is the reason for separating the "Emergency wiring" and the "Other wiring"?


Here is one reason:
1. To help reduce the possibility of a fault condition of the "othe wiring" from imposing itself onto the emergency wiring or actually damaging the emergency wiring.

What do others have to say/add?

This goes back to my original story I told back at this post #12 Conflicting Inspectors http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=994217&postcount=12

If the reason is to help reduce the 'fault' from the 'other wiring' from damaging the emergency side, then a 'fault'/fire in a 'barrier' box can still damage the emergency. So goes the emphasis of entirely independent

Heres the story

I actually heard of a story, (dont know how true it is) that there was one project where they did the 'barrier' thing (one race way with a divider) and there was a fault/fire on the normal side for whatever reason. . Even though it did not happen on the emergency side of the barrier, it was said that the heat actually affected the e power side and they had to repull both runs.
So goes the claim of 'entirely' independent that would've helped prevent/preserved the e power. what do you guys think??

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Bob
I would like to tag another question related to the topic, but it is not exactly the same as the topic. If you want to move it, to another portion of the forum, please let us know.

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable.
[Wireways are raceways; Raceway - An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars,with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to,...]

Would a barrier in a wireway, be permitted based on the discussion here? Or would we need an entirely independent wireway?

 

[brother]

Bob
I would like to tag another question related to the topic, but it is not exactly the same as the topic. If you want to move it, to another portion of the forum, please let us know.

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable.
[Wireways are raceways; Raceway - An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars,with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to,...]

Would a barrier in a wireway, be permitted based on the discussion here? Or would we need an entirely independent wireway?

I would say yes again. The section says all other wiring and equipment, unless otherwise permitted in 1 through 5 Key word is 'all'.

 

[Doug S.]

So, maybe I should keep my yapper shut, but I'll give it another try...
( And if this is pointless I can handle a good tongue lashing. )

What about 700.9 (A) ? Can this be clearly and safely marked?

I ask this having been the service guy who shows up when panel legends have been replaced by Sharpie and post-it notes, 10 years ago...


Doug S.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

A point about language:

There are many inconsistencies in the NEC in regards to the language used.
Many different accepted proposals are written by many different people. Because we do not see the same language, does not mean that the TCC committee or the CMP are even aware of it.

There are only two ways that I am aware of to determine if the wording should be changed.

1. Write a "yes or no" question to the NFPA.

2. Write a proposal and wait for the answer/substantiation from the CMP.

So, debating over the difference in language, although sometimes fun, is not going to get us too far in this forum, as we seem to be divided quite a bit here.

 

[iwire]

Sometimes getting down to the reason for separation may help.

What is the reason for separating the "Emergency wiring" and the "Other wiring"?


Here is one reason:
1. To help reduce the possibility of a fault condition of the "othe wiring" from imposing itself onto the emergency wiring or actually damaging the emergency wiring.

What do others have to say/add?

I have to say I agree with you about the reason.:smile:

But I also have to say that we should not be trying to guess at the intent, we should only consider the words used by the CMP.

 

[iwire]

Bob
I would like to tag another question related to the topic, but it is not exactly the same as the topic. If you want to move it, to another portion of the forum, please let us know.

230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable.
[Wireways are raceways; Raceway - An enclosed channel of metal or nonmetallic materials designed expressly for holding wires, cables, or busbars,with additional functions as permitted in this Code. Raceways include, but are not limited to,...]

Would a barrier in a wireway, be permitted based on the discussion here? Or would we need an entirely independent wireway?

Here I see nothing that would prevent the use of a barrier.

The language in 230.7 is nothing like the language in 700.9(B) and Article 230 is not an article that modifies the other rules in found in the NEC such as 314.28(D).

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Bob
We tend to 'tear' the language apart on this forum when we do not all agree. With that said, I posted this:


"A point about language:

There are many inconsistencies in the NEC in regards to the language used.
Many different accepted proposals are written by many different people. Because we do not see the same language, does not mean that the TCC committee or the CMP are even aware of it.

There are only two ways that I am aware of to determine if the wording should be changed.

1. Write a "yes or no" question to the NFPA.

2. Write a proposal and wait for the answer/substantiation from the CMP.

So, debating over the difference in language, although sometimes fun, is not going to get us too far in this forum, as we seem to be divided quite a bit here."


What do you think about the above post?

 

[wawireguy]

Something I didn't see mentioned is that the barrier needs to be permanent. To me that doesn't mean something that just slides in and floats around but has to be screwed, welded or glued in.

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

 

[roger]

Something I didn't see mentioned is that the barrier needs to be permanent. To me that doesn't mean something that just slides in and floats around but has to be screwed, welded or glued in.

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

You must have missed post #16 :wink:

Roger

 

[iwire]

Bob
We tend to 'tear' the language apart on this forum when we do not all agree. With that said, I posted this:


"A point about language:

There are many inconsistencies in the NEC in regards to the language used.
Many different accepted proposals are written by many different people. Because we do not see the same language, does not mean that the TCC committee or the CMP are even aware of it.

There are only two ways that I am aware of to determine if the wording should be changed.

1. Write a "yes or no" question to the NFPA.

2. Write a proposal and wait for the answer/substantiation from the CMP.

So, debating over the difference in language, although sometimes fun, is not going to get us too far in this forum, as we seem to be divided quite a bit here."


What do you think about the above post?

As far as what?

 

[wwhitney]

A question on the box dividers that are commercially available: how thick are they typically? It seems to me that if they are twice as thick as the walls of the box, then they create a level of separation that is as good as two separate boxes butted against each other.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

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

Well it was addressed as the first question of the day and we got two answers. The first response was from Vince Saporita, who originally was prepared to answer no but changed his response to Yes after talking with the other members on the panel. The stated that the barrier created a separate raceway in much the same way as the surface raceways mentioned in article 386.70 and 388.70 (combination raceways) would adhere to separate raceways.

At least that was my take on it. If Roger was there I didn't run into him esp. since there were 700 people there.

 

[roger]

Well it was addressed as the first question of the day and we got two answers. The first response was from Vince Saporita, who originally was prepared to answer no but changed his response to Yes after talking with the other members on the panel. The stated that the barrier created a separate raceway in much the same way as the surface raceways mentioned in article 386.70 and 388.70 (combination raceways) would adhere to separate raceways.

At least that was my take on it. If Roger was there I didn't run into him esp. since there were 700 people there.

I was there and had the pleasure of meeting Dennis the next day, I also got to see my friend Mike Whitt as well as some others that I only get to see at the Institute each year. :smile:

I will start another thread on the answer to the Entirely Independant question later.

Roger

 

[jwelectric]

On Wednesday the three of us, Roger, Dennis and I were gathered at the entrance talking. After we broke up and I walked in another IAEI member who I shall leave anonymous asked me who they were. My answer; The Mike Holt NEC Guru team?lol
He said, ?May heaven help us all??.lol

I also learned something I had been really confused about but now stand corrected. Bob can tell you all about it if he so desires.
Does this mean that Bob was there? I shall leave it to him to answer that?lol

 

[iwire]

Does this mean that Bob was there?

No I was not there so I can't comment on what was said. :smile:

 

[roger]

He said, ?May heaven help us all??.lol

Now that's funny.

Roger