410.73 -- Luminaire Disconnects -- What The Heck Does It Cover?!?

[dnem]

I'm thinking that the CMP screwed up their intent. . I believe they included 2 things into the requirement that are of competing interests. . Note my bold highlighting words below.

410.73(G) Disconnecting Means. . In indoor locations, other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, fluorescent luminaires (fixtures) that utilize double-ended lamps and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place or ballasted luminaires that are supplied from multiwire branch circuits and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place shall have a disconnecting means either internal or external to each luminaire (fixture), to disconnect simultaneously from the source of supply all conductors of the ballast, including the grounded conductor if any. . The line side terminates of the disconnecting means shall be guarded. . The disconnecting means shall be located so as to be accessible to qualified persons before servicing or maintaining the ballast. . This requirement shall become effective January 1, 2008.
[end quote]

The 3 year delay in implementation indicates that the intent was a manufacturers change of the fixture housing to include a disconnect as Don pointed out.

If the code making panel did not intend that this disconnect be provided by the fixture manufacturer, why did they put an effective date of 1/1/08 for this rule? That type of dating is normally only done to give manufacturers time to make or modify a product. An example is the 1/1/08 effective date for the use of combination type AFCIs.

But in the sentence about the location of the disconnecting means, the inclusion of the words "the ballast" allow for a compliance even when the "double-ended lamps" are removed hot [which partially defeats the very safety purpose of the disconnect].

If those 2 words had not been there, the interpretation would have logically been that the fixture was being required to be disconnected before the double-ended lamps were removed. . This would require an external disconnect that couldn't be "floating" outside of the fixture housing. . It couldn't have been floating in the raceway/junction/ballast section. . It would have had to be accessible when the bottom parabolic lense was swung open from below and before any lamp tube was removed.

But the inclusion of the words "the ballast" allow for a compliance such as posted by M.D.

http://tnblnx3.tnb.com/emAlbum/albums/Stakon/GM1368_Luminaire.pdf

 

[cschmid]

I have been using the sta-kon for 6 months now and like them...but you have a valid point about the bulbs I see a lot of burn marks on the end of fixtures due to the bulbs being changed while energized..

 

[ryan_618]

This is not going to be done by all light manufacturers. I spoke with a lot of people at the IAEI section meeting this last week about this. Ideal has made a connector to satisfy the rule, but the installer will have to put it on.

 

[tom baker]

The 2008 nec has some changes to this section and will include multiwire circuits. But thats not much help as most won't adopt the 2008 NEC for a while.

 

[dnem]

This is not going to be done by all light manufacturers. I spoke with a lot of people at the IAEI section meeting this last week about this. Ideal has made a connector to satisfy the rule, but the installer will have to put it on.

If the floating connector in the ballast chamber is now acceptable to the CMP, then I think we have a backpeddle situation just like what happened with 680.26(C). . Because the 3 year advance dating of Jan 1, 2008 makes it obvious that the original thought of the panel was a manufacturers compliance.

Maybe the CMP has no choice but to accept the installors connectors because they screwed up the 410.73(G) wording and they know it.

David

 

[Ladderless]

We're getting close to the deadline here- What does it cover

We're getting close to the deadline here- What does it cover

So, bottom line... Does the new requirement read that it applies to CFL's on multiwire branch circuits?

...Or is it just for double-ended lamps?

I didn't see anyone really answer that.

 

[Energize]

So, bottom line... Does the new requirement read that it applies to CFL's on multiwire branch circuits?

...Or is it just for double-ended lamps?

I didn't see anyone really answer that.

I guess no one sees the need to answer it. The requirement clearly states if it's on multi-wire and the ballast can be serviced in place it has to comply.



What part don't you think requires compliance?

 

[barbeer]

I do not believe that the intent of the new requirement was to include CFL lamps. I have never seen a double ended CFL, and that, to me, is the primary reason for this article, along with possible shock hazards from opening grounded conductor splices.

 

[Ladderless]

I guess no one sees the need to answer it. The requirement clearly states if it's on multi-wire and the ballast can be serviced in place it has to comply.



What part don't you think requires compliance?

I do not believe that the intent of the new requirement was to include CFL lamps. I have never seen a double ended CFL, and that, to me, is the primary reason for this article, along with possible shock hazards from opening grounded conductor splices.

...And here is why I ask. I have read the code hundreds of times, and I don't see how it wouldn't cover CFL's, yet There sems to be an over-riding belief that it wouldn't cover CFL's.

I have been told that the primary reason for the code is reballasting safety, and the concern that so much of the time it's done hot.

Again, if that were true, I do not see why the intent wouldn't have been to cover CFL's, too, in that it's just as dangerous to reballast a CFL fixture hot, and it seems to be written as if it does cover CFL's.

Am I missing something? is it more safe to reballast CFL fixture hot? Why wouldn't the intent to be to make that operaton safer, too?

 

[raider1]

Any ballasted luminaire that is supplied by a multiwire branch circuit and contain ballasts that can be serviced in place needs to meet the provisions of this section. That would include CFL's as well as HID fixtures such as metal halide or HPS type fixtures.

Chris

 

[cschmid]

I have to agree with raider but the exception is HID because you can take them down but I have used quick connects on them for years. So if the light can be taken down to service it does not need to comply so like mercury vapor can be taken down it would not need to comply? or did I miss something..
edited to correct misinterpretation of what I read..it states a fixture that could be serviced in place..I was thinking if it could be removed, when it states, it can be repaired without removing..dang blond moment so yep all lights need to be with some type of quick disconnect..so what do you guys use on mercury vapor I must do some research now..

 

[dnem]

Any ballasted luminaire that is supplied by a multiwire branch circuit and contain ballasts that can be serviced in place needs to meet the provisions of this section. That would include CFL's as well as HID fixtures such as metal halide or HPS type fixtures.

Chris

Are CFLs double ended lamps ?

410.130(G)(1) General. . In indoor locations other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, fluorescent luminaires that utilize double-ended lamps and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place shall .....

 

[Energize]

Are CFLs double ended lamps ?

410.130(G)(1) General. . In indoor locations other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, fluorescent luminaires that utilize double-ended lamps and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place shall .....

you forgot to quote the second part of that sentence, which is what the multi-wire discussion is all about.

"OR ballasted luminaires that are supplied from multi-wire branch circuits that contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place"

It does not have to be double ended. If it is on a MWBC, it must comply.
The word "OR" in the language is the point you are missing, IMO.

 

[dnem]

I have to agree with raider but the exception is HID because you can take them down but I have used quick connects on them for years. So if the light can be taken down to service it does not need to comply so like mercury vapor can be taken down it would not need to comply? or did I miss something..

What do you mean by "can be taken down". . Anything can be taken down. . Are you refering to 410.130(G)(1)x3

For cord-and-plug-connected luminaires, an accessible separable connector or an accessible plug and receptacle shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means.

 

[dnem]

you forgot to quote the second part of that sentence, which is what the multi-wire discussion is all about.

"OR ballasted luminaires that are supplied from multi-wire branch circuits that contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place"

It does not have to be double ended. If it is on a MWBC, it must comply.
The word "OR" in the language is the point you are missing, IMO.

OK, now I understand what's going on. . We have 3 different situations.

1) States that are not on 2005NEC and still won't be on Jan 1st
2) States that will be on 2005NEC on Jan 1st
3) States that will be on 2008NEC on Jan 1st

My statements come from a perspective of Ohio that is in situation #3.

We will be on 2008 code on Jan 1, 2008.

On Dec 31, 2007 2005NEC 410.73(G) still isn't in effect and on Jan 1, 2008 we go to 2008NEC so we will never be dealing with 2005NEC 410.73(G).

Ohio will be looking at 2008NEC 410.130(G) which has different wording.

I haven't thought out how you guys in situation #2 will apply 410.73(G).

David

 

[cschmid]

dnem you need to reread my post I had a brain fart and needed to edit my previous post.. my bad..

 

[raider1]

Ohio will be looking at 2008NEC 410.130(G) which has different wording.

Yes, you are correct. The 2008 NEC 410.130(G)(1) has eliminated the "Or ballasted luminaires that are supplied from a multi-wire branch circuit".

That means in my area we will have to install disconnects for HID lights, without double ended tubes, installed on multiwire branch circuits for about 1 year until we adopt the 2008 NEC.

Chris

 

[Ladderless]

OK - I didn't know about the 2008 NEC change.

Does anyone have the wording for 2008NEC 410.130(G)?

I find it interesting that they have essentially decided not to address the exact same safety issue across the board. I would hate to be the first person to get injured working on a CFL fixture that would have been covered under the 2005NEC, but not under the 2008NEC.

It's going to happen...

 

[raider1]

OK - I didn't know about the 2008 NEC change.

Does anyone have the wording for 2008NEC 410.130(G)?

I find it interesting that they have essentially decided not to address the exact same safety issue across the board. I would hate to be the first person to get injured working on a CFL fixture that would have been covered under the 2005NEC, but not under the 2008NEC.

It's going to happen...

Here is what that section says:

(1)General. In indoor locations other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, fluorescent luminaires that utilize double-ended lamps and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place shall have a disconnecting means either internal or external to each luminaire. The line side terminals of the disconnecting means shall be guarded.

They have eliminated the wording "or ballasted luminaires that are supplied by multiwire branch circuits and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place."

Chris

 

[frenchelectrican]

i hate to step in middle of " flame " war going on with the flourscent luminaires but speaking of disconnection devices one thing it really amazed me that i look at few diffrent manufacters what they made the disconnection device for the ballast disconnection and IMO each one have it own style.

nothing will interchange at all so that mean i will have to stock each one in my service truck as soon the code get in effect with it but i did see 2 diffrent manufacters devices allready but expect to see more of them comming out soon.

sooner or later one way or other they will end up force them to make their own NEMA format for flourscent disconnection style.

Merci, Marc