Ballast disconects

[stew]

the language that says that a luminire containg a ballast must have a disconnect to to disconnect simutaneously all the conductors of the circuit including the grounded conductor of the ballast. All of the inspectors in any of our juridiction say you touch it you fix it according to code. Thus you replace the ballast you update the disconnect. a very simple and safe requirement especially on 277. The new style connectors are in my estimation very rugged and look like they would last much better than the ones we saw several years ago. I have heard that most of the mfgrs are now going to include this little gem in thier new fixtures.

 

[mdshunk]

the language that says that a luminire containg a ballast must have a disconnect to to disconnect simutaneously all the conductors of the circuit including the grounded conductor of the ballast. All of the inspectors in any of our juridiction say you touch it you fix it according to code. Thus you replace the ballast you update the disconnect.

I disagree. What if you turned off the breaker to this fixture, and found out it was too big for the circuit? What if the existing circuit was ungrounded? Where does one stop correcting violations. I'm not changing or installing the luminaire during a ballast changeout. I'm changing the ballast. I'd certainly put in a disconnect as a matter of good practice and good salesmanship, but I completely disagree that it is required to do so in this instance. I would feel a professional duty to put one in, but I would not feel required to do so.

 

[stew]

i cannot follow your logic. the code says the grounded conductor not the ground so it make no difference wheter there is a ground present or not . If we see that the protection is to big for the circuit then according to our WAC here in washington we are to take steps to correct this as well. If one of our inspectors catches this violation they will tag it believe me.

 

[mdshunk]

i cannot follow your logic. the code says the grounded conductor not the ground so it make no difference wheter there is a ground present or not .

I know, that was just one example of another violation that pre-existed, much like the lack of a ballast disconnect.

If we see that the protection is to big for the circuit then according to our WAC here in washington we are to take steps to correct this as well. If one of our inspectors catches this violation they will tag it believe me.

Thankfully, 49/50ths of the other states do not fall under WAC rules. I just see no compelling language in the NEC that would require me to install a ballast disconnect, or remediate any other existing violation, when I'm changing out a ballast.