Scenario:
An owner contracts with a company to have its building?s lighting system retrofitted for energy saving purposes (i.e. T12 fluorescents w/magnetic ballasts changed to T8 fluorescents with electronic ballasts and any incandescent lights also changed to fluorescents).
The buildings electrical system has been modified several times over the years and the ?as builts?, if any, are inaccurate as are the panel schedules, and the building?s lighting is primarily 277v 3 Phase.
Lighting circuitry example: Second Floor, North Side, the second floor?s lighting distribution panel in the wall fed from the main panel on the first floor (EMT).
The lighting conductors are then run through a common 2? EMT conduit from the distribution panel to a large junction box above the ceiling, then additional ? or ? EMT conduits are then run above the ceiling (acoustical drop ceiling) to other junction boxes above each fixture, and then the conductors terminate to the fixture via FMC (Note: The raceways are the equipment grounding conductors).
Question: The contractor and owner view the work as ?Maintenance and Repair? and contend the contractor is not responsible to verify the existing lighting circuits are,
a. Not overloaded (Note: Changes from magnetic ballasts to electronic ballasts does affect the harmonics of the system)
b. Correctly grounded (i.e. over time these systems have been worked on and upon inspection you can visually see where some of the above ceiling the conduits are bent at the couplings)
c. Wired correctly (i.e. conductor sizes, temperature rating, fittings and wire nuts tight and made up properly)
In short, the contention is the contractor can replace/install these new ballasts (over 4,000 of them) and does not have to verify that the electrical circuits for which he or she replaces the ballasts on is code compliant.
Your Thoughts and Comments Please!
[ January 11, 2006, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
An owner contracts with a company to have its building?s lighting system retrofitted for energy saving purposes (i.e. T12 fluorescents w/magnetic ballasts changed to T8 fluorescents with electronic ballasts and any incandescent lights also changed to fluorescents).
The buildings electrical system has been modified several times over the years and the ?as builts?, if any, are inaccurate as are the panel schedules, and the building?s lighting is primarily 277v 3 Phase.
Lighting circuitry example: Second Floor, North Side, the second floor?s lighting distribution panel in the wall fed from the main panel on the first floor (EMT).
The lighting conductors are then run through a common 2? EMT conduit from the distribution panel to a large junction box above the ceiling, then additional ? or ? EMT conduits are then run above the ceiling (acoustical drop ceiling) to other junction boxes above each fixture, and then the conductors terminate to the fixture via FMC (Note: The raceways are the equipment grounding conductors).
Question: The contractor and owner view the work as ?Maintenance and Repair? and contend the contractor is not responsible to verify the existing lighting circuits are,
a. Not overloaded (Note: Changes from magnetic ballasts to electronic ballasts does affect the harmonics of the system)
b. Correctly grounded (i.e. over time these systems have been worked on and upon inspection you can visually see where some of the above ceiling the conduits are bent at the couplings)
c. Wired correctly (i.e. conductor sizes, temperature rating, fittings and wire nuts tight and made up properly)
In short, the contention is the contractor can replace/install these new ballasts (over 4,000 of them) and does not have to verify that the electrical circuits for which he or she replaces the ballasts on is code compliant.
Your Thoughts and Comments Please!
[ January 11, 2006, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
