410.73(G) Disconnecting means. Effective January 1, 2008
In indoor locations, other than dwellings and associated accessory structures, flourescant luminaires that utilize double-ended lamps and contain ballast(s) that can be serviced in place or ballasted luminaires that are supplied by 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, to disconnect simultaneously from the source of supply all conductors of the ballast, including the grounded conductor, if any. The line side terminals shall be gaurded. The disconnecting means shall be located so as to be accessible to qaulified persons before servicing or maitaining the ballast. This requirement shall become effective January 1, 2008.
Exception No.1: A disconnecting means shall not be required for luminaires in hazardous locations. Exception No.2: A disconnecting means shall not be required for emergancy illumination required in 700.16. Exception No.3: For cord and plug connected luminaires, an accessilbe seperable connector or an accessible plug and receptacle shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means. Exception No.4: A disconnecting means shall not be required in industrail establishments with restricted public access where conditions of maintainance and supervision ensure that only qaulified persons service the installation by written proedures. Exception No.5: Where more than one luminaire is installed and supplied by other than a multiwire branch circuit, a disconnecting means shall not be required for every luminaire when the design of the installation includes locally accessible disconnects, such that the illuminted space cannot be left in total darkness.
Ryan, the biggest change in the 2005 Edition of the NEC is the one in which you are most interested. If closing the loophole about blanks to close the holes where circuit breakers have been removed is what you are concerned about, then that is it. If you are concerned about the extension cord you are going to purchase not being covered by the Code in Article 240, then that is it. The key then is what do you think the most important change is to you?
The sound of that to me is OK! Double pole switch for flouresant lighting, cool! As flouresant ballasts are high voltage essentialy transformers, changing them out on multi-wire circuits can be a little hair raising. (For instance, you shut off on part of the multi-wire circuit to change a ballast, the other two circuits are connected, and the neutral comes down and hits you in the face while you're holding onto the ballast you're installing or removing. You now become the path of least resistance between a neutral of 1v - 120v, possibly much more due to the transformers/ballasts on the circuit, get whacked face to hands at a stinging 550V! Been there, it sucks!) OK I'm hip with disconnecting the neutral too! It will make changing ballasts safer!
Mark Heller "Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
Re: Is this the biggest change in the 2005?#89635 10/11/0405:49 AM10/11/0405:49 AM
Ryan, I tend to somewhat agree with Charlie, but will take it one step further. The one most important (or it could be more) change to the '05 if the one you miss during an inspection, that may cost thousands to correct.
Look at the new requirement for bonding nonmetallic pool installations 680.26(B)(1), there are so many, etc... It will be interesting to see what some others think is important to them. Check these out also: 210.8(B)(4) 210.52(C)(1)&(5) 215.12 240.21(B) - this will throw some for a real spin.
Re: Is this the biggest change in the 2005?#89636 10/11/0412:10 PM10/11/0412:10 PM
680.26(B)(1) seems to say that you need to bury some copper wire or unencapsulated rebar into the pool shell and deck if you are using encapsulated rebar for the steel. It is interesting that they don't specify exactly what is acceptible or how much has to be in contact with the concrete. Use 250.52(A)(3) ??? Naa, that makes too much sense. I bet we see new language on this in the ROP
210.8(B)(4) <GFCI "outside" on commercial>
215.12 <identifying conductors by system> seem pretty straight forward. I am not sure where the surprise is in 240.21(B) is. They just added that you can't "round up" the breaker size when computing a tap.
210.52(C)(1)&(5) <no required outlet behind sinks and ranges> This ...(1) looks like they picked up the general lighting receptacle load from the kitchen and put it on the small appliance circuit. In light of ...(4), (5) seems to have added some redundant language.
I wonder when they will alter the 220 load calcs to reflect the fact that the kitchen receptacles and bathrooms are not really on the general lighting load any more.
Re: Is this the biggest change in the 2005?#89637 10/11/0406:31 PM10/11/0406:31 PM
...The sound of that to me is OK! Double pole switch for flouresant lighting, cool!
I don't think that is what they mean. I believe they want a disconnect on the line side of each ballast within the fixture. The cheapest and easiest way to accomplish this is with a 2 pole connector (like a Molex) that would be supplied by the ballast manufacturer as part of the line leads. If you need to change the ballast simply pull the connector apart. No shutting down lighting or working hot.
Do you think 'cut-out' style lamp holders would satisfy the requirements for the disconnect?
If everything was installed (and working) correctly, the grounded and ungrounded conductors supplying the ballast could be disconnected when the lamps were removed. Of course it wouldn't be lockable, taggable, and might not be reliable . . .
Re: Is this the biggest change in the 2005?#89639 10/13/0403:37 PM10/13/0403:37 PM