Greenhouse Wiring and Lighting Requirements

[chazbolin]

Hi all! I'm a new member to this forum but boy am I glad I found it. If there are any electrical inspectors on here I'd really love your thoughts on this but any comments are appreciated.

Here's my dilemma. We recently were presented with an option to retrofit all ~4000 of the HID lights in our greenhouses to LED panels that were supposedly designed for greenhouse installations. The problem is I'm getting two decidedly different opinions from several different LED Grow Light manufacturers as to whether or not the lights themselves are rated for a damp location environment. So here are the different mfg's we have to choose from and the methods of construction they employ:

Illumitex states an IP66 rating and is listing this on their spec sheets.
http://www.illumitex.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Spec_NeoSolNS081412.pdf

When I asked Apache Tech about this I've copied and pasted their response below this link
http://www.apachetechinc.com/white-red/25-at600.html

Good morning,


We have not subjected our lights to this testing protocol. This is a protocol primarily utilized by the UK and the EC, and it has gained acceptance here in the US and we can see it's usefulness. However, this is not a UL certification process. UL has their own and has deemed our lights appropriate for wet locations. We may consider submitting the lights to this testing procedure in the future, but have no immediate plans to do so. Our lights were designed to work effectively and safely in the rigorous environments of controlled environmental chambers (>99% RH), over the top of public aquariums (100% RH, salt intrusion and high amounts of splashing) and in greenhouses (High temperatures, high humidity and splashing) and have been UL qualified and accepted for all environments. All chips are sealed in a water tight enclosure, fans are designed for wet conditions, power supplies are epoxy sealed and connectors are all waterproof. If jets of water penetrate the housing (which is possible), no damage will occur to the product (this is what IP ratings are concerned with). UL certification is concerned with the "user" and how safe they are working around the product. I'm also certain GFI's are a must in this construction.



Bottomline, is that we do not have an official IP certification number and you are the first client that has ever actually requested one. Our lights have passed the scrutiny and safety measures required by prestigious universities, government research agencies, some of the large commercial corporations and some of the largest public aquariums in the world. No HPS or MH lighting fixture would meet this requirement either, with the exception of some lighting systems with additional and very expensive additional housings around the light and ballast.



The Illumitex bars are really good lights and it sounds like this might be the proper answer for your client. Light bar technology will provide this type of protection. Illumitex make a very good product, but do not come close to our lights in intensity and footprint. Apache Tech LED is the only agricultural LED that has a greater light intensity and equal footprint as a 1000W HPS.



btw, sulfur burners are no problem.


Sorry we could not get you the certification you were looking for and good luck with your project!

Now after reading this response I am more confused then ever. If I were involved in manufacturing an LED panel for greenhouses it would seem that having it rated for that environment would be high on my list of objectives. My concern is that Section 314-16 is not being met. The fact that the ApacheTech panels, as well as others such as Lumigrow, utilize active cooling fan enclosures as opposed to the passively cooled bars like Illumitex and are not expressly listed for damp locations would give an inspector every right to not pass the job since the listing agency does not show this product as Damp Location rated.

http://www.lumigrow.com/documents/Pro-Fixture-DataSheet-EN.pdf

and finally Phillips who rates all of their LED lights as IP66 rated for these environments.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...rV7MYpJrB1u0J2A&bvm=bv.61535280,d.aWc&cad=rja

So as our commercial agriculture industry decides to take advantage of lower watts/sq ft technologies it's important that we do so with the best lighting and controls necessary to maintain optimum crop production values. The LED panel mfg's are offering expensive retrofit solutions that propose longer life spans and lower operating watts but are also giving us conflicting messages on everything about how much energy they produce within given PAR (spectral) regions to whether or not the panels are even rated for the environment we'll be using them in. I don't want to invest this kind of money and be wrong. At least if I know how inspecting authorities view this it will help.

Of note our current lights are 1000watt HPS lights by PAR Source and they say right on their spec sheets they are sealed ballasts for greenhouse environments.

http://parsource.com/sites/default/...nic)_Sales_Sheets_GLE1277 Updated 1.17.14.pdf

So after considering all of the above I am left to believe that this is at best may be a grey area that needs defining and at worst is a misrepresentation by some of the panel manufacturers to capitalize on these retrofit programs without regard to how inspecting authorities might rule on their being properly listed for the environment. I do know that when I go to do a UL search on other equipment that is installed inside the greenhouses it will state it is listed for damp locations. Are the LED panel manufacturers being given a pass somehow?

 

[chazbolin]

This came to mind after my last post. We also looked at the Gavita 600 watt system which lists their greenhouse lights as rated for damp locations.

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073986677&sequence=1

On the other hand the in the response that Apache Tech gave me he states their actively cooled panels are rated for damp locations however the UL file number does not bear that out like it does for Gavita.

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1079431152&sequence=1

I guess what it comes down to is how will an informed inspection authority come down on this? Are we taking our chances with installing one of these brands of fan cooled panels that is not specifically listed for the environment?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Never inspected a greenhouse but my first thought is:

Location, Wet. Installations underground or in concrete
slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations
subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such
as vehicle washing areas; and in unprotected locations exposed
to weather.

 

[GoldDigger]

So if moisture condenses on the inside surfaces of the greenhouse under some predictable circumstances, you would consider those surfaces wet?
Would the fact (if correct) that the LED fixtures would be warmer than the surrounding surfaces when operating have any influence on your opinion?

Tapatalk!

 

[chazbolin]

So if moisture condenses on the inside surfaces of the greenhouse under some predictable circumstances, you would consider those surfaces wet?
Would the fact (if correct) that the LED fixtures would be warmer than the surrounding surfaces when operating have any influence on your opinion?

I would think that when running there is less likelihood of condensation developing but the nema and IP ratings don't factor that because when the lights are off that moisture is going to get inside the housing.

Finally got a call back from the combination inspector and he told me he probably wouldn't even be looking for a damp location listing as the technology is 'too new'. Phew! I won't name the city but it's in cali.

So here's the deal. If we invest around $5M to retrofit our greenhouse lighting and the city signs off on it, we will get rebated $1.4 under the current utility program and the only one who is protecting us from a mfg who claims the panel is listed for this environment but can't seem to get the listing agency to sign off on that is an inspector who would take the word of that mfg if he even got it into his head to check into it. The thing is most of these panels, or at least most of the parts, come from China and the average electrician is not going to be versed in troubleshooting and replacing diodes or boards where there are issues that can develop from condensation and the corrosive effects of sulfur burners that we use to treat powdery mildew. I guess I can protect the LED lights by wrapping them in plastic bags when we run the burners but the panels that are building up condensation in these humid environments are subject to failures that neither I nor our electrician will want to deal with. To replace the entire fixture under warranty would be a solution but that is labor intensive and it's just a matter of time before the same conditions reoccur. With all the energy retrofits going on out there I would think that this has created a nightmare for inspectors who are signing off on these 'new technology' projects. As a specifying engineer the owner is going to hang me if I get this wrong.

 

[jxofaltrds]

High intensity discharge ballast, Model Gavita Pro 600 US. Suitable for Indoor Use and Damp Locations Only in an ambient temperature not exceeding 30?C.

Not to exceed 86F in a GreenHouse????????

If is your greenhouse you may want to hire an expert if you are spending $5,000,000.00 on lights!

This job has problems written all over it. (gut feeling)

 

[chazbolin]

High intensity discharge ballast, Model Gavita Pro 600 US. Suitable for Indoor Use and Damp Locations Only in an ambient temperature not exceeding 30?C.

Not to exceed 86F in a GreenHouse????????

If is your greenhouse you may want to hire an expert if you are spending $5,000,000.00 on lights!

This job has problems written all over it. (gut feeling)

Thanks JXO. The ambient temp for the Gavita 600 watt HID @ 30C is pretty low. I had missed that. At the height these HID lights are mounted in greenhouses the temperatures will routinely run in excess of that.

Who would you suggest we hire for this? We have an EE on staff and while both he and I realize the claims these manufacturers are making should be reviewed with a healthy dose of skepticism from many angles, we both are uncertain if NEC section 314-16 applies and if so why is it not being enforced by inspecting authorities. If there are other electrical engineers out there who would be able to opine on this I would welcome their contributions but as far as I'm concerned this is an area that requires code clarification and or enforcement or there remains a degree of subjectivity that each inspector would have to apply if they saw fit to do so. That subjectivity is what has me concerned.

To graphically illustrate my dilemma; take a close look at this image and you'll see that the original installation lights on the trusses were weatherproof rated and the HID lights are glass gasketed. The LED panels that were installed are the Apache Tech panels that do not have damp location certification.



As a reliability issue having the panels pulling in humid air into the enclosure lifespan issues remains an unknown. But as a safety issue let's not forget these are mostly aluminum structures and human - water/structural contact is a normal everyday part of doing business. The fan cooled LED panel manufactures are of the opinion that since they are operating diodes at low voltages they are in compliance with the NEC. But with the line voltage power supply being located in a damp location it seems to me that the power supply itself must be rated for damp locations, which they are not. Therefore there are going to be risks associated with that installation that the appropriate UL listing and inspection assurances that the equipment is rated for that environment would protect the end user from safety and perhaps reliability issues long after the purchase of the system has been made.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I'm in Ohio so I am no help. Maybe some Cali guys could help you.

Maybe start another post, word it differently and ask for help.

You could PM one of the moderators and ask them the best way to ask for help.

 

[chazbolin]

Thank you for all who helped shed more light on this topic. After digging into this I found that the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) designates that LED equipment be tested and listed with that agency by file number depicting acceptance by that agency as an end use product. If that product is being manufactured for that environment such as a damp location greenhouse environment it must have been third party tested, listed and marked per page 67, Section 10 which describes what is required marking on each light that would give the customer and any inspecting authority confirmation that it is suitably listed for that environment.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=7LkzhCiMyxEio_76wiPyRQ&bvm=bv.61725948,d.aWc

 

[chazbolin]

I got another helpful PM on what the NEC and OSHA require of the lighting mfg when selling a product designed for damp locations.

NEC, Article 100 -- Definitions
Approved. Acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).
Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, application, etc., where described in a particular Code requirement.
FPN: Suitability of equipment for a specific purpose, environment, or application may be determined by a qualified testing laboratory, inspection agency, or other organization concerned with product evaluation. Such identification may include labeling or listing. (See definitions of Labeled and Listed.)

Labeled. Equipment or materials to which has been attached a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains periodic inspection of production of labeled equipment or materials, and by whose labeling the manufacturer indicates compliance with appropriate standards or performance in a specified manner.

Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either the equipment, material, or services meets identified standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose.
FPN: The means for identifying listed equipment may vary for each organization concerned with product evaluation, some of which do not recognize equipment as listed unless it is also labeled. Use of the system employed by the listing organization allows the authority having jurisdiction to identify a listed product.

ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS
AND THE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
​

Electrical Inspectors have an ally in enforcing their local regulations and the National Electrical Code where there are requirements for products to be Listed and Labeled in accordance with Section 90-7 of the NEC. Electrical Inspectors are required to assure that all products installed in their jurisdiction are safe and comply with the NEC. To assure this compliance many Inspectors must rely on a label that appears on the product to make their determination of compliance. When the label does not appear the Inspector is usually left with the unpopular option of turning down the product or the installation.

This requires the Electrical Inspector not only to be very observant about the installation he/she is inspecting but also the products that are being installed. Additionally, he/she must also determine that the label is acceptable in his/her jurisdiction and the product is compliant with Section 110-3b of the NEC. If an unlisted product goes undetected and it is a Hazard, the Electrical Inspector could be held accountable. This is an unreasonable burden to be place on an inspector.

OSHA Electrical Standard (Subpart S) requires that all electrical products installed in the work place be listed, labeled or otherwise determined to be safe by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). OSHA places the responsibility of this squarely on the Employer. OSHA, defines the building owner, facility or property owner as the employer.

The Electrical Inspector can require the contractor to remove an item not labeled in accordance with Section 90-7 or prevent the facility from opening, etc. OSHA, however can impose fines on the Employer of $7,000.00 to $70,000.00 for each violation. Often the Employer does not even know that a violation exists. OSHA?s involvement would be more effective than the authority a inspector may exert and would also be a major benefit in assisting an inspector with his/her legal responsibilities. The best thing an inspector can do is defer to OSHA the determination that a product legally complies with the standard and Section 90-7 of the NEC. Assuring that as many cord connected or installed devices are properly listed and labeled during an inspection is deferring a lot of the inspectors responsibility over to OSHA.

With so many products coming from China without proper markings for the environment it makes it easy for any inspector to reject the product as unsuitable for the environment.

 

[kwired]

I got another helpful PM on what the NEC and OSHA require of the lighting mfg when selling a product designed for damp locations.




With so many products coming from China without proper markings for the environment it makes it easy for any inspector to reject the product as unsuitable for the environment.

I don't have a lot of experience with greenhouses, but do have experience with livestock facilities. Most electrical equipment and controllers specific to these facilities seem to be Canadian made, have no UL listing, may or may not have CSA listing. Fortunately as has come up in another thread that you are a participant in most of these installations are exempt from electrical inspection in this state, or we may see some limitations on what is permitted to be installed. I once remember an equipment provider being confused on some matters with a curtain controlling system, he forgot the system I was installing was not the UL listed equipment he had on his mind. He straight out told me he can not sell that equipment in Minnesota (which is where he was located) because that model is not listed, but in Nebraska and Iowa it doesn't get inspected and they sell the non listed equipment there. It was Canada organization made equipment as well from what I recall.

I'm currently connecting some non listed Canada made heat mats in a swine facility. I did not sell them the equipment, just some wire, raceway, and other needed accessories to connect it. How well do you think it will go if I told them it is not listed and refuse to connect it, after they spent thousands of dollars on equipment?? Am I taking some risk by connecting it anyway? Probably so, but I am taking a risk just driving to any work site every day so life just goes on. If something happens I may just go out of business move somewhere else and live a simpler life, after all the youngest kid graduates in another year.