lights less than 5 feet from pool

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stevenfyeager

Senior Member
Location
United States, Indiana
Occupation
electrical contractor
I've been asked to run new wiring to lights on 4 ft tall brick piers, and the lights are about 4 feet from the inground pool edge. In New Albany, IN, 2008 NEC book is used. 680.22 B 3 says any light less than 5 feet horizontally from pool needs to be 5 feet high above water level. Should I tell the customer that he needs to add 12 " of brick to each pillar? Thank you.
 

user 100

Senior Member
Location
texas
I've been asked to run new wiring to lights on 4 ft tall brick piers, and the lights are about 4 feet from the inground pool edge. In New Albany, IN, 2008 NEC book is used. 680.22 B 3 says any light less than 5 feet horizontally from pool needs to be 5 feet high above water level. Should I tell the customer that he needs to add 12 " of brick to each pillar? Thank you.

This is really an ahj judgement call: The existing pillars are being modified (even if only adding an extra foot)and new wiring (and presumably fixtures too) is being run to them- to many the installation would be no longer viewed as an "existing installation"- (what 680(B)(3) applies to and which the height of piers now violates already ) and you would have to revert to 680(B)(1) for new installations, if they won't allow the modification to meet 680(B)(3).
 
Last edited:

mopowr steve

Senior Member
Location
NW Ohio
Occupation
Electrical contractor
Man this is crazy, I am also looking at a pool where the customer has placed small festoon lighting around their pool (attached to wooden poles around the perimeter yet cannot be reached from within the pool and plugged into gfci) and has me scratching my head about whether or not this violates any codes/listings though!
Heck even that wonderful site called Pinterest has a pin of these festoon lights strung over a pool. Aghhhhhh

well then again if a wet niche light can be installed in a pool who's to say anything is wrong with electrical around a pool?
 

Stevenfyeager

Senior Member
Location
United States, Indiana
Occupation
electrical contractor
I don't know if it makes a difference, but I'd say the pool was built at least 20 years ago. Codes could have been different then. My 1993 NEC says the same, "existing lights less than 5 ' from pool shall be at least 5 ' above water level." I will be asking the inspector.
 

user 100

Senior Member
Location
texas
I don't know if it makes a difference, but I'd say the pool was built at least 20 years ago. Codes could have been different then. My 1993 NEC says the same, "existing lights less than 5 ' from pool shall be at least 5 ' above water level." I will be asking the inspector.

The thing with existing stuff is its legal if done by the code cycle in effect when it was built, but as a general rule, when there's a modification, that grandfather clause goes away. Talking w/your inspector is the best plan.
 
I've been asked to run new wiring to lights on 4 ft tall brick piers, and the lights are about 4 feet from the inground pool edge. In New Albany, IN, 2008 NEC book is used. 680.22 B 3 says any light less than 5 feet horizontally from pool needs to be 5 feet high above water level. Should I tell the customer that he needs to add 12 " of brick to each pillar? Thank you.

Can you instal a 12 inch high post light on the pillar ?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I've been asked to run new wiring to lights on 4 ft tall brick piers, and the lights are about 4 feet from the inground pool edge. In New Albany, IN, 2008 NEC book is used. 680.22 B 3 says any light less than 5 feet horizontally from pool needs to be 5 feet high above water level. Should I tell the customer that he needs to add 12 " of brick to each pillar? Thank you.

I think you made a mistake with your code referance of 680.22(B)(3)

I think you meant 680.22(C)(3) but that is about existing lights, you are wiring the lights so they are not existing.

Look at 680.22(C)(1) for new fixtures.

(C) Luminaires, Lighting Outlets, and Ceiling-Suspended
(Paddle) Fans.

(1) New Outdoor Installation Clearances. In outdoor
pool areas, luminaires, lighting outlets, and ceiling suspended
(paddle) fans installed above the pool or the area
extending 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the inside walls of
the pool shall be installed at a height not less than 3.7 m
(12 ft) above the maximum water level of the pool.

If the new lights are closer than 5' horizontally they have to be 12' up.
 

Stevenfyeager

Senior Member
Location
United States, Indiana
Occupation
electrical contractor
I think you made a mistake with your code referance of 680.22(B)(3)

I think you meant 680.22(C)(3) but that is about existing lights, you are wiring the lights so they are not existing.

Look at 680.22(C)(1) for new fixtures.



If the new lights are closer than 5' horizontally they have to be 12' up.
I should have been more clear. There are existing lights on the pillars they want replaced but also the wiring in metal conduits in the concrete floor and in the brick pillars are bad too, so I have to replace the wiring and new conduit also. Thank you.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I should have been more clear. There are existing lights on the pillars they want replaced but also the wiring in metal conduits in the concrete floor and in the brick pillars are bad too, so I have to replace the wiring and new conduit also. Thank you.

So new fixtures, new conduit, new conductors.

To me that is a new installation, not an existing one.

I suggest speaking with the inspector before starting.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I should have been more clear. There are existing lights on the pillars they want replaced but also the wiring in metal conduits in the concrete floor and in the brick pillars are bad too, so I have to replace the wiring and new conduit also. Thank you.
You are able to put in new raceway without destroying the pillars, or at least enough it won't be as much of a big deal to move them?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
The inspector said today that she will treat that as existing. Even with new wire, conduit and fixtures.

The inspector must not know of the 'ship of Theseus'. :D

The ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus' paradox, is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus



Thank you for your help.

No problem, good luck.
 

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
I should have been more clear. There are existing lights on the pillars they want replaced but also the wiring in metal conduits in the concrete floor and in the brick pillars are bad too, so I have to replace the wiring and new conduit also. Thank you.

So new fixtures, new conduit, new conductors.

To me that is a new installation, not an existing one.

I suggest speaking with the inspector before starting.


I have learned with something like this it's important to permit the job as a repair rather than a new installation.

If the permit is for new installation there is not much the inspectpor can overlook.

This is an existing installation but it may take lots of work to repair it.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts

growler

Senior Member
Location
Atlanta,GA
Here we have electrical permits, not repair vs new. http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/dpl/boards/el/99uep.pdf



The inspector in this case agrees with you, I do not. :)



We have electrical permits here to and other than storm damage there is not a repair section on the permit.

But there is a section on the permit form where you can elaborate on what you are intending to do, provide additional information. In this section of the permit application I would write in that I intend to repair existing light fixtures around the pool.

There are fixtures already in existance and for some reason they do need to be repaired. That repair can include the replacement of old fixture.

It was the inspection departments that taught me to do it this way. I was used to new construction and had to learn service work kind of on the job. One thing was learning the correct way to permit the work.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
...I wonder what the lawyers would say if a lawsuit was filed against you?
Well the inspector did approve it, but seems AHJ is a little more immune to lawsuits, so if there is a situation where they want to sue they will go after whoever is easiest to go after.

Might not be a bad idea to have documentation that describes what is going on and have owner sign it so that it can be pointed out they were made aware of possible dangers and codes violations yet wanted to go with what is there anyway. Not saying that would prevent lawsuit, but may help make results of the suit more in your favor.
 

mgookin

Senior Member
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Well the inspector did approve it, but seems AHJ is a little more immune to lawsuits, so if there is a situation where they want to sue they will go after whoever is easiest to go after.

Might not be a bad idea to have documentation that describes what is going on and have owner sign it so that it can be pointed out they were made aware of possible dangers and codes violations yet wanted to go with what is there anyway. Not saying that would prevent lawsuit, but may help make results of the suit more in your favor.

That can be worse; much worse. What you'd effectively have is the qualified expert telling the naive customer that the qualified expert is going to knowingly create a hazard and a violation.

Leaving it as it is, the EC was in doubt so he came to a forum of peers, asked for guidance, was told it is a gray area by peers who likewise were in doubt, and was advised to ask the AHJ. The Authority over his work made a ruling and he went with it.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
That can be worse; much worse. What you'd effectively have is the qualified expert telling the naive customer that the qualified expert is going to knowingly create a hazard and a violation.

Leaving it as it is, the EC was in doubt so he came to a forum of peers, asked for guidance, was told it is a gray area by peers who likewise were in doubt, and was advised to ask the AHJ. The Authority over his work made a ruling and he went with it.

I can see it that way as well, you have documentation that says you knew it was not right. Really depends on who has the better lawyers at the time of the lawsuit.

Any time we decide to break a rule we are usually weighing the risk vs the reward when we make such a decision, even when it comes to simply driving over speed limit by just 5-10 MPH. Also everyone will see differences in risk as well as reward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top