Unsafe exterior condo lighting

[haroldbelyeu]

Please let me know if I am over reacting and your general thoughts? I just purchased a new construction condo in November of 2006. I have not attended many condo meetings, but after attending one I found out that there are several electrical issues concerning the exterior lighting and the exterior lighting circuit. I have been an electrical designer/engineer (just took the PE so wish me luck) for the past 5 years. This prompted me to do a little investigating into the fixture. The below picture is my first glance looking up into the fixture. This was somewhat alarming to me. There is exposed splicing which is to my understanding an obvious NEC violation per several articles and specifically per the article concerning luminaires NEC 410. This prompted me to disassemble the fixture(although unsafe) and see if there was a UL label. Below are pictures of the label as well. Based on my limited experience, it seemed as if UL would never pass a fixture like this for a wet location or for any location. I then contacted UL about this situation and they then sent me an official UL letter stating that the fixture was a fire and shock hazard and the fixture should be replaced. The UL investigator stated over the phone that the fixture had passed as an incandescent fixture but somebody altered the fixture and retrofitted it with this fluorescent magnetic ballast rig up. The electrical contractor actually purchased these fixtures and installed over 100 at our condominium with the exposed splicing set up. To make a long story short. The HOA is not taking it seriously. I feel it is a serious matter, but a month after me reporting what I found, they will not return my phone calls and have refused to discuss the situation in the latest board meeting. Lighting, NEC, and fire protection is something that I deal with everyday and it is something that I take seriously. I have recommended that the fixtures be replaced but they seriously feel it is not worth the money and that I am over reacting. I will not even go into what we spend on our amenities and landscape. Please review the pictures below and please let me know your thoughts on this situation. I can also send a pdf of the letter if anybody is interested in reading it. Thank you for your time, help, and advise.

Links to large images

INSTALLATION

UL_LABEL

LTG_1

LTG_BACK

Edit: Changed images to links.

 

[mthead]

Unsafe exterior condo lighting

Scrolling back and forth like that usually causes me to loose my mind .I would think that you could best get your answer from UL as you seem to be angling for a literal interpretation of how this fixture can be installed and or repaired and reinstalled.

 

[electricmanscott]

Pix WAAAYYYY too big

 

[don_resqcapt19]

A quick search of the UL database does not find any matches for the file numbers on the labels. They may be fake and the fixture might not be listed.

 

[bamawildcat]

Watch out for the wasps.

 

[weressl]

Please let me know if I am over reacting and your general thoughts? I just purchased a new construction condo in November of 2006. I have not attended many condo meetings, but after attending one I found out that there are several electrical issues concerning the exterior lighting and the exterior lighting circuit. I have been an electrical designer/engineer (just took the PE so wish me luck) for the past 5 years. This prompted me to do a little investigating into the fixture. The below picture is my first glance looking up into the fixture. This was somewhat alarming to me. There is exposed splicing which is to my understanding an obvious NEC violation per several articles and specifically per the article concerning luminaires NEC 410. This prompted me to disassemble the fixture(although unsafe) and see if there was a UL label. Below are pictures of the label as well. Based on my limited experience, it seemed as if UL would never pass a fixture like this for a wet location or for any location. I then contacted UL about this situation and they then sent me an official UL letter stating that the fixture was a fire and shock hazard and the fixture should be replaced. The UL investigator stated over the phone that the fixture had passed as an incandescent fixture but somebody altered the fixture and retrofitted it with this fluorescent magnetic ballast rig up. The electrical contractor actually purchased these fixtures and installed over 100 at our condominium with the exposed splicing set up. To make a long story short. The HOA is not taking it seriously. I feel it is a serious matter, but a month after me reporting what I found, they will not return my phone calls and have refused to discuss the situation in the latest board meeting. Lighting, NEC, and fire protection is something that I deal with everyday and it is something that I take seriously. I have recommended that the fixtures be replaced but they seriously feel it is not worth the money and that I am over reacting. I will not even go into what we spend on our amenities and landscape. Please review the pictures below and please let me know your thoughts on this situation. I can also send a pdf of the letter if anybody is interested in reading it. Thank you for your time, help, and advise.

Links to large images

Edit: Changed images to links.

I would like to see how the original fixture looked before the modification. It maybe and 'offshore' special with bogus UL label.

 

[480sparky]

Scrolling back and forth like that usually causes me to loose my mind .I would think that you could best get your answer from UL as you seem to be angling for a literal interpretation of how this fixture can be installed and or repaired and reinstalled.

Pix WAAAYYYY too big

Does this help?:

I reduced the size of the OPs photos.

Personally, I don't see how it could be listed for wet locations when there's absolutely no attempt to keep water out of the fixture. No gasket, no nothing.

 

[petersonra]

What specific code prohibits the method of splicing used? You can't have exposed live parts, but the splices are not live, being as they are insulated.

I am not sure I see a whole lot wrong with the design other than general cheapness. A lot of outdoor fixtures are about as "weatherproof" as this one is and work OK. Outdoor fixtures don't have to prevent water from getting in to be accepted.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

Have you ever closely examined a standard PAR lampholder? Those things are often mounted out in the middle of a garden facing upward. How is that any worse than your wall mounted fixture retrofitted with a ballast?

 

[iwire]

Have you ever closely examined a standard PAR lampholder? Those things are often mounted out in the middle of a garden facing upward. How is that any worse than your wall mounted fixture retrofitted with a ballast?

I agree, but will add I learned on this forum that the instructions for PAR holders prohibit upward placement. Of course this is largely ignored.

 

[cowboyjwc]

While I will agree that it voids the U.L. listing, I am not convinced that it is a safety issue, but if I was asked to inspect it I would fail it.

 

[EBFD6]

What specific code prohibits the method of splicing used? You can't have exposed live parts, but the splices are not live, being as they are insulated.

I am not sure I see a whole lot wrong with the design other than general cheapness. A lot of outdoor fixtures are about as "weatherproof" as this one is and work OK. Outdoor fixtures don't have to prevent water from getting in to be accepted.

I agree.

We have all seen / installed cheap fixtures that are poorly designed.

I might say that the retrofit may void the UL listing (if it is even legit), but as far as the splices being a safety concern, I just don't see it. Not enough of a concern to change 100 fixtures on a whim!

 

[haroldbelyeu]

UL letter (total of 2 pages)

UL letter (total of 2 pages)

Below are the links for the UL letter I mentioned earlier.
Petersonra, you are right, I don't think the method of splicing is prohibited. But I do think you are wrong on the UL standards. Please read the letter. I am just trying to say that it is exposed in a damp/wet location. Article 410 seems to be pretty clear about the stance on this. Of course, it is always up to interpretation. I am not concerned if it works or not, my real concern is the shock hazard. These are located on porches, hallways, etc. Because of some strong gusts and borderline tornadoes, we have had some of the conductors get "disconnected" or dislodged from the little insulating connectors. We have residents, women, maintenance people, etc. changing these light bulbs out all of the time (because they are not lasting long). You can see where a wasp has made it a home. Several of them are filled with spiderwebs. I just feel it exposes the HOA to some potentially serious liability issues. You can see where the label says it is suitable for wet locations. NEC 410.28 also says "No unnecessary splices or taps shall be made within or on a luminaire." There is an outlet (junction box) behind the luminaire which makes it even stranger. I think 410.53 is also saying the ballast(magnetic) should be enclosed. I will take more pictures and maybe you guys can tell me if you think it is enclosed or not. Talk to you later and thank you all for the responses and help with the pictures.

 

[electricmanscott]

The odd thing I see is the sticker that says "Suitable for wet locations only"

Can't say I have ever seen a fixture like this to be used in only wet locations.

Otherwise no big deal.

 

[haroldbelyeu]

UL letter links

UL letter links

for some reason the links did not come up on my previous post. I guess despite the UL letter everybody seems to think it is safe for an outside damp and wet location application. Even the electrical inspector. I really do learn something new everyday. The following third link is for an article that also got me worried. We engineers need to just calm down. Sometimes we think we are civil engineers designing bridges or something. Thanks for calming my nerves. The following UL letter got me pretty worked up.

http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-pro.../291329-Preventing-fluorescent-ballast-fires/

 

[mdshunk]

I'm not totally convinced those UL stickers are even real. That file number is invalid. I'd go down this road a little bit more by communicating with the UL. There are certainly plenty of counterfeited holographic UL stickers.

 

[haroldbelyeu]

one more time on the UL letter

one more time on the UL letter

Maybe, the guy who helped me with the previous pics can format these so that the below jpgs are easier to read. Thanks.

Moderators note; edited to insert corrected letter size from 480sparky

 

[mattsilkwood]

im suprised noone has called this out yet but its listed as an incandecent fixture.

 

[480sparky]

Maybe, the guy who helped me with the previous pics can format these so that the below jpgs are easier to read. Thanks.

Here ya go:

 

[petersonra]

While I will agree that it voids the U.L. listing, I am not convinced that it is a safety issue, but if I was asked to inspect it I would fail it.

on what basis would you fail it? code cite please.