Unsafe exterior condo lighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nec 300.15

Nec 300.15

Maybe somebody can also help me understand 300.15 in regards to splicing with nonmetallic-sheathed cable. Thanks.
 
EBFD6 said:
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!
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but never invite a lawyer to answer this question.

Sometimes I am irritated when people have a cow over the 'violation' of the UL listing. Like in this case.

If the modification involved the replacement of and incandescent screw base with the bracket mounted ballast/PL installation what is the assumed harm that can be predicted this change would produce? If anything the PL runs cooler so the fire hazard is lessened.

I wonder though why didn't they just used a CF in the old socket. It almost seems like this modification was done much earlier than the OP guesses when PL's were much more common than CF's.
 
weressl said:
I tend to agree, but never invite a lawyer to answer this question.

Sometimes I am irritated when people have a cow over the 'violation' of the UL listing. Like in this case.

If the modification involved the replacement of and incandescent screw base with the bracket mounted ballast/PL installation what is the assumed harm that can be predicted this change would produce? If anything the PL runs cooler so the fire hazard is lessened.

I wonder though why didn't they just used a CF in the old socket. It almost seems like this modification was done much earlier than the OP guesses when PL's were much more common than CF's.
Click to expand...

I was kind of thinkng the same thing my self about why they went through all that trouble when they could have just changed bulbs.

And I did say that I didn't think that it was a hugh safety concern, but I am an inspector and I have to enforce all the sections.

emahler said:
where is that letter cowboy posted? just replace screen w/ light fixture...
Click to expand...

:grin:
 
haroldbelyeu said:
Maybe somebody can also help me understand 300.15 in regards to splicing with nonmetallic-sheathed cable. Thanks.
Click to expand...
For the most part, if you have a splice in non-direct buried cable, you need a box.
 
weressl said:
If the modification involved the replacement of and incandescent screw base with the bracket mounted ballast/PL installation what is the assumed harm that can be predicted this change would produce?
Click to expand...
Did you not read the report from the UL investigation?
"...and as currently constructed; presents shock and fire hazards. The use of this product is not recommended." You better recognize!:grin:
 
mivey said:
For the most part, if you have a splice in non-direct buried cable, you need a box.
Click to expand...

There are heat shrink splicing kits that do not require an enclosure. So if the cable is the type that can be run without a raceway no enclosure would be necessary. The photos shown by the OP may have had the original socket installed so that the pigtails from the socket extend beyond the fixture, so the wire-nutting would be done in the backbox that also serves as the mounting support for the fixture.

Problems with this latter assumption;
  1. I don't see a protective grommet for the wire opening between the housing and the backbox. (May have been inadvertently removed.)
  2. I don't see the mounting holes for the backbox bracket.
  3. The pigtails from the socket are exposed.
  4. If the pigtails were exposed in the initial assembly - even though that type of wiring is not approved for exposed installation - then the fixture is approved for the wirenuts to be located in the same space where the wires are.
 
weressl said:
There are heat shrink splicing kits that do not require an enclosure.
Click to expand...

I would love to see one for above ground / exposed use with power and lighting circuits.

Not saying they don't exist just never heard of one.
 
mivey said:
And I forgot about these:
http://www.ampnetconnect.com/documents/NM_Connector_Presentation_Rev3_Web.pdf
Click to expand...

Note:




4. ​
​
​
Can the NM Connector be concealed?​


YES, although it can only be concealed in re-work applications per NEC Article 334-40(B). It can not be concealed in new work.


5. ​
​
​
Can the NM Connector be used with stranded wire?​


NO. The connector is designed for NM Solid Conductor wire only.



10. ​
​
​
What happens if the splice or tap does not capture the outer sheath properly?​


You will need to discard the connector and start over.​



11.​
​
​
Can the NM be re-terminated?​


NO. NM Connectors can be re-mated, but? NM Connectors CAN NOT be re-terminated !


So it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but sometimes its just a toast.​

 
Last edited:
cowboyjwc said:
I would cite 110.3(B)
Click to expand...
What prohibits a manufacturer from rebuilding a listed assembly? if they do they are suppsoed to deface the UL mark on it, so they failed on that account, but other than that I can't see an issue with it.
 
weressl said:
I tend to agree, but never invite a lawyer to answer this question.

Sometimes I am irritated when people have a cow over the 'violation' of the UL listing. Like in this case.

If the modification involved the replacement of and incandescent screw base with the bracket mounted ballast/PL installation what is the assumed harm that can be predicted this change would produce? If anything the PL runs cooler so the fire hazard is lessened.

I wonder though why didn't they just used a CF in the old socket. It almost seems like this modification was done much earlier than the OP guesses when PL's were much more common than CF's.
Click to expand...

Sorry to irritate you. How would you pursue this though, if the builder/contractor told you he was going to use a suitable for wet location UL listed incandescent fixture and when you looked into it....This is what you find. Maybe I am "having a cow". I guess that is why I am trying to get some other opinions. If anybody has any advise on how to pursue such a thing please let me know. Just letting it go seems to be kind of a hard thing to do at this moment.

There are some of the original incandescent fixtures on the property. I think they ran out of those and could not afford them/cut cost and came up with this solution. I'll take pics of the original fixture this weekend. Thanks again.
 
haroldbelyeu said:
Sorry to irritate you. How would you pursue this though, if the builder/contractor told you he was going to use a suitable for wet location UL listed incandescent fixture and when you looked into it....This is what you find. Maybe I am "having a cow". I guess that is why I am trying to get some other opinions. If anybody has any advise on how to pursue such a thing please let me know. Just letting it go seems to be kind of a hard thing to do at this moment.

There are some of the original incandescent fixtures on the property. I think they ran out of those and could not afford them/cut cost and came up with this solution. I'll take pics of the original fixture this weekend. Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Harold,

I was not referring to you as 'having a cow' just a general comment.

As far as your installation is concerned I have the following opinion.

UL had confirmed - based on the label - that the fixture originally was one suitable for wet location. Modification has been made that may have violated the original listing, in literal meaning, but not necessarily in its spirit. In other words, without seeing the original fixture detail, I could not say if the old fixture was or wasn't any safer before, than after the modification. I am not taking UL's word for it, since the manufacturer has withdrawn from listing and UL has an obvious ax to grind. Remember that UL is a for-profit Corporation, not a Government agency, thus subject to 'laws' governing business.

The lack of caulking - noted by UL - may make that fixture non-weatherproof, BUT only if that was in the original installation instructions those were PART of the UL approval.

The installation seems much older than 2006, are you sure that it wasn?t a rehab effort in 2006 and not totally new construction where the would do lot of cosmetic work and replace all appliances, but may leave old fixtures? The PL fixtures two years ago war LONG pass? and just adding a CF bulb would have been much more cost efficient. If the construction dated back to 2006 the Contractors warranty had run out, so the issue should have been raised much earlier, at the time when you purchased the unit. It is also possible that the units were sold to the Contractor as it is, would be hard to track it down. Not that your point is not valid, but you are trying to force other people to agree with you and you don't seem to be able to convince them the importance of the issue. Obviously it would costs money and they just don't see it your way.

Question is; do you want to live in a neighborhood where people will great you with a smile, or do you want people walk across the street as you approach them?
 
petersonra said:
What prohibits a manufacturer from rebuilding a listed assembly? if they do they are suppsoed to deface the UL mark on it, so they failed on that account, but other than that I can't see an issue with it.
Click to expand...

Nothing prhibits a manufacturer from rebuiding a listed assembly, but nobody has said that it was rebuilt by the manufacturer either.

We built a Chilie's here and the appliance people were very proud of them selves that they had punched out the UL lable because they had modified the equipment. They weren't so happy though when I told them that I wasn't qualified to tell them if the monifications were ok or not and required them to get a third party testing agency to sign them off.

Remember, as a contractor the burden of proof is on you. You need to convince me that your installation complies or provide me the information that I need to make a judgement.

And one more time for those of you that missed it, I have agreed with what some of the others have said and it may not be any less safe now than before it was converted.

I do have to go along with weressl's thinking though, many builders will not do condos any more, because for some reason they are a lawsuit magnet. Everyone is willing to buy it and then as soon as they do, everyone suddenly becomes and structural engineer or electricial inspector and can point out every thing that the contractor did wrong and what it was that they should have done. I've been privy to numorus law suits and one was they wanted the builder of a 20 year old complex to bring it up to todays standards.

It's not always worth it to pick the you know what out of the pepper.
 
cowboyjwc said:
I do have to go along with weressl's thinking though, many builders will not do condos any more, because for some reason they are a lawsuit magnet. Everyone is willing to buy it and then as soon as they do, everyone suddenly becomes and structural engineer or electricial inspector and can point out every thing that the contractor did wrong and what it was that they should have done. I've been privy to numorus law suits and one was they wanted the builder of a 20 year old complex to bring it up to todays standards.

It's not always worth it to pick the you know what out of the pepper.
Click to expand...

That brings up another question. Doesn't inspection and subsequent approval relieves the Contractor form liability of this nature?
 
weressl said:
That brings up another question. Doesn't inspection and subsequent approval relieves the Contractor form liability of this nature?
Click to expand...

There have been some changes in the law and I believe that the builder is responsible for defects and ? for 10 years now.
 
weressl said:
That brings up another question. Doesn't inspection and subsequent approval relieves the Contractor form liability of this nature?
Click to expand...
nope. inspection is solely a requirement of some government entity and does not relieve the contractor from the terms of his contract, and the general requirements of the UCC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top