Unsafe exterior condo lighting

[petersonra]

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.

I don't believe there is any requirement whatsoever that the original manufacturer be the one to rebuild a device. And there is nothing to prevent, nor should there be, an EC from being the re-builder. It is no different than a contractor remodeling a home.

Just out of curiosity, what law permits an inspector to demand 3rd party inspection? Its not in the code anywhere, and I doubt it is in any of the enabling laws. Depsite the way some inspectors handle things, I doubt there is any legally binding requirement that puts the onus on the contractor to prove a rebuild product is safe. Unless there is some clear violation, the onus is on the inspector to prove it does not comply.

If there were some requirement that all luminaires be listed, than a rebuilt luminaire would be a clear issue.

 

[haroldbelyeu]

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?

I am not sure why a company would voluntarily withdraw their UL Listing. I am not sure why UL would be mad if a company that put together this fixture withdrew their UL listing. That is not making sense to me. You may have to explain that one further. That is not how I interpreted the letter. UL is the standard that consulting firms and professional engineers that I have worked with and under follow when we specify lighting fixtures for damp locations. (I know it does not have to be UL listed, just suitable) This is at least a damp location by the way. NEC 410 is pretty clear on how to approach Luminaire installations in damp locations. I guess we can all debate that one too. Can I ask, who do you trust to test your products for public safety?

And you are very right. This issue should have been raised much much earlier. It is what it is though. I did not start snooping around until it directly affected me. The good news is though, nobody outside of engineering seems to care about the hazards outlined per NEC and UL. That is until something happens and then they blame the engineer. I was warned about this.

 

[haroldbelyeu]

Doesn't NEC 90.7 cover this?

 

[weressl]

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.

As I stated: ' liability of this nature".

The issue here was whether the equipment was suitable for the installation. The AHJ has inspected the installation and signed off, therefore deemed the installation OK.

The inspection is not a one-way street. It is for protection of both the Consumer and the Supplier.

 

[weressl]

I don't believe there is any requirement whatsoever that the original manufacturer be the one to rebuild a device. And there is nothing to prevent, nor should there be, an EC from being the re-builder. It is no different than a contractor remodeling a home.

Just out of curiosity, what law permits an inspector to demand 3rd party inspection? Its not in the code anywhere, and I doubt it is in any of the enabling laws. Depsite the way some inspectors handle things, I doubt there is any legally binding requirement that puts the onus on the contractor to prove a rebuild product is safe. Unless there is some clear violation, the onus is on the inspector to prove it does not comply.

If there were some requirement that all luminaires be listed, than a rebuilt luminaire would be a clear issue.

In general, wouldn't that be a violation of the labeling agreement between the manufacturer and UL - or other NRTL - as the manufacturer is obligated to notify the agency of any changes, including the change of components. There are certain equipment that can not be rebuilt by anyone who is not agency certified, such as equipment for hazardous locations.

The EC is not likely to be aware of the listing details of the equipment, so in rebuilding it he may inadvertently violate the listing.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Depsite the way some inspectors handle things, I doubt there is any legally binding requirement that puts the onus on the contractor to prove a rebuild product is safe. Unless there is some clear violation, the onus is on the inspector to prove it does not comply.

So you have a listed product that is not installed per it listing and labeling and you believe that it is my responsibility to prove that it does not comply? Here is your red tag, call me when you have something for me.