Legality or replacing light cord

[johnly]

I am renovating a Garter pool. The light is original from 1961 and I want to use it. The shroud is copper and the lens ring cast bronze - it's quite lovely. Plus replacement bulbs are readily available and average $16.

Earlier today I was on the phone with a local pool shop looking for the lens gasket and he blew his own gasket when he asked me about the condition of the cord and I answered with "I replaced the cord". He said it is illegal to do so as it's sealed with wax at the factory, followed with "I want nuthin' to do with this" and then he hung up.

I found zero mention of his claim online, so am I ignorant, or is he crazy?

 

[JohnT]

Nobody is going to tell you they can be replaced, so I understand him not wanting to take any liability of advising you it's okay. It's not something most people can do safely.

Only you can judge if you are able to do so.

 

[johnly]

That must be why lights are sold with very long cords - so that they connect directly to the power center, wherever it might be. I don't have that luxury. There's a small junction box on the top of the coping for the light cord and then romex to the power source. It's all in conduit, but pulling the romex out, let alone feeding a new cord all the way would not be possible. What are my options?

 

[tim5055]

Make the connection at the junction box. Under the currient electrical code the lamp cord runs from the wet niche to a junction box which must be 4 feet back from the pool (unless separated by a solid fence/wall) and at least 4" above the ground or 8" above the maximum water level.

You can check out article 680.23 "Underwater Luminaires" in the national Electrical Code".

Just because of the danger/liability involved no one will certify a device to have a field replaceable cord.

While not "illegal", meaning you could be arrested, no business person who has liability insurance will touch the situation you have created by replacing the cord. You need a new light that will fit in the existing niche.

Article 680 Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs, Fountains - Mike Holt Electric

 

[gwegan]

Tim explained that really well above. Light fixtures come with the cord factory sealed. The equipment is UL certified. If you replace the cord its no longer UL certified and no business will deal with it.

You have an older pool, so you need to be sure the light is protected with a GFCI as well.

 

[johnly]

The junction box is six inches from the water. I filled it with electrical grease and painted the cover sealed. That seems like the only option other than running new conduit. Is it a good one?

Not sure what to do. Maybe just not have a light until I save up for a new one.

 

[OldPoolBoy2]

I assume you are using 120V as of the age of the light. You could convert to 12V AC. The risk from shock then would be negligible. You would need to get 120 v to 12 v transformer (mounted in a dry environment). If you used a 300 watt 12 v bulb you would probably need to run a new cord but if you used a LED pool light 18 watt ($60 vs $18) the lumens would be less but not all that bad, the current (amps) would be less and your existing cable would easily carry that load so it would not need to changed. ... just a thought.

 

[Isaac-1]

Running romex in conduit is also a code violation

 

[johnly]

Hmm... This is not worth the risk. I am going to put the light back in (for aesthetics) and just not hook it up. I'll drill/cut/dig to replace the conduit in the fall and install a new light with adapter ring next spring. Thanks for the help!

 

[gwegan]

In a post above its stated that with low voltage lights the risk of shock is negligible. That's just plain incorrect.

The reasons are complicated but I will try. With 120 vac light systems the light and niche are downstream of a GFCI. Now while GFCI's are not perfect and you can still be shocked with a GFCI protected circuit (you have to know how) they reduce the risk of a shock to almost zero. And if they fail they are designed to fail off, not on. And that is how they almost invariably fail: to off.

Low voltage lights on the other hand are not GFCI protected even if there is a GFCI in the circuit. The reason is the transformer blocks operation of the GFCI. Even a pool rated transformer will not have downstream GFCI operation through the transformer. In electrical language "there is no GFCI protection on the secondary side of a transformer."

So the risk of a shock in a low voltage system may actually be greater than in a 120 volt system. So why do people think low voltage is safer? Because while low voltage electricity may have the volume (amps) to inure you, it lacks the power or force (volts) to enter your body as far. That is the electrical theory and in practice it works well. But to fully understand this you need to also understand that electrical shock has greater effect on low mass individuals than on high mass individuals. In short, adults are less effected by electric shocks than are children. Go search the defective bonding threads on here, the children always feel it first. Sometimes the adults never feel it.

So while low voltage is probably the wave of the future, we need to understand that it is not the panacea and that 12 volts with even three or four amps can cause serious injury especially in low mass individuals.