Zinscos Banned in Napa, CA

[anndee4444]

The City of Napa in California has released a memo banning all Zinsco panels. In a conversation I had with the building official, he informed me that it was just 100A Zinsco panels, and that GTE-Sylvania and 125A+ Zinsco panels would be allowed.

To: Solar Photovoltaic Installers and Mechanical Contractors
From: Dan Kavarian, Interim Building Official
Date: June 20, 2012
RE: Required Service Changes for New Solar or Any Other New Appliance Installations​

Effective immediately the City of Napa Building Division will require a service upgrade for any Solar Photovoltaic or Any New Appliance installation (i.e. furnace/ac) where the main service is a Zinsco Manufactured meter main. Due to complications from these service panels in the past and the difficulties acquiring new breakers for future circuits, we have come to the conclusion that we will no longer support the use of these panels in this type of application. At time of plan submittal the manufacturer of the service main must be shown on the plans and approved prior to permit issuance. If there is an existing Zinsco meter main, you will then be asked to contact PG&E to obtain a service planning request. All service upgrades must have PG&E approval and be tagged by us prior to reconnect. Your permit will not receive a final inspection if this is an outstanding issue. Any service upgrades done without PG&E approval will be "RED TAGGED" and the project will be put on hold. If the inspector performs and inspection on your project and a Zinsco meter main is in place and is not identified on the plans, the job will also be stopped and a "RED TAG" will be issued and you will be held responsible for all penalties charged.
​

Does anyone know if this is legal? I am not a lawyer or anything, but I'm not sure what gives them the authority to blacklist a specific panel like this. Everything would be NEC and UL compliant...

Also, I am aware of the history of Zinsco panels, so please save the "just upgrade it" comments...

 

[K8MHZ]

Are they only talking about meter can / main panel combos (their term meter main) or all service panels?

 

[anndee4444]

Are they only talking about meter can / main panel combos (their term meter main) or all service panels?

I believe they are referring to the meter can / main panel combo. This is what I am most interest in anyway, as the utility could take 3+ weeks for "planning" when upgrading the meter panel.

 

[petersonra]

Does the adopted code for that jurisdiction give them this power?

 

[GoldDigger]

Does the adopted code for that jurisdiction give them this power?

I could see this in the case of components whose UL listing has been revoked, but not otherwise.

 

[anndee4444]

Does the adopted code for that jurisdiction give them this power?

As far as I can tell, it does not.

They are on the 2010 California Electrical Code, and the only electrical amendment is in relation to solar. http://qcode.us/codes/napa/?cite=15.04.010

 

[anndee4444]

I could see this in the case of components whose UL listing has been revoked, but not otherwise.

My thoughts exactly, and I do not believe Zinsco ever had their UL listing revoked (though I could be mistaken)

 

[electricguy61]

The "authority having jurisdiction" has deemed this a requirement. Where as it might not be entirely legal, it might be very expensive to argue. Easier to comply, especially considering if someone has the money to install solar, they likely have the funds to replace the service.

 

[anndee4444]

The "authority having jurisdiction" has deemed this a requirement. Where as it might not be entirely legal, it might be very expensive to argue. Easier to comply, especially considering if someone has the money to install solar, they likely have the funds to replace the service.

I agree that in this one jurisdiction it is probably easier to follow their wishes, however I am afraid of this spreading to other areas. My company is a PV contractor, and in order to stay competitive we cannot be giving away panel upgrades because a building official 'doesn't like them'.


In my opinion, this memo might as well say "we only accept brand X panels"... and then would expect the building official to have stock in brand X. :slaphead:

 

[electricguy61]

Banning one or two 35 year old brands (I would think they would do the same with FPE but that's what they ruled) isn't the same as dictating a given brand.

Let me ask: do you really want the issues that could come up by your PV system feeding onto an aluminum busbar that could corrode?

 

[Sierrasparky]

It is not legal unless the AHJ files an amendment with the state after it passes an ordinace.
I do not see how they can prove that the zinsco is worse than the sylvania counter part.
Replacement breakers are available and will be for sometime.

Hey I would replace it if it were me.

 

[anndee4444]

Banning one or two 35 year old brands (I would think have thoought they would do the same with FPE but that's what they ruled) isn't the same as dictating a given brand.

I questioned the building official on this, and he indicated that he planned on banning GTE-Sylvania and FPE panels in the future. No mention about other brands, but also no guarantee that it will stop there.

Let me ask: do you really want the issues that could come up by your PV system feeding onto an aluminum busbar that could corrode?

This is a separate issue, and of course we assess every panel individually.

 

[GoldDigger]

I questioned the building official on this, and he indicated that he planned on banning GTE-Sylvania and FPE panels in the future. No mention about other brands, but also no guarantee that it will stop there

It would be more effective in terms of safety to require replacement of all panels older than some cutoff date.

 

[iwire]

It would be more effective in terms of safety to require replacement of all panels older than some cutoff date.

Which still seems unlawful.

 

[anndee4444]

Which still seems unlawful.

True... for some reason I would almost be OK with a cutoff date though.

 

[petersonra]

I questioned the building official on this, and he indicated that he planned on banning GTE-Sylvania and FPE panels in the future. No mention about other brands, but also no guarantee that it will stop there.

I can just about guarantee he has no authority to do this on his own.

No doubt he has a supervisor who can be made aware of this.

It may be necessary for someone to initiate legal action.

is there any actual evidence that supports the idea these things present any special hazard?

 

[anndee4444]

I can just about guarantee he has no authority to do this on his own.

No doubt he has a supervisor who can be made aware of this.

It may be necessary for someone to initiate legal action.

is there any actual evidence that supports the idea these things present any special hazard?

Nothing official that I know of. Experience is another thing.

Now if it were FPE panels I would be more understanding, since Reliance (the company that purchased FPE) announced that they cheated to get their UL listing. Even that is impossible to nail down though: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/New...nd-Provides-Safety-Information-For-Consumers/

 

[electricguy61]

This memo was issued in June. Haven't there been any updates or revisions in the last 5 months?

FYI: when I tried to fight a ruling that an inspection department basically made up, I was finally told " I'm the 'Authority Having Jurisdiction' and I say so!" It was at that point I figured it was cheaper to comply then fight it.


http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=106193

 

[Sierrasparky]

There is no authority to ban these devices at this time. There has been no ordinance filed nor do I think one would be lawful.

This guy needs to be challenged.

 

[anndee4444]

This memo was issued in June. Haven't there been any updates or revisions in the last 5 months?

Nope, I spoke with the building official this morning.