- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
My question is whether there is a state agency with oversight responsibility under the regulations that established the AHJs or would it have to be challenged in court?
Zinscos Banned in Napa, CA
- Thread starter anndee4444
- Start date
- Status
My question is whether there is a state agency with oversight responsibility under the regulations that established the AHJs or would it have to be challenged in court?
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
The Square D QO line was introduced in the late 1950's, and its smaller panels (e.g. 100A) are aluminum, should it be banned?
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
I don't see it as a "ban" exactly. They are not instructing anyone to yank it out for no reason just because it is installed. They are referring to making modifications to existing equipment and basically saying that since the original mfr of the existing equipment is no longer in business, you are not going to be allowed to modify it using old or after market product that might be available. They do the same thing with smoke detectors in a way. Around here if you make ANY addition with a permit, whether it has anything to do with smoke detectors or not, they will force you to change battery-only smoke detectors to combo source versions. So is that really "banning" battery only smoke detectors? Nope. If you don't change anything in your house needing a permit, no problem.
Their reasoning may be that for use in a Solar installation, that old stock or aftermarket stuff is essentially untested on older panels since the demise of the OEM predates the development of solar inverter technology. Behind the scenes I can imagine it might really be because Zinsco panels had aluminum bus, and maybe they know that because of the increased harmonics from the solar inverters, the already known crappy plug-in connections to the Al bus in Zinsco panels may heat up even more. But do they really need to say all that, or just say "Sorry, no grandfathering of additions to existing equipment from defunct mfrs.", which is how I read that.
Their reasoning may be that for use in a Solar installation, that old stock or aftermarket stuff is essentially untested on older panels since the demise of the OEM predates the development of solar inverter technology. Behind the scenes I can imagine it might really be because Zinsco panels had aluminum bus, and maybe they know that because of the increased harmonics from the solar inverters, the already known crappy plug-in connections to the Al bus in Zinsco panels may heat up even more. But do they really need to say all that, or just say "Sorry, no grandfathering of additions to existing equipment from defunct mfrs.", which is how I read that.
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
Sq. D still sells them and the design is basically unchanged, so if there is/was an issue, they would have to deal with it. Can't say that for Zinsco and FPE.
Sylvania bought Zinsco, then when Siemens bought Sylvania, they specifically did NOT take the entire distribution line. So it became Challenger when an Executive bought it. Later when Eaton bought Challenger, they didn't want the Zinsco line either, so Connecticut Electric then bought it during the absorbtion by Eaton. But I heard CE have been caught up in numerous lawsuits over this and they have now lost (or never had) their UL listing on their version of aftermarket Zinsco breakers. I heard that from a competitor trying to get UL listing on a version he wanted to sell too, so I don't know for sure if that is right. But what happened to him was that UL would not do the testing on the new design replacement breakers, because the only way to test them was to test them in Zinsco panels, and those were no longer UL listed themselves. He tried to get around it by building a new interior for old Zinsco panels, so you would replace the entire guts leaving just the box in place. But Connecticut sued him to stop him, saying that although the panels had lost their UL listing over the years, CE technically still maintained the patent rights to them because of having bought the product line. Something like that.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Call it what you want I still see it is wrong of the area.
Sierrasparky
Senior Member
- Location
- USA
- Occupation
- Electrician ,contractor
Yes there is. it is call the Ca Building and Standards commison.
And all Building code ammendments are to be filed with them prior to enforcement.
So since there is no amendment there is no law and this is unenforceable.
Also the AHJ cannot just make a harsh code. The Ahj must have a finding of Climatic , Topographic or Seismic in order to make a code more strict. PERIOD
I'd tell that guy to pound sand.
Andy ,since I will never work in that area would you like me to give this jerk a call?
anndee4444
Member
- Location
- California
Really? I knew about the other buying/selling you listed, but have never heard about this one.
That is, they do not comply with the modern requirements, correct? The old panel's listing is still valid, as it passed at the time of manufacture.
I have wondered about the ETL listings on the Connecticut Electric replacement breakers... supposed to be tested to the UL standards :?
anndee4444
Member
- Location
- California
Sure! I am crafting a plan with a few people in my company of how to approach him again, but outside help is always appreciated.
(707) 257-9540 ext. 7327
dkavarian@cityofnapa.org
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
Yep, all Siemens wanted was the lighting division, they dumped everything else. They rolled Sylvania into another German division called Osram, but it's still Siemens. When I worked for Siemens we sometimes had to share booth space with them at trade shows. The bright lights all the time were annoying, but I always got cool samples of things like LED lamps to take home. They also always had better swag than we had, better promotional budgets I guess.
Yes, that's essentially what it means. But any UL listing is basically only good at the moment you install it new, then anything added to it later has to have been re-evaluated by installing it into the original (design) and testing it. If the company is still making the product, i.e. the Sq. D panel mentioned above, then whenever Sq. D makes anything new to go into it, they have to have it UL listed WITH that original panel or whatever the updated version is, so not a problem. But if the original is not still in production or was never updated to meet current standards, big problem.
Yes, ETL (Intertek) uses the published UL standards, they don't create their own. UL tends to suggest a general lack of discipline on Intertek's part in enforcing testing against those standards, but what would you expect from a competitor? the difference however may have been in Intertek allowing listing without testing it IN the panel, or allowed it to be tested with an OLD panel. Not sure there.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
So should age alone be an issue? How about 50 year old QO breakers being installed into brand new panels during a 'swapout'.
The 'FPE' stablock design is still used in the Canadian marketplace and has hardly changed from the original.
There is rarely a single right answer for subjective situations.
curt swartz
Electrical Contractor - San Jose, CA
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
I was not aware of it either. As far as I know the electrical part of GTE/Sylvania became Challenger.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
If we want to argue what is legal, we can go the extreme and say that constitutionally we are violated by many local laws all the time.
Just in our area of the business and trades world - what is constitutionally acceptable about needing a license to do wiring, needing a permit to build a home, business, etc. or requiring someone to come inspect it?
My answer is nothing. But our legal system has made all these kinds of things necessary to help keep people from suing one another by essentially creating standards for every trade/industry and many of which still are full of loopholes or unclear standards or are just plain ridiculous. We did this to ourselves by wanting to blame somebody else for everything that happens.
Just in our area of the business and trades world - what is constitutionally acceptable about needing a license to do wiring, needing a permit to build a home, business, etc. or requiring someone to come inspect it?
My answer is nothing. But our legal system has made all these kinds of things necessary to help keep people from suing one another by essentially creating standards for every trade/industry and many of which still are full of loopholes or unclear standards or are just plain ridiculous. We did this to ourselves by wanting to blame somebody else for everything that happens.
Sierrasparky
Senior Member
- Location
- USA
- Occupation
- Electrician ,contractor
We don't need to argue about what is legal or not in this case. What the AHJ is doing is unenforceable - Period!
Ca law does not allow this.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Isn't your second sentence basically an argument that it is not legal, but your first sentence says we don't need to argue about what is legal?
You sure you are not into law?
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I'm not sure that they have that authority, but until someone fights it, it will probably stand.
I do know that I have one solar install coming up and they told me that they could not find a 25amp Zinsco breaker, which didn't surprise me, but they seemed surprised. I told them that they probably should have thought about that before they submitted plans.
They are probably also looking at the fact that many of the old Zinsco panels don't have main breakers, so how do you size the solar? (Main breaker + Solar breaker = up to !20% of the buss rating.)
I do know that I have one solar install coming up and they told me that they could not find a 25amp Zinsco breaker, which didn't surprise me, but they seemed surprised. I told them that they probably should have thought about that before they submitted plans.
They are probably also looking at the fact that many of the old Zinsco panels don't have main breakers, so how do you size the solar? (Main breaker + Solar breaker = up to !20% of the buss rating.)
Last edited:
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
Well, there are two logical approaches:
1. Assume that there had to be some sort of protection of the bus at 100% of rating before the solar was added and since the service current is not effectively limited, the sum of the load (branch and feeder) breakers (six handles???) in the panel would have to be less than or equal to the bus rating, and adding PV to the panel would not change that in the least.
2. Just assume that the POCO input is magically limited to the service rating and use that in the 120% rule.
Neither one is hallowed by Code, but each has a certain logic to it. :angel:
Sierrasparky
Senior Member
- Location
- USA
- Occupation
- Electrician ,contractor
Anyone who knows it's you
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
I didn't say they bought it, I said they DIDN'T take the distribution business unit when they bought Sylvania, so the executive of that division bought it and created Challenger. Siemens didn't take on the old GTE/Sylvania/Clark Controls unit either, that was sold off to Joslyn who became Joslyn-Clark (now Danaher).
- Status