No more refurbished breakers in LA

[JDBrown]

I was just flipping through the 2014 City of Los Angeles amendments, and I came across this little gem (I've bolded the new part):

SEC. 93.0403. USED EQUIPMENT.
(Added by Ord. No. 154,234, Eff. 9/8/80.)

(a) Any used or secondhand material, including any fitting, device, appliance, apparatus, or other equipment reinstalled for electric wiring shall comply with the following provisions:

1. All such equipment shall be in good, satisfactory and durable condition, and adequate and satisfactory for the purpose intended or used, all of the foregoing to be determined by the Department. Such equipment must also comply with all requirements of Division 4 regarding approval.

2. No used or secondhand insulated conductors shall be used for services or for circuits operating at more than 250 volts.

3. No used, reconditioned, or refurbished molded or electronic trip molded case circuit breakers.

(b) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to waive any other specific requirements of the Code, including requirements for nameplates, enclosure of live parts, horsepower rating of switches, or protection from corrosion.

I realize this doesn't affect very many of you, but I figured I'd put it out there for those it will affect. We've been speculating all morning about the enforcement problems this could cause:

• If you relocate a panelboard, do you have to provide all new breakers?
• Are existing spares considered new or used?
• If you demo an existing circuit, can you re-connect that breaker to a new circuit, or would it now be considered "used"?
• If you have an existing 5000A main service and the original manufacturer is no longer in business (so you can't get new breakers for it), you previously could have added a new 500A feed using a reconditioned breaker. Now it looks like you'll have no choice but to replace the entire 5000A service, shutting down operations in the entire building for days while you remove the old gear and install the new.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Looks like another frikin rediculous law for in California.

I would like to tell you that this is likely an Illegal Law. Current code as far as I am aware makes no such condition.
So as law a local AHJ can only ammend a code and make something more strict if it is due to the following conditions.
Climatic
Seismic
Geographic
All previous codes need to re ratified using the current proceedure and rules.
I see no basis for those to apply to the City of Los Angeles. If anything our dry climate would make stuff last longer.

I would think that all the Recon places in LA would have a hayday with this rule.

 

[GoldDigger]

And nobody has brought this up since 1980 when it was passed? A little historical information may be invaluable here.

 

[Sierrasparky]

And nobody has brought this up since 1980 when it was passed? A little historical information may be invaluable here.

A building code from 1980 has no relevance to today unless re- ratified and accepted. If you all did not know ...
All bulding codes in under title 24 of years past are null and void today. when the new code comes out all the past are gone. Only the new codes 2013 Title 24 are applical to today , only properly produced ammendments by a AHJ apply.

 

[JDBrown]

And nobody has brought this up since 1980 when it was passed? A little historical information may be invaluable here.

Sorry. To clarify, the part I put in bold (the part about the breakers) above is new for 2014. The rest is from 1980.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Sorry. To clarify, the part I put in bold (the part about the breakers) above is new for 2014. The rest is from 1980.

I don't know what you mean.
However I don't think is a legal ordinance.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I would think Dan Lukow or Bernard and sons would have something to say.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Looks like another frikin rediculous law for in California.




I would like to tell you that this is likely an Illegal Law. Current code as far as I am aware makes no such condition.
So as law a local AHJ can only ammend a code and make something more strict if it is due to the following conditions.
Climatic
Seismic --Geologic
Geographic- topogrqphical
All previous codes need to re ratified using the current proceedure and rules.
I see no basis for those to apply to the City of Los Angeles. If anything our dry climate would make stuff last longer.

I would think that all the Recon places in LA would have a hayday with this rule.

I need to clarify the Language:

Local modifications shall comply with Health and Safety​

​

​

​

​

Code Section 18941.5 for Building Standards Law, Healthand Safety Code Section 17958 for State Housing Law orHealth and Safety Code Section 13869.7 for FireProtection Districts.89.101.8.1 Findings and Filings.1. The city, county, or city and county shall makeexpress findings for each amendment, addition ordeletion based upon climatic, topographical, orgeological conditions.Exception: Hazardous building ordinances andprograms mitigating unreinforced masonry buildings.2. The city, county, or city and county shall file theamendments, additions, or deletions expresslymarked and identified as to the applicable findings.Cities, counties, cities and counties, and firedepartme.nts shall file the amendments, additions ordeletions, and the findings with the California​

​

Building Standards Commission at​

​

​

​

​

2525 Natomas C​

Park Drive, Suite 130, Sacramento, CA 95833.

This was printed from the Current CA electric code.

 

[kwired]

First this is coming from a place where conservation and recycling are big issues:huh:

But I can understand the safety reasons that get the ball rolling here. What is not addressed is the fact that there are refurbished products out there that go through some pretty strict testing standards and are truly "recertified" also. Then there are those that are just cleaned and given a fairly simple inspection - which is probably what their intention is to prohibit being used, they just didn't get it worded correctly. They do leave a lot of questions of what is and is not considered new, used or refurbished.

It is cost prohibitive to go through a thorough recertification of most "miniature" series circuit breakers, the usual low voltage "plug in" style breakers but maybe well worth it for others. Recertification could even be to higher standards than the OEM standards were.


I also think if they are to carry this out, they need to prohibit used car or used appliance sales also.:roll:

 

[JDBrown]

...
I also think if they are to carry this out, they need to prohibit used car or used appliance sales also.:roll:

Shhh! Do you want to give them more ideas?! Actually, those ideas are nothing new, and there's a goodly number of people who would like to do just that. I personally think the only reason it hasn't happened already is that it's something that would have a very visible negative impact on the poor. It's kind of hard to convincingly portray yourself as a friend of the poor while very publicly taking away any chance they might have of being able to afford a car or large appliance -- but I'm sure they'll eventually figure out how to word it so that no one will notice until it's too late.

But I digress...

Thanks for all the input, guys. I'm (obviously) not a lawyer, so I can't speak to the legality of this regulation. All I know is I found it on LADBS's website under 2014 L.A. Amendment Electrical Code. Also, it wouldn't be the first time a California city decided to do whatever it wants regardless of state laws. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and if it ends up being enforced or not.

Let the rest of us know if you come across any new information about this, or if you run into Inspectors who are enforcing it.

 

[GoldDigger]

At a minimum they should prohibit used cars as part of the premises wiring of buildings.

Tapatalk!

 

[Sierrasparky]

too bad I don't work in that location anymore. I would like to be able to tell the building official to pound sand on this and see what his reaction is. ( other than I'll red tag this place)

 

[zog]

First this is coming from a place where conservation and recycling are big issues:huh:

But I can understand the safety reasons that get the ball rolling here. What is not addressed is the fact that there are refurbished products out there that go through some pretty strict testing standards and are truly "recertified" also. Then there are those that are just cleaned and given a fairly simple inspection - which is probably what their intention is to prohibit being used, they just didn't get it worded correctly. They do leave a lot of questions of what is and is not considered new, used or refurbished.

It is cost prohibitive to go through a thorough recertification of most "miniature" series circuit breakers, the usual low voltage "plug in" style breakers but maybe well worth it for others. Recertification could even be to higher standards than the OEM standards were.


I also think if they are to carry this out, they need to prohibit used car or used appliance sales also.:roll:

Breakers that are actually refirbished and recertified are fully tested, new breakers are not tested (Just batch testing on some samples)

 

[kwired]

Breakers that are actually refirbished and recertified are fully tested, new breakers are not tested (Just batch testing on some samples)

Fully tested? How about testing the interrupting rating?

 

[sandsnow]

This issue has been discussed at SoCal IAEI meetings. Of course the manufacturers are against it. I forget all details.
PEARL is now seeking to develop a standard for refurbished equipment. Soon we could have listed refurbished electricasl equipment

http://ecmweb.com/news/pearl-seeks-ansi-participants

 

[Sierrasparky]

This issue has been discussed at SoCal IAEI meetings. Of course the manufacturers are against it. I forget all details.
PEARL is now seeking to develop a standard for refurbished equipment. Soon we could have listed refurbished electricasl equipment

http://ecmweb.com/news/pearl-seeks-ansi-participants

Ok So the locals at IAEI have discussed this. The NEC nor the CA electric code has not addressed this.
So how is it that in the infinite wisdom has the City of los angeles made a more restrictive code that is neither Climatic, Topographic or Geologic?

 

[sandsnow]

Ok So the locals at IAEI have discussed this. The NEC nor the CA electric code has not addressed this.
So how is it that in the infinite wisdom has the City of los angeles made a more restrictive code that is neither Climatic, Topographic or Geologic?

You'd have to ask cowboy that one. He's closer to the source.

There is a listing issue if the product is modified in any way. NOt to say listing is automatically voided, but once you mess with a product UL will not stand behind the listing. That is the main beef and probably the main reason behind developing the standard.

 

[kwired]

This issue has been discussed at SoCal IAEI meetings. Of course the manufacturers are against it. I forget all details.
PEARL is now seeking to develop a standard for refurbished equipment. Soon we could have listed refurbished electricasl equipment

http://ecmweb.com/news/pearl-seeks-ansi-participants

Why are manufacturers against it, seems it would be something that favors them as it means selling more new product.

You'd have to ask cowboy that one. He's closer to the source.

There is a listing issue if the product is modified in any way. NOt to say listing is automatically voided, but once you mess with a product UL will not stand behind the listing. That is the main beef and probably the main reason behind developing the standard.

Does UL "stand" behind anything? All they are is a third party that does evaluations of products.

They have standards to be met for certain things, believe it or not, some things the manufacturer actually does tell them what to test for. Does anything refurbished need to meet UL or other similar standards? Does a used car that has been fixed up and sold need to meet all the same safety standards it did when it was new or worse yet meet today's safety standards for new vehicles?

IMO a UL listing pretty much is void once a product has been put to use, or even before that if mishandled in shipping or storage, as it is no longer in the same condition it was when it left the manufacturer.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You'd have to ask cowboy that one. He's closer to the source.

There is a listing issue if the product is modified in any way. NOt to say listing is automatically voided, but once you mess with a product UL will not stand behind the listing. That is the main beef and probably the main reason behind developing the standard.

I don't think I mind if there was some standard for using used equipment such as a breaker. What I have issue is that once again a city like Los Angeles has made a new standard that outlaws used breakers. The NEC has not issue with it at this time. The CA Electric code has no issue at this time. The one issue is would be what " Express finding " did LA claim as to why they are making such a ammendment. I cannot fathom any legitimate finding of Climatic, Topographic , or Geologic that would be specific to the city of los Angeles that would permit such a ruling.

If anyone has a copy of the LA amendments that show the "Express "findings I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[sandsnow]

Why are manufacturers against it, seems it would be something that favors them as it means selling more new product.

Does UL "stand" behind anything? All they are is a third party that does evaluations of products.

They have standards to be met for certain things, believe it or not, some things the manufacturer actually does tell them what to test for. Does anything refurbished need to meet UL or other similar standards? Does a used car that has been fixed up and sold need to meet all the same safety standards it did when it was new or worse yet meet today's safety standards for new vehicles?

IMO a UL listing pretty much is void once a product has been put to use, or even before that if mishandled in shipping or storage, as it is no longer in the same condition it was when it left the manufacturer.

Yeah, I wasn't clear. Manufacturers are against reuse of refurbished equipment.

If you don't think the UL listing is worth very much, I got nothing.