During my 4th mock inspection I came across another Federal Pioneer Stab-Lok breaker, the third one. I know that recent testing in 2020 of the Pioneer (Canadian version) showed a similar failure rate to the Federal Pacific (American version). My question is in regards to report writing. I have highly recommended they have a licensed electrician assess the panels for safety. I have not strongly recommended replacing the panel, just that a licensed electrician look it over. Should I be highly recommending a replacement in my report? I’m having my doubts that an electrician will recommend a replacement in some or most cases as the dangers to this panel are internal and not necessarily visual.
Thanks.
Thanks Bryce I did verbally tell the people as this is a mock inspection and I know the people. I gather you write the problems adherent to these breaker panels in your report or do you just recommend an electrician look it over? There was a lab test done in 2020 that put them at a 23 percent failure rate.
As JJonas said, what you quote, you should back up. Where, when, who, and why would you trust that source? Credible sources are as important now in inspections as they have ever been. If inspection takes route of national politics and become post-factual, it’s bad for everyone.
I recommend replacement for the (extremely) unlikely chance the electrician doesn’t. In my experience electricians, etc. want to replace things that don’t need it. Something with all the problems these panels have and the increasing lack of insurability? I’d be really surprised if there are any electricians that don’t want to replace it but you never know.
Thanks Matt. Do you include safety issues with these panels in your report along with recommending replacement? Would you think highly recommending an electrician assess the panel is enough to pass liability to the client or do you think replacement needs to be recommended as well? How exactly do you word this in your report if you don’t mind me asking.
FPE panels are have been repeatedly demonstrated to be unsafe. This report recommends rapid replacement of this panel, prior to using any of the circuits. The circuit breakers in multiple tests have shown a greater than 20% rate of jamming when needed. See xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Note I’m MORE concerned when the MAIN and the SUB are FPE. That means nothing protects you from the full force of the power company line. When it’s a 20A FPE breaker in a 50A sub, with a modern breaker upstream, it’s there’s at least a backup, so a bit of a yawner. That’s too subtle for a report, but affects my priority list.
In the real world, yes… but reality is left behind when it comes to home inspections. Just informing people isn’t enough. You have to CLUB them over the head with the information. Downside of just calling for “assessment” is maybe the first sparky installed thousands of FPE panels back in 70s and loves them. Says all is well. Buyer moves in and for whatever reason has another electrician out and he breaks the news of all the problems… or the buyers go to get insurance and learn that the panel MUST be replaced. Buyer followed your advice and is still out 3K. When you recommend replacement they didn’t follow your advice.
It sucks this is the way the world works with respect to inspections but it’s reality. Inspections are a numbers game. The scenario I lay out is very unlikely but if you run across 500 panels it will probably play out a time or two. And, fwiw, I met the electrician that installed FPE panels in the 70s and swore there was nothing wrong with them.
Here’s my write-up:
The main service panel is manufactured by Federal Pacific. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission and/or a licensed electrician are sources of information regarding safety issues related to this type of panel. Tests have shown an increase in improper breaker operation with the Federal Pacific panel which results in an elevated risk of fire. Further review for replacement by a qualified electrician is recommended.
Question?
How many people, do you suppose, ever make it through that “Article”, let alone the first couple of paragraphs?
I attempted it myself, and finally about halfway through, I jumped to the Comments at the end.
Honestly, the “conversation” between the two alleged experts disagreeing, (or misunderstanding each other), was more useful than the article itself.
Did I miss it, or was there NO actual Disclosure of where the articles source of data was obtained?
This is one of the hugest issues with this subject matter IMO. If you are paying attention when you Google (or other resource) for information, literally 99+% of search results are unqualified opinion(s) pieces! There is very little if any actual hard data addressing this issue. The U.S. CPSC is a good testament to this.
As Matt mentioned above, this is a real quandry for Inspectors. As Professional Inspectors, we are to provide the actual facts as we have observed them. As you have likely seen, that is not a given with inspectors, AND Electricians! They tend to Default to these hearsay opinions, and just go straight to “REPLACE” or “REFER to a Sparky” (who may actually know less about these panels than the inspector)!
Bottom line… you need to find your words to Inform the Client of the TRUE situation, (including the urgency level), of the concern for their SAFETY… all the while protecting you and your company from Liability from saying too much or too little! This is your duty as an inspector, not to tell them how to proceed with repairs/replacement.
Good luck with that!
If you haven’t already, you may wish to dive into the InterNACHI rabbit hole… aka. Forum “SEARCH” feature, You will literally see enough opinions to make you question your sanity!
Totally agree Jeffrey. - [We can] conclude with a reasonable level of certainty that the Canadian product is not substantially different from the USA product in terms of defective calibration. - J. Aronstein, 9 November 2020, The tests were over seen by J Aronstein who also tested the American version (Pioneer Pacific panels). He has a long list of credentials. I get what you are saying about google searches and unqualified opinions, hard to make sense of it all sometimes. A lot of Canadian Electricians have blogs which recommend replacing these panels as well as video showing tripping failures with short circuits. Obviously the electricians that recommend replacement also do the service which provides them with income so this could be seen as a somewhat biased opinion.
-Safety is my first concern.
I appreciate your advice.
Thanks.
You have one of two choices; recommend replacement or don’t recommend replacement. Don’t recommend and there is a problem with the panel you have a problem. Always err on the side of CYA.
These panels are no longer made and replacement parts are not available. They are obsolete.
The FPE issue is the ones with REAMS of data.
Zinsco & Challenger: not so much. But FPE has been documented above and beyond.
There are tremendous volumes of hard data. The test methods were documented, pictures of the test equipment set up. In the scientific method way people had the right to quibble and argue about those methods, sure. But those are the “unqualified opinion(s) pieces”.
Only with an autocratic method will there be no dissent. Focus on the dissent and you could easily come to believe that smoking is not bad for your lungs. Build your own conspiracy theory on anything by (1) ignoring the good evidence (2) cherry picking objections (3) polluting the information space with doubt to serve your aims.
Replacement parts are readily available for FPE panels. I’ve purchased them myself for reasons. Unfortunately, because the CPSC did not act, eBay and other online sellers will not act to restrict commerce in these breakers that don’t do their one job.
Fire Potential Electric (FPE) breakers.
Put up or shut up on this issue. Until the doubters set up a rig in the backyard with a dummy load, and start proving that FPE breakers are safe, I’m going with the guy that did.
Given that these breakers don’t have a date code or factory code, and quality varied over time. Fuck 'em. Unless mitigated by an upstream breaker, the replacement is getting top billing in my report. Write hard.
This is not CYA, which a reader will see through fast. I make this a firm part of the report with no weasel words.
Interesting article describing testing methods and performance of various breakers, but the manufacturers are NOT identified. Rather test results are listed as Type X, Y or Z. Thus they are anonymous. Won’t help or convince a client who is interested in a specific brand in the home under review.