Federal Pacific Question.

[Larry F. Rollins]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Yup. Same here.

When I see one of these, I look a lot harder and do more testing.

I have never recommended panel replacement without documented issues.

David, how do you test a breakers ability to trip within mfg's specifications while doing a HI?
How do you test a panels ability to carry "full load" while "in place" during a home inspection?
These tests are outside the parameters of a HI. We must instead rely upon the data that has been gathered over the years. FPE has a long documented history of problems when compared to other brands. This is the information that we must use in our decissin making... not "tools and testing". The "tools and testing" criteria you are using demands that every Hi must be a licensed "expert" in every trade.

[Bruce A. King]

A client was about to buy a house once that had a Zinsco main and an FPE stab-lok panel. I made the usual writeups and recommended replacement of both due to safety concerns. He had not heard of this before and called an electrician friend from out of state who told him I was right and to replace the panels. The seller/house flipper ended up agreeing to replace the panels after talking to his own electrician. You have to remember the vast differences in the knowledge base of different electricians when just recommending one inspect an old panel. especially these types. Many of them think of a breaker only as a switch and have no desire to check the overcurrent protection in the whole panel. It would be stupid anyway to pay an electrician for several hours of labor to truly test an old panel anyway. Anyone who is aware of the problems published here and online about these panels could be found negligent if they did not recommend replacement when a major fire or death resulted later on.

[Patrick Bolliger]

I am waiting for Joe Farsetta and the new documentation he has seen on these panels. Something we not aware on FPE..

Joe any word??

[Bruce A. King]

I asked him about that a few weeks ago, it appears he is concerned with the liability of posting information about a company that according to him still has some operations in place. This tells me that the information must be negative and further supports what is already available to us in the public domain. I really doubt Farsetta only recommends some random electrician make the decision for his clients about these panels.

[David A. Andersen]

It is my understanding that I, as a HI, do not have the authority to require the replacement of anything. The TN Dept. of Commerce and Insurance never issued me a badge and a gun. I simply report what I see and in certain cases recommend to the client that he seek further more "expert" advise.

State whether the condition reported requires repair or subsequent observation, or warrants further investigation by a specialist;

In this case repair requires "replacement".



Licensees shall not engage in false or misleading advertising or otherwise misrepresent any matters to the public.

You're using an "all or nothing" analogy here. Which, no matter what the subject, is wrong most of the time. Of course, FPE equipment does not fail 100 % of the time... nor does any other product that proves to be faulty and gets recalled or the company is subject to numerous lawsuits as was FPE.

The all or nothing has to do with "ALL OR NONE OF THE PANELS REQUIRE REPLACEMENT" not about how you handle the situation. My issue is about home inspectors like Billy recommending replacement of panels with no significant deficiency condition noted. Simply that because it has FPE it should be replaced.

"Either get the tools and/or perform the procedure to determine the panel is bad or keep your recommendations of replacement to your self."
First of all the "recommendation of replacement" are your words not ours

Do the Nashville "Metro Codes" actually demand or even suggest that Federal Pacific Brkrs/boxes be removed?


Post by Billy:
*** Safety Warning*** I have observed a Federal Pacific Electric "Stab-Lok" service panel in the house. This panel is a latent fire hazard: it's circuit breakers may fail to trip in response to an overcurrent or a short circuit. Failure of a circuit breaker to trip can result in a fire, property damage, or personal injury. A circuit breaker that may not trip does not afford the protection that is intended and required. Simply replacing the circuit breakers is not a reliable repair. The panel should be replaced, and significant expense may be involved. Additional information about the fire and shock hazards associated with this equipment can be read on the internet at

I can think of many examples of items I would bring up in my report that are not directly mentioned in the law.

I am not debating "bringing things up in the report", I am debating "required replacement" reporting.

I would suggest that you think about possibly recommending experts in your reports rather than writing as one.

According to the court, I am considered an expert. I have been officially proclaimed a home inspection expert by a federal court judge. I do recommend experts when they are required because aditional testing that is not allowed during a HI is required, or a repair must be made before complete evaluation can be completed.

Personally I feel they overstep there boundaries when they try to tell us exactly what we should do and how to do it. I use these sources as suggestions only.

Agreed.

This has been an interesting thread for me and I thank you for your input!

Yes it has. Thank you for contributing.

David, how do you test a breakers ability to trip within mfg's specifications while doing a HI?
How do you test a panels ability to carry "full load" while "in place" during a home inspection?

I will ask you the same thing about the electrician that you recommend for further evaluation. I will comment on your reply.

[David A. Andersen]

thread drift

State whether the condition reported requires repair or subsequent observation, or warrants further investigation by a specialist;

I have a question for those in Tennessee and South Carolina who I believe uses the exact same inspection law; do you write in your inspection reports the above required statements on every issue you report on in your inspection report?

I used to. But my current reporting software does not easily facilitate this requirement.

Technically we are required to report;

This condition requires repair.
This condition requires subsequent observation.
Or
This condition requires further investigation by a specialist.

These statements are technically required after each issue reported on in the inspection report. Otherwise, what you put in the report is not a "significant deficiency" that must be acted upon.

To bring this back online with the Federal Pacific discussion:

Does this condition require repair?
We haven't identified a deficiency yet.


Does this condition require subsequent observation?
That would be a good recommendation due to past experience with this equipment.

Does this condition requires further investigation by specialist?
If there is no deficiency, what are they to investigate further? Can an electrician fully evaluate the performance of this service equipment in the field?

Is there any reason in these three examples/state requirements where "replacement" should even be mentioned by the home inspector?

[Larry F. Rollins]

David,
It is 9:30 sunday nite and I just got home. You have put forth alot to think about. It may take me a day or two. Thanks
Larry

[Mark E. Northrup]

Wow you guys are really getting into it.
I would not want to do a inspection on a home and have it catch on fire after the fact due to a fed pac panel. I make a comment leaving it up to licensed electricians for them to determine if they make the decision that it is ok then it is on them not me. I am not a professional electricain they are and it is their job.

[Brian E. Kelly]

FPE panel noted a the listed location, recommend that this panel be evaluated by an Electrician with remedy as necessary.

http://www.codecheck.com/cc/pdf/elec...le_Nov2003.pdf

[David A. Andersen]

I am not a professional electricain they are and it is their job.

I would like to know what they do to make their professional decision in this case.

If I recommend an electrician and an electrician cannot adequately determine adequacy, am I not liable for the recommendation? I'm not into deferring inspection to somebody else in the hopes of transferring liability from my court.

Seeing this condition has been reported thousands of times, has anybody ever received documentation as to the accuracy of the common electricians who are recommended to perform these tasks in the field?

[Joe Farsetta]

The problem with Federal Pacific may go far beyond Stab-Lock. In fact, if one were to do a little research, it could be discovered in an SEC filing from 1982, that Reliance revealed that Federal Pacific used deceptive and fraudulant means to gain UL listings on many breakers in its line, including molded-case commercial units. Some of these were recalled by Federal in an effort to take them out of service. But, as Federal Pacific products were one of the most popular forms of overcurrent protection at the time, the total number of breakers in service is huge.

I have been advised to be careful with what I post, as I could be the target of a lawsuit. By the way, Federal Pacific, as a business entity, still exists. So, if someone wants to bring a lawsuit, they can go after a company with possibly limited assets.

As to a class action suit against Fed Pac and its parent, there was already a long protracted suit in NJ. Federal Pacific and its parent were found to be in violation of NJ's Consumer Fraud Act. A settlement was reached and those who qualified and were part of the class received compensation. The class was quite limited. Unfortunately, the records were sealed (for the 2nd time).

I say the 2nd time, as this is the second huge suit involving Federal Pacific since the late 70's. In fact, its current parent sued the former owners of Federal Pacific for their money back. This was after certain questionable practices were discovered as to testing and certification of certain overcurrent devices. These court records were also sealed.

I personally believe that the total situation is must unfortunnate. So long as the court documents are sealed, much of the truth will never be known. Perhaps if federal Pacific agreed to unseal the records from both cases, they can clear their good name once and for all. I hereby petition them, and their parent, and all involved to help clear the air that these devices are indeed safe and that all means were explored and implemented to correct any defficiencies which were alleged to have existed. It is the only responsible thing to do.

The reasons why the CPSC never made a recommendation are a bit convoluted as well. Kaiser Aluminum successfully battled the CPSC over aluminum wiring in residences, arguing that the wire itself was not a consumer product, and therefore not within the realm of what the CPSC has control over. The CPSC lost that case. It was likely that the same argument would be made with regard to Stab-Lock, with the same results. There is also much more to this portion of the story.

The story is deep and pretty mind-blowing. But, unless and untll thes docs are unsealed, and truth may never be fully known. IMO, evaluation by a licensed electrical contractor is the LEAST one should recommend. Transfer liability right back to the Client. Stay far away from this one.

As to any Wikipedia explanation., stay away from it, as well. Make your answer as simple and as non-technical as possible, so there will be NO misunderstanding on the part of the client. No six-paragraph explanations. Simply put, in your opinion certain products made by this manufacturer, including overcurrent protection devices, have come under scrutiny as to reliability when a fault condition is encountered. As definitive evidence is not readily available, and as no governmental recall of this equipment has been issued, you recommend further evaluation by a licensed professional engineer (electrical) or licensed electrical contractor.

Period. End of report.

[David A. Andersen]

Simply put, in your opinion certain products made by this manufacturer, including overcurrent protection devices, have come under scrutiny as to reliability when a fault condition is encountered. As definitive evidence is not readily available, and as no governmental recall of this equipment has been issued, you recommend further evaluation by a licensed professional engineer (electrical) or licensed electrical contractor.

Thank you Joe!

As you can see, the complexity of this issue is well beyond home inspection. The fact that you even talk about it is a liability.

If you pass on information that turns out to be incorrect you're possibly liable under law.

I see several home inspector that are extremely withheld in their opinions of the subject due to the influence of "outside sources". Read and heed!

It's kind of like a big gag order out there!

No one here is saying that there is not an issue!

What were saying is that it is not our job to take on the world of Federal Pacific (and the liability involved) for the sake of home inspection reporting.

You can "inform".
I highly recommend you do not "dictate repair".
When you inform, advise you tread lightly!

Many inspectors like to blow smoke about conditions they have no education on. This is a bigger liability to a home inspector than the potentially defective electrical equipment.

If you cannot definitively show and document a particular defect, recommend you leave it alone.

[Larry F. Rollins]

David, after having reread this entire thread, with emphasis on my own comments, I see now that I have never known what to say about FPE because the entire history of this situation is so convaluted that we are now in a position that the industry doesn't dare even talk about it anymore. I therefore have been making the arguement "let someone else take the responsibility"... call an electrician!
I see now that you have been argueing "simply stay with the facts", as convaluted as they are, and let the client decide.
While I have never stated in a report that an FPE panel needed replacement, I have used wording that was "strong"... indicating my personnal beliefs. You are correct in that my comments should be more in line with the state SOP and not my personnal belief.
I didn't realize I was opening such a can of worms when I asked an FPE question. We all should get CE credits for posting to this board. I learn more here than in any other venue. All you guys are great! Thank you all for taking a question that could have been answered with two NO's and giving so much more meaning to it.