APT COMPLEX WITH 768 ZINSCO PANEL . $$$$$

[Sierrasparky]

No , I am retired for awhile now . I do not know the up to date AFCI code in SF . Where ever i have worked in the US , I have never been required to instal a AFCI by code cycle the area was on or type of work commercial , industrial , residential I was doing .

I have always been strict with the code and inspections . That is our Trade . I just manage to never instal one . I did a lot of large commercial work .

I do hope the Electricians today get them out of the NEC . It will be bad for our trade in the future .

Bring back the Edison Fuse .... The best circuit protection .



Don

I can't believe you never had to install a AFCI if you have done residential work. When was the last time you worked residential?

 

[jaggedben]

So when you install a new circuit for areas that require AFCI you do not install AFCI and still pass inspection?? In the SF Bay area?

The SF Bay Area is dozens of jurisdictions that are all quit different from each other.

In SF itself I think they are pretty lax on AFCI, at least if it's not new construction. We've had many many service panel replacemens where no AFCI was required (and no circuits were added which would require them). OTOH, I remember one job where the electrician removed a couple AFCIs to install the solar breaker and stupidly left them there for the inspector to see, so that inspector made us put them back. And you see a lot of AFCI on panels that were put in as part of remodels. It's kind of backwards, actually. If anything would be made safer by AFCI it should probably be required on the older houses with 100 year old k&t wiring and not so much the new wiring.

It also completely depends on the individual inspector.

 

[Ponchik]

You are quickly forgetting the added cost of the AFCI breakers since they should be required. Then the call backs to troubleshoot the AFCI issue for almost 800 units. That price alone could be staggering.

Depending on the AHJ AFCI may not be required for panel change outs. I know in my area they are not required. Even if they were required, the customer has to understand or the contractor has to persuade the client towards making a wise decision. Because when and if a fire breaks out then it will be a bigger mess, cause and lost lives and ruined families because of AFCI or lack of there of.

 

[donaldelectrician]

I can't believe you never had to install a AFCI if you have done residential work. When was the last time you worked residential?

Hydroponic Grow Light Systems . Small Restaurants , Office , Bar , Stage Lighting , Remodels kitchen and bath , Landscape Lighting , Driving Range .

Central Coast Ca 1995 to 2000 .






Don

 

[cowboyjwc]

I can't believe you never had to install a AFCI if you have done residential work. When was the last time you worked residential?

He told you he's been retired for awhile now. AFCI's are only a couple of code cycles old.

We don't require them here on service changes 1) would you want to have to pay for a two pole one on a multi wire branch circuit? 2) you are neither extending, replacing or modifying the branch circuit.

 

[five.five-six]

your joking .....

Millions and maybe some lives.

Zinsco panels are no joke

 

[Sierrasparky]

The SF Bay Area is dozens of jurisdictions that are all quit different from each other.

In SF itself I think they are pretty lax on AFCI, at least if it's not new construction. We've had many many service panel replacemens where no AFCI was required (and no circuits were added which would require them). OTOH, I remember one job where the electrician removed a couple AFCIs to install the solar breaker and stupidly left them there for the inspector to see, so that inspector made us put them back. And you see a lot of AFCI on panels that were put in as part of remodels. It's kind of backwards, actually. If anything would be made safer by AFCI it should probably be required on the older houses with 100 year old k&t wiring and not so much the new wiring.

It also completely depends on the individual inspector.

Interesting!
So you all think there is a different code book out there for each of these AHJ.
So you think that where the code says you SHALL install a AFCI if you add a outlet or ....
You think that is up to interpretation.

Hey I don't like these things but the stupid code says I must.

 

[Sierrasparky]

He told you he's been retired for awhile now. AFCI's are only a couple of code cycles old.

We don't require them here on service changes 1) would you want to have to pay for a two pole one on a multi wire branch circuit? 2) you are neither extending, replacing or modifying the branch circuit.

If you are doing a service change and you remove the branch circuit wiring from the old load center and place it into a new load center how do you say that is not a modification.


Remember next code cycle there was a change to allow 6 feet of new wire. We do not have that in the 2013. or any modification yet.

And no I would not like to pay the cost of a 2 pole AFCI. Since when is that a determining factor for the code or compliance.

 

[petersonra]

I still want to know what the OP's failure criteria is. I did not see anything all that alarming in the pictures.

 

[iwire]

It's 50+ year old Zinsco, that is more than enough. High failure rate of breaker to bus connections.

 

[gadfly56]

You are quickly forgetting the added cost of the AFCI breakers since they should be required. Then the call backs to troubleshoot the AFCI issue for almost 800 units. That price alone could be staggering.

Here in NJ they would NOT be required under the rehab subcode.

 

[user 100]

It's 50+ year old Zinsco, that is more than enough. High failure rate of breaker to bus connections.

The bad thing about Zinsco and its evil twin fpe is that appearances can be deceiving. Everything looks fine until you remove those breakers to find that cooked bus, and whats worse is that in many of those situations the occupants will report no prior "symptoms".

 

[petersonra]

It's 50+ year old Zinsco, that is more than enough. High failure rate of breaker to bus connections.

perhaps. but there is also the fact that they has been there for 60+ years w/o failure.

if the criteria for changing it out was the brand name, then why the expensive IR work that does not appear to show anything especially troubling? why even post those pictures?

incidentally, this is what the CPSC says about the issue.

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/New...nd-Provides-Safety-Information-For-Consumers/

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced today that it is closing its two year investigation into Federal Pacific Electric Stab-lok type residential circuit breakers. This action was taken because the data currently available to the Commission does not establish that the circuit breakers pose a serious risk of injury to consumers.

So it appears to me that while the breakers don't meet UL standards, it is entirely possible that they are not especially dangerous, despite the anecdotal evidence and thousands of posts by electrical contractors and home inspectors claiming they are.

 

[iwire]

perhaps. but there is also the fact that it has been there for 60+ years w/o failure.

Which means absolutely nothing at all.

if the criteria for changing it out was the brand name, then why the expensive IR work that does not appear to show anything especially troubling? why even post those pictures?

Well do you think they have been trouble free and just for the heck of it they dropped the money on IR testing? I doubt that, I bet they have been having multiple failures already and that is what prompted the IR scans.

As far a the IR images showing nothing troubling you must be better at reading them than I am. IMO the IR images are worthless without data about the current flowing on the parts we are looking at. If the current flow is low with that much heating there is a problem.

Keep in mind we are not looking at commercial panels which typically have higher and continuous loads. Most dwelling unit panels will show almost no heating due to the low current flowing through them.

If you want to believe all is good here that is up to you, but for me the fact they dropped close to $100K just to look them over strongly suggest there have been ongoing problems.

Either way its not my money being spent or not.

 

[electricguy61]

perhaps. but there is also the fact that they has been there for 60+ years w/o failure.

if the criteria for changing it out was the brand name, then why the expensive IR work that does not appear to show anything especially troubling? why even post those pictures?

incidentally, this is what the CPSC says about the issue.

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/New...nd-Provides-Safety-Information-For-Consumers/



So it appears to me that while the breakers don't meet UL standards, it is entirely possible that they are not especially dangerous, despite the anecdotal evidence and thousands of posts by electrical contractors and home inspectors claiming they are.

I've done troubleshooting calls where the sub-panel was in the garage, and every time the garage door slammed, the thin FPE breakers would pop out of the busbar. I've also replaced scores of burned out panels where the breaker never tripped but was cooking (should have tripped on thermal overload at least)

I've replaced scores of Zinsco panels where the aluminum bus burned nearly or completely in two from the corrosion/ill fitting breakers.

Unless a homeowner is so poor I have to give them the service call, I haven't added a circuit to either brand of panel in over twenty years. I either replace them or they can get someone else to do the work.

Hundreds of thousands drove Pinto's and didn't die. But I wouldn't drive in one, even if the odds were in my favor.

 

[norcal]

The pictures the OP posted show panels that look like 1970's vintage panels, the 1950's version were copper bussed also.

 

[user 100]

The pictures the OP posted show panels that look like 1970's vintage panels, the 1950's version were copper bussed also.

Your post reminded me of something- It seems that alot of the problems w/ fpe and zinsco seem to occur for the most part in equipment dating from the late 1960s or later. I have noticed that the older fpe noark panels from the '50s that have the original brown stabloks and copper bus for the most part act ok-could be coincidental, idk. Its almost like the quality of zinsco and fpe residential went down as the years went on.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Your post reminded me of something- It seems that alot of the problems w/ fpe and zinsco seem to occur for the most part in equipment dating from the late 1960s or later. I have noticed that the older fpe noark panels from the '50s that have the original brown stabloks and copper bus for the most part act ok-could be coincidental, idk. Its almost like the quality of zinsco and fpe residential went down as the years went on.

zinsco in the 60's made a concerted effort to flood the market with their stuff,
and they were pretty successful.

i've fixed 400 amp 3 phase zinsco gear by replacing the aluminum bus bar with
dimensionally identical copper busbar, and replacing the burned breakers.

however, the real culprit is the clothespin buss connection on zinsco breakers.
it loses it's spunkyness over time, and then you have a low pressure on the bus
connection. and it starts burning. aluminum just makes it worse.

violating the sanctity of UL with verboten modifications? ach!

that 400 amp service is about a mile from my house. i check it periodically.
it's been 13 years, and no burning or heat. a friend of mine owns the building,
and i explained what i wanted to do, and that it would entail annual inspection.
haven't had to replace any more breakers since then, either. part of the occupancy
is a hair salon... buckets of blow dryers. no issues.

seems copper bus bar works better than aluminum. who would have thought?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Siemens will give a lifetime warranty on their copper buss residential load centers. Gee I wonder why!

 

[norcal]

The Zinsco bolt-on panelboard pictured below was installed in 1968, they have done quite well, although it's too bad they did not use the same gear (SQ D) as the existing part of the building constructed 4 years earlier.



The big difference is that the Zinsco plug-in design was flawed in particular when twin breakers were used, Zinsco/Sylvania twins were made up to 60A, BTW the green conductors shown in the photo are long gone, used to go to a bed pan sterilizer & should have also had a 3 pole breaker installed, but a moot point since the sterilizer and wiring were scrapped.