FPE

[kwired]

He bought the house. He should have done due diligence, could of had an electrical inspection. Don't go blaming anybody else.

-Hal

Is sort of like buying a used car. Things are not going to be in same condition as when it was still new. Older it is more likely there is aftermarket parts in it as well, some those may be less quality than original, some can be better.

 

[Epalmateer]

I'm ALL for that idea! Livonia already does just that on initial and annual rental inspections, as well as VABO properties. VABO is "Vacant or Abandoned Building Ordinance". It has been in effect since 2009. If a property is vacant for more than 28 days, and the building dept. becomes aware of it, then they will red-tag it. The owner or purchaser is then responsible for bringing everything up to Code, including electrical. If they see a dangerous or obsolete panel (FPE, Zinsco, Pushmatic, screw-in fuses, etc.), they will call for a service upgrade to be done by a licensed electrician. I've done many service upgrades under that ordinance.

Do you happen to know the ordinance? I'm curious of how they worded it.

 

[jeff48356]

Do you happen to know the ordinance? I'm curious of how they worded it.

https://livonia.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3311/VABO-PDF?bidId=

 

[tortuga]

How about the inspection department waive the permit fee for any FPE (or other dangerous panel) replacement, but dont require it.

 

[Jraef]

At what point do you stop?
Challenger panels, Zinsco, FPE, Sylvania, etc…
Do you simply say the panel needs to be less than 20 years old? 40 years old??

IMHO it’s a bad idea with good intentions.

The old "Law of Unintended Consequences"...

 

[norcal]

While there is a lot of brands of equipment I don't care for the idea gives me bad vibes, it could only be based on the condition of the equipment not the manufacturer.

 

[tortuga]

it could only be based on the condition of the equipment not the manufacturer.

If there were conclusive evidence that a manufacturer defrauded UL or another NRTL to get something listed, or faked the listing/testing or some other deceptive marketing, then that would be where I'd draw the line.
In essence the allegations are that Federal Pacific had covered up and committed fraud around some of its US breakers in the 1970's and they were not manufactured to the 'UL spec'.
There were a dizzying amount of corporate mergers around the same time and the parent company of Federal Pacific's US parent company (Reliance Electric Co) ended up being owned by Exxon and nothing conclusive ever came of it.

 

[norcal]

If there were conclusive evidence that a manufacturer defrauded UL or another NRTL to get something listed, or faked the listing/testing or some other deceptive marketing, then that would be where I'd draw the line.
In essence the allegations are that Federal Pacific had covered up and committed fraud around some of its US breakers in the 1970's and they were not manufactured to the 'UL spec'.
There were a dizzying amount of corporate mergers around the same time and the parent company of Federal Pacific's US parent company (Reliance Electric Co) ended up being owned by Exxon and nothing conclusive ever came of it.

Reliance bought FPE around the time Exxon bought Reliance, then the scandal broke out, the one thing is that Stab lok breakers were never subject to a recall.

 

[tortuga]

Yeah and thats what makes FPE a little different, I know of no other such scandal with other brands.

 

[BillyMac59]

Epalmateer has asked the most important question. What is the ordinance? Going one step further, what is the intent of said ordinance? If a service has been disconnected for a defined period - six months, twelve months, longer? - should the service be treated as a new installation forcing everything to be brought to current local code? Obviously, some level of inspection should be done before re-establishing power.