Thread: zinsco breaker box

I just inspected a home with a zinsco breaker box, the receptacles in the home had been replaced with three prong, with some old two prong still in service. this was original wiring from the pre electrical age i think. i wont go in to the long list of electrical problems on this home, just wondering do many inspectors run in to this kind of stuff often? how about some feedback on this. thanks for the information

Similar Threads:

• Breaker position
• Humming breaker
• Psychedelic FP breaker
• Double wired breaker
• From the old board, Circuit Breaker Short Circuit Fault Rating

The majority of the homes in this area are more than 50 years old. I frequently see outdated and cobbed together electrical systems.

brandon
i run into these boxes as well as the infamous fpe--federal pac-----if they just replaced the two prongs with three prongs and there isn't a ground that is wrong and not code----three prongs need to be grounded or have gfci outlets installed--or ground plate behind outlet----i write up the zinsco box and send cliet to web site to read about the danger--and of course--recommend licenced electrician evaluate

see attached
google the zinsco breaker box
charlie

All the time. Just depends upon the age of the home.

I'm certain you made note of everything including the Zinsco panel so the client is aware of the 'potential' that is facing them.

Wayne,

Get used to it. With what's on the current market, 6 out of 10 inspections down here involve Zinsco or Sylvania panels. 2 more will have FPE. Just dealt with one today from an inspection last week. The panel had a loud buzzing coming from one of the breakers that had an operating temperature of 126 degrees.

The servicing electrician said everything was fine and that the buzzing was a normal occurrence. Told him to put that in writing like I did and stand behind it when it failed, but couldn't get him to commit to it. His verbal report to the realtor that sent him was that I was too picky and paranoid. Of course, he earns 90 percent of his living from seller's realtors.

Document it or pay the price.

Jeff

I have found that a lot of insurance companies surcharge for Zinsco brand panels. These had aluminum buss and the breakers were undependable. If they change the zinsco panel out the insurance company will usually give a discount when completed.

Wayne, report what is there and any problems that exist there.
As far as the problems that are associated with these panels you can of course comment on them but that is not why your there; just point out defects and go on. Many disagree with my opinion just check the log;but you will find these panels all over the gulf coast region. As far as insurance goes allumium wire is a flag panel box type is not....

Originally Posted by Randy Clayton

As far as the problems that are associated with these panels you can of course comment on them but that is not why your there;

Quite to the contrary ... that *IS* why we are there.

Many disagree with my opinion

Could not have said it better myself.

but you will find these panels all over the gulf coast region.

Does not matter "how many" were installed, it matter "if you find one", then write it up.

Would you not write up an improperly framed roof just because that type of framing was used all over the Gulf Coast region?

Hopefully, you will say 'No.'.

As far as insurance goes allumium wire is a flag panel box type is not....

In many areas, those panel are a flag, others have said so, why would you then say they are not?

I no longer have a problem when I inspect a Zinsco panel. They use to scare the crap out of me when I went to remove their covers. One time early on in my inspection career I removed the cover and had the bottom 4 breakers slide off the bus bars! Yep, I had to change my shorts. Granted this is rare as most of the time they have fused themselves to the bus bars!

The reason I no longer have a problem with them is that I no longer remove the panel cover! I report that they have inherent problems, they are a bad design, they have been associated with fires across the county and they need to be replaced.

Until you have experienced one with problems first hand as I have, you just will not understand how dangerous they can be.

Jerry& Scott,
I do not totally disagree with you guys but I will still maintane that if it is funcitioning for which it was intended then let it go...
Although it is true that there have been problems with these panels you can inform your clients of these concerns;but to make such a big deal and that its against the law is just ludicrus!!!! You are going to make me as an homeowner replace this panel box; which has no problems other than its name!! to replace it.l I do not think so

Originally Posted by Randy Clayton

Jerry& Scott,
I do not totally disagree with you guys but I will still maintane that if it is funcitioning for which it was intended then let it go...
Although it is true that there have been problems with these panels you can inform your clients of these concerns;but to make such a big deal and that its against the law is just ludicrus!!!! You are going to make me as an homeowner replace this panel box; which has no problems other than its name!! to replace it.l I do not think so

Never said it was against the law! As a home inspector I can't make anyone do anything. All I can do is to report what I see and what I know. It is up to my client to decide what they want to do after the are informed of the condition of the home they are looking at buying. It is up to the seller to tell the buyer they can take a hike or that they will repair whatever the buyer is asking them to do. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

It is just a crappy design that our clients need to be aware of. As I have said, until you personally run into one that has a problem you just won't understand. I could understand not being an alarmist if it was only isolated to a handful of problems, but the problems associated with Zinsco's are just too may to ignore.

Using the word Functioning is a cop out. Heck, 80 year old K&T can be Functioning but it is still a fire hazard that you can't get insurance on if a home has it. Old Edison fuse panel can be functioning but they are in the same category as K&T and treated the same by insurance providers.

Scott, I concure I would just like to see more real sensabillaty in the comments on this page though we need to inform the public we should not scare them either

Originally Posted by Randy Clayton

-- we should not scare them either

.
Sometimes the Truth can be Scary.

.

Originally Posted by Randy Clayton

Jerry& Scott,
I do not totally disagree with you guys but I will still maintane that if it is funcitioning for which it was intended then let it go...

Randy,

"if it is funcitioning for which it was intended"

That is precisely the problem ...

The intent of the designers was that it would function as intended, however, as happens to many products - the design, the intent, and reality conditions do not meet in a manner in which the design can perform to the intent within the operating conditions of real life installations.

but to make such a big deal and that its against the law is just ludicrus!!!!

To not make a big deal about them is CRIMINAL, and could possibly be criminally negligent homicide!!!! (I think you did 4 !)

As Scott said, we have never said they were against the law, only that they are inherently unsafe.

You are going to make me as an homeowner replace this panel box; which has no problems other than its name!! to replace it.l I do not think so

Oh ... ABSOLUTELY SO.

With business smarts and with care and concern for your client, *YOU* would make that RECOMMENDATION also.

Remember, HIs cannot "make me as an homeowner", nor make the client DO ANYTHING. HIs have no enforcement power.

That does not mean we cannot do our job and provide professional opinions and advice.

Originally Posted by Randy Clayton

Scott, I concure I would just like to see more real sensabillaty in the comments on this page though we need to inform the public we should not scare them either

Randy,

*WE* are being sensible about our comments, and truthful, *YOU* are not being sensible about your comments ...

AND THAT *IS SCARY*!

Randy, you are a fairly new inspector according to TREC. I don't know your background or your experience in the profession. What we are trying to do is to help you and the thousands of other folks that view this website.

Learn from our experiences and not from those who tell you not to be an alarmist or to write a soft Realtor friendly report. I know that you will not win a popularity contest by being a home inspector who does not sugar coat the truth but it is our job.

So, what can be the results of calling out an FPE or ZINSCO panel? 1.You might save someones life. 2. You might tick off an owner or real estate agent. For some of us, we do one or more of those on a daily basis just by performing a good home inspection.

Two things

Scott, you say: "Randy, you are a fairly new inspector according to TREC."

I say if you don't know you should not make that statement. I cannot tell you the hundreds of times in four years in Texas that other inspectors that get the same call I do tell the clients "just look at there license # this will tell you how much experience the other inspectors have. My number is xxx." I can not tell you how much that BS pi--es me off with ignorant, pat myself on the back marketing. This only makes me have to explain myself in defence and not just tell the folks of my past history and experience.

Not beating you up Scott but you hit a nerve.

Second

If any panel or system of any kind has a serious history of safety concerns, the only nice thing you can say is there does not appear to be any concerns with the item at this time, but, due to known safety concerns, my recommendation would be to replace this item. Of course, note the concerns.

Ted

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

If any panel or system of any kind has a serious history of safety concerns, the only nice thing you can say is

Maybe that is all YOU feel YOU can say, but the rest of us (most anyway) have the understanding that we are working for our clients best interests and that WE can say what WE want to ... and that includes stating that those are problematic and that THAT PANEL SHOULD BE REPLACED.

No problem, I have said it hundreds of times for FPE and Zinsco.

Whether or not our clients take our advice ... we (HIs) have no enforcement power, our clients do not have to take ANY of our advice. And many clients only pick and choose what advice to take.

So be it.

Jerry

You were not picking on me were you.

I did say just what you said. The thing about the only good thing you can say is that if there is no tested/visible concern, then that is the only good thing you could say about it.

Oh, I see. You did not like the part about my recommendation to replace the item instead of it should be replaced. I also said to explain your concerns as well.

I do work for my clients best interest. I don't just mention safety/hazard concerns just because they pay me especially when it comes to electric concern.

Maybe I am dense (could be) but my recommendation was to replace this item. Doesn't mean they or anyone has to.

That is not looking out for my clients best interest?

Hmmm, there is a time bomb in your basement. Good thing is, it is still ticking. Known past concerns with ticking times bombs is that they eventually go boom. My recommendation is to have this bomb removed.

Just curious on what you meant Jerry. Obviously the wording.

Ted

By the way Jerry. I don't take your recommendations lightly. I have great respect for you and others on here and that is why I come on. Your opinions and or wording is what I am looking for. Most of what I do on here is read the threads and posted answers to see just how other inspectors, old or new, answer on the technical end and word there findings.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

You were not picking on me were you.

Ted,

No, not picking on you, just pointing out the error of stating 'the only thing you can say' when it may be the only thing *you* (as in the singular you) can say, when telling us - "you" - (as in the plural meaning all) as to the only we can say we can say.

Yes, it is all in the wording.

That is why I frequently state what may be obvious to the writer, but not to the reader ... typical example is: "what you (as in "you" plural, not as in "you" singular) ... blah, blah, blah "

I did not mean to hit a nerve, only to point the above out.

"Just check the box" has made me a lot of money so for those that are still using check-list reports keep doing it, I love em!

Thanks for the explanation Jerry P


Day after day after week after year of connecting to the general public I have become far to guilty about making it simple for the clients to understand. I came on here to correct that. I am trying to find that happy medium of technical/simplistic in the writing of my reports. Where else could you get so many inspectors from all walks of life and opinions about so many home inspection subjects.

I get most of my inspections from referrals and the Internet. The referrals are because I keep it so simple they walk away having a clear understanding of the concerns. I do keep very busy (most of the time) and I am pushing myself to get back (more) involved with the code books.

I am a firm believer that we are here to take as much risk away from the clients as possible. I am also a believer that we are generalist and not the most technically exhaustive inspectors. We find concerns and after we find them and state them we turn it over to the individual trade for further repair and evaluation.

Thanks for the come back Jerry

Ted

Scott,I do not know were you get your information from but I've been a lisc. insp. in the state of texas for more than 18 years now. I will not evan try to defend my experiance [thanks Ted] for that is not the question..
I did not mean to bring up such an upwar this topic has caused;just to stat that this is what it is...
Do not disagree that you can tell clients what their in for;but I still hear far to many times;not from you or others but from agents that an insp. came in and basically said this home is not up to code.
No duh it was built 20 years ago. If there are safety concerns they need to be reported,but (and I may be reading this wrong) thats what we need to be reporting.

Randy, you are a fairly new inspector according to TREC.

Licensee Name Clayton, Randy Allan Lic.# 3286 Real Estate Inspector Active 6/30/2010

Sponsor Name Ballard, Roy M Lic # 39 Professional Inspector Active 11/30/2008 5/23/2008

Randy, is this you?
If so, Mr. Clayton was licensed just after I was (Lic.#3779) in 1995 and he is on the mid-tier of the three step path to being a professional inspector in TX. (If the TREC web site is acurate that is) and is sponsored by Roy Ballard.

Originally Posted by Randy Clayton

If there are safety concerns they need to be reported,but (and I may be reading this wrong) thats what we need to be reporting.

Randy,

Define "safety concern" and explain why most items in the code are changed.

Here is my brief definition for "safety concern": That which is unsafe or potentially unsafe.

Here is my explanation as to why most items in the code are changed: Safety. Most items are changed to increase the safety of the occupants and the general public.

Let's take that 20 year old house which no longer meets code - Duh! - it no longer meets code because the code now recognizes that the way it addressed some of the safety concerns was inadequate and/or technology now allows for that safety concern to be addressed.

Thus, safety concerns are, by and large, "code issues", i.e., it no longer meets code, and, in one sense, it is no longer *as safe* as it should be.

However ... we all (I am sure you too) inspect *NEW* construction which does not meet code. Right? (I will presume that is right.)

Okay, in 20 years ... that house *still* does not meet code ... not even the code of 20 years ago when it was built.

Trying to pooh-pah HIs who use code and apply code and say that HIs should only be addressing "safety concerns" is like saying that the Pope is Jewish - it makes no sense. We know the Pope is a Lutheran.

Yeah yeah, another day off. Reschedule to Saturday.

Jerry. I love these terms, pooh-pah, mamby-pamby. I think what was trying to say was, Saying the home is not up to code, well, what code. The code of 1988 or the code of 2008. In reality, with out saying so I believe Randy is saying the same thing. The home sitting there in a snap shot of 1988 is sitting there in perfect code with its hair combed and all.

Jerry is absolutely right. Code is changed for the large part (all parts as I am concerned) due to safety concerns. I never just say that there are 32 items in this piece of cr-p 1988 home that are not up to code. I name my concerns based what is happening today. I also tell them in 1988 this house was just wonderful shining example for the snapshot from 1988. (if it is) Gosh I have to watch my wording.

Jerry I must admit. I know nothing of how you would word your reports (slowly learning). When I was in Florida, I new a man who must have believed that no house was fit to live in. He would red tag half the house. No brief explanation, No finessing, no telling the folks that times change and codes do in time and why they do. He would just take his shot gun out and blow that piece of crap 1988 home all to hell. THIS HOUSE IS GONNA BURN, THE SKY IS FALLING, DON'T STEP FOOT INSIDE.

I hope that was not you before you retired from inspecting.

You gently get on to me about wording and so on. I appreciate that because that is why I am on here.

Mamby-pampy, pooh-pah. You gotta love it. Be gentle Jerry.

Nice stormy day in Texas

Ted

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Licensee Name Clayton, Randy Allan Lic.# 3286 Real Estate Inspector Active 6/30/2010

Sponsor Name Ballard, Roy M Lic # 39 Professional Inspector Active 11/30/2008 5/23/2008

Randy, is this you?
If so, Mr. Clayton was licensed just after I was (Lic.#3779) in 1995 and he is on the mid-tier of the three step path to being a professional inspector in TX. (If the TREC web site is acurate that is) and is sponsored by Roy Ballard.

Thanks Jim! That is how I got my information and the reason I said I did not know about Mr. Clayton and his background. As far as I know he could have moved from another state where he was a home inspector, but he said he has been licensed in TX for more than 18 years. If Jim got his license in 1995 then that would be about 13 years as an inspector.

Sorry, but I would have thought that an experienced inspector would have seen and not have a problem reporting on an FPE or a Zinsco panel.

To me it is just surprising to see shoddy construction.I was framing homes with my father in the sixties. I recently saw a home in north houston where the valley jacks were square cut on the end,right pitch but not beveled. any thoughts on the sept.first requirements that homes outside of municipal areas here in texas have to be inspected to code,by trec inspector,engineer,or architect?

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

The home sitting there in a snap shot of 1988 is sitting there in perfect code with its hair combed and all.

Ted,

You have apparently missed what I stated
"
However ... we all (I am sure you too) inspect *NEW* construction which does not meet code. Right? (I will presume that is right.)

Okay, in 20 years ... that house *still* does not meet code ... not even the code of 20 years ago when it was built.
"

How can one (anyone) state that a house 'was up to code in' (give any year) when we all know that *no building meets code*, now or 'back then'.

Code inspectors do not go over every inch of every item, they do not have time, if they did, they would have been there longer than I was doing the home inspection (thank you for lunch, thank you for supper, do you have a spare room I can sleep in, thank your for breakfast, thank you for lunch, no, I will be leaving before supper, thank you though).

Talk to any honest code inspector and they will tell you that *no building meets code*. That there are just *too many things* which would all have to be "exactly right", and it only takes one thing which is not right to make it *not meet code*.

Man Mr Jerry


I guess I mis-worded all of what I was trying to say.

I tried to word it to say that I think he was agreeing with you in a sense.

No Jerry, I doubt any home truly meets all the codes. I think he was saying that he gets feed back (I do to sometimes) about an Inspector just slammed the home and walked away. Yes it does happen sometimes. The man in Florida I was speaking of was like that.

Slam, bam, the house is a wreck, until all items are fixed I would not step inside.

Jerry I guess I am going to have to come back to Florida for a month and take a Mr Jerry explanation class.

Ted

Originally Posted by wayne williams

To me it is just surprising to see shoddy construction.I was framing homes with my father in the sixties. I recently saw a home in north houston where the valley jacks were square cut on the end,right pitch but not beveled. any thoughts on the sept.first requirements that homes outside of municipal areas here in texas have to be inspected to code,by trec inspector,engineer,or architect?

I inspect any home anywhere the same way. I guess it is the right way whether it be 30 miles outside any city, in any county. If you see something that is not right then right it as so.

Just me

Ted

Jerry, be nice

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

I inspect any home anywhere the same way. I guess it is the right way whether it be 30 miles outside any city, in any county. If you see something that is not right then right it as so.

Ted,

Same here, except ... (being nice ) ... I "write" it as so.

This is what I subscribe too:

The primary intent of building regulations is to provide reasonable controls for the construction, use of occupancy of buildings, and all of their various components. Thus such codes are minimum in nature, and under the provisions of the “police power” cannot legally be made to require construction of a quality excessive of that which is necessary to furnish a reasonable degree of safety. Attempts to impose construction requirements that might exceed those minimums in all probability would not be upheld in a court of law... (the word minimum should not be misconstrued as inferior or shoddy work.)

Codes must be based on what is generally accepted as good standards of construction. Only those provisions which a reasonable, practical, or necessary can be legally enforced. Codes containing requirements or specifications which, through analysis, can be proved to be excessive of minimum requirements are of questionable legal validity in our contemporary society. Properly written codes contain provisions requiring that buildings and structures be erected, utilized and maintained in a manner which reduces the risk of human life and safety to an acceptable minimum. The codes should also make provisions for the disposition of dilapidated or dangerous buildings.

From “Building Department Administration” by Robert E. O’Bannon - 1989

Originally Posted by wayne williams

To me it is just surprising to see shoddy construction.I was framing homes with my father in the sixties. I recently saw a home in north houston where the valley jacks were square cut on the end,right pitch but not beveled. any thoughts on the sept.first requirements that homes outside of municipal areas here in texas have to be inspected to code,by trec inspector,engineer,or architect?

I skipped right over the areas outside, or just county inspections.

Yes I will try to find the info. Where there is no municipal inspector there has to be an inspection by an Home Inspector etc. I beleive, but will try to find it, that particular counties may or have adopted it. Don't know with out review if it is mandatory state wide.

Ted

any thoughts on the sept.first requirements that homes outside of municipal areas here in texas have to be inspected to code,by trec inspector,engineer,or architect?

I believe what you are refering to is controlled by TRCC (Texas Residential Construction Commission). You know the state agency installed by and for builders protection in the guise of consumer protection?

Anyway, it is my understanding that an inspector will be reporting to the TRCC and be hired by the builder. That sours it for me, the whole ethics, fox guarding the hen house thing.

Yes, it is state law effective this fall. No local review is needed, it is already in place through TRCC. A builder will have to have the inspection done as part of the registration process to legally build and sell a home.

My favorite building code dates back to the code of Hammurabi. Basically, if the house falls and kills the owner, then the builder forfeits his life. Hard to argue or discuss that one. That would make some builders more contentious.

Thanks Jim, I just found that

Ted

My son is an engineer and home inspector, I own some rental properties. We differ not only on what has been considered "problematic" and a potentially dangerous, but also how those move into those categories. I have some serious reservations on how the building, code, and "enforcement" of standard policies are being generated, especially down south after Katrina. Codes have changed tremendously there, primarily to run residential owners off the coast and pave the way for large business enterprises such as gambling casinos and motels, a real shame. Too many things are going that way these days.

RANDY, I am with you on the Zinsco Breaker situation. I don't know a manufacturer out there that hasn't had some sort of problems with their products, all of those "problems" in some given situation can be "dangerous." How about showing the potential home owners the stats that are not biased in any way, shape, or form and let them decide for themselves. For example, Zinsco has been in production for this many years, produced this many boxes, sold this many, and the reports of possible fires because of defective design or materials used (being specific as to what and the analysis as to why) has been this many. I have had several Zinsco breakers in facilities for many, many years and have never had a problem. I have examined them against the design of Seimen, Square D, and several others and can easily see that the design is all the same. I have no problem with buying a facility that has them or maintaining the ones I have. Apart from any Zinsco problem, this entire industry seems to be one of INTIMIDATION and legal trash for the sake of attorneys. We get all involved with what is "neglect," which when it comes to construction of anything material can be most anything because of what the owner may or may not know. The rule is simple, BUYER BEWARE, which is why there are folks who know construction and for a fee would give their expert advice. Today, however, the buyer sees this as a perfect trump card for law suit should anything mess up that great bargain they got, or set them back on the price they negotiated, so inspection companies get sued left and right even on good and reasonable inspections. How about keeping things factual, keeping them simple, and keeping them honest, all the other trash of intimidation, pressure, threat, scare tactics, or anything that promotes one bias or business side unjustly at the cost of another out of the picture. Seems to be impossible today.