Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Electrical Hazards Website
InspectAPedia® -
This FPE Federal Pacific Electric Information Website answers almost all questions about Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok electrical panels
FPE Stab-Lok panel fire & shock hazards
Federal Pacific Breaker independent test reports
How to identify FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels
Federal Pacific Electric safety, labeling, & listing public documents
Federal Pacific breaker recall or replacement; FPE Repair electricians & repair alternatives
How to report an FPE Stab-Lok panel or breaker incident
Questions & answers about FPE Federal Pacific Electric panels and circuit breakers, Federal Pioneer, and related brands
This website explains the fire and shock hazards associated with Federal Pacific Electric Stab-lok circuit breakers and service panels,
provides a history of the issue, recounts research on FPE failures, and recommends replacement of the panels. Photographs are provided to aid in identification of Federal Pacific FPE Stab-Lok equipment.
We recommend that residential FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels be replaced entirely or the entire panel bus assembly be replaced entirely, regardless of model number or year of manufacture. We recommend against replacing individual FPE Stab-lok circuit breakers. We do not sell circuit breakers nor any other products.
InspectAPedia tolerates no conflicts of interest. We have no relationship with advertisers nor with topics or services discussed at this website.
For FPE Stab-Lok electric panel replacement, we offer list of licensed electricians who can perform an electrical
panel replacement or repair. FPE-experienced electricians can be listed at no fee. No conflicts of interest: the publisher, editor, & authors have no business,
financial, or other connection with this product nor with its replacement.
Electronic copies and reproduction of this information at other websites are prohibited. Readers are welcome to
make and distribute printed copies of our articles about FPE Stab-Lok equipment provided this web page is cited and provided that the content
is not edited or changed. (Contact us to suggest edits, changes, corrections, updates).
Citation by brief quote or links-to this website are invited,
provided you credit this source website InspectAPedia.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm Printed copies of our website pages are permitted (hard copies on paper) for free (not for sale) distribution provided that you do not edit the content, you include a citation of the source web page, and you do not imply that our website is endorsing any product or service for sale. Do NOT copy electronically nor reproduce our website content electronically (for example to a web page) without writing to us (Contact Us) first to obtain
express permission. See our Policy on use of website contents - OK in printed form only, do not make electronic copies Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Information for your website: for information on FPE Stab-Lok equipment that can be copied to your website, see FPE Stab-Lok Hazard Summary Page for Public Use
Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Circuit Breaker Articles and Failures Research
Federal Pacific Electric "Stab-Lok" service panels and breakers are a latent hazard and FPE circuit breakers can fail to trip in response to overcurrent, leading to electrical fires. The breakers may also fail to shut off internally even if the toggle is switched to "off."
Some double-pole (240-Volt) FPE circuit breakers and single-pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers simply do not work safely.
There are other FPE panel-defects independent of the breaker problems, panel and panel-bus fires and arcing failures in some equipment. The failure rates for these circuit breakers were and still are significant. In some cases failure to trip occurs 60% of the time - a serious fire and
electrical shock hazard.
Failures are documented in the CPSC study and by independent research. Additional independent testing and research are on-going and are reported here. FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels should be replaced. Do not simply swap in some replacement breakers. (Details are at FPE REPLACEMENT BREAKERS).
Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Panel Replacement Financial Aid?
There is no financial recourse, no product recall, no financial help, no warranty claim, no replacement fund currently available for FPE Stab-lok electrical panels except for a very limited class action result in the state of New Jersey. New Jersey residents can see New Jersey FPE Class Action 2005 for more information.
For more information about the cost of panel replacement, FPE replacement options, electricians, and an approach that can save part of replacement cost in some cases: see the articles listed just below
Critique, contributions wanted: Contact Us to suggest corrections or additions to articles at this website, and if you wish, to receive online listing and credit as a contributor. Particular thanks are due to the many experts and also consumers who read and critique technical articles at InspectAPedia.com.
Additional technical contributors & reference sources for this article are listed below.
Use links just below or at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links show where you are in our document or website.
Note: as we didn't add this reviewers list until 2007, this list of technical reviewers is incomplete; we have received comments and suggestions
regarding this topic, edits and remarks included, from engineers and management from the US CPSC, electricians (many listed at our
page on field reports of FPE failures), home inspectors, licensed electricians, and electrical engineers, and even a few attorneys and
real estate agents, since 1986. Technical review, critique, content suggestions, questions, or clarifications are invited and
where a contributor wishes, credit and links will be provided to that source. Contact us to provide feedback.
Dr. Jess Aronstein, electrical engineer, Poughkeepsie, NY, forensic engineering services, independent laboratory testing for various agencies protune@aol.com (independent electrical panel testing, including FPE Stab-Lok panels, to April 2010)
David Carrier, electrical engineer, 53 Henmond Blvd., Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 845-430-7527 davidwcarrier@earthlink.net (independent electrical panel testing, including FPE Stab-Lok panels, beginning 2010)
Alan Carson, Carson Dunlop Associates, Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Carson is a home inspection professional, educator, researcher, writer, and a principal of Carson Dunlop Associates, a Toronto home inspection and education firm. Mr. Carson is a past president of ASHI, the American Society of Home Inspectors
Mark Cramer Inspection Services Mark Cramer, Tampa Florida, Mr. Cramer is a past president of ASHI, the American Society of Home Inspectors and is a Florida home inspector and home inspection educator.
Carl Grasso, Esq., Herzfeld & Rubin, New York, NY. Mr. Grasso is an attorney who managed a plaintiff's class action litigation against Federal Pacific Electric in New Jersey.
William King, US CPSC Director of Electrical Engineering (Retired).
Licensed Electricians: FPE Fire and Failure Reports includes electricians who have provided cases and photographs of field failures of FPE equipment at this website.
Homeowners, Home Inspectors, Electricians: Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fires and other Failures includes anecdotal field reports provided by a range of contributors including electricians (and some home owners or home inspectors) who have provided cases and photographs of field failures of FPE equipment at this website.
"Experts say electrical panels in Dallas-area homes may be a fire waiting to happen", Christina Rosales, The Dallas Morning News, August 21, 2010,
crosales@dallasnews.com continues to attend to the unresolved issues around FPE Stab-lok equipment and the lack of a clear US CPSC Warning.
FPE Stab-Lok Panel Failure Research, Public documents on FPE obtained under FOIA: The following reports on defects (non trip and burning) of FPE Stab-Lock Circuit Breakers 8 were obtained from Consumer Product Safety Commission by request, under the Freedom of Information Act:
"Status Report - Evaluation of Residential Molded Case Circuit Breakers", Wright-Malta Corp., (For U.S. Consumer product Safety Commission, Project# CPSC-C-81-1455), August 10, 1982 (Contains analysis of mechanism of failure of FPE two-pole Stab-Lock breakers.)
"Failure Analysis of Residential Circuit Breaker Panel", Wright-Malta Corp., (For U.S. Consumer product Safety Commission, Project #CPSC-C-81-1455), May 20, 1982 (Contains failure analysis of FPE Stab-Lock panel that ignited due to failure of buss-bar interconnections in the backside of the panel.)
"Phase II Report, Evaluation of Residential Molded Case Circuit Breakers", Wright-Malta Corp., (For U.S. Consumer product Safety Commission, Project# CPSC-C-81-1455), March 10, 1984 (Contains experimental analysis of materials, construction, and performance of molded case circuit breakers, including FPE. Lack of corrosion resistance of certain internal parts is considered to be a factor in the failure of the circuit breakers.) More about the galvanic scale and corrosion between dissimilar metals is at GALVANIC SCALE & METAL CORROSION.
"Final Report: Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers," Wright-Malta Corp., (For U.S. Consumer product Safety Commission, Project #CPSC-C-81-1429), December 30, 1982 (Extensive calibration and functional testing of FPE breakers. Substantial percent failures to trip on overload.
Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Information for your website: for information on FPE Stab-Lok equipment that can be copied to your website, see FPE Stab-Lok Hazard Summary Page for Public Use
A Summary of the Problem: Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel and Circuit Breaker Hazards
Having reviewed documentation regarding this issue, and having discussed the issue with forensic experts in the field, we are convinced that a latent hazard exists where FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers continue in use. The hazard is worst for double-pole breakers. Published reports of actual tests that were performed indicate that under certain conditions it is possible for one leg of these circuits to attempt to trip the breaker, resulting in a jammed breaker which will afterward not trip under any load condition. A reader might infer from the CPSC 1983 press release that the manufacturer and some Commission members were of the opinion that these conditions would not occur in the field.
This is an erroneous conclusion. Some very common household appliances operate are powered by a two-pole 240V circuit (protected by the type of breaker under discussion) but use two or more independent 120V sub-circuits inside the appliance. Two obvious cases are electric clothes dryers and ranges. If, for example, the low-heat (110V) heater in a dryer were to short to the dryer case, a serious overcurrent would occur on one "leg" of the circuit.
Another wiring practice, using a single two-pole breaker to power a split circuit which uses a shared neutral, such as may be installed in kitchens in some areas, is nearly certain to have each leg of the circuit loaded independently and thus subject to single-leg overloading and subsequent breaker jamming. A breaker which jams and then fails to trip under this condition is, in our opinion, a serious fire hazard.
A more careful reading of the CPSC press release of March 3, 1984 suggests that the authors were careful NOT to conclude that there is no hazard, but simply that the information at hand did not prove the hazard, and that the Commission did not have funds to pursue testing. In this document, the representation that no real hazard exists is made by the manufacturer of the device - not exactly a neutral party, and even that wording is cautious in tone: "FPE breakers will trip reliably at most overload levels." Readers should see the failure rates cited in the IAEI letter below.
FPE Stab-Lok Equipment Means Latent Fire Hazards
It's the exceptions that cause fires. An FPE circuit breaker will appear to "work just fine" in passing along current to
the circuit it feeds, until there is an overcurrent, short circuit, or similar condition. When those exceptional conditions occur,
this equipment fails to protect the circuit and the building from overheating and fires, in some cases at a failure rate around 60% of the time.
I estimate that the normal industry failure rate on circuit breakers is less than .01%.
Consumers should read and follow the Commission's advice regarding circuit breakers. But this advice is insufficient. The Commission's admonition to avoid overloading circuits and to turn off and
have examined devices which seem to be creating a problem is a poor substitute for reliable, automatic, overcurrent protection. It is precisely because dangerous conditions can and do occur without
adequate recognition and action by a consumer that circuit breakers and fuses are installed to provide overcurrent protection in the first place.
Therefore it is hardly an adequate "fix" for FPE breakers to just tell consumers to handle these cases manually.
It is possible that some individual FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers may perform with adequate reliability, possibly those manufactured after the companies discovered safety defects and improper practices in listing the product, and possibly those manufactured in Canada.
However, in absence of an explicit statement from the manufacturer and/or the US CPSC indicating that newer stock equipment is defect free, and considering that defects occur in both breakers and the
panels themselves, and finally, that testing showed failures in both in-use equipment and new off-the-shelf devices, our advice to consumers and electricians is that these
panels be replaced with newer equipment, particularly those which use 240-volt double-pole breakers described in the
literature. In our opinion, if a fire or other hazard occurs with this device, neither the manufacturer nor the Commission, who have suggested in the press release that data was inconclusive or
inadequate to establish a hazard, will accept responsibility for losses that may ensue.
However a building inspector, home inspector, or contractor who makes any warranty of safety, by virtue of his/her position close to the consumer, is certain bear this very liability.
Canadian FPE Stab-Lok panels and Federal Pacific or Federal Pioneer Circuit Breakers
In May 1999 we learned from Schneider Canada that Federal pioneer circuit breakers sold by that company are re-named from Federal Pacific circuit breakers and that
two 15-amp single-pole models NC015 and NC015CP made between August 1, 1996 and June 11, 1997 have been recalled.
The Schneider and Federal Pioneer as well as some Square-D recall notices are available here.
We asked the company engineer with whom we spoke if he could determine if Federal Pioneer and Federal Pacific components sold
in Canada were made in the U.S. or if tooling used to produce them was identical with that used in the U.S. If this is the case (as one might expect based on
economies of production) one should consider the possibility that other defects reported in the U.S. may also appear in Canadian installations.
The Federal Pioneer Warranty Alert was issued by the Ontario New Home
Warranty program in October 1997 and provides for circuit breaker replacement. Schneider Canada is an electrical supplier whose product lines combine those previously marketed under the names
Federal Pacific Electric, Federal Pioneer, Square-D, Tele Mechanique, Modicon, and Merlin Gerin.
Carl Grasso, an attorney who researched FPE failures for the New Jersey class action suit explains that since a portion of the safety defect with FPE breakers may be due
to variations during manufacture, and since Canadian breakers may be manufactured in a different plant from those made in the U.S., it is possible that the field performance of Canadian breakers
may be different than the U.S. design.
Schneider Canada, the Federal Pioneer parent company, has not provided information regarding design or manufacture changes over the U.S. design, nor provided test data regarding the product.
As of May 2008 we have had a few reports of failures in the Canadian Federal Pioneer (Stab-Lok) equipment and also reports of failures of "replacement" FPE circuit breakers
installed in U.S. panels. Having inspected some Canadian FPE (Federal Pioneer-brand) electric panels, we observed two ongoing concerns:
1.) the same bus design was used as in the U.S. equipment. I've seen very poor retention of breakers in the bus - in one house the breaker was held in place by duct tape, as the spring design in the contact of the breaker where it plugs into the special opening in the bus
appears not to have held the breaker in place. We have also seen breakers modified with their inserting pins bent and modified to fit a breaker into a slot where it did not belong - a step that is
impossible with other breaker designs.
2.) A similar or identical panel design may expose consumers to panel arcing and fires regardless of changes in the breakers themselves.
HOW TO REPORT YOUR FPE Stab-lok panel or circuit breaker FAILURE - Reporting Federal Pacific and Federal Pioneer Equipment Problems
Please see HOW TO REPORT FPE INCIDENTS for full details of reporting FPE Stab-lok™ and other electrical product failures
We invite voluntary field failure reports from readers
who are aware of or who experience failures of Federal Pacific and Federal Pioneer equipment order to add to the existing data base.
In addition to informing us of an FPE Stab-Lok or Federal Pioneer electrical panel or breaker event so that we can add this incident report to the data base we maintain, we encourage readers to report such events also to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission - it's easy: you can use a simple form at the CPSC's website: https://www.cpsc.gov/incident.html or you can send the CPSC email on incidents to: info@cpsc.gov
There is no requirement that failures be reported to us for tabulation here.
This website is not a government or other official document, nor does it receive nor request funding. Contact the author.
Citation by brief quote or links-to this website are invited,
provided you credit this source website InspectAPedia.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
Printed copies of our website pages are permitted (hard copies on paper) for free (not for sale) distribution provided that you do not edit the content, you include a citation of the source web page, and you do not imply that our website is endorsing any product or service for sale.
Do NOT copy electronically nor reproduce our website content electronically (for example to a web page) without writing to us (Contact Us) first to obtain
express permission. See our Policy on use of website contents - OK in printed form only, do not make electronic copies
Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Information for your website: for information on FPE Stab-Lok equipment that can be copied to your website, see FPE Stab-Lok Hazard Summary Page for Public Use
Letter to IAEI International Association of Electrical Inspectors News Magazine re: FPE Public Relations Article asserts Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok panels are OK
Please see IAEI LETTER for the full version of this article.
8/11/99
International Association of Electrical Inspectors
ATTN: Philip H. Cox, Editor-in-Chief, IAEI Magazine
PO Box 830848
Richardson TX 75083-0848
Dear Mr. Cox:
The May/June '99 IAEI News article by an unidentified FPE consultant asserts
that Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Loks are UL-Listed and thus without any
concern. The article fails to address a record of failures to trip, actual test
results, field reports of failures, and improper UL listing practices. The FPE
author and IAEI News failed to report on the actual website content, failed to
contact the author, and failed to give the correct website address so that
readers could judge for themselves. We am an IAEI member and the author of the
informational website for home inspectors which was referred-to in the FPE
article. The correct Internet website address is
http://InspectAPedia.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
Publicly available information is compelling and sufficient to warrant warning
contractors, inspectors, and consumers. The best data available substantiates
that the 2-pole breakers cannot be relied upon to trip. CPSC found that was the
case. FPE agreed that was the case. Field reports confirm that is
still the case. Inspectors should work towards replacing breakers that won't
trip, not towards whitewashing the problem.
The problem with FPE breakers is that a significant portion of them will not
trip on overload or short circuit conditions in order to protect a building from
fire ignition. Testing done by the CPSC showed that at a modest overload on both
poles these failed 25% of the time, followed by a lockup. The breaker would
never trip in the future at any overload. (See Table 1, Summary of Failures,
CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982, attached.) There are other types of failures
known to occur in FPE panels at lower probability and not as well documented as
the 2-pole no-trip problem.
FPE did not refute the CPSC's test data. The no-trip problems with 2-pole
Stab-Lok breakers were acknowledged by FPE. FPE claims that when their circuit
breakers do not trip it does not constitute a hazard. The article in IAEI News
by FPE is asking us to agree with FPE's position that breakers that won't trip
are OK because they are "listed and labeled." Let's keep in mind that a breaker
that will not trip on certain overcurrent conditions is electrically the same as
an Edison-base fuse with a penny behind it. No inspector should be encouraged to
condone or whitewash the continued use of breakers that cannot be depended on to
trip properly.
These problems were known. Reliance Electric Co. had bought FPE in 1979 when
they discovered problems with FPE breakers. They sued the company they had
bought FPE from, claiming undisclosed potential liability made FPE not what they
had bargained for and citing evidence that "improper and deceptive practices
were employed for many years to secure UL listings for Federal Pacific's circuit
protective products? They wanted their money back. Reliance eventually settled
the suit, kept FPE, and got back $41.85 million in return for which they agreed
to indemnify the company they'd bought FPE from for product liability claims
arising from products made by FPE before the purchase.
Continuing problems can't be ruled out. For example, see the Federal
Pacific/Federal Pioneer circuit breaker warranty alert issued by the Ontario New
Home Warranty Program in 1997 (copy attached). These products are still present
in the field! Reports from consumers and electricians indicate failures to trip,
overheating, and fires.
Note also that the author of the FPE article did not want to have his or her
name associated with it and that the FPE contact listed is an attorney retained
(presumably) by FPE. The information address given in the article would have
been more accurate if given as: Howard B. Abramoff Law Offices, 25700 Science
Park Dr. Suite 260, Cleveland OH 44122. This is a law firm, not a
circuit-breaker manufacturer. This confirms that the article is biased towards
the defense of FPE rather than providing information on "?the safe installation
and use of electricity" (IAEI's mission statement in the magazine's masthead).
As a neutral professional, I'd be pleased to receive reliable information
shedding new light on the situation. But a public relations article written by
someone whose aim is to protect FPE's interests and which fails to address
legitimate concerns and the known failures and problems occurring around the
country is not something I'd rely upon. Based on our experience and numerous
reports from people with no axes to grind, it appears that FPE circuit breakers
frequently fail to perform their function. A circuit breaker may sit in a
building for twenty years, and as long as it never sees an overload or short
circuit it may seem to work fine. But if it cannot perform its function to
interrupt current when overloaded or short circuited, that circuit breaker is a
latent fire hazard. Such equipment should be replaced.
Respectfully,
Dan Friedman, IAEI #195930
Attachments:
1. "Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final
Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429," December 30, 1982, Wright Malta Corporation,
Summary Pages 1-3.
2. Reliance Electric Co. Press Release, July 7, 1980, stating that "Underwriters
Laboratories labels for most of FPE's circuit breakers were obtained through
improper practices,?
3. Schneider Electric Canada Warranty Alert, recalling Federal Pioneer (Federal
Pacific Canadian) circuit breakers NC015/NC015P, October 14, 1997
4. our resume/background (Since the article indicates the author did not know who we are )
5. WEB FaqS: Website author, credibility
6. "Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panels, a Summary," website page from
http://InspectAPedia.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm (This is the root page of a
collection of public documents and articles regarding this topic.)
10-1-00 follow up note: IAEI and Mr. Cox have declined to reply to this correspondence.
03/01/03 follow up note: IAEI has not retracted the un-signed article described above. Industry experts have confirmed that the IAEI article is
inaccurate and dangerous in its advice as it exposes consumers to equipment which cannot be relied upon in event of an overcurrent. The result
could be shock or fire. We have encountered one or two instances of electricians who, unfamiliar with FPE failures, cited this article in defense of
a "no action" position, in all cases in defense of a home seller. our advice to consumers who are faced with denials that this equipment is
a latent safety hazard to ask for that opinion in writing. To date (12/1/2005) we have not had any reports of a professional who was willing to sign such a document.
01/26/2006 follow up note: IAEI declined to ever address the dangerous inaccuracies in the original IAEI magazine article. The article appears to have been penned by
an attorney charged with protecting the remaining interests of that organization.
04/22/2008 follow up note: IAEI has not responded to this correspondence.
08/03/2010 follow up note: IAEI did not respond to this correspondence.
Printed copies of our website pages are permitted (hard copies on paper) for free (not for sale) distribution provided that you do not edit the content, you include a citation of the source web page, and you do not imply that our website is endorsing any product or service for sale.
Do NOT copy electronically nor reproduce our website content electronically (for example to a web page) without writing to us (Contact Us) first to obtain
express permission. See our Policy on use of website contents - OK in printed form only, do not make electronic copies
Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Information for your website: for information on FPE Stab-Lok equipment that can be copied to your website, see FPE Stab-Lok Hazard Summary Page for Public Use
Books & Articles on Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, & Repair
Our recommended books about building & mechanical systems design, inspection, problem diagnosis, and repair, and about indoor environment and IAQ testing, diagnosis, and cleanup are at the InspectAPedia Bookstore. Also see our Book Reviews - InspectAPedia.
Recommended books on electrical inspection, electrical wiring, electrical problem diagnosis, and electrical repair can be found in the Electrical Books section of the InspectAPedia Bookstore. (courtesy of Amazon.com)
2008 - 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT (revised) - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345).
Replacement Panels for FPE Stab-Lok load centers - options include conventional complete panel replacement and a less costly replacement of the panel interior load center/bus assembly
2011 Commission Closes Investigation Of FPE Circuit Breakers And Provides Safety Information For Consumers, Revised 18 Feb 2011.
2010 Where is Federal Pacific Electric today? See FPE HISTORY for details. Leaving out some steps and omitting (for now) Exxon's role:
There is currently no "FPE Corporation" to whom consumers can easily presently direct a complaint unless they participated in the New Jersey Class Action - see below
2008 - 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT (revised) - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345).
An FPE attorney exists, apparently charged with protecting some un liquidated assets and apparently charged with sheltering intermediate owners and corporations (Reliance, Exxon, Challenger, Others) from litigation. His efforts were
behind the silly infomercial article that appeared in the IAEI magazine on this issue.
New Jersey Class Action lawsuit settled, homeowner plaintiffs received $500. per panel and institutional plaintiffs received varying amounts. The lawsuit pertained to original homeowners in New Jersey who had an FPE Stab-Lok electrical panel in their homes. Details are below.
FPE Class Action Lawsuit Results - 2002: New Jersey Judge's Summary Judgment for the Plaintiffs against FPE 8-15-2002 & 29 October 2002 - "FPE violated the Consumer Fraud Act because FPE knowingly and purposefully distributed
circuit breakers which were not tested to meet UL Standards as indicated on their label and there is an ascertainable loss for which treble damages
are recoverable;" as reported by the Superior Court of New Jersey. [Note: only very limited recovery rights were granted to homeowners and only in New Jersey. The case may still be under appeal as of January 2007].
Electro-Mechanical Corporation, purchased the assets of a dry-type transformer facility from Challenger and in conjunction with that purchase, acquired the right to use the name Federal Pacific in connection with their products, excluding Stab-Lok circuit breaker products.
HC Zang Agency in Buffalo, NY says that "Federal Pacific Company and Federal Pacific Transformer Company of Bristol, Virginia are in no way related to the old Federal Pacific Electric (FPE)" and offers to answer questions about the old equipment.
Consumers should report FPE failures and inspection/reporting issues to the U.S. CPSC, and
We request that you also report FPE Stab-Lok equipment failures, FPE home inspection or FPE hazard reporting issues to us
2008 FPE Class Action Lawsuit Results: In May 2008 the FPE Class Action Lawsuit in New Jersey was finally settled. New Jersey homeowners who were the original owners of an FPE Stab-lok electrical panel received $500. in settlement as part of the action. Institutional class members also got varying amounts, depending on their installations.
No one received the full cost of panel replacement. New Jersey Judge's Summary Judgment for the Plaintiffs against FPE 8-15-2002 & 29 October 2002 - "FPE violated the Consumer Fraud Act because FPE knowingly and purposefully distributed
circuit breakers which were not tested to meet UL Standards as indicated on their label and there is an ascertainable loss for which treble damages
are recoverable;" as reported by the Superior Court of New Jersey.
2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345).
2003 Federal Pacific Electric Breakers - an encyclopedic, non-prioritized inventory of FPE StabLok deficiencies by Douglas Hansen. [www.codecheck.com - Code Check] offers building code inspection guides for field use, and links on codes and failures.
1999 The International Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI) published (6/99) an inaccurate article asserting that there is no hazard with FPE Stab-Lok equipment - OUR REPLY disagreed and cited authoritative data found here along with follow up notes.
1982 CPSC Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report December 30, 1982, summary pages, indicating failure rates found for FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers
1982 Reliance Electric Co. SEC Quarterly Report: Note C. reports litigation between Reliance and UV Liquidating Trust and contends that "... improper and deceptive practices were employed for many years to secure UL listings for Federal Pacific's circuit protective products..."
1980 Reliance Electric Co. Press Release: improper practices improper practices used to obtain UL Listing for most of FPE's circuit breakers and notes testing which indicates "possible defects." 1980, Reliance Electric Co.
1980 FPE - Exxon Buys A Scandal Along With A Company improper practices used to obtain UL Listing for most of FPE's circuit breakers and notes testing which indicates "possible defects." 1980, Reliance Electric Co.
Aluminum Wiring Information Website Aluminum Electrical Wiring Hazards and Repairs: in-depth authoritative info, photos, documents including selection of proper vs. ineffective repair methods. E.g.: Ideal 65 "Twister" purple connector fails in field and lab testing with aluminum wire.
Electrical Panels, How to Inspect in buildings, safety for electrical inspectors, electrical panel, fusing, wiring defects, defective products. Inspection Class Presentation
Note: the following articles included as addenda are maintained as separate web pages listed above and at page left.
CALIBRATION AND CONDITION TESTS OF MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS - Federal Pacific Stab Lok Breakers - CPSC Data
CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982 Final Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429
Date: December 30, 1982 Submitted by: Jesse Aronstein (original contains signature)
WRIGHTVM MALTA CORPORATION. Malta test station, Ballston Spa, New York 12020 518-899-2227
1.0 FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Summary
Calibration tests have been performed on 122 two-pole Federal Pacific Electric circuit breakers. The calibration tests were performed -in accordance with UL Standard 489 except for or a difference in the sequence of calibrations. UL 489 is the applicable standard that the breakers are presumed to meet. In most cases, the calibration tests were repeated after 500 off-on mechanical operations of the toggle handle..
The circuit breakers tested were supplied by CPSC and came from several sources. Most were provided to CPSC by Federal Pacific Electric, some were purchased new by CPSC staff members at retail outlets, and a few were removed from existing installations. The breaker ratings tested were 30A (30 two-pole breakers tested), 40A (35), 50A(20), 60A(7) and 80A (30). The tests include performance at 100%, 135%, and 200% of ratings, and dielectric tests. More about the galvanic scale and corrosion between dissimilar metals is at GALVANIC SCALE & METAL CORROSION.
A substantial number of breakers failed the calibrations testing, both before and after the mechanical toggle operations. Failures were evident with both poles carrying current as well as with one-pole operation. Specifically, the failures are summarized as follows:
FAILURE CONDITION
FAILURES
% (#failed/#tested)
Before Mechanical Operations
After Mechanical Operations
No-trip: 200% of rating, both poles
0% (0/122)
1% (1/107)
No-trip: 200% of rating, individual poles
1% (3/244)
10% (21/214)
No-trip: 135% of rating, both poles*
25% (31/122)
36% (39/107)
No-trip: 135% of rating, individual poles
51% (125/244)
65% (144/220)
Trip: 100% of rating, both poles*
3% (4/122)
6% (7/111)
Dielectric Breakdown (short)*
0
1% (1/111)
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF FAILURES
*UL 489 Test Conditions
The failures appeared. among breakers of all ratings, none were failure-free. Most of the "no-trip' conditions were sustained for four hours well beyond the UL specification. These were not marginal failures with respect to the failure criteria. The data suggests that, on the average, the mechanical operations result in increased failures. This was .'not strictly the case on a sample-to-sample basis.
The failures relate to hazardous conditions in at least two ways. First, a fault in the wiring or utilization equipment which causes excessive- current-can result in fire if the circuit is not opened by the breaker -- this is its principal functional requirement. Secondly, it was determined in these tests that some of the breakers overheat to hazardous levels when subjected to overcurrent conditions (due to their own failure to trip) for sustained periods of time. The overheating can result in incapacitation of the breaker (i.e.: it will no longer open under any condition), and the temperature can be high enough to ignite fire in the vicinity of the breaker, as evidenced by charring of the case on some samples.
NOTE: this text is quoted verbatim from pages 3-5 of "Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982," obtained from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission as a FOIA request.
Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Service Panel & Breaker Identification
This paper describes how to identify Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric
Panels in buildings. It is information for building inspectors, home buyers, home owners, electricians
exploring the background of possible hazards associated with Federal Pacific
Electric Stab-lok circuit breakers and service panels.
Summary: How to identify Federal Pacific Stab-Lok (FPE)
Electric Panels
To identify the circuit breaker panels and breakers
discussed at the FPE
information website you should look for the product name "Federal
Pacific Stab Lok" or "Federal Pioneer Stab Lok" on the
equipment. If all product identification labels have been removed, look at the
various photos of FPE panels which you can find at the Federal Pacific Electric
Stab Lok Panel website, and at several of the articles at that website,
e.g. see Hazardous
FPE Circuit Breakers and Panels.
What if there are no labels on our FPE Electric panel? How can we tell if it
is a "Stab-Lok" model?
Look again carefully for
labels, on the panel exterior, or on the inside of the hinged,
consumer-operable panel door. Look for the words "Stab-Lok"
Photo of a
typical Stab-Lok circuit breaker - and typically, one of these is
visibly overheated - and failed to trip in response to an overcurrent
(Photo Credit: M.C., FL.)
If no labels are visible,
a visual inspection of other panel details can confirm that it is one of
several FPE Stab-Lok designs, the "F" shaped bus or the
"E" shaped buss - but this step requires use of a licensed
electrician, as it is necessary to remove the panel cover, and possibly to
remove one or two circuit breakers to look at the buss connectors on the
bottom of the breaker or at the bus itself in the panel.
SAFETY WARNING - FATAL SHOCK HAZARD - If it
is necessary to remove an electric panel cover to inspect the panel interior,
buses, or other components, you should hire a licensed electrician for that
purpose. Unless you are a licensed electrician, DO NOT REMOVE ELECTRIC PANEL
COVERS, DO NOT INSERT TOOLS INTO ELECTRIC PANELS, DO NOT TOUCH LIVE ELECTRICAL
PARTS such as screws, buses, bare wires, or anything that is inside of the
electric panel.
This warning does not prohibit unlatching and
swinging open the normal hinged panel covers provided for use by the homeowner
to permit access to circuit breaker switches themselves. The warning refers to
disassembling, unscrewing, or otherwise modifying or operating on an electric
panel. Live wires and contacts inside of an electric panel can, if touched,
cause fatal shock - death. If you are uncertain of what is safe to touch, do
not touch any part of the equipment.
Does the age of Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Electric Panels make a
difference in the safety concerns?
The following is a personal opinion by the website author:
From our knowledge of the history, pattern, and nature of FPE manufacturing and
management difficulties, we suspect the entire product line may have had
defects, labeling errors, safety, or other performance issues for both
commercial and residential equipment, where circuit breakers and panels are
concerned. (I don't have similar criticism of the older FUSE equipment).
However we have test data only for the FPE Stab-Lok series of residential electrical
panels and circuit breakers. The "Stab-Lok" product involves a
specific electrical panel, bus, and circuit breaker design. Therefore the FPE Stab-Lok Panel Website
only includes research and warnings for this specific product line.
People write to ask if their Federal Pacific Electric equipment is "OK"
based on a particular age of their house and presumably of the panel.
"Year" criteria is not useful in evaluating risk as there is no data
that demonstrates that FPE Stab-Lok equipment is better or worse after specific
dates. Furthermore, the age of a piece of equipment installed in a house can be
older or newer than the age of the house itself.
Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Historic Dates
The following dates are excerpted from various public documents, all of which can be
found at this website:
1979 Reliance Electric acquired the [bankrupt]
Federal Pacific Electric Company from UV Industries.
June 1980, Reliance Electric and FPE brought suit
against UV Industries [a liquidating trust which previously handled the assets
of the bankrupt FPE company.] for damages of $345 million or for rescission of
the previous sale by UV of the FPE line to Reliance, referring to deceptive
practices which went on for years on obtaining UL listing for FPE products.
5 July 1980: Reliance Electric stopped shipping FPE
Stab-Lok equipment on or about July 5, 1980. Keep in mind that equipment in the
pipeline in supply houses was never recalled, so homes built considerably after
that date may still have an FPE Stab-Lok panel installed.
21 July 1980: Business Week magazine reports on
FPE/Reliance Electric scandal.
September 1980: Reliance Electric brought legal
action against Sharon Steel Company which had assumed the liabilities of UV
Liquidation.
17 February 1981: Federal Pacific announced that it
would voluntarily replace or field modify certain models of its [predominantly
commercial and industrial] molded case circuit breaker line. [No recall, no
field repair was offered for residential equipment.] Funds were set aside for
this replacement [but may not have been expended.]
31 March 1982: Reliance Electric Financial
Statements acknowledge that FPE previously obtained UL Listings by fraudulent
means and that at "some point thereafter, lost their UL listing."
(Aronstein) provide report
of independent testing and failures of FPE Stab-Lok breakers.
CPSC management halts testing of
FPE Breakers, citing high costs of continuing the project. The announcement
does not exonerate the product and includes generic warnings to consumers.
11 October 1995: The FPE Stab-Lok Website
created by DJ Friedman as a consumer information and failure research project.
14 October 1997: Ontario Canada Home Warranty
Program issues a warning regarding Canadian Federal Pioneer [Canadian version
of FPE Stab-Lok] equipment provided by Schneider Electric if made in 1996 and
1997, and announces a recall program for Canadians.
May 1999 :FPE Stab Lok Website author converses with
Schneider Electric re: Federal Pioneer Equipment - further data not
forthcoming.
December 1999: Ohio FPE Stab-Lok failure-caused panel-fire
documented at the website.
June 1999: IAEI International Association of
Electrical Inspectors publishes anonymously and disclaimed, an article [penned
by a previous FPE employee] - stating that there have never been failure,
safety, or other issues with FPE Stab-Lok equipment.
21 February 2004: Update of ongoing FPE Failure
testing reported to ASHI - American Society of Home Inspectors [this topic has
been reported to ASHI previously and has been addressed at ASHI conferences and
seminars.
Federal Pacific Electric Equipment issues extend beyond basic design of the Stab Lok Circuit Breaker
But it's
more complicated than that. The company actually changed the design from time
to time (without necessarily telling anyone). On the other hand, No one has
provided any technical or even anecdotal data suggesting that any of these
changes corrected basic design flaws. In addition, there was the problem of
equipment UL-listing label swapping and therefore mislabeling individual
pieces of equipment, therefore incorrectly stating the use to which individual
pieces of equipment could be applied.
FPE USA stopped making equipment quite a while ago,
but Stab-Lok (TM) panels and circuit breakers continued to be produced in
Canada, under the name Federal Pioneer, a
Canadian "FPE" company which was later bought by Schneider Electric,
also in Canada.
"Federal Pioneer Stab-Lok circuit breakers and panels continue to be
available even still as "new" today. Some of our Canadian contacts
claim that the Canadian product was better than the U.S.-made version but my
own first-hand view of some of it in the home of a Canadian Home inspector was
that it was just as bad. (The circuit breakers had to be held into the panel
using adhesive tape!)
Several
years ago we called Schneider Electric and was able to speak with a Schneider
engineer about this product. We asked if they had changed the design to fix any
of the inherent problems with the product series over the U.S. version. We were promised an answer to this question - the engineer was quite polite. But in
follow-up calls no one at the company wanted to provide any information about
this product.
If a manufacturer cannot, or will not provide their supporting test or other data
for a product home inspectors and electricians are forced to err on the safe side by refusing to endorse it.
"Trust me" just doesn't cut it where electrical safety is concerned.
Exxon Buys A Scandal Along With A Company - Business
Week, July 21, 1980, p.66
For faster loading, this article, obtained from a public library, has been broken into segments. Use the links below to read the article in order; use the "back" button on your browser to return to this page.
Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panels - CPSC Information
This page contains a closing statement regarding a CPSC Investigation of FPE Circuit Breakers and additional safety information for consumers.
Click your browser's "back" button to return to the previous page
NOTE: This document has been entered verbatim from the original document. Very important
safety remarks and independent study reports of FPE hazards and advice about what to do can be found
at More Information about FPE.
FOR RELEASE: MARCH 3, 1983
COMMISSION CLOSES INVESTIGATION OF
FPE CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND PROVIDES
SAFETY INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- 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 present a
serious risk of injury to consumers.
The Commission investigation into Federal Pacific Electric (FPE)
circuit breakers began in June, 1980, when Reliance Electric Co., a
subsidiary of Exxon Corporation and the parent to FPE, reported to
the Commission that many FPE circuit breakers did not fully comply
with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) requirements. Commission
testing confirmed that these breakers fail under certain UL calibration
test requirements. The Commission investigation focused primarily
on 2-pole residential circuit breakers manufactured before Reliance
acquired FPE in 1979.
To meet UL standards, residential circuit breakers must pass
a number of so-called "calibration tests." The purpose of these
tests is to determine whether the circuit breakers will hold the
current for which they are rated and also automatically open or
"trip" (shut off the current) within the specified time limits if
over-loading of the circuit breakers causes current levels in excess of the
breaker's amperage rating. (Overloading can occur because a
consumer plugs too many products into a circuit or due to the failure
of a product or component connected to that circuit.) While the
Commission is concerned about the failure of these FPE breakers to
meet UL calibration requirements, the Commission is unable at this
time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation.
According to Reliance, failure of these FPE breakers to
comply with certain UL calibration requirements do not create a
hazard in the household environment. It is Reliance's position
that FPE breakers will trip reliably at most overload levels unless
the breakers have been operated in a repetitive, abusive manner
that should not occur during residential use. Reliance maintains
that, at those few overload levels where FPE breakers may fail to
trip under realistic use conditions, currents will be too low to
generate hazardous temperatures in household wiring. Reliance
believes that its position in this regard is supported by test data that
is provided to the Commission.
The Commission staff believes that it currently has insufficient
data to accept or refute Reliance's position.
The Commission staff estimates that it would cost several
million dollars to gather the data necessary to assess fully whether
those circuit breakers which are installed in homes but which may
fail UL calibration tests present a risk to the public. Based on
the Commission's limited budget ($34 million for fiscal year 1983),
the known hazards the Commission has identified and must address
(involving products of other manufacturers) and the uncertainty of
the results of such a costly investigation, the Commission has
decided not to commit further resources to its investigation of
FPE's circuit breakers. However, despite its decision to close
this particular investigation, the Commission will continue its
investigation of circuit breakers generally. The Commission can
reopen its investigation of FPE breakers if further information
warrants.
The Commission advises consumers to take certain safety
precautions with all circuit breakers and fuses. Consumers should:
-Know your electrical circuit. Know which outlets and products
are connected to each circuit.
-Never overload any electrical circuit by connecting too
many products to the circuit. Be particularly careful not
to connect several products that demand high current (such
as heating appliances) to a low amperage circuit.
-Comply with local building codes in wiring or adding electrical
circuits. Make sure the wiring and devices used in the
circuit are connected to a circuit breaker or fuse of the
-Immediately disconnect any electrical product if problems develop.
Have the product examined by a competent repair person.
-Investigate to determine why a fuse blows or circuit breaker
trips. Do not simply replace the fuse or reset the breaker.
If a fuse blows or breaker trips, it is often a warning that
the circuit is overloaded. Check the circuit for causes of
overloading (for example, too many appliances plugged in, a
malfunctioning product, a short circuit). When in doubt,
consult a licensed electrician.
Consumers who have questions concerning circuit breakers, or
who wish to report information relating to their safety, may call
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's toll-free safety
hotline at 800-638-CPSC, teletypewriter for the hearing impaired
at 800-638-8270 (Maryland only 800-492-8104).
Use links just below or at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links show where you are in our document or website.
Books & Articles on Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, & Repair
Our recommended books about building & mechanical systems design, inspection, problem diagnosis, and repair, and about indoor environment and IAQ testing, diagnosis, and cleanup are at the InspectAPedia Bookstore. Also see our Book Reviews - InspectAPedia.
Aluminum Wiring Information Website Aluminum Electrical Wiring Hazards and Repairs: in-depth authoritative info, photos, documents including selection of proper vs. ineffective repair methods. E.g.: Ideal 65 "Twister" purple connector fails in field and lab testing with aluminum wire.
Electrical Panels, How to Inspect in buildings, safety for electrical inspectors, electrical panel, fusing, wiring defects, defective products. Inspection Class Presentation
2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345).
Replacement Panels for FPE Stab-Lok load centers - options include conventional complete panel replacement and a less costly replacement of the panel interior load center/bus assembly
1982 Reliance Electric Co. SEC Quarterly Report: Note C. reports litigation between Reliance and UV Liquidating Trust and contends that "... improper and deceptive practices were employed for many years to secure UL listings for Federal Pacific's circuit protective products..."
1980 Reliance Electric Co. Press Release: improper practices used to obtain UL Listing for most of FPE's circuit breakers and notes testing which indicates "possible defects." 1980, Reliance Electric Co.
1980 FPE - Exxon Buys A Scandal Along With A Company improper practices used to obtain UL Listing for most of FPE's circuit breakers and notes testing which indicates "possible defects." 1980, Reliance Electric Co.
Mobile View
2000 FPE breakers fail in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
Carson Dunlop's Home Inspector's Home Study Course
