FIRES WAITING TO HAPPEN - Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen, Debate Waiting to Be Ended
·Latent Fire, Shock Hazards of FPE Stab-Lok Equipment
·How many FPE Panels are there?
·What is the FPE Stab-Lok Failure Rate?
·What tests prove that the hazard is real?
·Failure reports
How Many FPE Stab-Loks Are There? Why Are They Still In Place? It has been suggested that there are as many as 28 million of these FPE Stab-Lok breakers in use in the U.S. which means that in some conditions as many as one million of them may fail to provide proper fire protection. This includes "new old stock" and appears to include "substitute" FPE stab-lok circuit breakers, none of which have shown an improvement in reliability in independent testing. So the right "repair" is to replace the FPE Stab-Lok electric panel. But where are they? Most homeowners whose houses are served by these panels are unaware of the hazards. So too are some inspectors and contractors. Because most homeowners do not order periodic electrical safety inspections, the presence of these panels is often undiscovered until an inspection made in the course of renovating or selling a property. Our field experience indicates that even when problems occur with this equipment, often it is simply removed or replaced with little publicity. Neither manufacturers nor some electricians are inclined to frighten consumers. See How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panels <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpeid.htm> - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue. But come back and finish this article too!
What is the FPE Stab-Lok Failure Rate and How Much Worse Is It Than Other Equipment?
FPE Stab-Lok or Federal Pacific Electric Stab-lok circuit breakers can fail to trip at an alarming rate. In the original testing, at a modest overload (135% of rating) switches that had never been touched (never mechanically switched) were energized on both poles. These failed 25% of the time, followed by a lockup that meant the switch would never trip in the future at any overload. Once these switches had been flipped on and off (mechanically energized), failures increased to 36%!
Worse, when individual poles on these switches were energized under the same conditions, 51% of the "virgin" switches failed, and for switches that had been mechanically energized, a whopping 65% of them failed!1
In the most recent independent tests of FPE Stab-Lok equipment, 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). (To download this article see "Technical Reports" below.)
When a circuit breaker will not trip in response to an overload there is a serious risk of fire.
What is the Proper Repair for FPE Stab-Lok Panels and Circuit Breakers? Homeowners and renovators who encounter these panels should replace the entire panel and circuit breaker set with new equipment. Panel replacement, can involve significant expense, typically $800 to $1200 depending on service size and other factors. Do not simply replace individual FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers: first of all, there is no data suggesting that new stock, replacement FPE breakers, or "new old stock" FPE breakers found in storage somewhere perform any better than the ones already in the FPE Stab-lok panel. Second, there are other functional and safety concerns in the panel besides the breakers themselves. We've seen panel bus damage, panel bus meltdowns, and failure of breakers to remain secured in or onto the connecting bus itself. See REPLACEMENT PANELS <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereplace.htm> for some panel replacement alternatives that might reduce the repair cost.
Replacement Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Circuit Breakers For several reasons I do not recommend attempting to "repair" an individual failed Stab-lok breaker by buying a replacement either from used stock, new stock, or "compatible" stock: · The replacement equipment has not been independently tested and demonstrated to perform any better than the original materials · Engineers involved in this research have explained that a good part of the source of product failure for FPE Stab-Loks was in the original design and its specifications. It appears that while there were some "on the fly" (and unapproved) changes from time to time on the manufacturing line for this product, there was never a redesign suitable to attempt to "design out" the product failure. One expert opined to me privately that he believed that the original product's price point in the electrical equipment market was at the low end, and that had Federal Pacific attempted a redesign they'd not have had a product they could sell at their price point. · There are other hazards in the equipment besides the breakers, including bus and bus insulation meltdowns and shorts. A few other warnings: · "Exercising" breakers by turning them on and off has not been shown to "un-stick" or in any other manner improve the probability of working properly, and conversely, such activity may in fact increase the chances of a future failure · "Testing" breakers by applying a load may give an instantaneous picture of the performance of individual breakers but it does not predict their performance when a real safety problem occurs (overcurrent) later. More important, except if performed by a very expert person, in-place testing is very dangerous, risking fires in the building being tested. In sum, if you could replace all the FPE Stab-Lok equipment with (somehow magically obtained) all "new" FPE Stab-Lok equipment (found in a used-or new-old-stock warehouse for example) the risk level for the building would not be sufficiently different from before the replacement and would remain high: there remains a latent risk of fire from failure of these breakers to trip in response to overcurrent. Replacement Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Panels is Recommended For some cost and method alternatives when replacing an Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Panel or "load center" see REPLACEMENT PANELS <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereplace.htm> which describes conventional Option#1 - "remove and replace" the electrical panel and Option#2 - FPE Load Center Replacement using Cutler Hammer (CH) Adjustable Retrofit Kit
See Home Inspection Reporting Language and discussion for FPE panels <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm> but please return here and finish this article too!
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Proving Your Case But identifying one of these defects can lead to an argument and in some cases, even lawsuits! For example, a knowledgeable inspector or contractor observes one of these panels and recommends replacement. An owner or another inspector, unaware of the background, refuses to cooperate, and insists there is "no problem." Who's right? There is indeed "a problem." FPE panels and circuit breakers are a "safety-related defect." In some conditions the equipment may not provide the safety protection (against fire) that was intended. This defect is associated with FPE panels and circuit breakers manufactured in the 1970's and possibly extending to current equipment. Testing was performed in 1982-3 by Wright Malta Corporation for the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. What actually happens to cause unsafe conditions? Testing performed on FPE 2-pole (240V) circuit breakers indicated that in some overload conditions, particularly when one pole of the breaker is overloaded, the circuit breaker will not trip. Some tests showed that as many as 65% of the circuit breakers would malfunction. Once this malfunction has occurred the breaker is "locked" and it will not trip under any circumstances, creating an even more serious fire hazard. Are there real-world instances in which a current overload occurs on just a single "leg" of a 240-Volt circuit? Sure. At least some clothes dryers, air conditioning circuits, and electric ranges split the 240-V delivered to the appliance to run individual components such as a dryer drum motor or individual heater elements. Multiwire branch circuits which share a common neutral wire also serve different loads in a building. Main breakers in the panel split power to the two panel buses. We have received many field reports with examples of failures to trip for such equipment. To get technical depth and citations for proving your case, see: 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircuitBreakerHazards070525.PDF> - 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).
2004 FPE Update: St. Louis ASHI Seminar <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm> including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures
See 2000 FPE breakers fail in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
See Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen, Debate Waiting to Be Ended <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Multiwire Branch Circuits Special Notice: Multiwire Branch Circuits - warning: to avoid overheating neutral wire and shock hazards involving multiwire branch circuits, it is important to assure that each of the individual circuits is on opposite poles (in the panel) from the other. In most panels this is accomplished, in fact forced, by using a 240-V common-trip-tie breaker (ganged together switches) which forces individual circuits onto opposite poles. However in FPE panels, the panel bus design does not provide this assurance. Ref: "Safe Wiring Practice," Rex Cauldwell, Journal of Light Construction, letter March 1995, p.6. See Multiwire Branch Electrical Circuits and Split-Wired Receptacles - Electrical Wiring Safety Requirements <http://www.inspect-ny.com/electric/multiwir.htm> - Note this is background on multi-wire circuits and is not FPE specific except that since I recommend wiring these circuits with double pole breakers and double pole FPE breakers don't trip very well, it's an important concept.
<>FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Single Pole Breakers It is possible that there are similar failures among single-pole (120V) breakers. At least one case of a single-pole 120-Volt FPE GFCI breaker which failed to trip has been reported.3 Furthermore, simply purchasing new circuit breakers of the same type from the same manufacturer may not correct the problem. And only special FPE breakers fit in the FPE "Stab-Lok" electric panel. When this issue was examined in the early 1980's, FPE's opinion was that the chances of an overload occurring on only a single pole of a 240-volt breaker were very small. In our view there are some very common real-world examples where single-pole loading in a 240-volt breaker might include failures: multi-wire branch circuits and in electric clothes dryers where one of the heating elements shorts to the steel case of the dryer.
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Latent Safety Hazard Defined The circuit breakers do not directly cause an electrical fire. Some other failure must occur which in turn causes an overload of the circuit "protected" by the FPE breaker. When the breaker fails to trip in response to the overload it has failed to provide the protection intended, and a fire may result. That indirection is why we call this a "latent safety defect." Why we call this a "latent safety defect" rather than just "hazardous" or "dangerous" needs more explanation. Unfortunately, some people who stand to face big costs grasp at fine distinctions about the failure mechanism in order to avoid facing the problem. When a defect is itself likely to cause injury directly, such as live wires poking out of the wall by the bathroom sink, we call it a "hazard." When a defect does not directly cause the injury or loss, such as a circuit breaker which may fail to trip when something else is causing an unsafe overcurrent, we call it a "latent safety defect. Either way, it's still a problem that needs prompt attention.
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Case Reports of Failures Is this a linguistic debate or is it really an issue in the field? You bet it's an issue. Recently during an examination by a Maryland home inspector (citations 4,5 below) an FPE panel, was observed and flagged as a potential hazard which should be remedied. The property owner, concerned about his sale, complained and threatened to sue the inspector. This was not an isolated case. We were able to provide the inspectors with referral to Dr. Jess Aronstein, an engineer in Poughkeepsie, New York, who in turn provided supporting documentation: reports on this problem, a bibliography, and a press release from FPE. In another example of the dangers of this "latent safety defect," Dr. Aronstein reported that during a disturbance in a jail, a guard hit a gang-switch in an FPE "Stab-Lok" load center in the cell block area. The breaker did not trip. Rather, it shorted to ground in the switch, blowing a hole in the cover plate. (Citations 6,7) Building inspectors and renovators often face the discovery of a product which is potentially harmful, which should be replaced, but for which there is little public documentation to justify their position. Disagreement among people affected by this issue means that it's necessary to be able to cite actual research and actual real-world fire and failure reports. We invite readers, building owners, inspectors, and electricians, to report their experience with this equipment. We have collected a large number of field reports of failures, fires, overheating, case explosions, and simple failure trip for this equipment. More Reading: Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fire and Failure Photos <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefire.htm>
Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fires and other Failures: Anecdotal Field Reports <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefield.htm>
Technical Reports on FPE Equipment Defects FPE Stab-Lok Test reports · A Summary of the FPE Stab-Lok Hazards <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm> 2007 Recap Regarding Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Electric
· How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpeid.htm> Electric Panels - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue.
· Federal Pacific Electric Repair/Replacement Advice <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPE-Advice.htm> for home buyers and owners, about product recalls, replacement breakers, claims by sellers and realtors that there is no hazard
· 1995 Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>, Debate Waiting to Be Ended. Opinion article by DJF.
· FPE Stab-Lok New Jersey Class Action <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEnotice12-05.htm> Notice - 20 April 2005 Claims Deadline Court document confirmed FPE cheating violated New Jersey Consumer Fraud Laws - Class Action Settlement Notice for New Jersey Residents. FPE was found to have committed fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. (Appeals are pending).
· 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircuitBreakerHazards070525.PDF> - 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).
· 2004 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm> - St. Louis ASHI Seminar including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures. This article is a comprehensive survey of the FPE Hazard, its history, the issues, and recommended repair: replacement of the FPE Stab-Lok panel.
· 2004 FPE Update: Exxon Buys a Scandal <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/ExxonScandal.htm> Along With A Company Business Week Article 7/21/80 now available on line
· 2000 FPE breakers fail (photos) in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
· 1999 FPE Failures continue: FPE breaker fails, results in fire: field report 12/99
· Home Inspection Reporting Language <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm> and discussion for FPE panels
· 1997 Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/schneider.htm>
· Replacement of FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panels <http://www.inspect-ny.com/pointers.htm> - List of Electricians familiar w/ FPE. Electricians: can be listed here at no fee by contacting us <http://www.inspect-ny.com/appointment.htm>.
· Replacement FPE Breakers <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEBreakers.htm> for FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panels? are not recommended
· FPE Field Failure Reports Wanted: Contact the Author <http://www.inspect-ny.com/appointment.htm> to report problems you have observed or experienced with this equipment, Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok panels, circuit breakers, replacement circuit breakers of any brands and type used in FPE panels. Inspectors or consumers should also report failures and FPE issues by sending an Incident Report to the US CPSC <https://www.cpsc.gov/incident.html> - please email us <http://www.inspect-ny.com/appointment.htm> with the same information.
· More Information <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>
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.) · "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). Building professionals who have questions about this equipment, particularly in cases of suspected failure of the equipment are invited to contact the author. Dan Friedman is a building consultant in Poughkeepsie, NY. He served as chairman of both the Education Committee and the national Technical Committee of the American Society of Home Inspectors. For Content Suggestions, Contact information <http://www.inspect-ny.com/amerhome.htm> is at his website. Because of website traffic volume, if you are seeking contact to ask a technical question, please handle it by email, not telephone.
More Information about FPE Federal Pacific Stab Lok Panels and Circuit Breakers - Reference List · The Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Website <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm> Safety Information for Consumers. 1983
· Home Inspection Reporting Language and discussion for FPE panels <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm>
· How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panels <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpeid.htm> - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue.
· 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircuitBreakerHazards070525.PDF> - 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).
· 2004 FPE Update: St. Louis ASHI Seminar <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm> including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures
· >Federal Pacific Electric Panel Replacements <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereplace.htm> two cost and method options for FPE panel replacement.
· Report by JAronstein to DJ Friedman excerpting from the report material referenced at the end of this article.
· J. Aronstein Personal communication, to DJ Friedman, 9/20/93.
· John Paardecamp, US Home Inspection Corp. in MD,
· J. Aronstein Personal Communication DJF 9/30/93
· Contact Ed Kraewic, at CPSC, for more about the single-pole units.
· Historical note, not for publication [deleted from on line version]
· References cited ja-df 3/28/94 filed FPEPANL.TXT - ELECTRIC.0SG. This information regarding Federal Pacific Electric service panels and circuit breakers was provided to Dan Friedman by Dr. Jess Aronstein <mailto:protune@aol.com>, BME, MSME, PhD, NYS P.E. Lic. No. 39860 Dr. Aronstein is a consulting engineer specializing in mechanical and materials engineering.
· Reported by private conversation with Bill Mills, Residential Engineering Systems, 8/4/95 (203-528-3672) on a narrow series of FPE Panels there was also a neutral-bus overheating problem - used steel screws on aluminum bus. Probably ok if no sign of overheating. Aronstein has details.
· FPE FIRES: Failures continue: <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefire.htm> FPE breaker fails, results in fires: field reports
· Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fires and other Failures: Anecdotal Field Reports <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefield.htm>
· Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>, Debate Waiting to Be Ended
· Home Inspection Reporting Language <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm> for FPE Stab-Lok electric panels and circuit breakers
· Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/schneider.htm>
· 1983 CPSC Investigation of FPE Circuit Breakers <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpecpsc.htm> Safety Information for Consumers
· 1982 Reliance Electric Co. SEC Quarterly Report: <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/sec1982.htm> 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: <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/reliance.htm> 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 <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/ExxonScandal.htm>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.
· FAQ: Website Credibility <http://www.inspect-ny.com/faq001.htm>
·Latent Fire, Shock Hazards of FPE Stab-Lok Equipment
·How many FPE Panels are there?
·What is the FPE Stab-Lok Failure Rate?
·What tests prove that the hazard is real?
·Failure reports
How Many FPE Stab-Loks Are There? Why Are They Still In Place? It has been suggested that there are as many as 28 million of these FPE Stab-Lok breakers in use in the U.S. which means that in some conditions as many as one million of them may fail to provide proper fire protection. This includes "new old stock" and appears to include "substitute" FPE stab-lok circuit breakers, none of which have shown an improvement in reliability in independent testing. So the right "repair" is to replace the FPE Stab-Lok electric panel. But where are they? Most homeowners whose houses are served by these panels are unaware of the hazards. So too are some inspectors and contractors. Because most homeowners do not order periodic electrical safety inspections, the presence of these panels is often undiscovered until an inspection made in the course of renovating or selling a property. Our field experience indicates that even when problems occur with this equipment, often it is simply removed or replaced with little publicity. Neither manufacturers nor some electricians are inclined to frighten consumers. See How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panels <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpeid.htm> - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue. But come back and finish this article too!
What is the FPE Stab-Lok Failure Rate and How Much Worse Is It Than Other Equipment?
FPE Stab-Lok or Federal Pacific Electric Stab-lok circuit breakers can fail to trip at an alarming rate. In the original testing, at a modest overload (135% of rating) switches that had never been touched (never mechanically switched) were energized on both poles. These failed 25% of the time, followed by a lockup that meant the switch would never trip in the future at any overload. Once these switches had been flipped on and off (mechanically energized), failures increased to 36%!
Worse, when individual poles on these switches were energized under the same conditions, 51% of the "virgin" switches failed, and for switches that had been mechanically energized, a whopping 65% of them failed!1
In the most recent independent tests of FPE Stab-Lok equipment, 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). (To download this article see "Technical Reports" below.)
When a circuit breaker will not trip in response to an overload there is a serious risk of fire.
What is the Proper Repair for FPE Stab-Lok Panels and Circuit Breakers? Homeowners and renovators who encounter these panels should replace the entire panel and circuit breaker set with new equipment. Panel replacement, can involve significant expense, typically $800 to $1200 depending on service size and other factors. Do not simply replace individual FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers: first of all, there is no data suggesting that new stock, replacement FPE breakers, or "new old stock" FPE breakers found in storage somewhere perform any better than the ones already in the FPE Stab-lok panel. Second, there are other functional and safety concerns in the panel besides the breakers themselves. We've seen panel bus damage, panel bus meltdowns, and failure of breakers to remain secured in or onto the connecting bus itself. See REPLACEMENT PANELS <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereplace.htm> for some panel replacement alternatives that might reduce the repair cost.
Replacement Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Circuit Breakers For several reasons I do not recommend attempting to "repair" an individual failed Stab-lok breaker by buying a replacement either from used stock, new stock, or "compatible" stock: · The replacement equipment has not been independently tested and demonstrated to perform any better than the original materials · Engineers involved in this research have explained that a good part of the source of product failure for FPE Stab-Loks was in the original design and its specifications. It appears that while there were some "on the fly" (and unapproved) changes from time to time on the manufacturing line for this product, there was never a redesign suitable to attempt to "design out" the product failure. One expert opined to me privately that he believed that the original product's price point in the electrical equipment market was at the low end, and that had Federal Pacific attempted a redesign they'd not have had a product they could sell at their price point. · There are other hazards in the equipment besides the breakers, including bus and bus insulation meltdowns and shorts. A few other warnings: · "Exercising" breakers by turning them on and off has not been shown to "un-stick" or in any other manner improve the probability of working properly, and conversely, such activity may in fact increase the chances of a future failure · "Testing" breakers by applying a load may give an instantaneous picture of the performance of individual breakers but it does not predict their performance when a real safety problem occurs (overcurrent) later. More important, except if performed by a very expert person, in-place testing is very dangerous, risking fires in the building being tested. In sum, if you could replace all the FPE Stab-Lok equipment with (somehow magically obtained) all "new" FPE Stab-Lok equipment (found in a used-or new-old-stock warehouse for example) the risk level for the building would not be sufficiently different from before the replacement and would remain high: there remains a latent risk of fire from failure of these breakers to trip in response to overcurrent. Replacement Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok Panels is Recommended For some cost and method alternatives when replacing an Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Panel or "load center" see REPLACEMENT PANELS <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereplace.htm> which describes conventional Option#1 - "remove and replace" the electrical panel and Option#2 - FPE Load Center Replacement using Cutler Hammer (CH) Adjustable Retrofit Kit
See Home Inspection Reporting Language and discussion for FPE panels <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm> but please return here and finish this article too!
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Proving Your Case But identifying one of these defects can lead to an argument and in some cases, even lawsuits! For example, a knowledgeable inspector or contractor observes one of these panels and recommends replacement. An owner or another inspector, unaware of the background, refuses to cooperate, and insists there is "no problem." Who's right? There is indeed "a problem." FPE panels and circuit breakers are a "safety-related defect." In some conditions the equipment may not provide the safety protection (against fire) that was intended. This defect is associated with FPE panels and circuit breakers manufactured in the 1970's and possibly extending to current equipment. Testing was performed in 1982-3 by Wright Malta Corporation for the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. What actually happens to cause unsafe conditions? Testing performed on FPE 2-pole (240V) circuit breakers indicated that in some overload conditions, particularly when one pole of the breaker is overloaded, the circuit breaker will not trip. Some tests showed that as many as 65% of the circuit breakers would malfunction. Once this malfunction has occurred the breaker is "locked" and it will not trip under any circumstances, creating an even more serious fire hazard. Are there real-world instances in which a current overload occurs on just a single "leg" of a 240-Volt circuit? Sure. At least some clothes dryers, air conditioning circuits, and electric ranges split the 240-V delivered to the appliance to run individual components such as a dryer drum motor or individual heater elements. Multiwire branch circuits which share a common neutral wire also serve different loads in a building. Main breakers in the panel split power to the two panel buses. We have received many field reports with examples of failures to trip for such equipment. To get technical depth and citations for proving your case, see: 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircuitBreakerHazards070525.PDF> - 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).
2004 FPE Update: St. Louis ASHI Seminar <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm> including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures
See 2000 FPE breakers fail in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
See Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen, Debate Waiting to Be Ended <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Multiwire Branch Circuits Special Notice: Multiwire Branch Circuits - warning: to avoid overheating neutral wire and shock hazards involving multiwire branch circuits, it is important to assure that each of the individual circuits is on opposite poles (in the panel) from the other. In most panels this is accomplished, in fact forced, by using a 240-V common-trip-tie breaker (ganged together switches) which forces individual circuits onto opposite poles. However in FPE panels, the panel bus design does not provide this assurance. Ref: "Safe Wiring Practice," Rex Cauldwell, Journal of Light Construction, letter March 1995, p.6. See Multiwire Branch Electrical Circuits and Split-Wired Receptacles - Electrical Wiring Safety Requirements <http://www.inspect-ny.com/electric/multiwir.htm> - Note this is background on multi-wire circuits and is not FPE specific except that since I recommend wiring these circuits with double pole breakers and double pole FPE breakers don't trip very well, it's an important concept.
<>FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Single Pole Breakers It is possible that there are similar failures among single-pole (120V) breakers. At least one case of a single-pole 120-Volt FPE GFCI breaker which failed to trip has been reported.3 Furthermore, simply purchasing new circuit breakers of the same type from the same manufacturer may not correct the problem. And only special FPE breakers fit in the FPE "Stab-Lok" electric panel. When this issue was examined in the early 1980's, FPE's opinion was that the chances of an overload occurring on only a single pole of a 240-volt breaker were very small. In our view there are some very common real-world examples where single-pole loading in a 240-volt breaker might include failures: multi-wire branch circuits and in electric clothes dryers where one of the heating elements shorts to the steel case of the dryer.
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Latent Safety Hazard Defined The circuit breakers do not directly cause an electrical fire. Some other failure must occur which in turn causes an overload of the circuit "protected" by the FPE breaker. When the breaker fails to trip in response to the overload it has failed to provide the protection intended, and a fire may result. That indirection is why we call this a "latent safety defect." Why we call this a "latent safety defect" rather than just "hazardous" or "dangerous" needs more explanation. Unfortunately, some people who stand to face big costs grasp at fine distinctions about the failure mechanism in order to avoid facing the problem. When a defect is itself likely to cause injury directly, such as live wires poking out of the wall by the bathroom sink, we call it a "hazard." When a defect does not directly cause the injury or loss, such as a circuit breaker which may fail to trip when something else is causing an unsafe overcurrent, we call it a "latent safety defect. Either way, it's still a problem that needs prompt attention.
FPE Stab-lok Hazards - Case Reports of Failures Is this a linguistic debate or is it really an issue in the field? You bet it's an issue. Recently during an examination by a Maryland home inspector (citations 4,5 below) an FPE panel, was observed and flagged as a potential hazard which should be remedied. The property owner, concerned about his sale, complained and threatened to sue the inspector. This was not an isolated case. We were able to provide the inspectors with referral to Dr. Jess Aronstein, an engineer in Poughkeepsie, New York, who in turn provided supporting documentation: reports on this problem, a bibliography, and a press release from FPE. In another example of the dangers of this "latent safety defect," Dr. Aronstein reported that during a disturbance in a jail, a guard hit a gang-switch in an FPE "Stab-Lok" load center in the cell block area. The breaker did not trip. Rather, it shorted to ground in the switch, blowing a hole in the cover plate. (Citations 6,7) Building inspectors and renovators often face the discovery of a product which is potentially harmful, which should be replaced, but for which there is little public documentation to justify their position. Disagreement among people affected by this issue means that it's necessary to be able to cite actual research and actual real-world fire and failure reports. We invite readers, building owners, inspectors, and electricians, to report their experience with this equipment. We have collected a large number of field reports of failures, fires, overheating, case explosions, and simple failure trip for this equipment. More Reading: Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fire and Failure Photos <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefire.htm>
Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fires and other Failures: Anecdotal Field Reports <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefield.htm>
Technical Reports on FPE Equipment Defects FPE Stab-Lok Test reports · A Summary of the FPE Stab-Lok Hazards <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm> 2007 Recap Regarding Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Electric
· How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpeid.htm> Electric Panels - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue.
· Federal Pacific Electric Repair/Replacement Advice <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPE-Advice.htm> for home buyers and owners, about product recalls, replacement breakers, claims by sellers and realtors that there is no hazard
· 1995 Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>, Debate Waiting to Be Ended. Opinion article by DJF.
· FPE Stab-Lok New Jersey Class Action <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEnotice12-05.htm> Notice - 20 April 2005 Claims Deadline Court document confirmed FPE cheating violated New Jersey Consumer Fraud Laws - Class Action Settlement Notice for New Jersey Residents. FPE was found to have committed fraud under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. (Appeals are pending).
· 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircuitBreakerHazards070525.PDF> - 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).
· 2004 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm> - St. Louis ASHI Seminar including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures. This article is a comprehensive survey of the FPE Hazard, its history, the issues, and recommended repair: replacement of the FPE Stab-Lok panel.
· 2004 FPE Update: Exxon Buys a Scandal <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/ExxonScandal.htm> Along With A Company Business Week Article 7/21/80 now available on line
· 2000 FPE breakers fail (photos) in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
· 1999 FPE Failures continue: FPE breaker fails, results in fire: field report 12/99
· Home Inspection Reporting Language <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm> and discussion for FPE panels
· 1997 Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/schneider.htm>
· Replacement of FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panels <http://www.inspect-ny.com/pointers.htm> - List of Electricians familiar w/ FPE. Electricians: can be listed here at no fee by contacting us <http://www.inspect-ny.com/appointment.htm>.
· Replacement FPE Breakers <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEBreakers.htm> for FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panels? are not recommended
· FPE Field Failure Reports Wanted: Contact the Author <http://www.inspect-ny.com/appointment.htm> to report problems you have observed or experienced with this equipment, Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok panels, circuit breakers, replacement circuit breakers of any brands and type used in FPE panels. Inspectors or consumers should also report failures and FPE issues by sending an Incident Report to the US CPSC <https://www.cpsc.gov/incident.html> - please email us <http://www.inspect-ny.com/appointment.htm> with the same information.
· More Information <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>
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.) · "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). Building professionals who have questions about this equipment, particularly in cases of suspected failure of the equipment are invited to contact the author. Dan Friedman is a building consultant in Poughkeepsie, NY. He served as chairman of both the Education Committee and the national Technical Committee of the American Society of Home Inspectors. For Content Suggestions, Contact information <http://www.inspect-ny.com/amerhome.htm> is at his website. Because of website traffic volume, if you are seeking contact to ask a technical question, please handle it by email, not telephone.
More Information about FPE Federal Pacific Stab Lok Panels and Circuit Breakers - Reference List · The Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Website <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm> Safety Information for Consumers. 1983
· Home Inspection Reporting Language and discussion for FPE panels <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm>
· How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panels <HTTP://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpeid.htm> - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue.
· 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPECircuitBreakerHazards070525.PDF> - 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).
· 2004 FPE Update: St. Louis ASHI Seminar <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpestlouis.htm> including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures
· >Federal Pacific Electric Panel Replacements <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereplace.htm> two cost and method options for FPE panel replacement.
· Report by JAronstein to DJ Friedman excerpting from the report material referenced at the end of this article.
· J. Aronstein Personal communication, to DJ Friedman, 9/20/93.
· John Paardecamp, US Home Inspection Corp. in MD,
· J. Aronstein Personal Communication DJF 9/30/93
· Contact Ed Kraewic, at CPSC, for more about the single-pole units.
· Historical note, not for publication [deleted from on line version]
· References cited ja-df 3/28/94 filed FPEPANL.TXT - ELECTRIC.0SG. This information regarding Federal Pacific Electric service panels and circuit breakers was provided to Dan Friedman by Dr. Jess Aronstein <mailto:protune@aol.com>, BME, MSME, PhD, NYS P.E. Lic. No. 39860 Dr. Aronstein is a consulting engineer specializing in mechanical and materials engineering.
· Reported by private conversation with Bill Mills, Residential Engineering Systems, 8/4/95 (203-528-3672) on a narrow series of FPE Panels there was also a neutral-bus overheating problem - used steel screws on aluminum bus. Probably ok if no sign of overheating. Aronstein has details.
· FPE FIRES: Failures continue: <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefire.htm> FPE breaker fails, results in fires: field reports
· Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fires and other Failures: Anecdotal Field Reports <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefield.htm>
· Federal Pacific Electric Panels: Fires Waiting to Happen <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpe.html>, Debate Waiting to Be Ended
· Home Inspection Reporting Language <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpereport.htm> for FPE Stab-Lok electric panels and circuit breakers
· Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/schneider.htm>
· 1983 CPSC Investigation of FPE Circuit Breakers <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpecpsc.htm> Safety Information for Consumers
· 1982 Reliance Electric Co. SEC Quarterly Report: <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/sec1982.htm> 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: <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/reliance.htm> 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 <http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/ExxonScandal.htm>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.
· FAQ: Website Credibility <http://www.inspect-ny.com/faq001.htm>
Jason Kelly Colorado Springs Colorado Rocky Mountain Electric
Rocky Mountain Electrician Colorado Springs | Phone: (719) 229.6633 | Email Address:
Jason@rockymountainelectric.org
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | About Us | Portfolio | Federal pacific
Questions and Answers | Customer Review | Bucket Truck
Jason@rockymountainelectric.org
Contact Us | Privacy Policy | About Us | Portfolio | Federal pacific
Questions and Answers | Customer Review | Bucket Truck