InspectAPedia ^®

This page summarizes the safety issues concerning Federal Pacific Electric FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels and circuit breakers. 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.

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 the web page address is cited and provided that the content is not edited or changed. Contact us to suggest edits, changes, corrections, updates.

© Copyright 2009 Daniel Friedman, All Rights Reserved. Information Accuracy & Bias Pledge is at below-left. Use links 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.

A Summary of the Problem: Federal Pacific Stab-Lok® Electric Panel and Circuit Breaker Hazards

1. In 2002, in a class action lawsuit in New Jersey, the Court ruled that over many years FPE had violated the NY Consumer Fraud Act. Specifically, the court found that "... FPE knowingly and purposefully distributed circuit breakers which were not tested to meet UL standards as indicated on their label. This constitutes an unlawful practice proscribed by the Act."[1]
   
   The court's decision, which was based on extensive evidence that included FPE's own documents, confirmed long-standing allegations of FPE's fraudulent testing practices. [2]
   
   
2. Due to FPE's fraudulent testing and falsified UL labeling, defective FPE Stab-Loc circuit breakers were installed in millions of residences throughout the United States. Recent tests on more than 500 Stab-Lok breakers from homes across the country show defective performance for about 1/3 of the two-pole FPE Stab-Loc circuit breakers and about 1/5 of the single-pole FPE Stab-Loc circuit breakers. [3]
   
   
3. Because of the proven high defect rate, the FPE Stab-Loc breakers that are presently installed in homes do not provide the circuit protection that is required by applicable codes and standards (NEC and UL). This constitutes an increased risk of fire and injury. [4]
   
   
4. There is no practical way that a licensed electrician, inspector, or engineer can determine which breakers in a given electrical panel are seriously defective internally. The only way to do that is by means of functional and life test procedures that they are not trained to do nor equipped to perform.
   
   
5. Given these facts, FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels and circuit breakers should be considered an un-due fire and injury risk and we recommend that the equipment be replaced.

Details are summarized below, and are provided at length at the FPE Stab-Lok HAZARDS & REPAIRS WEBSITE. Text above based on correspondence from J. Aronstein. [5]

FPE Stab-Lok® Circuit Breakers Fail to Trip

High failure rate: The central safety defect in FPE Stab-Lok(R) electrical equipment is that FPE Stab-Lok(R) circuit breakers fail to trip under overload or short-circuit conditions, at a failure rate much higher than comparable equipment made by other producers. This failure to trip occurs up to 80% of the time when the breakers are called-on to trip, depending on the individual breaker type and ampacity. The usual industry rate of failure of a circuit breaker to trip in response to an overcurrent or short circuit is much less than 1%.

Risk of fire or injury: When an overload or short circuit occurs in an electrical device, say an electric clothes dryer, the circuit supplying electricity to the device is supposed to be interrupted, electrical power cut off, by either a fuse or a circuit breaker. This interruption of electrical power is intended to minimize the resulting fire hazard of electrical overloads or short circuits.

A circuit breaker that fails to trip is unsafe fails to protect the electrical circuit and the building and building occupants where that circuit breaker is installed. This can lead to fire, property loss, and injury or worse.

FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT describes independent research explaining the hazards involved with FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels and includes a link to the most-current and easily-printable .pdf version of that document.

FPE Stab-Lok® Circuit Breakers Are a Latent Safety Hazard

A "latent safety hazard" means that the product itself does not initiate the unsafe condition. Rather, when the unsafe condition occurs (as just described above), the product, in this case an FPE Stab-Lok(R) circuit breaker, which is intended to interrupt electrical power, fails to do its job.

An impartial review of documentation regarding this issue, and discussions of the issue with forensic experts in the field, make clear 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.

An FPE Stab-Lok Electrical Panel Should Be Replaced, not "Inspected by an Electrician" and not "Tested"

Having the FPE Stab-Lok panel evaluated by an electrician is unfortunately of absolutely no value. A visual inspection can not predict whether a circuit breaker is going to jam on the next occurrence of an overcurrent or short circuit. While a visual might pick up evidence of a previously burned circuit breaker or panel bus connection, the absence of such evidence is not any assurance whatsoever that the panel is safe.

There is no practical way that a licensed electrician, inspector, or engineer can determine which breakers in a given panel are seriously defective internally. The only way to do that is by means of functional and life test procedures that they are not trained to do nor equipped to perform. -- Aronstein

Having the FPE Stab-Lok panel "tested" by an electrician is dangerous. For example, placing an overcurrent on an electrical circuit in the building could cause a fire to occur. Further, placing an overcurrent on a circuit "protected" by an FPE Stab-Lok circuit breaker may actually increase the chances that the circuit breaker will fail to trip in the future, even if it appears to work when tested. Aronstein's research showed a dramatic increase in the jam-up and failure rate in these circuit breakers after they had been exposed to a first "event" such as an over-current.

But Up to Now the Electrical Panel has Never Shown a Problem!

A statement by a building owner or occupant that no problem has been observed in a particular FPE Stab-Lok panel is absolutely no assurance that the panel is safe. It may simply be the case that the building has not experienced an over-current or short circuit on an electrical circuit. Or an overcurrent may have occurred, tripped a breaker, but in doing so, increased the chance that next time the same breaker will fail to trip.

It would be dangerous for a building seller, for example, to warrant the future safety of an electrical panel in the building s/he is selling.

It would be dangerous for a building buyer to rely on the claim by a seller, real estate agent, or electrician that an FPE Stab-Lok electrical panel is "safe" since all independent research indicates that they are mistaken.

If it's an FPE Stab-lok electrical panel, it should be replaced, period.

Financial Assistance for Replacement of Electrical Panels

In general, financial aid is not available: Except for an almost-worthless class action settlement that affected some New Jersey homeowners, there is no financial relief offered by FPE nor by its successors to homeowners or home buyers for the replacement of these panels.

In some communities there may be generic financial aid for home repairs to elderly homeowners or to homeowners of limited financial means, such as the Christmas in April program or financial aid to seniors programs - check with your local city, town, county, or state financial aid offices. Some electricians may offer discounted services to seniors or to others of modest means. Ask your electrician.

Panel replacement choices can save some money: FPE REPLACEMENT PANELS contains some panel-replacement suggestions that can in some cases save a portion of the replacement cost.

How Did These Unsafe FPE Stab-Lok(R) Circuit Breakers Get Into Homes?

"In a class-action lawsuit against FPE/Reliance in New Jersey, the Court found that Federal Pacific Electric Co. (FPE) committed fraud by representing that their FPE Stab-Lok(R) circuit breakers met the applicable (UL) standard test requirements when in fact they did not. The Court's finding of fraud, published in 2005, indicates that FPE cheated on the tests that were required to obtain UL listings.

The company improperly applied UL labels to circuit breakers that could not and did not meet the UL requirements. FPE covered up the defective performance of the circuit breakers by a long-standing practice of fraudulent testing. The Court's finding helps resolve the question as to how the defective breakers got into the marketplace and into homes." -- 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT, p.1, Dr. Jess Aronstein [available at this website].

Why Do Some People Say There is no FPE Stab-Lok(R) Hazard?

Most Circuit Breakers Are Never Called-on to Trip

In a home or on a circuit that has never been used, or has never experienced an overcurrent or short circuit, an unsafe breaker that would not trip when it should, will look just fine. That's because the circuit breaker has never been required to trip off. As Aronstein points out [2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT, Dr. Jess Aronstein], the performance of such an electrical circuit would look equally fine if there were no circuit breaker installed at all, since it has never needed to be interrupted. Does that mean such an electrical circuit is safe and that it is protected as intended? No.

Companies, Attorneys, Realtors, Home Sellers, Home Buyers with Conflicting Interests

A home owner who intends to continue living in a home, or someone buying a new home, has a great interest in assuring that the home's electrical system is properly protected and safe, as does their insurance company. However in some circumstances such as wanting to push through the sale of a home without incident, or wishing to avoid admitting potential liability, or perhaps out of lack of accurate information, some people may still assert that this well-documented safety concern does not exist.

Some insurance companies now require that their policy holders replace FPE Stab-Lok(R) equipment in the home before they will issue homeowners insurance for the property.

Has There Been a U.S. Government, CPSC, or Manufacture's Product Recall for FPE Stab-Lok(R) Electrical Equipment?

No, not in the U.S. for FPE Stab-Lok® equipment. However some versions of the sister product sold Canada under the label Federal Pioneer, were recalled.

Did the CPSC Say There Was No Problem with FPE Stab-Lok(R) Equipment?

No. A 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 [at that time], and that the Commission did not have funds to pursue testing. In that 1983 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 Aronstein's updated 2007 Report and in the IAEI letter available at this website.

According to reports we've received from the field, a hasty reader or someone with conflicting interests, sometimes infers from the CPSC 1983 press release concerning FPE Stab-Lok(R) equipment that the manufacturer and some Commission members were of the opinion that conditions producing FPE Stab-lok(R) incidents and failures 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 my opinion, a serious fire hazard.

So Is There an FPE Stab-Lok(R) Safety Problem or Not?

Yes. Current research now confirms the safety hazards of FPE Stab-Lok(R) equipment and documents its failure rates.

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:

• 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)
• 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345)

[The significance of these numbers can be understood more clearly if you consider that the typical failure-to-trip rate for circuit breakers in residential electrical panels is a small fraction of one percent.

For the full report see 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file)

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 breakers may perform with adequate reliability, possibly those manufactured after the companies discovered safety defects and improper practices in listing the product, and possibly some of those manufactured in Canada (certainly not all Canadian Federal Pioneer breakers, since there was a Canadian recall).

In absence of an explicit statement from a 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, my 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.

A home inspector, electrical inspector, building inspector, electrician, or contractor who makes any warranty of safety, by virtue of his/her position close to the consumer, is certain bear this very liability.

Share this Article      

...

Technical Reviewers & References

• InspectAPedia.com^® - Daniel Friedman
• InspectAPedia Bookstore lists recommended books, organized by topic & available for purchase. Most of our articles also include a list of recommended books for the specific article topic as well as other references, and information sources.
• 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.

FPE Stab-Lok HAZARDS & REPAIRS WEBSITE
SUMMARY OF the FPE Stab-Lok PROBLEM
FPE HAZARD ARTICLES, STUDIES
FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT
HOW TO IDENTIFY FPE & FP
REPORTS OF FPE FAILURES
HOW TO REPORT FPE INCIDENTS
REPAIR ELECTRICIANS
FPE REPLACEMENT BREAKERS
FPE REPLACEMENT PANELS
CANADIAN VERSIONS of FPE Stab-Lok
FPE Stab-lok: FIRES WAITING TO HAPPEN
FPE HISTORY
ADVICE TO HOME BUYERS w/ FPE PANELS
HOME INSPECTION LANGUAGE for FPE Stab-Lok
IAEI LETTER

• 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 including the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• 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 (Ret).
• 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.
• [1] Partial Summary Judgment decision dated 8/15/2002 by Judge Bryan D. Garruto, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Middlesex County, Docket No L_2904-97.
• [2] FPE Exxon Scandal Article "Exxon Buys a scandal Along With a Company", Business week,July 21, 1980, p. 66.
• [3] 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).
• [4] Example: Dateline Journal (NJ), Feb 3, 1999, p. 1; and
  Letter, J. Aronstein to Richard Stern, Office of Compliance, US CPSC, 7 March 2006, "FPE Circuit Breakers - Field Incidents of fire and personal injury"
• [5] correspondence: "FPE Circuit Breakers and Panels, KBHI Advisory Bulletin No. 07-001, 12/3/0-7", J. Aronstein to Terry M. Slade, Director, Office of Housing, Buildings, and COnstruction, Kentucky Board of Home Inspectors, 101 Sea Hero Road, Suite 100, Frankfort KY 40601, 19 February 2008. contact Dr. Aronstein at protune@aol.com

Books & Articles on Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, & Repair

• Our recommended books about building design, inspection, and repair, and about indoor environment testing, diagnosis, and cleanup are at the InspectAPedia Bookstore.
• ...

More Information on Building Diagnostic Inspections and Repairs

• The Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Website Safety Information for Consumers. 2009
• * Safety Hazards and Safe Inspection Procedures for Electrical and Home Inspectors at Residential Electric Panels

• 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.
• Directory of Home Inspectors accessible via internet


• Carson Dunlop's Home Inspector's Home Study Course (DJF is a contributor and participant in this education project).

InspectAPedia® Home & Site Map - Building & Environmental Inspection, Testing, Diagnosis, Repair, & Problem Prevention Advice: In-depth research & advice on diagnosing, testing, correcting, & preventing building defects & indoor environmental hazards. Unbiased information, no conflicts of interest.

The Mold Information Center: What to Do About Mold in Buildings, When and How to Inspect for Mold, Clean Up Mold, or Avoid Mold Problems

Use this simple, economical mold test kit by following our instructions on how to collect and mail mold samples to our lab

Environmental Inspection, Testing, & Diagnosis On-Site IAQ, Gas, Air Testing, Mold Investigation, Sick Building Diagnosis, Lab Services, & Remediation Plan Preparation - indoor air quality testing, problem source determination, supporting lab work, written remediation plan addressing removal of environmental and other hazards and prevention of their recurrence.

Building Inspection, Problem Diagnosis, Forensic Investigation & Testing, Repair Consulting

Contact Daniel Friedman for website content suggestions or for fee-paid consulting