InspectAPedia ^®

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.

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. 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. The web author has 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). © 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.

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 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.

Share this Article      

...

Technical Reviewers & References

Search InspectAPedia

• Daniel Friedman - principal author/editor of the InspectAPedia^® Website
• 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
FPE REPAIR ELECTRICIANS
FPE REPLACEMENT BREAKERS
FPE REPLACEMENT PANELS
FPE REPLACEMENT PANEL COSTS
CAN'T AFFORD A NEW ELECTRIC PANEL?
FEDERAL PIONEER in CANADA
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
• 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.
• 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.)
  • "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.

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

Please see SUMMARY OF PROBLEM for the full detail of this FPE topic.

Having reviewed documentation regarding this issue, and having discussed the issue with forensic experts in the field, I am 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 my 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 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, 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. In my 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

Please see CANADIAN VERSIONS for the full version of this article.

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, I 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. I 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 curcuit 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.

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. I 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 my 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. My resume/background (Since the article indicates the author did not know who I am)

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. I 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. My 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) I 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.

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.

More Information on Building Diagnostic Inspections and Repairs

• 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).

• The Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Website Safety Information for Consumers. 1983
• Home Inspection Reporting Language and discussion for FPE panels
• How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panels - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue.
• FPE FIRES: Failures continue: FPE breaker fails, results in fires: field reports
• Federal Pacific Electric Fires Waiting to Happen, Debate Waiting to Be Ended, detailed article
• Replacement Circuit Breakers for FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panels? are not recommended. We recommend replacement of the entire electrical panel, or replacement of the entire electrical panel bus assembly. See FPE REPLACEMENT PANELS for details.
• 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
• 2009 Where is Federal Pacific Electric today? 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.
• Fifty FPE Field Failures Reported to US CPSC - 2006 letter from Dr. Jess Aronstein, consulting engineer
• 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].
• New Jersey Federal Pacific Electric Class Action Lawsuit Summary [provides little meaningful relief but supports claims about & against FPE.]
• A Canadian Federal Pacific recall in 1997 is documented here. There has been no "recall" in the U.S. though there is no doubt that the product is hazardous and should be replaced.
  Schneider Electric is the Canadian company which still makes a version of this equipment in Canada under the name Federal Pioneer (but see the Federal Pioneer Recall Notice for Canada.
• 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).
• 2005 FPE Class Action Litigation Notice - for homeowners in New Jersey
• 2004 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - St. Louis ASHI Seminar including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures
• 2004 FPE Update: Exxon Buys a Scandal Along With A Company Business Week Article 7/21/80 now available on line
• 
  
  2004 Federal Pioneer & Square-D Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter Safety Notice: newer products than the earlier FPE Stab-lok design
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 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.
• 
  1996-1997 Federal Pioneer NCO15 and NC015CP circuit breaker recalls from Schneider Electric in Canada are newer products than the earlier FPE Stab-lok design.
• 1997 Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall
• Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall British Columbia Fire Commissioner's Notice and Warning
• Federal Pioneer breaker recall notice from the Canadian Electrical Safety Authority
• 2000 FPE breakers fail in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
• 1986 Challenger acquired FPE from Reliance Electric ca 1986.
• 1983 CPSC Investigation of FPE Circuit Breakers Safety Information for Consumers
• 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.
• FAQ: Website Credibility

• * 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.
• Ampacity of an Electrical Service: How to determine the electrical service size or ampacity entering a building
• Circuit Breaker, a bad one fails to trip failure at aluminum bus-to-circuit breaker connection - field report and photographs
• Electrical System & Wiring Hazard Inspection, Detection, Cause, Remedy, Prevention - Main Electrical Page
• Electrical Panels, How to Inspect in Buildings, safety for electrical inspectors, electrical panel, fusing, wiring defects, defective products. Inspection Class Presentation
• Lightning Strike Risk Assessment, Protection Systems & Services
• Multi-wire branch circuit inspection and defects


• 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).

11/02/2009 - 01/12/1986 (print articles) © 2009 - 1988 Copyright Daniel Friedman All Rights Reserved - InspectAPedia^® is a Registered U.S. Trademark

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

Note: the following articles included as addenda are maintained as separate web pages listed above.

CALIBRATION AND CONDITION TESTS OF MOLDED CASE CIRCUIT BREAKERS - Federal Pacific Stab Lok Breakers - CPSC Data

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 30 A (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.

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:

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.

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 my FPE Electric panel? How can I 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 small Stab-lok Panel with the labeling visible, notice the words "Stab-Lok visible in the center between the two rows of breakers when the hinged cover door is open.
• Photo of a 125A Stab-Lok Electric panel (partial view)
• 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.)
• Photo of a typical FPE Stab-Lok 30A double pole breaker oblique view � typically these jam on overcurrent
• Interesting Camouflaged FPE Stab-Lok breaker (of unknown vintage) used alone in a 1950's house in FL, note the clearly-legible name on the paper label. - thanks to JB, the Inspectigagtor, FL
• Photo of a typical Stab-Lok hinged panel door label
• Photo of an old type ID label in a Stab-Lok circuit breaker panel
• 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.

• Photo of the interior of an FPE Stab-Lok panel - note the "E" shaped opening on the "Stab-Lok" buss.
• Close up photo of the interior of an FPE Stab-Lok panel - note the "E" shaped opening on the "Stab-Lok" buss.

Three Stab-Lok bus designs were used in these panels and can be identified by an electrician on disassembly of some panel components.

• Photo of a punched opening copper Stab-Lok bus bar
• Photo of a "Z" clip clamped to the bussbar with a 10-32 screw
• Photo of a "Stab socket" on a post attached with an 8-32 steel screw
• More identifying photos are at "2004 FPE Update: St. Louis ASHI Seminar including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures"

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 my knowledge of the history, pattern, and nature of FPE manufacturing and management difficulties, I 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 my 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 I called Schneider Electric and was able to speak with a Schneider engineer about this product. I asked if they had changed the design to fix any of the inherent problems with the product series over the U.S. version. I was 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 I'm 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.

• Exxon FPE Scandal, part 1
• Exxon FPE Scandal, part 2
• Exxon FPE Scandal, part 3
• Exxon FPE Scandal, part 4

Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panels - CPSC Information

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.

More expert information on this topic

More Information on Building Diagnostic Inspections and Repairs

• The Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Website Safety Information for Consumers.

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