A Summary of Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Electrical Hazards FPEaPedia ©   Search This Website - inspect-ny.com

• Summary of Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Electric Panel & Circuit Breaker Hazards
• This website answers almost all questions about Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok electrical panels

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 this web page is cited and provided that the content is not edited or changed. (Contact us to suggest edits, changes, corrections, updates). © Copyright 2007 Daniel Friedman, All Rights Reserved. Information Accuracy & Bias Pledge is at below-left. Use the links at page left to navigate this document or to go to Other Website Topics. Green links at left show where you are in our document & website.

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

FPE Stab-Lok(R) Circuit Breakers Fail to Trip

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. 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.

FPE Stab-Lok(R) 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.

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(R) 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?

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?

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(R) 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.

Use links at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links at page left show where you are in our document or website.

Technical Reviewers

Particular thanks are due to experts and also consumers who read these articles and suggest corrections, changes, and additions to the material. Content suggestions, technical corrections and content critique are invited for any of the content at our website.

• Note: as we didn't add this reviewers list until 2007, this list of technical reviewers is incomplete; we have received comments and suggestions regarding this topic, edits and remarks included, from engineers and management from the US CPSC, electricians (many listed at our page on field reports of FPE failures), home inspectors, licensed electricians, and electrical engineers, and even a few attorneys and real estate agents, since 1986. Technical review, critique, content suggestions, questions, or clarifications are invited and where a contributor wishes, credit and links will be provided to that source. Contact us to provide feedback.
• Dr. Jess Aronstein, electrical engineer, Poughkeepsie, NY, forensic engineering services, independent laboratory testing for various agencies
• 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.
• Daniel Friedman - principal reporter.
• Technical reviewers are invited to comment or ask questions - contact us

More Information about FPE Federal Pacific Stab Lok Panels and Circuit Breakers - The Reference List of Public Documents

• 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
• 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
• 2007 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
• 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. I believe his efforts were behind the silly article that appeared in the IAEI magazine on this issue.
• 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
• 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).
• 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
• 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.
• FPE Class Action Lawsuit Results: 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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).

Building & Building Inspection, Environmental Inspection/Testing, Construction Diagnosis & Repair - Research Website

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

	inspect-ny.com Web