ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area Federal Pacific circuit breakers

Seems that the legal deal with FPE's Stab-Lok breakers was on 2 Pole units failing to open automatically, during an Overcurrent or Overload situation.
For some reason, the 2 pole 50's come to mind as being the key players. Maybe from their use as Main breakers / disconnects for Residential panels, or used on Residential Kitchen Appliances, or Residential Heat Pumps.

I am not saying the FPE Stab Lok product line is only "Tarnished" by those certain frames, only that the loss of UL and the law stuff was directed at certain frames.

I have seen FPE Stab Lok 20/1 pole breakers trip from Overloads quite often [maybe too often - as they trip long before 20 amps has been exceeded!]. The same device would not trip during a Fault situation which fell into it's plotted range [well below 500 amps!].
This is true to many of the FPE Stab Lok frames I have seen subjected to low level Faults - either first hand or "To Fix Things When S**T Happened".

For Zinsco F / FM Frames, they sometimes trip from Overloads [gradual increased overloads - same as the FPE's] - most 20/1's will hold 25+ amps for more than 10 minutes, some for ever!

Faults of any intensity rarely trip these devices.

I have personally welded the contacts of two[2] different 20/1 units - at different locations - while throwing the handle into the "ON" position.

Each time, there was an error made in circuitry which was the problem.
One was a mistakenly terminated branch circuit [Line and Grounded Conductor terminated together], the other was a pinched ungrounded conductor, caught between a Receptacle's 6/32 screw and the box.
Fortunately, I only did the pinched wire, not the bad termination.

Along with the above items, the higher costs of these devices makes them "Bad" in my mind.

Scott SET

To All;
A few years ago a customer wanted me to upgrade a two-family dwelling but wanted to keep a Siemens panel that had been installed within the last 6-months, and wanted to know if that were possible, I said ok but let me check with the inspector, afterall if he doesnt like its coming out.
Called the inspector and explained what I had and his first question was , "It aint FPE is it "? I assured him it wasnt and he said it was ok.
To Scott
Enjoyed your post especially the references to FPE and Zinsco, someitmes trip on an overload. I have had problems with both not tripping infact one time even the 120 and 15 amp breakers. I always try to talk people into upgrading away from those two, anything but FPE or Zinsco, that stuff is almost as bad as Klockner-Moeller.
-Mark-

There are plenty of single pole FPE breakers that cannot be made to trip, even if you ground out the wire to the neutral bus of the panel (don't ask).

Add to this the following experiance, about half the time, many of the breakers fall out when you remove the box cover. Many other times, the breakers are held in place by the stab-loc welding itself to the busbar from so much arcing. This is a high resistance connection & the breakers run hot.

The only good FPE breaker is one that is headed to the landfill.

They're still made, now by the same company that owns Square D. Schneider. Schneider/Canada has the patent for "Federal Pioneer". It looks like they're having some recalls in Ontario, as well.
They're also common in Mexico, from what I understand.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 03-04-2002).]

electure , i saw somewhere about the FPE breakers but it wasn't scneider. maybe it has chhanged hands again. LOL! a lot of heat from such a sorry breaker. i cut into a 20 amp circuit in a fpe sub panel supplied by a square d 100amp breaker. as you can proably guess the 100 amp tripped first.that was spooky. thought i was going to have to change my shorts! LOL!

I have an FPE panel in my house, which I bought last year. I plan on changing it soon. Although I haven't had any problems with it, besides it being too small(dimensions) and making me nervous thinking about all this stuff. I have had 2 1-pole 15's trip so far, 1 for a short, and 1 for an overload.

The link shown in the "FPE Policy" topic provides some good technical information pertaining to actual testing of FPE units.
I have decided to print this out and hand a copy to any customer who has a FPE panel.
Then they can make an informed decision without feeling that they are being misled into an changeover they don't need.

Josh:

Look here for more specific information related to the equipment you described:

http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpefire.htm

As for my post, try: www.schneider-electric.ca/www/txt/html/frontpage.htm


[This message has been edited by electure (edited 03-05-2002).]

and the saga continues....


Addendum: 7/99 Reply to IAEI International Association of Electrical Inspectors News Magazine re: FPE Public Relations PR Article asserts Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok panels are OK

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://www.inspect-ny.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 that was the case. Field reports confirm that 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

oh the shame, the shame....