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.... [Linked Image]