However…since I am bringing up weird stuff tonight…how about the class action lawsuit in New Jersey…
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/FPEnotice12-05.htm
Ironically…some of the links do not actually go where they say they do…and I might just contact the court as I would LOVE to read the records since no party admited any guilt…and it only effected New Jersey residents…
Interesting stuff…
Now some ammo from the class action side of the fence…lol
1.0 SUMMARYCalibration tests have been performed on 122 two-pole Federal Pacific Electric circuit breakers. The calibration tests were performed -in accordancewith 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:
**FAILURE CONDITION
**
**FAILURES
**
**% (#failed/#tested)
**
Before Mechanical Operations
After Mechanical Operations
No-trip: 200% of rating, both poles
0% (0/122)
1% (1/107)
No-trip: 200% of rating, individual poles
1% (3/244)
10% (21/214)
No-trip: 135% of rating, both poles*
25% (31/122)
36% (39/107)
No-trip: 135% of rating, individual poles
51% (125/244)
65% (144/220)
Trip: 100% of rating, both poles*
3% (4/122)
6% (7/111)
Dielectric Breakdown (short)*
0
1% (1/111)
**TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF FAILURES
**
*UL 489 Test Conditions
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.
NOTE: this text is quoted verbatim from pages 3-5 of “Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982,” obtained from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission as a FOIA request.
Now some proof from the OTHER side of the fence…
1.0 SUMMARYCalibration tests have been performed on 122 two-pole Federal Pacific Electric circuit breakers.
The calibration tests were performed -in accordancewith 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:
**FAILURE CONDITION
**
**FAILURES
**
**% (#failed/#tested)
**Before Mechanical Operations After Mechanical Operations
No-trip: 200% of rating, both poles
0% (0/122) 1% (1/107)
No-trip: 200% of rating, individual poles
1% (3/244) 10% (21/214)
No-trip: 135% of rating, both poles*
25% (31/122) 36% (39/107)
No-trip: 135% of rating, individual poles
51% (125/244) 65% (144/220)
Trip: 100% of rating, both poles*
3% (4/122) 6% (7/111)
Dielectric Breakdown (short)*
0 1% (1/111)
**TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF FAILURES
**
*UL 489 Test Conditions
</B>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.
NOTE: this text is quoted verbatim from pages 3-5 of “Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982,” obtained from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission as a FOIA request.
Ok…with all that said and I am rather tired and I have NO freakin idea why I posted this to begin with…much less why I am rambling on execpt that it is 1:29AM and I had a few beers…imagine talking electricity with me after a few beers…amazing…lol…
anyway with all that said…I like HI’s to defer them to Electricians…I dont actually believe the scare methods being used today…simply a nice it should be evaluated will do…and I always would suggest the branch circuit breakers be upgraded…remember the action was against the breakers…not the concept of the stablok…
Yeah they can fall out…sure…but not if you leave the cover on them…lol…so the largest concern was the possibly failure rate…however the manufacturer states it would trip in all excessive cases and it may in fact be supported by the UL tests at 200%…which probably would not melt down the conductor anyway…but besides all the riggamarow…
I think in FPE’s my own personal opinion is let them now about the option to upgrade the breakers ( or the electrician can tell them that if you dont need comfortable giving advice ) and have it evaluated…we will check for heating, other issues and in the end you have defered your liability to the electrical contractor…
LOL - Now I see why Paul has almost 3000 posts! :mrgreen:
Paul and Roy, the FPE in Canada today is NOT the same as we had here in the 60’s-80’s. For some reason the FPE Canada has been very well accepted and does not have the problems the old US FPE breakers and panels did/do, even thought the design is almost identical.
Roy, do your FPE breakers have the “falling out” problem?
Meaning do one or two always manage to fall out of the panel when the cover is removed?
Paul;
In inspect them like any other panel (with the exception that I duck when I take off the dead front :mrgreen: ) and report on them like any other panel.
I also add, in the report, that there has been some question about their failure rate and breaker failure rate. Then I recommend evaluation by a licnesed and insured electrical contractor, just like they article states.
Let the sparkys take the liability for saying that is OK.
I left an FPE panel on a rent house that I bought to see how it would perform. Visually, it inspected okay. I even had a good friend of mine who is a licensed electrician look it over. No problem with it, he said.
Less than a year later I replaced the panel after my tenant complained. The panel was arcing.
So now I always call them out for further eval by an electrician but I give them my personal recommendation to have the panel replaced.
I would not live in a home with an FPE panel without replacing it first.
No Have not found any that fall out
. and this is what I have in my home if I had any concerns at all I would change it immediatly.
lol…actually Speedy I am better today…not sure what was into me last night…guess it was the BEER…
Hey fella…my 2,000+ posts are good their buddy…lol
I like Mr. Deckers Approach…it gets the Country Hick “Paul” Electrical Award for Excellence…
JOhn, I hear ya brother…and remember you have every right to do so and with all the info out their…safety is a large concern…
If you strictly go by the boards end recommendation…then again Mr. Deckers approach is the one I would 'Endorse"…but they should be carefully inspected…spend a little more time on them, thermal them just a little better…well thermal all brands a little better as I said I have nearly 2 dozen issues with CH, SQ D and all brands actually…
IN my opinion the test results tell me something was wrong BUT remember they were under a microscope…how good would the other brands fair under the same microscope…obviously better as they are UL…
SO…I still like my idea of atleast informing the client of a replacement option for the breakers alone…the panel enclosure maybe fine…it’s the breakers that have issues possibly…and the branch circuit OCPD’s can be upgraded for a far less cost…adding atleast SOME level of security in a unsecure world…
The CPSC investigated this. If you read their report, it’s a bit different than this “other” article implies. Their research showed a higher-than-normal failure rate with Stab-lok breakers.
Other issues with these load centers include a poorly designed bus bar and breaker contacts.
The article you posted. . .
. . .is, by no means, an impartial view as to the real, and continuing issues associated with FPE Stab-lok load centers.
I have not had enough experience with FP to have an opinion. I think the state had a deal with SqD because that is about all I ever saw installed anywhere I inspected. Some of the volunteer/ranger jobs in the park system used GE and Siemens, simply because that was available at the BORG.
Here’s one from 2003 that I had never seen before. It’s by Douglas Hansen for those of you who know him or have taken one of his courses.
http://www.home-inspect.com/articles/FPE%20Article%20-%20Nov2003.pdf
Yeah but Douglas Hansen has FPE on the BRAIN…he would go searching for FPE issues even if none were present…lol…
So he’s kind of like Jeff Pope and Zinsco? 
Hey, Jeff!
I don’t go looking for them, they just seem to find me. . .
Yes…I have a page on my slide dedicated to Jeff…it says donated by Jeff “Mr. ZINSCO” Pope
Hey, Jeff.
It only cost me $80 to change my name two years ago. I think we here at NACHI could provide enough support to the Judge when he asks why you want to change your name. :margarit:
and no it does not MEAN jeff is DEFECTIVE…thehehehehe
Now, why on earth would I want to lose a label like that?