Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

1/7

Federal Pacific Panels Page 1 of 7

FPE Panels Hazard or Hype?

by Douglas Hansen

This article focuses on the controversy over

inspecting and reporting Federal Pacificpanels. It has been published in the maga-zine for the California Real Estate Inspec-tion Association and in other technical jour-nals.

FPE Panels Hazard or Hype?

Federal Electric later known as FederalPacific Electric (FPE) was a popularmanufacturer of panels and breakers fromthe mid-1950s until the early 1980s. Basedin New Jersey, their products were verypopular throughout the counry, and some

communities have FPE panels in almostevery home. For years, stories have circu-lated about the hazards and defects uniqueto this equipment, and the darker rumorsinclude tales of product recalls, fraudulentmanufacturing, and house fires resultingfrom failed breakers. Inspectors and electri-cians share tales of breakers falling out ofpanels when the deadfront is removed, orbreakers failing to shut off when the handleis operated. Home inspectors need the factsso they can present their clients with accu-

rate information on which to base a decisionon accepting or replacing FPE panels.

Problems with FPE panels can be brokendown into 3 basic categories: First, there isthe simple fact that the equipment is old,and manufactured to less stringent codesand standards than modern equipment.Electrical equipment is not something thatimproves with age or use. Second, thereare problems unique to the design of theFPE Stablok breakers, problems that are

not found in other equipment this age.Third, there are issues of manufacturingdefects and circuit breaker failures. This lastissue causes the greatest concern; whatgood is a circuit breaker that wont trip whenoverloaded or shorted? What good is abreaker that doesnt de-energize the circuitwhen the handle is tripped?

Older isnt Better

Several of the problems found with FPEpanels are found in other brands of equip-ment of the same age. There is less gutterspace in the panel than we find in modernequipment. The result is crowding of thewires in the panels. It is sometimes impos-sible to see all of the terminals in an FPEpanel. The space for bending wires is alsoless than required in modern panels. Therules that proscribe minimum wire bendingspace are found in the National ElectricalCode (NEC) in section 312.6 in the 2002edition. Over the years, the required mini-mum space has increased, with the mostsignificant changes in the 1981 NEC, nearthe very end of the days when FPE panelswere made. FPE manufactured some pan-els with less clearance than the minimumcode rules by installing the lugs at an angle,so the conductor was already parallel to thewall opposite the breaker terminal (figure 1).However, the bends shown in figure 1 de-feat the purpose of the angled lugs, and thewire is bent too sharply.

Figure 1 Insufficient wire bending space

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

2/7


The bus bars on several of the FPE modelswere set on springs, with a depth adjust-ment that enabled the position of the break-ers to be moved forward or backward. For arecessed panel, this feature allowed thebreakers to be brought out flush to the

deadfront cover even if the panel set too farback into the wall. The code today does notallow this, and states that bus bars must berigidly mounted (section 408.31). Rigidmounting prevents the entire bus from mov-ing when a single breaker handle is oper-ated. Another problem with spring-mountedbus bars is that the breakers sometimespush against the deadfront cover, creating adanger to the inspector when they removeand put back the deadfront cover.

Since the 1984 edition of the NEC, breakersthat operate with their handles in a verticalposition must be on when in the up position,and off in the down position. Prior to thattime, several manufacturers made equip-ment such as that seen in figure 2, with arow of breakers that was on when down andoff when up. The word on when upsidedown is no. Inspectors encountering suchequipment might want to warn their clientsthat these FPE breakers are on when facingthe outer edge of the panel, and off whenfacing the center of the panel. It can be verydifficult to remove these covers without ac-cidentally tripping a breaker.

Figure 2 Breakers that are on when down

Prior to 1984, many manufacturers offeredsplit bus panels for residential use, suchas the panel in figure 3. These panels haveno main breaker. They do meet the rule re-quiring no more than 6 disconnects, andone of these disconnects feeds a separate

bus that typically contains the 15 and 20amp 120 volt circuits. The advantages of asplit bus panel were purely economic. If thelargest breaker was the one feeding thesecondary bus, and it was rated at 50 amps,it cost less than a single main 100 ampbreaker. In addition to the six disconnectsrule for service equipment, another rule alsoapplies to panels that are categorized aslighting and appliance panels. These arepanels where more than 10% of the break-ers are rated 30 amps or less and serve cir-

cuits with neutrals. These lighting and appli-ance panels must be capable of having theirpower disconnected by not more than 2hand movements. Until 1984, the code ex-empted these panels from the two-disconnects rule when they served as resi-dential service equipment. Today, the codeallows them to remain when they are exist-ing service equipment, though it would notallow a new installation of such a panel.

Figure 3 Split Bus Panel

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

3/7


The panel in Figure 3 has 5 breakers at thetop. The 3 on the left control a water heater,clothes dryer, and electric space heater.The top right breaker controls therange/oven circuit, and the one just below itcontrols the lower bus section, with all the

lighting and appliance circuits. The wiresfrom this breaker to the lower bus sectionare the sign that this is a split bus panel.

There are at least 5 design issues that areno longer allowed by code; the gutter space,the wire bending space, spring-mountedbus, breakers that are on when down, andthe split bus service equipment. These is-sues mean that a panel that has been sittingon the hardware store shelf for 20 yearswould not meet todays code, despite theUL listing of the panel at the time it wasmanufactured. Another even greater con-cern is that older breakers of any brand do not become more reliable with age. Theinternal mechanical components can be-come corroded or distorted, and the springs,hinges, and levers inside the breaker mightnot operate as designed after sufficient pas-sage of time. Most breaker manufacturersguarantee their products for only a year,and for valuation purposes breakers areconsidered fully depreciated after 15 years.

Figure 4 Overcrowded FPE panel withwires obscuring terminals, neutral bar, andbonding jumper. If the wires press againstthe deadfront, it may pop out and trip the

breaker handles as soon as the panelscrews are removed.

The Unique FPE Design

Inspectors might find that their first problemwith FPE is the difficulty in removing thedeadfront cover without tripping the break-ers. Several models of FPE panels have

breakers that are on when the handle is po-sitioned toward the outside of the panels.The handles stick out slightly over the dead-front, past the twist-out opening for thebreaker. To remove the cover, it is neces-sary to first lift it slightly away from thepanel, then slide it under the handles of onerow while lifting the cover off the other row.If an inspector pulls the cover straight off, itis likely that some of the breakers will acci-dentally trip. The panels in figures 2, 3, and4 have this problem.

Figure 5 Scorched Bus Bar

Most plug-in circuit breakers have a set ofjaws that fit over a bus bar, bringing themetal of the jaw into a parallel position tothe bus bar. The FPE Stablok design is theopposite; the breakers have a set of prongsthat are inserted into a slot in the bus bars(figures 5 8). The result is a connectionbetween two pieces of metal that are at rightangles to each other, only touching at their

edges. One of the common FPE problemsis to find the breakers loose in the bus bars.Good electrical connections require contactpressure. If the FPE stab only touches oneedge of the opening in the bus, the lack ofcontact pressure and the small contact areawill combine to produce arcing and over-heating. If you remove the breakers fromthe panel, it is not uncommon to find scorchmarks on FPE bus bars, as in figure 5.

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

4/7


E-type Wafer BreakerE-type Wafer Breaker

F-type Full Size BreakerF-type Full Size Breaker

Double E-type BreakerDouble E-type Breaker

Figure 6 E and F Breakers

Most panels accept two different sizes ofbreakers full size and half size, or waferbreakers. By using the half-size breakers,the number of circuits in the panel can bedoubled. Because more circuit breakers and

more connected load will increase the heaton the bus bars, manufacturers must installsome physical means of limiting the numberof breakers that can be installed in thepanel. Panels with an inherent limitation onthe number of breakers are referred to byUL as Class CTL panels, and the breakersthat go into them will also be categorized asClass CTL. Most panels can be completelyfilled with wafer breakers without exceedingthe limits set by the UL standard, which as-sumes 10 amps of load per breaker pole per

leg. By this formula, a 100 amp panel usu-ally has a total of 20 bus stabs. An exampleof something that is a half size breaker, andnot class CTL, would be certain models ofSquare D piggyback breakers.

FPE found a unique way of designing theirwafer breakers and creating a limitation onthe number of them that could fit in a CTLpanel. Full size breakers have a stab that isperpendicular to the direction the breakerhandle operates, and wafer breakers have astab parallel to the direction of the breakerhandle. The full size breakers stabs are re-ferred to as F type, and the wafer breakersas E stabs (figures 6&7). FPE has two dif-ferent styles of bus opening. An E typeopening will allow either two E type break-ers or one F type. An F type opening willonly allow one breaker, of either type. Thenumber of breakers that can fit in the panelcan therefore be limited by installing Ftype openings, instead of E openings.

Figure 7 E & F bus slots

The problem with this arrangement is thatthe E breaker stabs can be bent over andjammed into an F socket, and the result isanother poor connection, as well as an

overcrowded panel. Figure 7 illustrates thiscondition.

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

5/7


Figure 8 Damaged E type breaker

Not only do E breakers make poor con-nection to F sockets, forcing them into thesocket can damage them. The breaker maysplit when shoved into the slot, with the busstab receding inside the breaker (figure 7).Since it is now making a very loose contactto the bus, the breaker might fall right outwhen the deadfront cover is removed (figure9). Inspectors can be forewarned of thiscondition before taking off the cover. Simplylook at the label for the panel to see wherethe E slots are located and whether anyE breakers have been inserted into Fslots. When finding that situation, there is noneed to remove the cover to know that thebreaker is in the wrong position.

Figure 9 Loose breaker

If a home inspector points out the hazardsof FPE breakers, there is a possibility theywill be contradicted by an electrician whosays he didnt see any problem in the panel.However, if they havent taken the breakersout of the panel, they havent really in-

spected it. While it is beyond the scope of ahome inspection for an inspector to removethe breakers, an electrician could not makethe same claim. They cannot possibly knowif the bus is scorched or the breakers over-heated unless they pull the breakers outand look. Breakers burn out from the backtoward the front, not the other way around.

Product Defects

The Federal Pacific Electric company washeadquartered in New Jersey, and was ac-

quired by Reliance Electric Company in1979. A 1982 financial statement from Reli-ance indicated that they had learned thatprevious UL listings on FPE products hadbeen obtained by deceptive means andthat as a result, most of the circuit protec-tive products manufactured by Federal Pa-cific, at some point thereafter, lost their ULlisting. Reliance claimed that the deceptivepractices ceased after their acquisition, andasked the Consumer Product Safety Com-mission (CPSC) to investigate. The CPSC

performed their own tests on FPE breakers,and Reliance also hired their own inde-pendent testing company. Additionally, Re-liance initially stated that their own in-housetesting alerted them to potential problemswith 2-pole circuit breakers. Shortly afterthese actions, the manufacture of FPEStablok breakers under that name ceased,and for a time the breakers were manufac-tured under the Challenger name. Mean-while, lawsuits were initiated between thepurchasers and sellers of the prior company

in its various business manifestations.A company acquires a UL listing for itsproduct, along with the right to use the ULinsignia, by two basic steps. First, themanufacturer submits the product to UL fortesting to a known standard of safety (forcircuit breakers, the standard is UL 489). ULthen tests the product against the foresee-able hazards outlined in the standard ofsafety.

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

6/7


The second step is for the manufacturer toallow unannounced field inspections fromUL representatives to assure that the prod-uct is still being manufactured to the samespecifications as those submitted for testing.Rather than repeating rumors about what

may have occurred that constituted obtain-ing the listing by deceptive means, the testresults themselves are the next item to ex-amine.

The CPSC documents show the resultsfrom testing 122 2-pole breakers in 1982.The breakers were obtained directly fromFPE as well as some that were purchasedretail or taken from existing installations.The failure rate was higher after mechanicaloperations of the breakers, which seemscontradictory to the recommendation thatmany inspectors make that breakers shouldbe routinely operated to prevent them fromfreezing in place. Under UL 489 test con-ditions, the rate of failure to trip greatly ex-ceeded the tolerances allowed by the stan-dard. The full document showing the CPSCresults is posted at the web site maintainedby Dan Friedman (see below). At the sametime the CPSC tests were performed, Reli-ance conducted their own testing, and dis-agreed with the results from the CPSC.They claimed a lower failure rate than theCPSC test results.

Considering that there was such a high fail-ure rate in the CPSC tests, why were theynot recalled? The answer, as with mostsuch considerations, is tied up with the eco-nomics of the situation. The CPSC statedthat they had insufficient data to accept orrefute the claims from Reliance, and that itwould cost several million dollars to conductthe necessary studies to determine if a re-call was warranted. Their budget for 1983

was only 34 million, and they simply did nothave the funds to pursue the issue. FPEwas one of the most popular products of itstime, and it is not the only old product thatwould merit such attention if we lived in aperfect world.

FPE also is not without its defenders. A 2-page letter in the May/June 1999 issue ofIAIE News, the magazine of the Interna-tional Association of Electrical Inspectors,defended FPE breakers. The article claimedthat all listings of FPE equipment were valid,

and that home inspectors calling the equip-ment hazardous were making unsupportedrecommendations.

One of the major sources of information onFPE failures, with documentation in the formof stories from the field and photographs offires associated with FPE, is the web sitemaintained by Dan Friedman, atwww.inspect-ny/fpe/fpepanel.htm. When welook at documentation on this subject, it isimportant to consider the source. Mr.Friedman has no economic interest in theFPE controversy, though he does have along history of consumer advocacy. The let-ter defending FPE was published anony-mously, with the author only being identifiedas the former quality manager of FPE.

Replacement Breakers

If the breakers themselves are the problem,should homeowners consider replacing thebreakers and keeping the panel? At varioustimes over the last 2 decades, different

manufacturers have made after-marketproducts designed to fit FPE panels. Insome cases, these breakers have beenmade in Canada, Mexico, or China. Sal-vaged old FPE breakers are also availablefrom specialty dealers. The breakers soldunder the American brand (figure 10) areno longer UL listed, though they are listedby ETL, another nationally recognized test-ing laboratory. In all cases, replacementbreakers are very expensive, with a single-pole 15 amp breaker costing as much as

$50. If one wanted to replace all the break-ers in a panel, they could spend a greatdeal more than it would cost to replace thepanel with modern listed equipment.

7/27/2019 Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003

7/7


Figure 10 Replacement Stablok breaker

Another consideration is the desire to installGFCI or AFCI breakers. GFCI breakers cansometimes be found in the specialty supplyhouses, and they are very expensive. SinceGFCI protection can also be provided byreceptacle outlets and other feed-throughdevices, the lack of available GFCI breakersis not a major issue. As of this writing, nolisted AFCI breakers are available for FPEpanels.

In Canada, a similar product, under thename Federal Pioneer is still available.They are a subsidiary of the parent com-

pany of Square D. Their web site did notinclude information on whether there is athird-party listing for the breakers, and theyare limited to the Canadian market. Theirsite is

http://www.schneider-electric.ca/www/txt/products/stab-lok/html/cb.htm.

The Canadian company does make anAFCI breaker, though without an Americanthird-party listing it would not be practical to

install them in an old FPE panel. FederalPioneer did issue a recall of circuit breakersmanufactured between August 1, 1996 andJune 11, 1997. In the words of the manufac-turer In some circumstances these break-ers may not trip.

The Home Inspectors Dilemna

Given this set of facts, what can inspectorssay to their clients? In general, product de-fects and recalls are beyond the scope of ahome inspection. Even if the CPSC were to

request a recall of the product, such infor-mation would exceed the minimum standardof care for a home inspector. However,home inspectors who say nothing about itcould find themselves with angry clientswho wish that something had been said. If apurchaser calls an electrical contractor, andthe contractor refuses to work on the sys-tem because it has an FPE panel, the cli-ents could well blame the home inspector. Ipersonally was not a believer until I wit-nessed a multiple failure of FPE breakers in

a dead short. The branch circuit breaker,the feeder to the subpanel, and the mainbreaker all failed to open while a dead shortcarrying thousands of amps ran through thebreakers. Those of us conducting the ex-periment heard a violent shaking that nearlytore the panel out of the wall, and the ser-vice wires whipped in the air from the mag-netic fields created by the high currents go-ing through the breakers. That experiencewas convincing. I continue to hear storiesfrom the field, and Dan Friedman is always

adding new ones to the web site.I suggest that inspectors at least tell theirclients that there is widespread informationon defects with this product, and refer themto the CPSC data and other information onDan Friedmans web site.

Thanks to Jay Balin for his editorial assis-tance, and to Mark Cramer for his usualkeen perspective and for figure 5. Thanks toJohn McComas and Alan Block for bringingthis safety issue to our attention. Portions of

this article are taken from Electrical Inspec-tion of Existing Dwellings, by Douglas Han-sen, Redwood Kardon, and Michael Casey.

Documents

Fp e Article 20 Nov 2003