(1983)Commission Closes Investigation Of FPE Circuit Breakers And Provides Safety Information For Consumers
Read it all and you will know for yourself the outcome without depending on others to tell you.
Make up your own mind as to how you will inform your clients about the FPE panel in there home.
Can you honesty say with documentation it is a hazard?
This should be a sticky in the electrical forum.
Thanks Roy!
Also from release…
March 03, 1983
Release Number: 83008
[Originally](http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml83/83008org.html) issued March 3, 1983; **Revised February 18, 2011**
Good one for those who do not go to web sites here is part of the FP INFOP
](“Newsroom News Releases | CPSC.gov”)
[ [<a class="addthis_counter addthis_bubble_style" style="display: inline-block;" href="http://www.cpsc.gov/en/newsroom/news-releases/1983/commission-closes-investigation-of-fpe-circuit-breakers-and-provides-safety-information-for-consumers/#">[(http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml83/83008org.html) issued March 3, 1983; Revised February 18, 2011
Note: CPSC staff advises electricians, homeowners, home inspectors and real estate agents to read and interpret the following press release carefully. The press release announces that the Commission closed the matter without making a determination as to the safety of FPE circuit breakers or the accuracy of the manufacturer’s position on the matter. The Commission advises consumers to take the safety precautions noted in this notice with all circuit breakers and fuses.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced today that it is closing its two year investigation into Federal Pacific Electric Stab-lok type residential circuit breakers. This action was taken because the data currently available to the Commission does not establish that the circuit breakers pose a serious risk of injury to consumers.
The Commission investigation into Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) circuit breakers began in June 1980, when Reliance Electric Co., a subsidiary of Exxon Corporation and the parent to FPE, reported to the Commission that many FPE circuit breakers did not fully comply with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) requirements. Commission testing confirmed that these breakers fail certain UL calibration test requirements. The Commission investigation focused primarily on 2 pole residential circuit breakers manufactured before Reliance acquired FPE in 1979.
To meet UL standards residential circuit breakers must pass a number of so-called “calibration tests.” The purpose of these tests is to determine whether the circuit breakers will hold the current for which they are rated and also automatically open or “trip” (shut off the current) within specified time limits if overloading of the circuit causes current levels in excess of the breaker’s amperage rating. (Overloading can occur because a consumer plugs too many products into a circuit or due to the failure of a product or component connected to that circuit). While the Commission is concerned about the failure of these FPE breakers to meet UL calibration requirements, the Commission is unable at this time to link these failures to the development of a hazardous situation.
According to Reliance, failures of these FPE breakers to comply with certain UL calibration requirements do not create a hazard in the household environment. It is Reliance’s position that FPE breakers will trip reliably at most overload levels unless the breakers have been operated in a repetitive, abusive manner that should not occur during residential use. Reliance maintains that at those few overload levels where FPE breakers may fail to trip under realistic use conditions, currents will be too low to generate hazardous temperatures in household wiring. Reliance believes its position in this regard is supported by test data that it provided to the Commission.](“http://www.cpsc.gov/en/newsroom/news-releases/1983/commission-closes-investigation-of-fpe-circuit-breakers-and-provides-safety-information-for-consumers/#")](“http://www.cpsc.gov/en/newsroom/news-releases/1983/commission-closes-investigation-of-fpe-circuit-breakers-and-provides-safety-information-for-consumers/#”)]("http://www.cpsc.gov/en/newsroom/news-releases/1983/commission-closes-investigation-of-fpe-circuit-breakers-and-provides-safety-information-for-consumers/#”)
I’m sure this will not draw the FPE discussion to a close with some, but at the minimum they will be informed.
Dave your link is not working
He was just pointing to the same link I posted. And acknowledging it was revised in 2011
If you remove the “org” out of his link it will go to the same place.
Ahh. Thanks Roy, Hope your having a good weekend.
Yes, same link.
Do you suppose this will change how insurance companies view FPE panels?
With all of the available information and “billions” of sites claiming these panels are “latent fire hazards,” the Commission says this;
Apparently, the CPSC does not have Internet access…
Wait, in 1983 they were on dialup and had used the 100 free hours of AOL access.
Maybe they choose to stick to the facts as evidenced by their own research and not just drivel repeated from the web. Might not have asked those 12 out of 50 that answered that survey either.
Jeff, I hope you don’t think this is going to change the opinions of the experts do you?
Doing great!
Thanks
Or Bob’s number. :mrgreen:
I certainly won’t be holding my breath…
But wait! There’s more:
I learned in middle school back in 1967 to read ALL of something before making a decision, a skill that has served me well these ensuing decades.
By the way, I’m still waiting on sources telling me that the FPE Stab-Lok panels are okay. I haven’t found any yet. If anyone knows of any, I’d love to read them. I’m specifically looking for something OTHER THAN comments by lone wolves such as Jeff and Paul. I have a huge list of sites and documents about the failure rate of these panels, but nothing about how “testing was done on 100 panels and not a single breaker failed…”
Words mean things.
Good grief Russell.
I can find hundreds of sites claiming 9/11 was a inside job and that we never really went to the moon.
You can’t be serious using that as your standard.
What sad statement . because no one wants to take responsibility they sweep it under the carpet . The statement does not state it is safe or not safe . So this leaves the home inspector to do a job , Just check the panel give your Opinion on the conditions and the information that there is no official data on the safety of the FPE breakers and other manufactures do have issues also. How ever there is no evidence of maintenance or records present . It is recommend by the NFPA to have the panel serviced I believe every 3 yrs . Have any of you seen a any panel maintained ? We could argue back and forth for months . Do what you want spread the peacock feathers if you wish and do the the dance . Kiss method . Call for maintenance , give the facts or non facts . move on
So if I make 50,000 copies of my statements and post them on dozens of web sites, they become more factual? After all, your “huge list” is just that - copies of the same thing over and over again. Nothing new.
What a concept - do the job you’re being paid to do instead of just supplying a bogus link and telling them the panel needs to be replaced.