Federal Pacific..........Again

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Is a Federal Pacific Load Center with no signs of overheating or any other issue a code violation based on the negative PR that follows this manufacturer? I'm often referred by real estate agents to evaluate these panels prior to a home sale.

 

[ramsy]

Is a Federal Pacific Load Center with no signs of overheating or any other issue a code violation based on the negative PR

FPE & Zinsco remain listed & legal, unless in violation of 110.12(B), which applies to all brands.
But we all know FPE & Zinsco breakers don't work.

 

[jaggedben]

No, it's not generally a code violation. 'Grandfathering' of any sort is entirely up to an AHJ. A small minority of AHJs around here will not approve a permit for work that involves adding any circuits to an FPE. But that's entirely their local policy. Most states or localities append statute regarding permits to the front of the code when they adopt it ('article 89', often) and you would probably have to look there or ask the local AHJ what their policy is.

For a home evaluation for a sale I think it is entirely a judgment call of the seller or buyer or insurance company to decide about.

 

[Hv&Lv]

FPE & Zinsco remain listed & legal, unless in violation of 110.12(B), which applies to all brands.
But we all know FPE & Zinsco breakers don't work.

It's sad to say this, but I still have some brand new old inventory disconnects with never used FPE stablock breakers still in the box, never been opened..

Someone can get a deal on these at the estate auction when I go...

 

[augie47]

Replacing Stab-Lok Panels | Society Insurance

Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Stab-Lok panels should be replaced, not inspected. Learn the risks associated and why you should replace them in your business.

societyinsurance.com

 

[ramsy]

societyinsurance.com/blog/why-you-should-replace-federal-pacific-stab-lok-panels

Not subscribed to the Washington Post, can't read (study of fire reports) link, but my browser's reader view captured the first paragraph.

Washington Post
Now, a man who played a key role in identifying issues with FPE breakers is back with a new claim that Stab-Lok breakers made by other brands may pose a fire hazard as well, and is strongly urging homeowners to replace all Stab-Lok-type panels and breakers.

A few years back big box stores temporarilly pulled the UBI line of Connecticut Electric UL 489 tested, ETL listed replacement circuit breakers, but I never read why. Can you elaborate what happened?

 

[ATSman]

This may be off topic but back in the (70's, 80's, I know I'm old!) the TELCO co in their central offices in CA received a letter from FPE to not open any molded case breakers above 400A that were drawing current (under load), due to a history of blow-up's !) Probably a liability requirement from their insurance underwriters.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Replacing Stab-Lok Panels | Society Insurance

Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Stab-Lok panels should be replaced, not inspected. Learn the risks associated and why you should replace them in your business.

societyinsurance.com

Just an insurance company's opinion?

 

[Fred B]

I believe the FPE issue is mostly an insurance requirement due to high risk.
Now don't know, but if UL pulled its listing of the FPE and any of the individual replacement breakers I think that would be a cause for code violation and forced replacement. But as it is there are suppliers of New FPE, PushMatic, and other defunct breaker types by secondary Mfg's.

 

[kwired]

Unless the local AHJ has addressed this the only thing to say to the HO, realtor or whoever is that it may be difficult to get insurance on the place as long as that panel is being used even if it still looks to be in like new condition.

I think the listing issues that kind of ended their run were only for certain items made after a certain date. Insurance providers however just see the FPE name as a dirty word and reject things just because the name. If you moved an FPE panel but used the cabinet as a pull/splice box they may automatically reject without further looking just because the name is on the cover even though the breakers that were a problem were removed.

 

[gadfly56]

Just an insurance company's opinion?

My insurance company's opinion, when we looking at our current home, was "Replace the panel or we won't cover you." People forget that insurance companies were a driving force in the early days of NFPA, and especially the electrical code.

 

[jaggedben]

I believe the FPE issue is mostly an insurance requirement due to high risk.
Now don't know, but if UL pulled its listing of the FPE and any of the individual replacement breakers I think that would be a cause for code violation and forced replacement. But as it is there are suppliers of New FPE, PushMatic, and other defunct breaker types by secondary Mfg's.

I'm not aware that UL 'pulled' any listings. What happened is UL updated the standard and the old technology would no longer get listed to the new standard. There's a ton of stuff sitting around out there that this could apply to, where it was compliant when it was installed but the code and standards have moved on. None of that stuff inherently triggers 'forced replacement'.

 

[Jraef]

My insurance company's opinion, when we looking at our current home, was "Replace the panel or we won't cover you." People forget that insurance companies were a driving force in the early days of NFPA, and especially the electrical code.

Not only that, but “UL” stands for Underwriters Laboratories”, as in INSURANCE underwriters.

Here in California, where insurance companies are pulling out right and left, it’s very common for them to refuse to write policies for homes with FPE or Zinsco, or add riders to the policy saying that they will not pay for damages from electrical fires. That drives the realtors to try to find some way around having to tell their clients that they have to pay for an expensive rip and replace.

I just had to sell my mother’s 1955 house a couple of years ago that originally had an FPE panel and that was somehow recorded in some database somewhere. I had changed out that panel decades ago, but the buyer’s insurance company needed proof that it was no longer FPE. I don’t know where they got that information, it was kind of surprising. My suspicion is that decades ago my Dad had done some sketchy wiring on an outdoor floodlight that caused fire damage to the porch and turned it in to the insurance company. They refused to pay for it because he didn’t pull a permit for the work. But I think in the investigation it was reported that they had an FPE panel and that ended up in a database somewhere that the new buyer’s insurance company accessed.

 

[kwired]

I'm not aware that UL 'pulled' any listings. What happened is UL updated the standard and the old technology would no longer get listed to the new standard. There's a ton of stuff sitting around out there that this could apply to, where it was compliant when it was installed but the code and standards have moved on. None of that stuff inherently triggers 'forced replacement'.

That would make sense if other older equipment is also what is being rejected, PFE had to do something to get the attention and reputation they get though. They were once legitimate then they weren't for some reason.

I thought I remember it being something like they made some sort of change and sold quite a few items with that change but those were never evaluated with said change and therefore the listing was pulled so to speak on affected items. Though there were so many of them out there in the wild it just sort of became a "don't trust this product line" as a general rule even if you did not have the components that were effected.

 

[jaggedben]

That would make sense if other older equipment is also what is being rejected, PFE had to do something to get the attention and reputation they get though. They were once legitimate then they weren't for some reason.

Here's what I've found that's documented:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission investigated FPE after the the parent company that bought it reported to them that the breakers didn't fully comply with UL requirements. However the commission closed its investigation without testing breakers (apparently at least partly for budgetary reasons) and they never issued a recall (which would have really put the stamp of disapproval on FPE breakers).

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-Ballot_Decisions-Reliance_Electric_CompanyFederal_Pacific_Electric_Company_Circuit_Breakers-12.8.1982.pdf?VersionId=4HjL4YzfdkSQ3jl3zh8gz5dVW6W8nMz0

A few sources cite a 1982 SEC filing in which Reliance admitted UL listings were obtained with deceptive practices, although right now I can't find the document itself. The link in this archived news article is dead, for example.

Federal Pacific Circuit Breakers: Investigation Finds Decades of Danger

If your home was built before 1990, it may have a faulty Federal Pacific circuit breaker and could be a fire risk. It’s a fact that been known for years, but there has never been a recall.

www.nbcbayarea.com

So that's certainly enough to say that "FPE did something to get the attention and reputation" they have. I don't think anyone disputes that.

But as for the contention that 'UL revoked FPE's listing' or 'FPE lost their UL listing' or however it's put, I've never seen a source cited for this particular 'fact'. You'd think maybe with the level of interest in this subject someone would have dug up an old UL press release if it existed and posted it online and everyone would link to it. Then again, for whatever reasons, maybe not. This particular part of it remains really murky to me.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I remember reading that the issue was with certain era dp 30 and 40's I think.... The older original fpe was fine but they are ancient by now and probably should be replaced.

I never told people that they had to replace their panel if they were the older models

 

[jim dungar]

As I recall, the issue was with a specific 2-pole breaker(s) that FPE had modified but not sent to UL for new testing. I believe when the breaker was finally submitted it did pass, but the abuse of the UL label had already occurred and the company's reputation was ruined.

The issue had nothing to do with other breakers, like 1-poles, or the panel bussing.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Here is an interesting read from the consumer safety

Commission Closes Investigation Of FPE Circuit Breakers And Provides Safety Information For Consumers

Commission Closes Investigation Of FPE Circuit Breakers And Provides Safety Information For Consumers

www.cpsc.gov

 

[tthh]

Here is the Washington Post article without the paywall...

https://wapo.st/44zxMlP

It does seem that as the insurance industry blows up everything these days that this will just be another reason to deny coverage.

 

[Jraef]

I'm not aware that UL 'pulled' any listings. What happened is UL updated the standard and the old technology would no longer get listed to the new standard. There's a ton of stuff sitting around out there that this could apply to, where it was compliant when it was installed but the code and standards have moved on. None of that stuff inherently triggers 'forced replacement'.

Nope. What happened was, Reliance Electric bought FPE and in the due diligence phase, came across a lot of data on suspected field failures resulting in fires and damage. To their credit, Reliance investigated the causes and found deficiencies in changes that had been made to the trip sensing system, but wondered how it had passed UL listing. What they discovered was that FPE had falsified their test records, basically copying the old data before the changes, and submitted them to UL as new tests. Reliance informed UL, who did indeed pull the UL listing of the Stab-lock breaker line. Reliance tried to make a go of what was left of FPE but ended up selling it off at a huge loss, contributing to the eventual demise of Reliance Electric.

But losing their UL listing basically only applied to them not being able to apply UL labels to new product, it doesn’t affect the status of existing, that’s true. So anything in the field with a UL bug on it is technically valid. But if the insurance companies choose to deny covering it, that’s a problem for users. Just not an NEC problem.