|
Posted by Bud-- on November 8, 2006, 12:36 pm
dpb wrote:
> kellyj00@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>I have a 200-amp capable "Federal pacific" breaker box in my 44 year
>>old home. I've been told by a home inspector that the box is
>>unreliable and the breakers "can occasionally no-trip and could
>>potentially cause a fire" This, obviously, scares me.
>
> ...
>
>
>>Should I consider replacing the service panel and breakers to a current
>>model like a Square D as part of this remodel? After all, it doesn't
>>make much sense remodel a house that's going to just burn to the ground
>>anyway.
>
>
> You pretty much answered your own question, didn't you?
>
> http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
>
> This guy is promoting himself, of course, as well, but it appears the
> data referenced are real and FPE did go under after a set of legal
> challenges and lawsuits. The CPSC began and closed an inconclusinve
> investigation way back in '83 or so and while I've not found it
> directly(but haven't looked extensively, either) there's at least an
> implication that FPE may have actually falsified some data supplied
> from tests supplied for UL testing and that UL "de-listed" the original
> FPE breakers. The replacements from Federal Pioneer in Canada have, to
> the best of my knowledge, a UL or equivalent rating, whether that is
> somehow based on previous qualification or were/are newly qualified
> I've also not been able to resolve unambiguously. (But, again, I've
> not done extensive "research", only poked around at what I could find
> on occasion as there are several FPE panels here in the house, barn,
> other outbuildings dating to roughly same time frame.)
>
> http://www.schneider-electric.ca/www/en/products/stab-lok/html/cb.htm
>
> Overall, it does appear is that there is at least a risk of a trip
> failure from a mechanical "jam" of the handle preventing opening w/ the
> older FPE breakers. Without substantiating data, there's no real way
> to judge the frequency of this as compared to other breakers, which
> I've not seen at any point.
>
Reliance Electric bought FPE and discovered that FPE fraudulently
supplied test information to UL. UL then delisted most of the FPE line.
Reliance Electric sued the seller of FPE and setteled for about 43
million dollars to cover future liability. I believe there is currently
a class action law suit in New Jersey. The problem probably covers the
1965-1980 time period although the current Canadian manufacturer won't
say what changes have been made to the line.
The link from dpb at
http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm
has a lot of information of FPE, much of it derived from the
investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It includes
information on the limited testing done for the CPSC. Two pole breakers
may not trip (can jam and never trip) if the current on both poles is
not the same (like ground fault). (Service disconnect size breakers were
not tested.) Another problem - single pole breakers may never trip at
135% of rating. Also bus failures which cannot be seen as they are
developing without panel disassembly.
One reason the CPSC investigation was dropped was the high cost of
testing required to allow regulatory action vs. the size of the CPSC
funding. This was probably also the start of the Reagan years which were
not favorable to regulation. And perhaps most important, the CPSC had
tried to regulate aluminum wire and in the predictable industry lawsuit
the court ruled aluminum wire was not a consumer item and thus could not
be regulated by the CPSC. Circuit breakers would probably have also not
been under the CPSC.
Another source:
http://www.codecheck.com/pdf/electrical/240overcurrent/FPE%20Article%20from%20DH%20-%20Nov2003.pdf
includes additional problems with FPE panels, including the bus problems
referred to by Pete C.
--
bud--
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap