InspectAPedia ^TM

Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Electrical Hazards Website FPEaPedia © Enter your search terms Submit search form   Search This Website - InspectAPedia.com

• This website answers almost all questions about Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok electrical panels
• FPE Stab-Lok panel fire & shock hazards
• FPE Stab-Lok panel independent test reports
• How to identify FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels
• Federal Pacific Electric safety, labeling, & listing public documents
• FPE Repair electricians & repair alternatives
• How to report an FPE Stab-Lok panel or breaker incident

We recommend that the FPE Stab-Lok electrical panel be replaced entirely. We recommend against replacing individual FPE Stab-lok circuit breakers. This web page explains the issues and recommends solutions for people looking for a replacement FPE Stab-Lok circuit breaker. We do not sell circuit breakers nor any other products.

This website explains the fire and shock hazards associated with Federal Pacific Electric Stab-lok circuit breakers and service panels, provides a history of the issue, recounts research on FPE failures, and recommends replacement of the panels. Photographs are provided to aid in identification of Federal Pacific FPE Stab-Lok equipment. For FPE Stab-Lok electric panel replacement, we offer list of licensed electricians who can perform an electrical panel replacement or repair. FPE-experienced electricians can be listed at no fee. The web author has no business, financial, or other connection with this product nor with its replacement.

Electronic copies and reproduction of this information at other websites are prohibited. Readers are welcome to make and distribute printed copies of our articles about FPE Stab-Lok equipment provided this web page is cited and provided that the content is not edited or changed. (Contact us to suggest edits, changes, corrections, updates). © Copyright 2008 Daniel Friedman, All Rights Reserved. Information Accuracy & Bias Pledge is at below-left. Use links at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links show where you are in our document or website.

Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok Circuit Breaker Articles and Failures Research

Federal Pacific Electric "Stab-Lok" service panels and breakers are a latent hazard and can fail to trip in response to overcurrent, leading to electrical fires. The breakers may also fail to shut off internally even if the toggle is switched to "off." Some double-pole (240-Volt) FPE circuit breakers and single-pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers simply do not work safely.

There are other FPE panel-defects independent of the breaker problems, panel and panel-bus fires and arcing failures in some equipment. The failure rates for these circuit breakers were and still are significant. In some cases failure to trip occurs 60% of the time - a serious fire and electrical shock hazard.

Failures are documented in the CPSC study and by independent research. Additional independent testing and research are on-going and are reported here. FPE Stab-Lok electrical panels should be replaced. Do not simply swap in some replacement breakers.

Use links at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links show where you are in our document or website.

Technical Reviewers

Particular thanks are due to experts and also consumers who read these articles and suggest corrections, changes, and additions to the material. Content suggestions, technical corrections and content critique are invited for any of the content at our website.

• Note: as we didn't add this reviewers list until 2007, this list of technical reviewers is incomplete; we have received comments and suggestions regarding this topic, edits and remarks included, from engineers and management from the US CPSC, electricians (many listed at our page on field reports of FPE failures), home inspectors, licensed electricians, and electrical engineers, and even a few attorneys and real estate agents, since 1986. Technical review, critique, content suggestions, questions, or clarifications are invited and where a contributor wishes, credit and links will be provided to that source. Contact us to provide feedback.
• Dr. Jess Aronstein, electrical engineer, Poughkeepsie, NY, forensic engineering services, independent laboratory testing for various agencies
• Alan Carson, Carson Dunlop Associates, Toronto, Ontario. Mr. Carson is a home inspection professional, educator, researcher, writer, and a principal of Carson Dunlop Associates, a Toronto home inspection and education firm. Mr. Carson is a past president of ASHI, the American Society of Home Inspectors
• Mark Cramer Inspection Services Mark Cramer, Tampa Florida, Mr. Cramer is a past president of ASHI, the American Society of Home Inspectors and is a Florida home inspector and home inspection educator.
• Carl Grasso, Esq., Herzfeld & Rubin, New York, NY. Mr. Grasso is an attorney who managed a plaintiff's class action litigation against Federal Pacific Electric in New Jersey.
• William King, US CPSC Director of Electrical Engineering (Ret).
• Licensed Electricians: FPE Fire and Failure Reports includes electricians who have provided cases and photographs of field failures of FPE equipment at this website.
• Homeowners, Home Inspectors, Electricians: Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panel Fires and other Failures includes anecdotal field reports provided by a range of contributors including electricians (and some home owners or home inspectors) who have provided cases and photographs of field failures of FPE equipment at this website.
• Daniel Friedman - principal reporter.
• Technical reviewers are invited to comment or ask questions - contact us

A Summary of the Problem: Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel and Circuit Breaker Hazards

Having reviewed documentation regarding this issue, and having discussed the issue with forensic experts in the field, I am convinced that a latent hazard exists where FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers continue in use. The hazard is worst for double-pole breakers. Published reports of actual tests that were performed indicate that under certain conditions it is possible for one leg of these circuits to attempt to trip the breaker, resulting in a jammed breaker which will afterward not trip under any load condition. A reader might infer from the CPSC 1983 press release that the manufacturer and some Commission members were of the opinion that these conditions would not occur in the field.

This is an erroneous conclusion. Some very common household appliances operate are powered by a two-pole 240V circuit (protected by the type of breaker under discussion) but use two or more independent 120V sub-circuits inside the appliance. Two obvious cases are electric clothes dryers and ranges. If, for example, the low-heat (110V) heater in a dryer were to short to the dryer case, a serious overcurrent would occur on one "leg" of the circuit.

Another wiring practice, using a single two-pole breaker to power a split circuit which uses a shared neutral, such as may be installed in kitchens in some areas, is nearly certain to have each leg of the circuit loaded independently and thus subject to single-leg overloading and subsequent breaker jamming. A breaker which jams and then fails to trip under this condition is, in my opinion, a serious fire hazard.

A more careful reading of the CPSC press release of March 3, 1984 suggests that the authors were careful NOT to conclude that there is no hazard, but simply that the information at hand did not prove the hazard, and that the Commission did not have funds to pursue testing. In this document, the representation that no real hazard exists is made by the manufacturer of the device - not exactly a neutral party, and even that wording is cautious in tone: "FPE breakers will trip reliably at most overload levels." Readers should see the failure rates cited in the IAEI letter below.

FPE Stab-Lok Equipment Means Latent Fire Hazards

It's the exceptions that cause fires. An FPE circuit breaker will appear to "work just fine" in passing along current to the circuit it feeds, until there is an overcurrent, short circuit, or similar condition. When those exceptional conditions occur, this equipment fails to protect the circuit and the building from overheating and fires, in some cases at a failure rate around 60% of the time. I estimate that the normal industry failure rate on circuit breakers is less than .01%.

Consumers should read and follow the Commission's advice regarding circuit breakers. But this advice is insufficient. The Commission's admonition to avoid overloading circuits and to turn off and have examined devices which seem to be creating a problem is a poor substitute for reliable, automatic, overcurrent protection. It is precisely because dangerous conditions can and do occur without adequate recognition and action by a consumer that circuit breakers and fuses are installed to provide overcurrent protection in the first place.

Therefore it is hardly an adequate "fix" for FPE breakers to just tell consumers to handle these cases manually.

It is possible that some breakers may perform with adequate reliability, possibly those manufactured after the companies discovered safety defects and improper practices in listing the product, and possibly those manufactured in Canada. However, in absence of an explicit statement from the manufacturer and/or the US CPSC indicating that newer stock equipment is defect free, and considering that defects occur in both breakers and the panels themselves, and finally, that testing showed failures in both in-use equipment and new off-the-shelf devices, my advice to consumers and electricians is that these panels be replaced with newer equipment, particularly those which use 240-volt double-pole breakers described in the literature. In my opinion, if a fire or other hazard occurs with this device, neither the manufacturer nor the Commission, who have suggested in the press release that data was inconclusive or inadequate to establish a hazard, will accept responsibility for losses that may ensue.

However a building inspector, home inspector, or contractor who makes any warranty of safety, by virtue of his/her position close to the consumer, is certain bear this very liability.

Canadian FPE Stab-Lok panels and Federal Pacific or Federal Pioneer Circuit Breakers

In May 1999 we learned from Schneider Canada that Federal pioneer circuit breakers sold by that company are re-named from Federal Pacific circuit breakers and that two 15-amp single-pole models NC015 and NC015CP made between August 1, 1996 and June 11, 1997 have been recalled. The Schneider and Federal Pioneer as well as some Square-D recall notices are available here.

We asked the company engineer with whom we spoke if he could determine if Federal Pioneer and Federal Pacific components sold in Canada were made in the U.S. or if tooling used to produce them was identical with that used in the U.S. If this is the case (as one might expect based on economies of production) one should consider the possibility that other defects reported in the U.S. may also appear in Canadian installations.

The Federal Pioneer Warranty Alert was issued by the Ontario New Home Warranty program in October 1997 and provides for circuit breaker replacement. Schneider Canada is an electrical supplier whose product lines combine those previously marketed under the names Federal Pacific Electric, Federal Pioneer, Square-D, Tele Mechanique, Modicon, and Merlin Gerin.

Carl Grasso, an attorney who researched FPE failures for the New Jersey class action suit explains that since a portion of the safety defect with FPE breakers may be due to variations during manufacture, and since Canadian breakers may be manufactured in a different plant from those made in the U.S., it is possible that the field performance of Canadian breakers may be different than the U.S. design. Schneider Canada, the Federal Pioneer parent company, has not provided information regarding design or manufacture changes over the U.S. design, nor provided test data regarding the product.

As of May 2008 we have had a few reports of failures in the Canadian Federal Pioneer (Stab-Lok) equipment and also reports of failures of "replacement" FPE circuit breakers installed in U.S. panels. Having inspected some Canadian FPE (Federal Pioneer-brand) electric panels, I observed two ongoing concerns:

1.) the same bus design was used as in the U.S. equipment. I've seen very poor retention of breakers in the bus - in one house the breaker was held in place by duct tape, as the spring design in the contact of the breaker where it plugs into the special opening in the bus appears not to have held the breaker in place. I have also seen breakers modified with their inserting pins bent and modified to fit a breaker into a slot where it did not belong - a step that is impossible with other breaker designs.

2.) A similar or identical panel design may expose consumers to panel arcing and fires regardless of changes in the breakers themselves.

REPORT YOUR FPE FAILURE - Reporting Federal Pacific and Federal Pioneer Equipment Problems

We invite voluntary field failure reports from readers who are aware of or who experience failures of Federal Pacific and Federal Pioneer equipment order to add to the existing data base.

There is no requirement that failures be reported to us for tabulation here. This website is not a government or other official document, nor does it receive nor request funding. Contact the author.

Letter to IAEI International Association of Electrical Inspectors News Magazine re: FPE Public Relations Article asserts Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok panels are OK.

8/11/99

International Association of Electrical Inspectors
ATTN: Philip H. Cox, Editor-in-Chief, IAEI Magazine
PO Box 830848
Richardson TX 75083-0848

Dear Mr. Cox:

The May/June '99 IAEI News article by an unidentified FPE consultant asserts that Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Loks are UL-Listed and thus without any concern. The article fails to address a record of failures to trip, actual test results, field reports of failures, and improper UL listing practices. The FPE author and IAEI News failed to report on the actual website content, failed to contact the author, and failed to give the correct website address so that readers could judge for themselves. I am an IAEI member and the author of the informational website for home inspectors which was referred-to in the FPE article. The correct Internet website address is http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm

Publicly available information is compelling and sufficient to warrant warning contractors, inspectors, and consumers. The best data available substantiates that the 2-pole breakers cannot be relied upon to trip. CPSC found that was the case. FPE agreed that was the case. Field reports confirm that is still the case. Inspectors should work towards replacing breakers that won't trip, not towards whitewashing the problem.

The problem with FPE breakers is that a significant portion of them will not trip on overload or short circuit conditions in order to protect a building from fire ignition. Testing done by the CPSC showed that at a modest overload on both poles these failed 25% of the time, followed by a lockup. The breaker would never trip in the future at any overload. (See Table 1, Summary of Failures, CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982, attached.) There are other types of failures known to occur in FPE panels at lower probability and not as well documented as the 2-pole no-trip problem.

FPE did not refute the CPSC's test data. The no-trip problems with 2-pole Stab-Lok breakers were acknowledged by FPE. FPE claims that when their circuit breakers do not trip it does not constitute a hazard. The article in IAEI News by FPE is asking us to agree with FPE's position that breakers that won't trip are OK because they are "listed and labeled." Let's keep in mind that a breaker that will not trip on certain overcurrent conditions is electrically the same as an Edison-base fuse with a penny behind it. No inspector should be encouraged to condone or whitewash the continued use of breakers that cannot be depended on to trip properly.

These problems were known. Reliance Electric Co. had bought FPE in 1979 when they discovered problems with FPE breakers. They sued the company they had bought FPE from, claiming undisclosed potential liability made FPE not what they had bargained for and citing evidence that "improper and deceptive practices were employed for many years to secure UL listings for Federal Pacific's circuit protective products? They wanted their money back. Reliance eventually settled the suit, kept FPE, and got back $41.85 million in return for which they agreed to indemnify the company they'd bought FPE from for product liability claims arising from products made by FPE before the purchase.

Continuing problems can't be ruled out. For example, see the Federal Pacific/Federal Pioneer circuit breaker warranty alert issued by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program in 1997 (copy attached). These products are still present in the field! Reports from consumers and electricians indicate failures to trip, overheating, and fires.

Note also that the author of the FPE article did not want to have his or her name associated with it and that the FPE contact listed is an attorney retained (presumably) by FPE. The information address given in the article would have been more accurate if given as: Howard B. Abramoff Law Offices, 25700 Science Park Dr. Suite 260, Cleveland OH 44122. This is a law firm, not a circuit-breaker manufacturer. This confirms that the article is biased towards the defense of FPE rather than providing information on "?the safe installation and use of electricity" (IAEI's mission statement in the magazine's masthead).

As a neutral professional, I'd be pleased to receive reliable information shedding new light on the situation. But a public relations article written by someone whose aim is to protect FPE's interests and which fails to address legitimate concerns and the known failures and problems occurring around the country is not something I'd rely upon. Based on my experience and numerous reports from people with no axes to grind, it appears that FPE circuit breakers frequently fail to perform their function. A circuit breaker may sit in a building for twenty years, and as long as it never sees an overload or short circuit it may seem to work fine. But if it cannot perform its function to interrupt current when overloaded or short circuited, that circuit breaker is a latent fire hazard. Such equipment should be replaced.

Respectfully,

Dan Friedman, IAEI #195930

Attachments:

1. "Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429," December 30, 1982, Wright Malta Corporation, Summary Pages 1-3.

2. Reliance Electric Co. Press Release, July 7, 1980, stating that "Underwriters Laboratories labels for most of FPE's circuit breakers were obtained through improper practices,?

3. Schneider Electric Canada Warranty Alert, recalling Federal Pioneer (Federal Pacific Canadian) circuit breakers NC015/NC015P, October 14, 1997

4. My resume/background (Since the article indicates the author did not know who I am)

5. WEB FaqS: Website author, credibility

6. "Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panels, a Summary," website page from http://www.inspect-ny.com/fpe/fpepanel.htm (This is the root page of a collection of public documents and articles regarding this topic.)

10-1-00 follow up note: IAEI and Mr. Cox have declined to reply to this correspondence.
03/01/03 follow up note: IAEI has not retracted the un-signed article described above. Industry experts have confirmed that the IAEI article is inaccurate and dangerous in its advice as it exposes consumers to equipment which cannot be relied upon in event of an overcurrent. The result could be shock or fire. I have encountered one or two instances of electricians who, unfamiliar with FPE failures, cited this article in defense of a "no action" position, in all cases in defense of a home seller. My advice to consumers who are faced with denials that this equipment is a latent safety hazard to ask for that opinion in writing. To date (12/1/2005) I have not had any reports of a professional who was willing to sign such a document.
01/26/2006 follow up note: IAEI declined to ever address the dangerous inaccuracies in the original IAEI magazine article. The article appears to have been penned by an attorney charged with protecting the remaining interests of that organization.
04/22/2008 follow up note: IAEI has not responded to this correspondence.

More Information about FPE Federal Pacific Stab Lok Panels and Circuit Breakers - The Reference List of Public Documents

• The Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panel Hazard Website Safety Information for Consumers. 1983
• Home Inspection Reporting Language and discussion for FPE panels
• How to Identify FPE Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Electric Panels - is yours one of these? ALSO: A History of the FPE Stab-Lok Issue.
• FPE FIRES: Failures continue: FPE breaker fails, results in fires: field reports
• Federal Pacific Electric Fires Waiting to Happen, Debate Waiting to Be Ended, detailed article
• Replacement Circuit Breakers for FPE Stab-Lok Electric Panels? are not recommended. We recommend replacement of the entire electrical panel, or replacement of the entire electrical panel bus assembly. See FPE REPLACEMENT PANELS for details.
• Replacement Panels for FPE Stab-Lok load centers - options include conventional complete panel replacement and a less costly replacement of the panel interior load center/bus assembly
• 2008 Where is Federal Pacific Electric today? Leaving out some steps and omitting (for now) Exxon's role:
• There is currently no "FPE Corporation" to whom consumers can easily presently direct a complaint unless they participated in the New Jersey Class Action - see below
• An FPE attorney exists, apparently charged with protecting some un liquidated assets and apparently charged with sheltering intermediate owners and corporations (Reliance, Exxon, Challenger, Others) from litigation. His efforts were behind the silly infomercial article that appeared in the IAEI magazine on this issue.
• New Jersey Class Action lawsuit settled, homeowner plaintiffs received $500. per panel and institutional plaintiffs received varying amounts. The lawsuit pertained to original homeowners in New Jersey who had an FPE Stab-Lok electrical panel in their homes. Details are below.
• Fifty FPE Field Failures Reported to US CPSC - 2006 letter from Dr. Jess Aronstein, consulting engineer
• FPE Class Action Lawsuit Results - 2002: New Jersey Judge's Summary Judgment for the Plaintiffs against FPE 8-15-2002 & 29 October 2002 - "FPE violated the Consumer Fraud Act because FPE knowingly and purposefully distributed circuit breakers which were not tested to meet UL Standards as indicated on their label and there is an ascertainable loss for which treble damages are recoverable;" as reported by the Superior Court of New Jersey. [Note: only very limited recovery rights were granted to homeowners and only in New Jersey. The case may still be under appeal as of January 2007].
• New Jersey Federal Pacific Electric Class Action Lawsuit Summary [provides little meaningful relief but supports claims about & against FPE.]
• A Canadian Federal Pacific recall in 1997 is documented here. There has been no "recall" in the U.S. though there is no doubt that the product is hazardous and should be replaced.
  Schneider Electric is the Canadian company which still makes a version of this equipment in Canada under the name Federal Pioneer (but see the Federal Pioneer Recall Notice for Canada.
• Electro-Mechanical Corporation, purchased the assets of a dry-type transformer facility from Challenger and in conjunction with that purchase, acquired the right to use the name Federal Pacific in connection with their products, excluding Stab-Lok circuit breaker products.
• HC Zang Agency in Buffalo, NY says that "Federal Pacific Company and Federal Pacific Transformer Company of Bristol, Virginia are in no way related to the old Federal Pacific Electric (FPE)" and offers to answer questions about the old equipment.
• Consumers should report FPE failures and inspection/reporting issues to the U.S. CPSC, and
• We request that you also report FPE Stab-Lok equipment failures, FPE home inspection or FPE hazard reporting issues to us
• 2008 FPE Class Action Lawsuit Results: In May 2008 the FPE Class Action Lawsuit in New Jersey was finally settled. New Jersey homeowners who were the original owners of an FPE Stab-lok electrical panel received $500. in settlement as part of the action. Institutional class members also got varying amounts, depending on their installations.
  No one received the full cost of panel replacement. New Jersey Judge's Summary Judgment for the Plaintiffs against FPE 8-15-2002 & 29 October 2002 - "FPE violated the Consumer Fraud Act because FPE knowingly and purposefully distributed circuit breakers which were not tested to meet UL Standards as indicated on their label and there is an ascertainable loss for which treble damages are recoverable;" as reported by the Superior Court of New Jersey.
• 2007 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - an updated test report of independent testing (a large 1.2MB PDF file) using a larger pool of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers than the older CPSC and Wright Malta tests found significantly higher failure rates of FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers, including a look at critical safety failures (breaker failed to trip at 200% of rated current or jammed) which found up to 80% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok GFCI circuit breakers (n=4), 12% failure rate for double pole FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers (n=120), and a 1% failure rate for FPE Stab-Lok single pole circuit breakers (n=345).
• 2005 FPE Class Action Litigation Notice - for homeowners in New Jersey
• 2004 FPE Stab-Lok TECHNICAL REPORT - St. Louis ASHI Seminar including: Hazard Summary & Independent Tests confirms Stab-Lok failures
• 2004 FPE Update: Exxon Buys a Scandal Along With A Company Business Week Article 7/21/80 now available on line
• 
  
  2004 Federal Pioneer & Square-D Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter Safety Notice: newer products than the earlier FPE Stab-lok design
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2003 Federal Pacific Electric Breakers - an encyclopedic, non-prioritized inventory of FPE StabLok deficiencies by Douglas Hansen. [www.codecheck.com - Code Check] offers building code inspection guides for field use, and links on codes and failures.
• 1999 The International Association of Electrical Inspectors (IAEI) published (6/99) an inaccurate article asserting that there is no hazard with FPE Stab-Lok equipment - OUR REPLY disagreed and cited authoritative data found here along with follow up notes.
• 
  1996-1997 Federal Pioneer NCO15 and NC015CP circuit breaker recalls from Schneider Electric in Canada are newer products than the earlier FPE Stab-lok design.
• 1997 Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall
• Schneider Canada Federal Pioneer circuit breaker recall British Columbia Fire Commissioner's Notice and Warning
• Federal Pioneer breaker recall notice from the Canadian Electrical Safety Authority
• 2000 FPE breakers fail in lab test of field-supplied panel 10/00
• 1986 Challenger acquired FPE from Reliance Electric ca 1986.
• 1983 CPSC Investigation of FPE Circuit Breakers Safety Information for Consumers
• 1982 CPSC Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report December 30, 1982, summary pages, indicating failure rates found for FPE Stab-Lok circuit breakers
• 1982 Reliance Electric Co. SEC Quarterly Report: Note C. reports litigation between Reliance and UV Liquidating Trust and contends that "... improper and deceptive practices were employed for many years to secure UL listings for Federal Pacific's circuit protective products..."
• 1980 Reliance Electric Co. Press Release: improper practices improper practices used to obtain UL Listing for most of FPE's circuit breakers and notes testing which indicates "possible defects." 1980, Reliance Electric Co.
• 1980 FPE - Exxon Buys A Scandal Along With A Company improper practices used to obtain UL Listing for most of FPE's circuit breakers and notes testing which indicates "possible defects." 1980, Reliance Electric Co.
• FAQ: Website Credibility

• * Safety Hazards and Safe Inspection Procedures for Electrical and Home Inspectors at Residential Electric Panels
• Aluminum Wiring Information Website Aluminum Electrical Wiring Hazards and Repairs: in-depth authoritative info, photos, documents including selection of proper vs. ineffective repair methods. E.g.: Ideal 65 "Twister" purple connector fails in field and lab testing with aluminum wire.
• Ampacity of an Electrical Service: How to determine the electrical service size or ampacity entering a building
• Circuit Breaker, a bad one fails to trip failure at aluminum bus-to-circuit breaker connection - field report and photographs
• Electrical System & Wiring Hazard Inspection, Detection, Cause, Remedy, Prevention - Main Electrical Page
• Electrical Panels, How to Inspect in Buildings, safety for electrical inspectors, electrical panel, fusing, wiring defects, defective products. Inspection Class Presentation
• Lightning Strike Risk Assessment, Protection Systems & Services
• Multi-wire branch circuit inspection and defects


• Directory of Home Inspectors accessible via internet


• Carson Dunlop's Home Inspector's Home Study Course (DJF is a contributor and participant in this education project).

InspectAPedia ^TM Home & Site Map - Building Inspection, Diagnosis, & Repair, Environmental Inspection & Testing - Research Website

Contact Daniel Friedman for website content suggestions or for fee-paid consulting

	Enter your search termsSubmit search form
	Search This Website - InspectAPedia.com

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)

*UL 489 Test Conditions