ENELOOP batteries

2 reports to CPSC, the latest made Dec 8, 2018. A report isn’t a recall.

Watch it to hear when CPSC publishes new reports about it. CPSC’s own search

Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CPSC’s own search is on saferproducts.gov.

At a glance

From SaferProducts.gov, released Nov 1, 2026.

2reports to CPSC
Dec 8, 2018the latest report was made
Dec 14, 2011the earliest
2with the company’s comments

Brand: ENELOOP
Makers: Panasonic Corporation of North America and SANYO NORTH AMERICA COPRPORATIONMakers, importers or sellers, as the reports name them
Product: BatteriesCPSC’s product type: Batteries (code 884), in Electronics: Batteries & Chargers

By month

1 report from January 2018 to December 2018; the most in December 2018, 1. 1 earlier report, since December 2011, is in the table.

The numbers, as a table

Reports to CPSC by the month each was made, newest first
Month	Reports
December 2018	1
December 2011	1

How badly anyone was hurt

First aid 1 CPSC: Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional
No one hurt 1 CPSC: Incident, No Injury

As each report says it, in short words; CPSC’s own words are under each.

The reports, as CPSC published them

Reports people made to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC publishes each one after sending it to the company named, and doesn’t guarantee they’re accurate. A report isn’t a recall.

Each report is the words of the person who made it, as CPSC published them. The company’s comments, where CPSC published any, are set apart as the company’s own.

CPSC, SaferProducts.gov public database export. Released Nov 1, 2026. Updated daily.

First aid
Made Dec 8, 2018, sent to the company Jan 28, 2019, published by CPSC Feb 11, 2019

The product, in the report: Eneloop Rechargeable Batteries as part of a Battery/Charger package K-KJ75MC64CA from Costco.

Hello,
I have a [REDACTED] charger which I purchased as part of a battery/Charger package K-KJ75MC64CA from Costco late 2017.
While plugged into an outlet in order to charge the batteries that came with this device, THE CHARGER CAUGHT FIRE. This fire damaged my property. It burned the side of a kitchen cabinet. Smoke filled the Kitchen causing respiratory issues for my wife and me.
The item was sent to [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] determined that the device was faulty.
Yours,
[REDACTED]

Bought from
Costco, Maryland
Bought
Dec 1, 2017
Where
BEL AIR, Maryland: Home/Apartment/Condominium
Who was involved
Age 54, Female
The reporter’s relation to them
My Spouse
As this report names them
Brand ENELOOP, made or sold by Panasonic Corporation of North America
Reports CPSC links to it
20181208-83F44-2147383886
How badly, in CPSC’s words
Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional

The company’s comments, in its own words

(3/12/2019) Panasonic Corporation of North America: Panasonic is committed to engineering and manufacturing safe, quality consumer products. All of Panasonic’s products are designed to meet or exceed all applicable safety standards and government regulations. This consumer’s report of harm is demonstrably false in nearly every respect. First, it is untrue to suggest that the manufacturer “determined that the device was faulty.” Quite the opposite is true. Our investigation shows that this incident was caused by the consumer’s unauthorized, unintended, and dangerous manipulation of his kitchen’s outlet as well as our product. As shown in the accompanying photographs, the outlet this consumer plugged the battery charger into was not mounted properly. It did not rest flush up against the wall as is required by code. That dangerous condition existed prior to, and irrespective of, introduction of the battery charger into his home. Rather than call upon a professional to correct that condition before plugging in the charger, it appears the consumer instead employed a makeshift method of bridging the approximate quarter-inch gap between the outlet and the wall; namely insertion of a foreign, metallic object. Indeed, the consumer’s own photographs depict a round, quarter sized imprint upon the kitchen outlet cover evidencing the presence of the quarter-like metallic object. Though the consumer perhaps thought he was stabilizing the connection between the battery charger’s blades and the outlet terminals, by inserting a foreign object he actually created a hazardous condition. This metallic object likely caused a short-circuit across the blades, leading to heating. Another possibility is that the metallic object slid down to the charger blades, causing high resistance and eventually heating that migrated from the outlet terminals into the charger’s enclosure through its blade assembly. In either case, it is clear that there was no malfunction internal to the battery charger. That is confirmed by the total absence of burn damage or melting on the surface of the charger enclosure. It is further confirmed by the fact that the charger’s internal damage is limited only to the area surrounding the blade assembly, meaning the heat originated from an external source and migrated to the charger via the blades. If the charger had experienced an internal malfunction, the damage would not be localized in such a way. The next highly questionable aspect of this report concerns the extent of the supposed damages. As is clear from the photographs, the only property damage to speak of is minor smoke damage to an isolated area surrounding the kitchen outlet. Yet the consumer now claims the incident caused burns to a kitchen cabinet. It is worth noting that the consumer demanded several thousand dollars to repair what is plainly a very small area of damage. Making matters worse, the consumer now further embellishes the event by claiming he and his wife experienced “respiratory issues” and “the charger caught fire.” Manufacturer representatives were in constant communication with this consumer over the days and weeks following this event. At no time did he ever claim that he or anyone in his family suffered any “respiratory issues” after the event. It appears that the consumer first recalled this malady only after his effort to exploit the matter for personal gain was rebuffed. As for the notion there was a fire, that is unequivocally false. The battery charger components are constructed of fire-retardant material. Therefore, although there was heat and some smoke, there was never any ignition/fire risk. This charger is in full compliance with applicable safety regulations, including those governing fire prevention, and this event never presented a safety hazard. We appreciate being made aware of this incident and having been given an opportunity to comment.

CPSC report 20181217-FF549-1818166. Submitter: Consumer Search for it on SaferProducts.gov
No one hurt
Made Dec 14, 2011, sent to the company Dec 22, 2011, published by CPSC Jan 9, 2012

The product, in the report: pre charged battery The battery says it is MR-3UTGA. This was part of a large set of eneloop batteries purchased from Costco. It’s their Item #523519; UPC is 43712 12050.

An Eneloop battery, AA size, was sitting on my desktop - not in a charger. It started to sizzle and smoke and made a popping sound. It was extremely hot, enough to melt part of a piece of jewelry sitting next to it. The paper covering on the battery split down the side and carbon-like particles sprayed out. It stayed hot for a while and is now cooled off, after about 15 minutes. I have no idea why this happened. Another Eneloop was sitting right beside it and did nothing.

UPC
4371212050
Bought from
costco
Where
Richmond, California: Home/Apartment/Condominium
Who was involved
Age 61, Female
The reporter’s relation to them
Self
As this report names them
Brand eneloop, made or sold by SANYO NORTH AMERICA COPRPORATION
How badly, in CPSC’s words
Incident, No Injury

The company’s comments, in its own words

(1/9/2012) SANYO NORTH AMERICA COPRPORATION: Sanyo is committed to engineering and manufacturing safe, quality consumer products. All of Sanyo’s products are designed and manufactured to meet or exceed Sanyo’s internal standards, third party safety requirements and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) safety standards. A Sanyo representative has contacted the consumer and was informed that no personal injury occurred from the reported incident. The consumer has agreed to send the product to Sanyo for further inspection. SANYO is not in a position to comment further about the incident as it has not had the opportunity to conduct an examination of the product.

CPSC report 20111214-0A897-2147472350. Submitter: Consumer Search for it on SaferProducts.gov

CPSC’s disclaimer

Disclaimer: CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of CPSC.

Word for word, from the disclaimer in CPSC’s export.

Sources

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, SaferProducts.gov public database export.

Released Nov 1, 2026 and checked Nov 1, 2026. Updated daily. Public domain (U.S. Government work). CPSC asks to be credited, and that no endorsement be implied.

Reports of harm are from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), on SaferProducts.gov. CPSC does not endorse Hearth Record.

ENELOOP batteries

At a glance

By month

How badly anyone was hurt

The reports, as CPSC published them

CPSC’s disclaimer

Sources

How to read a record

Every fact names its source.

A number never stands alone.

What needs attention is marked.

The public record comes first.