ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Violation Photo Forum What's Wrong With This Service??

Well to start with the obvious, unprotected conductors dubble-lugged to the service conductors, one is white and not re-identified, romex entering with no protector through an unsealed knockout in an apparently 3R enclousure, probably a couple more I'm missing. And there's the non-code issues of neatness and the fact that it's a FPE

-Will


[This message has been edited by Elviscat (edited 11-14-2005).]

Looks like the EGC and grounded conductor from the NM are under one screw on the neutral bar.

steve

The breakers are upside-down; an unused breaker in the ON position; no seperation of grounded and grounding bars (must be a sub panel since no main breaker!); tons of others I'm SURE.

Yaktx: Where's the EGC connected, since it doesn't look like it's headed for the ground?

Was the dead-front cover in place when you got there, or is it off for the inspection/pic? I wish I had a dime for every panel I've seen with an AWOL cover .

Any ideas where the double-luggeds go?

Mike (mamills)

[This message has been edited by mamills (edited 11-15-2005).]

As sstrick says (must be a subpanel ...)If it is, where is the insulated grounded conductor and seperate neutral bar?

Interesting panel.

The "down for off" requirement hasn't been around all that long; I have a Sq D panel that was set up as this one ie; that is, intended to have two horizontal rows of breakers.

Which is what I am curious about: Where did all those breakers go? And why use half-width breakers in an "empty" panel?

An easier question would be:
What's RIGHT with this service?

LOL

This could be a main, no breaker is required if there are less then six breakers (4 full sized single poles, 2 double poles), plus the three wire feed and the EGC seems to me to indicate a main panel, perhaps you could clear this up yaktx?

I assume you are referring to the GEC, meandering off to the right in an upward direction? The answer is nowhere. The house was replumbed and the plumber never replaced the ground clamp. The deadfront was there.

Nearly all Stab-Lok panels had one row of upside down breakers, which was legal at the time.

The lack of a main breaker does not mean this is a subpanel. I assure you the meter was right above this panel. In this case, it is service equipment which is in violation of 408.36(A). This service appears to be from the '70s, and my vintage NEC collection tells me it was illegal then, too. Nevertheless, many such installations were approved in my area during this time.

408.36(A)
408.34(A)

Yes, this is service equipment, but it is in violation of these sections. The six disconnect rule does not apply here.

Ah, yes, now for the scary part. If the double-lugged 10/2 NM went to a 30A fusible disconnect, it would be in violation, but not so bad, comparatively speaking.

It in fact went to a GE main-lug panel inside the house, with five 1p 20A breakers feeding lighting & appliance circuits, and two 1p 40A breakers feeding a dryer receptacle (no handle tie).

It's kind of dusty.

They must have used the EGC as the neutral, if the wire was 10/2 NM. Black one phase, white the other phase, that leaves only the bare EGC wire for a neutral for the lighting circuits.

How far did that NM wire go into the house? Maybe someone thought that they could apply a "tap rule" if it was short. But that wouldn't work as there's no overcurrent protection on what was tapped... Besides, the loads would exceed the ampacity of that wire anyway.

So those 10's are at utility potential and a bare being used as a neutral...

I guess it wouldn't be much different from installing a FPE 30A 2P in there... like it would trip or something...

But think of the energy you'd save with this house though.... That 10/2 Romex would keep the house warm all winter by simply using a few ordinary appliances!

Randy

Is this from the 2005 Code?

Is a 25yr+ old installation supposed to comply with the 2005 Code?

It might have been compliant before the "modifications" were made
(Well, Ok, except for a couple of things )




[This message has been edited by electure (edited 11-17-2005).]

Electure:

Yes, this is '05 NEC. My understanding is that the six-disconnect rule existed long before this service was likely built, otherwise, why would split-bus equipment have existed?

I didn't actually go back and look up the lineage of these two Code sections.

Pulling off the shelf at semi-random, the '71 NEC, I find language substantially similar to 408.36(A) in the '05 NEC, with an exception that would seem to apply to split-bus equipment:


This exception would seem to allow a split-bus panel but not a main-lug panel as shown in the photo.

Here's 408.36(A), Exception 2, from the '05 NEC:

For existing installations, individual protection for lighting and appliance branch-circuit panelboards shall not be required where such panelboards are used as service equipment in supplying an individual residential occupancy.

This would seem to grandfather this installation, although the '71 NEC does not seem to have permitted it. When it may have been legal to install such a panel as service equipment I do not know. I do know that AHJs around here will grandfather a split-bus, but not one of these.

(BTW the 6-disconnect rule is in the '71 NEC.)

I wrote up about 3 pages of violations for the buyer. Between this and other code violations found by the home inspector, the buyer was able to get $5000 in concessions from the seller.

They wanted to move in on the day of the closing, but I was unable to schedule a service upgrade until a week later. So what did I do? I double-lugged the two branch circuits onto one 20A breaker, and moved the 10/2 to the remaining two breakers, so the 10/2 was in fact a 20A feeder. For a week they lived with the lights dimming every time the fridge or AC would start. Then I came back and built a new 125A service.

Look closely at the GE panel. You already know that there is no separate equipment grounding conductor. So where is the main bonding jumper?

Any pics of the new install? I enjoy "make-overs" (and in this case...it IS "Extreme Edition!")

Actually, I don't have any pix of this install. It's for a friend, and he will be renovating the attic soon. The house was built in 1915.

The attic has a very high roofline, remnants of an old radio aerial, and knob-and-tube. We decided to leave the k&t for now since he wants to reinforce the ceiling joists to make a proper floor. We're going to put a subpanel up there and then figure out where to put the stairs. Next time I go over there, I will get some pix.

Amazingly enough, the branch circuits that were added were not at all bad. All NEMA 5-15 receptacles, and the only ones that weren't grounded were the ones that were added to the k&t circuit.

There was one thing in the branch circuitry that was as scary as that feeder! In the bathroom, there was a 3-way switch wired as a single-pole, going to the light. The installer must have known that there is supposed to be a ground screw on the switch, so the bare wire of the NM cable was wired to the unused traveller terminal!

Since the feed was from k&t, the ground wire went nowhere, and was randomly energized whenever the light was off!

I disconnected that wire. We will be fixing it properly when we finish the attic.

>>In the bathroom, there was a 3-way switch wired as a single-pole, going to the light. The installer must have known that there is supposed to be a ground screw on the switch, so the bare wire of the NM cable was wired to the unused traveller terminal!

Since the feed was from k&t, the ground wire went nowhere, and was randomly energized whenever the light was off!<<

saw that myself once on a service call on an outside light.. the tenant complained of recieving a shock when she touched the light barefoot after hosing off the patio (!!) I never would have believed it had I not seen it with my own eyes...