inspector_anatol Posted March 2, 2010 Report Posted March 2, 2010 Original ITE panel At least they kept the aluminum away from the copper... So how many neutrals can you fit into one terminal??? Click to Enlarge 52.9 KB Click to Enlarge 68.1 KB Thanks for looking Anatol
Marc Posted March 2, 2010 Report Posted March 2, 2010 Right, shouldn't have more than one conductor per terminal, but that's not the big fish in the photos. The big fish is the aluminum conductors. There was discussion in this forum on that topic recently. Check it out Anatol. Marc
John Kogel Posted March 3, 2010 Report Posted March 3, 2010 It looks like he nicked those Al wires as well in the process of stripping off the insulation. This makes matters even worse, creates a hot spot which has been weakened. You probably saw the double taps above the bus, that's another major bad.
inspector_anatol Posted March 3, 2010 Author Report Posted March 3, 2010 The double taps were for a surge protector installed in the panel.
Jack Davenport Posted March 3, 2010 Report Posted March 3, 2010 The double taps were for a surge protector installed in the panel. Still not allowed unless the terminals are listed for more then one conductor. That one is not listed for more then the one conductor, so it's wrong
John Dirks Jr Posted March 3, 2010 Report Posted March 3, 2010 Anatol, Here is a document I use in my reports sometimes. It helps explain the doubled neutrals part of the issue. The doc is hosted at my server and it will always be there in case you ever want to insert the link into a report. http://home.comcast.net/~marylandhomein ... rounds.pdf
Jim Katen Posted March 3, 2010 Report Posted March 3, 2010 Anatol, Here is a document I use in my reports sometimes. It helps explain the doubled neutrals part of the issue. The doc is hosted at my server and it will always be there in case you ever want to insert the link into a report. http://home.comcast.net/~marylandhomein ... rounds.pdf It's curious that Jim Pauley doesn't mention 110.14(A) in that blurb. It contains language that requires terminals for more than one conductor to be so identified. It and its forebears have been in the NEC for decades. In my opinion, it's a much stronger argument than 110.3(B). - Jim Katen, Oregon
inspector_anatol Posted March 4, 2010 Author Report Posted March 4, 2010 Thanks for the replies, I noted all of the defects in my report including improper panel cover screws, just wanted to share the pictures with like minded folks. Anatol
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now