• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

An average day

I always specify conductive paste for connections of aluminum wiring, and I think a lot of engineers also specify it.

There is a bit of difference between job specs & code requirements, job specs have be complied with on that job, code requirements have to be followed on every job they apply to.
 
A solar contractor claims to have replaced a 125 amp main breaker with a 100 amp main breaker in order to stay within the 120% rule with 30 amps of solar.
There is no panel label. There is four different manufacture's circuit breakers installed. The breakers installed by the solar co. do not appear to be new. The bus looks like it has something going on that I am not sure about.

IMG_1178.jpeg


IMG_1178 2.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The Siemens breakers have no business in there unless there is paperwork that Siemens is UL classified to be used in that panel which is either Challenger, or a Westinghouse, Cutler-Hammer BR, Current Eaton BR is marked as BR120, or has C120, for example, for use in either BR or Challenger panels, all of them are Challenger design interiors, which is one of the reasons I call them "Zinsco II".

Is that panel near a coastal area, or chemicals stored nearby? That would be a couple of reasons for the corrosion, but not the only ones.


The whole UL listed vs UL classified thing is about clear as mud, IMO, they either need to be listed for the panels or made non interchangeable as it is not simple to determine if a competitive make can be used in a panel, made even more difficult because of mergers, & name changes of manufacturers & brands.
 
Since can't edit, if anyone is interested, can zoom in on that Eaton 2-pole 30A breaker on the bottom, it is marked as BR230 & C230.
 
So Cal Edison I doubt will be amused, and I hope you were not either. :eek:
I doubt that Edison would have a problem with this. The picture came from another inspector. We both got a good laugh out of it. He said that the contractor was a no show. He plans on meeting the contractor and asking him to open up the old enclosure.
 
How does the contractor propose to secure the old meter opening? Hopefully something better than a piece of cardboard.
 
How does the contractor propose to secure the old meter opening? Hopefully something better than a piece of cardboard.

Clear meter blanking covers are available, I just can't see any reason why that abortion should be allowed.
 
How does the contractor propose to secure the old meter opening? Hopefully something better than a piece of cardboard.
We require a metal meter blank. Some inspectors will not allow any panel enclosure to be converted to a junction box. I am mostly okay with the conversion if the existing enclosure is surface mounted and can drain water. This setup is a lot of work to be so completely wrong.
 
The inspection was for an electric service panel upgrade. The first picture was how it was presented. I exclaimed that the stucco needs to be removed for inspection.

20210309_215300936_iOS.jpeg


The contractor exclaimed, "I have a picture from before the stucco was finished". He sent this next picture.

20210306_225135964_iOS.jpeg


20210306_225135964_iOS 2.jpeg
 
He had a photo from before the stucco was finished. Meaning he knew it was a required inspection, he was just hoping not to get called out on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
Top