Service Connection

[Stephen G Sheldon]

Sorry. Here is a photo of the connection in the panel

[Eric Barker]

Stephen,

The sheathing is fine. What's missing is anti-oxidation paste.

[Jerry Peck]

The sheathing is fine. What's missing is anti-oxidation paste.

Except that anti-oxidant paste is not required.

Also, with that looking like rubber insulation, the conductors may not be aluminum, them may well be tinned copper.

[Shannon Guinn]

Except that anti-oxidant paste is not required.

Also, with that looking like rubber insulation, the conductors may not be aluminum, them may well be tinned copper.


True on both. AO compound is a good idea though. Have never seen a local EC not use it, even though I don't require them to use it.

As a former EC myself, I was strictly a copper man, the bulk of my ancestors worked across the state line for the now defunct Tennessee Copper Company located at where-else but Copperhill,TN, so I guess it was bred into me to be a copper man.(Although I didn't have to work in a mine to get it, just went to the supply house.):D

[Rick Cantrell]

"Except that anti-oxidant paste is not require"

Why, (or why not)?

[Shannon Guinn]

Rick, unless the manufacturer requires it for AL/AL connections, an inspector cannot as it is not code required, even though it's still a good idea.

[Rick Cantrell]

"even though it's still a good idea"

OK, not "required" by code.
But;
Is it needed?
Should it be in the code?

[Jerry Peck]

Is it needed?
Should it be in the code?


"Is it needed?" Not really, not in most cases. There may be some cases which 'should' have it, not sure of any though.

"Should it be in the code?" Not really, the manufacturers' have tested and retested so many times and nothing has shown it to be "needed".

The above said, though, my Dad always used it whenever he used aluminum (for larger runs, otherwise he was a copper man) and I always used it ... because he always said it was a good idea to use it, then again, I only used aluminum on larger runs too, otherwise copper all the way, and I even used copper sometimes when he would have used aluminum. As long as the job would cover the cost to use of copper, copper it would be.

[John Steinke]

The aluminum wire reps are making the rounds, asserting that their new aluminum wire needs anti-ox no more than copper wires.

Yet, I recall in the 70's, with the previous alloy, the absence of anti-ox being cited by Alum wire makers as the reason for any alleged problems associated with their product.

Oddly enough, the current NECA standard, while (IMO) in need of some editing, seems to assume the use of anti-ox with aluminum wire .... going into great deatail as to the methods of application, etc.

To be fair, properly applied anti-ox may just leave a fine film, rather than globs dripping all over the place. It may not be so easy to see.

If you have doubts ... I suggest looking farther afield. A sloppy installation rarely has but one defect.

[Ken Amelin]

Oddly enough, the current NECA standard, while (IMO) in need of some editing, seems to assume the use of anti-ox with aluminum wire .... going into great deatail as to the methods of application, etc.

John,

Your comment above about the current code going into great detail about applying anti-ox ?

I'm wondering why it is not a code requirement if you 've seen the code go into great detail as to the methods of application, etc?? Can you tell me where in the the codes it goes into great detail as to the methods of application and what is says? (briefly).

Thanks

[Ron Bibler]

Get out of the hot tub. When they moved they just took everything even the breaker:eek: Cut all the wires...

My second inspection of the day.

Best

Ron

[David Banks]

John,

Your comment above about the current code going into great detail about applying anti-ox ?

I'm wondering why it is not a code requirement if you 've seen the code go into great detail as to the methods of application, etc?? Can you tell me where in the the codes it goes into great detail as to the methods of application and what is says? (briefly).

Thanks

Hi Ken. It is also in The MA Regulations for HI. Under note-C-1



(4) System: Electrical.

(a) The Inspector shall Observe the Readily Accessible and Observable Electrical Systems and Components:

1. The exterior of the exposed service entrance conductors.

2. Exterior receptacles.

3. The service equipment, grounding system, main overcurrent device, and the interior of the service and distribution panels (by removing the enclosure covers).

4. The exterior of the exposed branch circuit and feeder conductors, their overcurrent devices, and the compatibility of their ampacities and voltages.

5. Random interior receptacles.

6. The number of branch circuits and overcurrent devices in the panel enclosures.

(b) The Inspector shall Identify:

1. The service as being overhead or underground, cable, encased in conduit, other.

2. The type of service, feeder, and branch-circuit conductor materials (copper, copper-cladded aluminum, aluminum, other).

3. The type of Interior Wiring (Armored Cable, Conduit, Tubing, Nonmetallic Cable, Knob and Tube, Flat Cable Assemblies, Other).

4. The location of the service and distribution panels and indicate whether they are Readily Accessible and Observable.

5. The ampacity and the voltage of the main service disconnect (30, 60, 100, 125, 150 and/or 200 amp, other service, 120, 120/240, 120/208-volt system).

6. Any of the overcurrent devices that are in the off position.

(c) The Inspector shall Report On the following Readily Accessible and Observable Electrical Systems and Components:

1. The electrical service equipment including the service and distribution panels.

2. Undedicated exterior and interior electrical receptacles and polarity, grounding and ground fault protection issues (if any)

3. Any polarity or grounding issues of the receptacles required to be tested.

4. The exposed and Readily Accessible and Observable interior wiring.

5. Conditions that prevented him/her from inspecting any of the items noted above.

(d) The Inspector shall:

1. Test:

a. The polarity and grounding of a representative sample of the Readily Accessible two and three-prong receptacles throughout the dwelling.

b. The polarity and grounding of all un-dedicated bathroom and kitchen countertop receptacles.

c. The polarity and grounding of all Readily Accessible, non-dedicated receptacles in the attached garage and on the exterior of inspected structures and in unfinished basements, and check to see if they are ground fault protected.

d. The operation of all Readily Accessible Ground-fault Circuit Interrupters.

e. The operation of all Readily Accessible Arc Fault Current Interrupters.

f. All bathroom and kitchen countertop receptacles to see if those receptacles are ground fault protected.

2. Note:

a. The reason(s) for not removing any panel covers.

b. The location of the service and distribution panels.

c. The presence of aluminum wiring, and

i. If the exposed and Readily Accessible and Observable aluminum conductor terminations are coated with a termination compound, and

ii. If the overcurrent devices are identified for use with aluminum wire.

d. If the electrical system is attached to both the city and dwelling side of the water piping and/or a ground rod.

e. If the water piping is not bonded to the electrical system within the first five feet of its entry into the Basement.

f. If the neutral and equipment-ground terminal bars are bonded to the panel enclosures.

g. The compatibility of the overcurrent devices and the size of the protected conductor (Over-fusing).

h. The functionality of ground-fault and arc fault protected receptacles, if any, as determined by the required testing.

i. The existence of ground fault protection devises on all bathroom, kitchen countertop, exterior, unfinished basement, laundry and undedicated attached garage receptacles.

[Ken Amelin]

Dave,

Thanks! I know that it is in the MA standards of practice, but it doesn't make it per code. It is important to consider the source when interpreting the home inspector standards of practice. Also the standards only say to "NOTE" if it is provided with anti-ox, (answer yes or no) the standards don't say it must be.

As far as I'm concerned if it isn't in the code and it isn't a safety issue, then there is no need to make a recomendation to do it.

[John Steinke]

Ken, I was referring to a NECA standard. NECA standards are not, in any way, code or law. They are often referenced in contract documents, though, as defining proper work practices.

So, we are in the untenable position of "everybody knows" while not having the 'legal' leg to stand on ... something the aluminum wire manufacturers have been quite willing to exploit.

[Shannon Guinn]

I considered starting a new thread but figured it would fit within the confines of this one. Are there any manufacturers out there that still make AL type NM? Just curious, and since we are talking about aluminum anyway........