Thread: Service Change

This house was built in 1900 or 1910, and then rewired somewhere around 1990 or 1995. The rating and info tag was missing on the disconnect. Two questions, do you call it out when the tag has been removed during service changes and what the heck is up with all the tape I keep seeing on these.

Similar Threads:

• Electrical service box located in closet
• 16 guage wire in service panel
• Code Change
• Welcome From F.I.R.E. Service
• Wrightstown approves change to swimming pool regulations

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

This house was built in 1900 or 1910, and then rewired somewhere around 1990 or 1995. The rating and info tag was missing on the disconnect. Two questions, do you call it out when the tag has been removed during service changes and what the heck is up with all the tape I keep seeing on these.

No, I would not call it out for missing the manufacturers label on that type of enclosure. I do know some inspectors that would call it out in their report.

The tape is just covering up the splice connection. See the neutral and the large splice, this is what the tape is most likely covering. It is not a big deal.

The tape is used to insulate the splice when extending the conductors , usually done when upgrading the electrical service. Enclosure manufacture label missing or method of splice? I agree with Scott, I would not call it out.

Originally Posted by Jess Alvarez

The tape is used to insulate the splice when extending the conductors , usually done when upgrading the electrical service. Enclosure manufacture label missing or method of splice? I agree with Scott, I would not call it out.

Would you say the tape NEEDS to be there?

I would call for an electrician to inspect it. We get corrosion on stuff like that here.

If the tape was not there the splices would be uninsulated and live parts would be exposed.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

If the tape was not there the splices would be uninsulated and live parts would be exposed.

As is the case clearly demonstrated in the third photograph! (tap and splice to the right). Damaged and unremediated insulation is clearly apparent on at least two conductors. Connector is uninsulated unwound, and is in apparent contact with the case, etc (bottom feeder first photograph and splices 1st & 2nd photographs). There may be damage to stranded conductor(s). There are listed and appropriate types of connectors which provide for legal taps.

Yes it should be reported. The conductors should be evaluated, and remediated as necessary by a qualified party.


As far as the equipment no longer (if ever) bearing proper markings and identifications, yes this should also be reported. Without markings it is (assuming it ever was, and wasn't a rejected or found to be damaged equipment, "condemmed", etc.) it can no longer be considered to be meeting the requirements of any original listing.

Yes it should be reported.

Corrective labeling can ONLY be done via an on-site "FIELD EVALUATION" by an appropriate service NTL (as in U.L., etc.). These only take place with a coordinated notification of the AHJ, at least when UL FIELD SERVICES is contracted, BTW.

Generally, in a case such as this, it would be less expensive to simply replace the equipment with appropriately labeled and listed equipment, and in a manner consistant with the manufacturer's instructions and local codes.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

As is the case clearly demonstrated in the third photograph! (tap and splice to the right). Damaged and unremediated insulation is clearly apparent on at least two conductors. Connector is uninsulated and is in apparent contact with the case, etc. There may be damage to stranded conductor(s). There are listed and appropriate types of connectors which provide for legal taps.

Yes it should be reported. The conductors should be evaluated, and remediated as necessary by a qualified party.

What the heck were they thinking to allow a bare neutral exposed in that panel?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

As is the case clearly demonstrated in the third photograph! (tap and splice to the right). Damaged and unremediated insulation is clearly apparent on at least two conductors. Connector is uninsulated and is in apparent contact with the case, etc. There may be damage to stranded conductor(s). There are listed and appropriate types of connectors which provide for legal taps.

Yes it should be reported. The conductors should be evaluated, and remediated as necessary by a qualified party.


As far as the equipment no longer (if ever) bearing proper markings and identifications, yes this should also be reported. Without markings it is (assuming it ever was, and wasn't a rejected or found to be damaged equipment, "condemmed", etc.) it can no longer be considered to be meeting the requirements of any original listing.

Yes it should be reported.

Corrective labeling can ONLY be done via an on-site "FIELD EVALUATION" by an appropriate service NTL (as in U.L., etc.). These only take place with a coordinated notification of the AHJ, at least when UL FIELD SERVICES is contracted, BTW.

Generally, in a case such as this, it would be less expensive to simply replace the equipment with appropriately labeled and listed equipment, and in a manner consistant with the manufacturer's instructions and local codes.

This might have been asked of HG before, but I don't recall.

H.G have you ever been a home inspector?
If so, about how many homes did you look at?
When was the last time you inspected a home?
What protocols or standards did you use?

I'm really curious because the answers you provide to most of the questions sound like you are just sitting back in a chair and Googling or researching every thread that you post on.

I don't recognize the brand of all-in-one but there should be a rating normally on the breaker handle.

HG, look at the top of the enclosure and you will see the UL sticker. But I have been known to state the obvious.

No Sirs.

I am referring to the nicked insulation in the hot splice conductors in the vicinity of the neutral splice to the right and foreground of the hanging piece of electrial tape (and possibly able to make contact with the cover when re-installed) and the apparent broken strand of the neutral feeder at the base/bottom of the enclosure.

I've marked he second picture on the attached (see thumbnail for notations), after reviewing, download M.S.'s original and blow it up. Note rupture of jacket, ghosting and melted aluminum on jacket across from strand.

How did you blow the pics up like that

M.S.,

The first one was your original 2nd pic already you uploaded to site. So, when I clicked on the thumbnail and it loaded a second frame, I copied the address. Then when writing the post I used the "Insert Image" icon that appears just above the editor mode post reply box (lower row to right, looks like a post-card image). Then I inserted the address that I had copied from the window of your previously loaded 2nd pic.

Next I uploaded my poorly notated (yep I have NO SKILLS in that area) copy of your pic that I had d/l, via the usual methods.

Then I viewed the thread, opened my thumbnail, which opened a window, copied that address, and went to my post in edit mode and again used that "insert image" icon to insert my own thumbnail picture into the post.

Unfortunately when I uploaded the photo it lost resolution and size. I had previously stretched it 250%. apparently the size was to great even though as saved was still only 178 kb. The site reduced it to less than 40 kb. So ALL the resolution was lost.

If anyone bothers to copy/down load YOUR original 2nd photo, (and first and 3rd) and then enlarges/zooms 300% I think they'll see the ruptured jacket, the melted aluminum strand, and the broken strand that I saw, and the ghosting.

I suspect a significant prior short, fault, lightning, arc or plasma event has already occured.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

I don't recognize the brand of all-in-one but there should be a rating normally on the breaker handle.

HG, look at the top of the enclosure and you will see the UL sticker. But I have been known to state the obvious.

The breaker is a Zinsco design, & the panel would be a Challenger, Westinghouse/Cutler-Hammer BR, my "bet" would be a Challenger or a NOS Sylvania by the design of the panel, when I looked at the picture for the 1st time my guess was someone took the interior out of a Zinsco panel, but as looked closer decided that was not the case.

Cutler-Hammer later dropped that breaker in favor of a one w/ a horz. operated handle.