Thread: Is this okay?

Came across these at today's inspection. Two 200 amp services with 200 amp fuses. Is there not supposed to be a dead front cover? .....This was fed from a service lateral in an affluent golf community. Could not locate a meter.

It looks OK to me except there should be a interlock so the door can not be opened when the lever is in the on position. That appears to not be working since the door is open in the on position.

Hey at least your had fuses.

rick

I don't see where the ground and neutral are terminated to the enclosure, likely leaving the enclosure not grounded.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I don't see where the ground and neutral are terminated to the enclosure, likely leaving the enclosure not grounded.

Jerry,

In which pic, Sidney's or Rick's?

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Hey at least your had fuses.

rick

Typical GE safety switch, if you want a switch to burn up use GE (You can't spell garbaGE without GE).

On the OP's pics, a lot of older General Duty safety switches did not have cover interlocks.

Rick,

If you return to this thread would you please send me the pic for your post? I would like a larger file for a presentation at my local chapter. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I don't see where the ground and neutral are terminated to the enclosure, likely leaving the enclosure not grounded.

Hey Jerry,
The ground and neutral are terminated behind the fiberboard insulator located in the lower left side of the disconnect. Unfortunately you can't tell from the picture if the neutral (grounded conductor) bonding screw was installed and thus potentially ungrounded as you stipulated.
I also do not see any form of oxide inhibitor as is almost always required by the wiring manufacturer of all aluminum cables at termination points and therefore code mandated per "NFPA 70 2008 NEC Art 110.3(B)" and previous editions.

Cordially,
Bill Nolte, C.S.H.O.
Master Electrician
Fort Worth, Texas

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Hey at least your had fuses.

rick

WTF? what are those? I cant tell from the pic

Copper pipe instead of fuses

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Jerry,

In which pic, Sidney's or Rick's?

Oops ... sorry ... in Sidney's.

Originally Posted by Bill Nolte

I also do not see any form of oxide inhibitor as is almost always required by the wiring manufacturer of all aluminum cables at termination points and therefore code mandated per "NFPA 70 2008 NEC Art 110.3(B)" and previous editions.

Manufacturers do not "require" anti-oxidant to be use, therefore it is not a violation of 110.3(B).

"Should" anti-oxidant be used? Sure, it cannot hurt and typically helps.

Now, do not take "should" as past tense of "shall", take "should" as meaning "it is a good idea".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Manufacturers do not "require" anti-oxidant to be use, therefore it is not a violation of 110.3(B).

"Should" anti-oxidant be used? Sure, it cannot hurt and typically helps.

Now, do not take "should" as past tense of "shall", take "should" as meaning "it is a good idea".

Jerry,
Not all, but several wire and cable manufacturers do require use of anti-oxidant compounds on their aluminum cable at terminations. You need to read the manufacturers literature that should be requested with cable deliveries similar to MSDS sheets for chemicals. Some are automatically forwarded and some must be requested. However as stated code mandates compliance with manufacturer instructions.
I Direct you to the following link and suggest you read under Corrosion Resistance where you will find the following;

"Corrosion Resistance
The inherent corrosion-resistance of aluminum is due
to the thin, tough oxide coating that forms instantly
when a fresh surface of metallic aluminum is exposed
to air. This type of oxide is particularly resistant to most
types of corrosion. The ability of aluminum to
withstand harsh environments is responsible for its
widespread use in trays and conduit for electrical cable
as well as many industrial components and vessels.
When corrosion has appeared, it is usually related to
connections between dissimilar metals in the presence of
moisture – protective measures such as a grease, antioxidant
or protective coating should be used to prevent
these occurrences. Environments that do tend to be
aggressive to aluminum include alkaline soils and some
types of acids. This means that buried aluminum
conductors should be protected from corrosion by
insulation or an extruded covering. In sulfur-bearing
environments, aluminum performs much better than
copper. These include some soils as well as railway
tunnels and similar locations."

http://www.cable.alcan.com/NR/rdonly...ArmouredEN.pdf

In my 38 years experience, not all but typically most electrical inspectors and engineers state that if the manufacturer says it should be done than it is required for a "workmanlike manner", and that makes it mandated by the NEC.

Due to the age of the pictured disconnects, I am willing to bet that the lugs are not rated for aluminum terminations. And dissimilar metals do require utilization of antioxidant for proper termination, again this is covered under workmanlike manner.

I sincerely hope this helps to provide you with a better understanding of the process of proper terminations for aluminum conductors per NEC.

NOTE: Workmanlike manner is somewhat similar to OSHA's 5(a)(1) General duty clause if it is not specified elsewhere any inspector can call you under this section of the National Electrical Code.

Cordially,
Bill Nolte, C.S.H.O.
Master Electrician
Fort Worth, Texas

Not to start a debate here , but the neat and workman-like section of the NEC is probably one of the least enforceable. While I am sure most would be able to discern neat work, there is no formal definition in Article 100. What is neat enough for one may not be for someone else. This leaves too much room for interpretation. Suppose you had one inspection with a more relaxed inspector and a followup with a strict inspector that wants corrections when the work has already been approved.

Originally Posted by Bill Nolte

protective measures such as a grease, antioxidant or protective coating should be used

And that even after I explained "should" versus "shall".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Manufacturers do not "require" anti-oxidant to be use, therefore it is not a violation of 110.3(B).

"Should" anti-oxidant be used? Sure, it cannot hurt and typically helps.

Now, do not take "should" as past tense of "shall", take "should" as meaning "it is a good idea".

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And that even after I explained "should" versus "shall".

And this after I explained what inspectors interpret "should" to mean not what you interpret "should" to mean. Thanks for playing!!! The AHJ (aka inspectors) opinion is the only opinion that counts!!

Bill Nolte, C.S.H.O.
Master Electrician
Fort Worth, Texas

Bill,

We started off playing this:

Originally Posted by Bill Nolte

I also do not see any form of oxide inhibitor as is almost always required by the wiring manufacturer of all aluminum cables at termination points and therefore code mandated per "NFPA 70 2008 NEC Art 110.3(B)" and previous editions.

And, apparently, somewhere along the line you switched the game and ended up playing this:

Originally Posted by Bill Nolte

The AHJ (aka inspectors) opinion is the only opinion that counts!!

True, the AHJ inspectors "rule" (so to speak), but that was not the game you started playing.

Couple of notes:
Dead fronts are required on residential enclosures, I believe this is a 120/240v commercial?
There usually is a means to bypass the door interlock, thus making it possible to open the door w/o shutting down power.
Unfortunately, the accepted 'workmanlike manner' is per us AHJ's discretion.

Originally Posted by bob smit

Couple of notes:
Dead fronts are required on residential enclosures

By what code section?