Chinese Drywall or well water

[Peter Furrow]

[QUOTE="curt swartz “I'm curious why the insurance company wanted the panel changed if the "black soot" issue what not known until you were replacing the panel?”

“No real issues with Challenger other than the old slim Type A breakers”

“The panel in the picture is actually an Eaton panel but was manufactured before the Challenger name was eliminated.”

Reply:
The home inspector used the word “corrosion”when indicating this on his home inspection report. However, the four-point inspection that he provided said nothing about the black Soot or “corrosion”. The four-point is homeowner submits to the insurance company and the home inspection report is for the homeowners personal information.
When the insurance company saw there was a challenger main breaker panel they obligated the homeowner to replace the panel. The insurance company knew nothing about black soot or “corrosion “because it wasn’t on the four-point.
I’m not completely sure why challenger is a blacklisted panel (recently). But many homeowners have been obligated to replace Challenger panels. The subject would make another good topic in the forum.
Why is challenger a blacklisted product with insurance companies? Does it have anything to do with challenger main breaker deficiencies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikeames]

Not sure on the accuracy but this is one page on the inter webs.

Issues With Challenger Panels & Insurance - Waypoint

Challenger panels practically have the same fire hazards as the Federal Pacific and Sylvania panel, but this panel is newer.

waypointinspection.com

and on this forum

Challenger panel insurance denials

I'm hearing from an insurance agent that many (he said 20) insurance companies are denying coverage for all Challenger panels, not just the ones that have a FPE lineage. Seems ridiculous to me to deny coverage on the Challenger panels that have Eaton BR guts in them. Anybody have any info on this?

forums.mikeholt.com

 

[curt swartz]

I did not read the entire article Mike linked to but from the pictures they are talking about the same issue I mentioned. The slim Type A breakers. Challenger and Crouse Hinds both manufactured the slim style breakers for their load centers. They were great for making up your own twin or quad breaker of various amperage's. The problem is the buss connecting clips were very easily bent since they were external to the breaker and would not provide a tight connection to the buss.

When Westinghouse purchased Challenger they discontinued the slim Type A breaker and replaced them with the Bryant BD Twin and Quad breakers. Siemens discontinued the slim Crouse Hinds breaker when the purchased the division and renamed it back to the original Murray name.

I think its total BS for the insurance company and home inspectors to flag the entire Challenger line as a hazard because of this issue withe the Type A breakers. At most they could recommend replacing Type A breakers with the current Type BD. If you look at a Type BD breakers you will notice that they also say Type A which means they are designed to replace Challenger Type A.

If they want to go after breakers that have a high bus connection failure they should also go after SquareD QO. Back when I also did service work I found just as many if not more QO buss connection failures as I did any other brand. I also think this this is due to the connecting clip being exposed to damage during shipping and installation. SquareD eventually added an additional spring clip around the buss clip to help maintain the tension. It would not surprise me if we start seeing similar connection failures on the Plug on Neutral clips.

In the early 80's Challenger also manufactured the Zinsco line and they had purchased the FPE Stab-Lok line. Both the Zinsco and FPE lines were gone when Westinghouse purchased Challenger.

 

[LarryFine]

I did not read the entire article Mike linked to but from the pictures they are talking about the same issue I mentioned. The slim Type A breakers. Challenger and Crouse Hinds both manufactured the slim style breakers for their load centers. They were great for making up your own twin or quad breaker of various amperage's. The problem is the buss connecting clips were very easily bent since they were external to the breaker and would not provide a tight connection to the buss.

Sounds like some GE breakers I have somewhere. They apparently predate their little cross-bar half-breakers.

 

[mikeames]

If they want to go after breakers that have a high bus connection failure they should also go after SquareD QO. Back when I also did service work I found just as many if not more QO buss connection failures as I did any other brand. I also think this this is due to the connecting clip being exposed to damage during shipping and installation. SquareD eventually added an additional spring clip around the buss clip to help maintain the tension. It would not surprise me if we start seeing similar connection failures on the Plug on Neutral clips.

WOW I didn't know about the QO issues. So whats your breaker preference? Siemens / BR type? I am curious if there is a reliability study covering the last 3 decades of so. Which breaker type had the least issues? I would say maybe bolt on is the way to go for everything but the stats probably don't support that given the shear number of breakers and panels with no issues.

I am considering putting in a QO panel with the plug on neutral, but will that present an issues 10 years from now?

 

[jim dungar]

SquareD eventually added an additional spring clip around the buss clip to help maintain the tension. It would not surprise me if we start seeing similar connection failures on the Plug on Neutral clips.

No. Square D does not have an external spring on their plug-on jaws. I blieve Cutler Hammer has one on their CH line.
Their breaker connection has basically been unchanged for 60 years now. I am pretty sure inherent design issues would no longer be secret in the industry.

 

[curt swartz]

No. Square D does not have an external spring on their plug-on jaws. I blieve Cutler Hammer has one on their CH line.
Their breaker connection has basically been unchanged for 60 years now. I am pretty sure inherent design issues would no longer be secret in the industry.

I maybe be remembering wrong. I seldom use plug-on QO breakers. For residential its Homeline and commercial it QO bolt-on. I know the larger amp QO's do have an additional spring around the clip but maybe they were always that way.

 

[curt swartz]

WOW I didn't know about the QO issues. So whats your breaker preference? Siemens / BR type? I am curious if there is a reliability study covering the last 3 decades of so. Which breaker type had the least issues? I would say maybe bolt on is the way to go for everything but the stats probably don't support that given the shear number of breakers and panels with no issues.

I am considering putting in a QO panel with the plug on neutral, but will that present an issues 10 years from now?

Just about every breakers has had issues with buss connections. Its just when they have an external exposed clip they are more susceptible to possible damage prior to installation. I have always made sure the buss connection is in good condition and clip holds tight. Just make sure you plug the breakers straight in and don't move them around. I see guys move them around alot which stretches the clips.

I actually did use plug-in QO on my own house when I built it recently. I have (2) 42 circuit load centers almost filled with plug-on neutral AF and DF breakers. As I mentioned in my reply to Jim, I don't generally use QO do to cost. I used a 400 amp panelboard as my main to allow for PV and Tesla batteries. Since I purchased the loadcenters and breakers on the same order as the panelboard the QO was less expensive than Homeline.

 

[Eddie702]

I have seen corrosion? or whatever you want to call it in a manufacturing plant that was a paper mill. It even affected outdoor hvac units.

But it did not damage the wire you could easily scrap or sand it off down to clean copper. If you pulled the wire out of a lug the connection would be shiney underneath.

 

[Peter Furrow]

I have seen corrosion? or whatever you want to call it in a manufacturing plant that was a paper mill. It even affected outdoor hvac units.

But it did not damage the wire you could easily scrap or sand it off down to clean copper. If you pulled the wire out of a lug the connection would be shiney underneath.

That’s exactly what I noticed. We actually clean the grounding conductors with a little sandpaper and we terminated onto the bus bar. We snipped back The insulation on the grounded conductors & the underground conductors. Then we terminated onto breakers in neutral busbar. It’s highly likely the problem will reoccur again though. I made sure I stipulated that in my invoice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mikeames]

I know its not needed or required but this is one application where a thin film of de-ox, Nolox, anti ox etc... helps. It keeps the air off the conductor and prolongs the clean contact from my observations. This is only my observation and wonder if one day I will find I am wrong. I use a thin film in loctations I feel may be exposed to the potential of greater than average oxidation; Pool equipment, AC units by saltwater, etc... Not much just a film.

 

[Eddie702]

I agree with @mikeames

No reason not to use Nolox on copper. I have used it on copper in damp environments. Don't think it can hurt