residential panel-code compliant options

[petersonra]

I did not take a very close look, but it looks as though there is a backfed breaker in the enclosure that is the service disconnect. It is a mess and someone should work on this mess.

if it is backfed, why are there wires on the main lugs?

 

[e57]

Appears to be a SqD meter main, (Meter above) and I wouldn't see the 'more than six' rule as a larger safety issue than the deteriorated insulation on the older conductors - Bottom line, ditch the panel. This is a SoCal residence, it (depending on size) should have a panel at at least 125A for a shack. 150 for a decent house larger than a doublewide. Some well placed blasting caps should be able to clear that mess right out enough to start over. Assume that with any sale there will be a kitchen remodel, and replacement (larger) air conditioning in the near future. But would not give them a deal on it, the future is thiers..... To make it code compliant, pull all the circuits out, and put them in another panel below or near this detritus. Then only have a breaker there to feed the new panel, maybe leave the two pole there?

Anyway, something else I noticed about the pic is that I think I see a #12 on a SP30? And that this picture was taken in 2007? I thought New Years was a few months away.

 

[shaycali]

Please Help Me Too!

Please Help Me Too!

I do residentail all the time.....I am new at commercial. Having a hard time. 8,000 square foot conversion and I drew the damn eledctrical plans myself....but I have no idea how to do the load calcs...I did the greenb sheet everything....please help...what do I do?

What do you need on the rezi? I might be able to help.

I'm Shay....I'm a City Planner by trade...13 years government, Masters, AICP, jumped counter to the good side, and am learning as I go....

Please drop a note back.

Regards,
Sharyl

 

[bkludecke]

From what I see its is a 100A 8 position SquareD QO panel and it could be original equipment since QO was introduced in 1955. http://www.schneider-electric.ca/www/en/history/html/19451968.htm

It was code compliant at that time and would still be if there were only 6 handles in the box (although I don't see any anti-ox on the terminals). It could be made "minimum code complaint if load calculations determined house still qualifies for a 100A service and enough circuits were moved to a sub panel. The problem is it would be cheaper to upgrade to a 20 position MBR panel than to add the sub panel.

Where is there any requirement for "anti-ox" on terminals? Sometimes it's a good practice but I don't think it's required by NEC.