Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I say you are correct, it should be replaced, I imagine if you pulled out the breakers (not recommending that ) you would find the busbars painted.
Quote:
110.12(C) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections.Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues. There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
This is an excellent example of an issue that we have discussed here. The pictures are some of the worst ever! Thanks Jeff
Bob:
As we know the HI cannot cite the NEC, however, rewritten this rule is shown below as part of what should take place when inspecting the interior of a panelboard.
The Home Inspector shall inspect:
Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces for damage or contamination by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues.
Check to see that there are no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike Parks wrote:
1993 NEC article 100. 'Identified.' ... If you identify are you making a code statement???
Yes ... but that NEC term really applies to listing/labeling for equipment.
Bob Badger wrote:
I say you are correct, it should be replaced ...
I dont agree. The bar may be painted below, but that's not known. A sparky can pull the breakers to check, and may be able to clean that panel up, re-identify the wires, etc.
So I say evaluation by a licensed professional.
Just my 2-nickles
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
Bob Badger wrote:
I say you are correct, it should be replaced ...
I dont agree. The bar may be painted below, but that's not known. A sparky can pull the breakers to check, and may be able to clean that panel up, re-identify the wires, etc.
So I say evaluation by a licensed professional.
I agree that the HI would only be recommending evaluation by a licensed professional.
All I was doing was showing jpope how right he was, I know from his previous posts that he will not be going away from the SOP. 
Now any electrician that says this can be cleaned up to an acceptable level is nuts or just plain uneducated.
We have had to replace panels far better than that when painters sprayed them, of course the painters had to foot the bill.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mike Parks wrote:
Now look at the definition of 'equipment'.
Very general code term. Okay, so now we have that just about everything electrical needs to be listed/labeled. Not sure where you are going with that?
Bob Badger wrote:
... cleaned up to an acceptable level ...
Very relative term ...  ... For a new panel I agree that goes, even though thats beyond a home inspection. But for an older existing panel where just a sparky will be called in for evaluation/repair I think it's a toss up (assuming the bus bar isn't painted at the breakers). I think you work to a higher quality level than the average sparky ... and I mean that in a good way ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Don’t have to see the bus bars to know it needs to be replaced.
110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work.
(C) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections. Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues. There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.
including does not mean "limited to". It also specifically includes and other surfaces.
Originally Posted By: jpope This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
Don't have to see the bus bars to know it needs to be replaced.
Gotta love Jerry 
As I stated in my original post, I explained to my client that this panel may need to be replaced.
Now, I know that this panel is unacceptable in it's current condition and any attempt to "clean" it could damage it even further. But as mentioned earlier, there may be that one Sparky that says "no problem ma 'am, I'll clean that thing up good as new! That inspector didn't know what he was talking about!"
My recommendation was;
Contamination to the interior of the panel and evidence of corrosion and possible overheating of connections was noted at the time of the inspection. Further evaluation by a state licensed electrical contractor is necessary to determine the safety and integrity of the panel.
Hopefully, they'll get the right Sparky
-- Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
... adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment
I think those are the key terms an average sparky will be looking at relative to that. An HI will defer to a licensed professional to make that call, and thats the point.
I'm not saying that panel is fine, but I have seen similar situations with some overspray just cleaned up by a local sparky (new breakers, new neutral/ground bars, re-identify and strip/reconnect wires, etc.).
In fact, it kinda looks like that was already done on that panel. Just not a very good job on the neutral/ground bars from the looks of it ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpope wrote:
As I stated in my original post, I explained to my client that this panel may need to be replaced.
Now, I know that this panel is unacceptable in it's current condition and any attempt to "clean" it could damage it even further. But as mentioned earlier, there may be that one Sparky that says "no problem ma 'am, I'll clean that thing up good as new! That inspector didn't know what he was talking about!"
Jeff,
I've had that sparky before. I give him the option and let him replace it at the sellers expense now, or at his expense later. (I go into a lengthy explanation as to why). My clients typically respond to the seller with something like "If I am going to buy this house, the panel needs to be replaced, or give me a credit and I will have it replaced."
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
jpeck wrote:
... adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment
I think those are the key terms an average sparky will be looking at relative to that. An HI will defer to a licensed professional to make that call, and thats the point.
Out of context.
110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work.
(C) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections. Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues. There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.
Here, I'll break it up for you.
(title line)110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work.
(sub-title line)(C) Integrity of Electrical Equipment and Connections.
(first sentence)Internal parts of electrical equipment, including busbars, wiring terminals, insulators, and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners, abrasives, or corrosive residues.
(that was pretty self-explanatory and gives no options)
(next sentence)There shall be no damaged parts that may adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; or deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating.
(that is also pretty self-explanatory)
See your problem?
You were combing something from the latter and trying to make it work with the former.
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree that for a new panel even fixed up it would not meet the letter of the code, but I think your missing my point Jerry. To me it looks like the breakers may already have been replaced, and the hot wires are identified. Those neutral/ground bars dont look to great, but it’s hard to tell from the pics.
What is the real safety hazard or issue with that panel if say those neutral/ground bars are replaced with the wires clipped/reconnected, and there is no overspray on the bus bar.
See where I am going with this ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: dedwards This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
How many times have you recommended/ suggested further evaluation and repairs be made by a state licensed electrician (or plumber, roofer, etc) only to find out later the work was done by a handyman whom the listing agent uses. And again, you may get feedback that the “inspector didn’t know what he was talking about”.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
roconnor wrote:
To me it looks like the breakers may already have been replaced
No, they just were not installed until trim out, the panel was oversprayed after rough in and before trim out.
Who's fault is it?
A) Electrician for not protecting his work? Yes.
B) Painter for painting over it? Yes. The protection installed by the electrician may have fallen out (then the electrician needs to use a better protection method next time) or been removed by someone else (in which case it is their fault AND the painters fault).
New or old, it should never have been done that way.
At least, with FPE and Zinsco, they worked right for a while (okay, maybe they did), this was NEVER right.
) you would find the busbars painted.