This was quite a “miss.” Not only did the city inspector miss it, this panel had been inspected several times for resale of the property. The current owners were completely unaware of the condition.
The panel is not even equipped with a grounding terminal that would fit the EGC from the service equipment.
Awesome… send that to Paul. I’m sure he would get a ‘kick’ out of it!
That’s probably the reason why it wasn’t terminated, someone would get back to it later.
That was my thought as well… I wonder how many more were like that. This was a townhouse community.
Ouch. Could be a big problem. Doesn’t say much about all of the inspectors that came along before you. Nice job. 
Marketing oppourtunity!
Are they not using anti-oxidant paste with aluminum wire in your neck of the woods?
Maybe if they were going to use it they were going to install it when the lug was installed. BTW, there is no requirement for its use, unless called for by the manufacturer. I have never seen a roll of wire with any instructions.
I agree, and have heard numerous times that it’s required because the conductors are aluminum. I’ve yet to come across any lug that said you must use it with aluminum conductors.
The oxidation that forms on the exterior of bare aluminum is resistant to current flow (while on copper, it is conductive)
See Page 4.
Anti-oxident paste is required on aluminum wire by the AHJ in my area.
Your link didn’t work. 
This is an old debate. IMO using the paste is a good idea but the notion that it’s required is false. A local code would be a different issue altogether. Every terminal that I’ve seen that was listed for use with aluminum conductors said nothing about the required use of anti-oxidant paste. If I had to guess I would say that as part of the product’s listing it’s required to be manufactured for use without the anti-ox.
Just worked for myself.
I tried it just now and it worked. 
Great article.
Did not work for me earlier either … Roy
That InspectApedia article primarily discusses older aluminum wire from the 1960’s (called “old technology” wire) which was made differently than current AA-8000 series aluminum wire that doesn’t need anti-oxident paste at connections … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_wire
110.14 Electrical Connections. Because of different characteristics
of dissimilar metals, devices such as pressure
terminal or pressure splicing connectors and soldering lugs
shall be identified for the material of the conductor and
shall be properly installed and used. Conductors of dissimilar
metals shall not be intermixed in a terminal or splicing
connector where physical contact occurs between dissimilar
conductors (such as copper and aluminum, copper and
copper-clad aluminum, or aluminum and copper-clad aluminum),
unless the device is identified for the purpose and
conditions of use. Materials such as solder, fluxes, inhibitors,
and compounds, where employed, shall be suitable for
the use and shall be of a type that will not adversely affect
the conductors, installation, or equipment.
The only way to make these connections compliant with the NEC, is by use of NOALOX or equivalent. Unless these connectors are rated COPALUM.
I don’t see how that section requires the use of an anti-oxidant paste with aluminum conductors. The next section has the pertinent information. If the termination is not listed for use with aluminum conductors you cannot use it, anti-ox paste or not.
It doesn’t. It simply says if you DO use it, it must be suitable for its purpose.
Materials such as solder, fluxes, inhibitors, and compounds, where employed, shall be suitable for the use and shall be of a type that will not adversely affect the conductors, installation, or equipment.
[size=2]Most panels have terminals that are listed for use with both copper and AL. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a panel listed for CU only.
[/size]
Keep in mind that terminals listed for use with AL wire, are typically not listed for use with 1960’s era “old technology” AL wire … unless they are special AL-CU connectors like the AlumiConn Lug Connectors.