SE Cable running along side of home

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bogiedown170

Member
Location
Yonkers, NY, USA
I’m new to the field and saw an SE coming out of the meter and running along side of house about a foot above grade for 15 feet or so unsecured. Aside from not being properly fastened, is this a violation of 230.50 where service cables must be protected from physical damage with PVC, RMC, etc or is securing good enough?
It was a driveway and meter was above a 2 foot bed of grass and flowers along driveway with SE about 10 feet

https://www.flickr.com/photos/190481568@N05/shares/3C3hJW
 
They probable had new siding put on and are waiting for electrician to rescuer cable
 
jusme123 said:
They probable had new siding put on and are waiting for electrician to rescuer cable
Click to expand...
Thank you. Even with new siding, does SE require to be protected with PVC, etc being that it is only running about 2 feet above grade level horizontally for about 10 feet before dropping to basement that is below grade? Thanks
 
Since it's a driveway I would say it's subject to physical damage. But it is an AHJ call.

Note that 230.50 doesn't quite say that SE cables shall be protected in all cases. It says they shall be protected "where subject to physical damage". Most AHJs would probably say vehicular traffic potentially subjects the cable to physical damage, although quite a few might fail to notice. ;)

Note also 230.50 allows the cable to be protected by 'other approved means.' 'Other approved means' could be 'I trust the drivers around here.' So it really is 100% an AHJ call.
 
infinity said:
If it were properly supported and slightly elevated it might pass inspection around here.
Click to expand...
SE soft sheathed cable would not pass being exposed to elements in California, they would at least want it sleeved with a conduit, reason being obviously some critter or person with no common sense could easily cut through the sheathing some how or another providing for a potentially dangerous condition.
 
infinity said:
If it were properly supported and slightly elevated it might pass inspection around here.
Click to expand...
Some EI's may pass it but they would not be correct IMHO. I've seen several installations, like the one in post # 12 that obviously look like a potential danger. The SE cable on the load side of the meter pan needs protection. In fact, some EI's would even have you install a concrete post in front of the meter pan. How it passed originally is beyond comprehension. That said, even if the EI passes the job you still have to get the approval of a POCO inspector after the job is installed.
 
You could argue for "subject to physical damage" but from another perspective if your concern is damage from vehicular incident you do have a curb that would partially keep a vehicle from incidental contact. I would be more concerned of the possibility of incidental damage by landscape maintenance personnel given proximity to landscaping. I would agree with Another C10 comment as a solution to potential damage:
Another C10 said:
SE soft sheathed cable would not pass being exposed to elements in California, they would at least want it sleeved with a conduit, reason being obviously some critter or person with no common sense could easily cut through the sheathing some how or another providing for a potentially dangerous condition.
Click to expand...
One way you could accomplish that post installation, plus you need to get the cable supported anyway, is to split a section of schedule 80 and a 90 elbow, lay over cable and use hangers at appropriate intervals.
I would however state a simple incidental damage to the outer sheathing would have limited chance of injury as the grounded neutral conductor is wrapped around the two current carrying conductor thus most likely only contact if system is operating properly is the unbalanced neutal load.
 
goldstar said:
Some EI's may pass it but they would not be correct IMHO. I've seen several installations, like the one in post # 12 that obviously look like a potential danger. The SE cable on the load side of the meter pan needs protection. In fact, some EI's would even have you install a concrete post in front of the meter pan. How it passed originally is beyond comprehension. That said, even if the EI passes the job you still have to get the approval of a POCO inspector after the job is installed.
Click to expand...
That is different than around here, once EI passes the installation POCO is not involved other than "setting a meter" and connecting service overheads, additionally POCO doesn't have input past the service connection, NEC requirements are the only concerns from that point. POCO only will dictate size/style and elevation of meter pan, and elevation of service connection and size of service mast if used. But all those are addressed in site review before installation and EI would pass/fail from that perspective. I have seen even when someone has not fulfilled the POCO requirements and the EI passed, installation of meter and service connection takes place. I've asked one guy from POCO about that and they said that if the inspector has passed it,"?", unless it was to created a violation on their side of service connection not much they would do (they might be taking a picture and posting it into an equivalent forum to this with comment of "What were these electricians thinking? ")
 
Fred B said:
That is different than around here, once EI passes the installation POCO is not involved other than "setting a meter" and connecting service overheads, additionally POCO doesn't have input past the service connection, NEC requirements are the only concerns from that point. POCO only will dictate size/style and elevation of meter pan, and elevation of service connection and size of service mast if used.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are correct in 99.99% of the cases but if an EI passes an installation like the one shown in post # 12 I believe he is wrong to do so. In addition, if a POCO inspector determines that the SE cable on the load side of the meter is installed in a potentially dangerous manner he has an obligation to either bring it to the EI's or the EC's attention. What he can actually done about it is another discussion IMHO.

One of the POCO's in my area is Orange & Rockland Electric. They require a porcelain insulator instead of a metal hook for the strain relief. I once passed a service upgrade by the EI but the POCO inspector told me I had to install a porcelain insulator for the strain relief or he would shut power off to the residence. It got installed.
 
I am going to take a different stance than most of the replies. I am not seeing that as subject to physical damage. It's on the outside of a building exposed - yes that is what SE cable is for, news flash. There is this frustrating trend where just about anytime a cable is exposed (i.e. NM too) , it is said to be subject to physical damage, even though the code allows it to be run exposed on the surface.
 
electrofelon said:
I am going to take a different stance than most of the replies. I am not seeing that as subject to physical damage. It's on the outside of a building exposed - yes that is what SE cable is for, news flash. There is this frustrating trend where just about anytime a cable is exposed (i.e. NM too) , it is said to be subject to physical damage, even though the code allows it to be run exposed on the surface.
Click to expand...
You are correct, that is withing listing for the product. But at what point does the risk of damage and danger pass from acceptable to unwarranted and need to limit risk? Is there anything in the code that defines that point? If so, does OP installation meet that limitation in the code? At what point does any risk pass from acceptable to unwarranted? At what point do you become "bubble boy"? (Not looking for answers on last two, just commentary, points to ponder.)
Without looking for those answers first impression is the image is compliant within listing limit of product, other than lacking supports. If a person was worried about it, my previous post gave one possible solution.
 
I, too, am in a state where exposed SE is common; many of you see it as alien.

In my opinion, the proximity to the driveway makes this a likely-to-be-damaged location.

Also, I believe Sched. 80 PVC or RGS would be called for here.
 
LarryFine said:
I, too, am in a state where exposed SE is common; many of you see it as alien.

In my opinion, the proximity to the driveway makes this a likely-to-be-damaged location.

Also, I believe Sched. 80 PVC or RGS would be called for here.
Click to expand...

IMO if a car jumps the curb and hits the house, there are bigger things to worry about, and besides even if it's car vs sched 80 PVC, the car will still win. Is like to see what happens if a car kisses that meter......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top