Thread: Tapped beside main lug with no overload protection on either side

Is it acceptable to tap onto main lug with a 1/0 aluminum and feed to a switch on a geothermal pump with no overload protection on either side. Wire in running in conduit about 6 ft. (See Pictures) Should i call out an electrician
The 1/0 wire was not a ground wire. It has been determined to a neutral wire.

Similar Threads:

• Double tapped gas supply
• Double Tapped Breaker
• Side by Side Chimneys
• New Panel Double Tapped to Old
• To all you antique experts...old overload switch

Yup, call out a licensed electrician.

You have other issues in this panel, maybe in your area they allow it, but in general you can't run "USE" indoors. The service conductors in your photo show "USE XLP" used for underground installs and can't be used indoors per the NEC, not listed. The neutral wire is supposed to be white or grey, and I'm guessing you have a black conductor with 3 yellow stripes as the neutral, another no-no.

I'm confused about the 1/0 wire coming off the service side for the pump as it's just a neutral, how are they supplying the hot lead? No matter really, it is wrong, can't do this, at least I would not allow it, and I'm sure it's a violation of product listing, along with a bunch of other codes.

Like to see what others have to say...

I am with Robert on this.

The smaller conductor on the lug may be a grounding or bonding conductor. Even if it were a neutral there would be no need for overcurrent protection for that conductor.


Given the aging factor that yellow identifier may have been white or is being influenced by the lighting.

If you have doubts bring someone out.

I would be only guessing because I can not see enough of the circuit or trace the wires but what you might (remember might) be seeing is they are using the geothermal system as a earth ground - much like a cold water pipe. Technically (and I could be wrong) I don't see anything wrong with using the geothermal well casing as a ground (but we do not have enough photos to really show what is going on here) as for the markings well that could just be age. How ever if I were doing the work - I like things to be crystal clear and would at least wrap white tape on the last foot of wire (but that is me)

Can I claim I was giving a test???

I switched to hot conductor thinking on the second half of my comment of the 1/0 when I reread the OP about a feed for the switch, but yeah, without seeing the other end can't say what they are doing. I going with the guess of it being a ground like Dwight said.

As far as the markings, if there are three white lines and the color is distorted to look yellow, then it is fine, but if it's only one line it would still be wrong, as the NEC requires 3.

This site is great, keeps me on my toes...

There is more than one way to identify/reidentify grounded, grounding, and ungrounded conductors than just white, grey, green or other than these for ungrounded respectively.
Some manufacturers have their USE & URD cables listed for interior use. Staboloy (sp?) is one.

Right. The 'tap' is on the neutral, with a barrier between it and the hot. It is obviously an add-on by someone who cut the cable a little short, or didn't have a clue but got it sort of right.

Correction - I missed where it says it is a grounding conductor. Actually we don't know where the other end is coming from. It is still too short.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

I am with Robert on this.

I agree with Robert and Jim, that conductor is on the neutral side of the plastic divider and not on the hot lug side of it.

Given the aging factor that yellow identifier may have been white or is being influenced by the lighting.

Could be, but for some reason I've seen conductors which look like that with a yellow tracer on them installed in new work - and, no, the yellow does not meet the marking requirements for the white required for a neutral. Never have been able to find out why it was used when I've seen it (the yellow color looked too 'yellow' to be faded). Fortunately for the contractor the replacement was relatively easy as they were short pulls.

This appears to be a service panel. If the tapped conductor is a "grounding electrode conductor" and is using the geothermal well casing as the electrode, it is code compliant. It can be any insulation and any color "but" green and white according to the NEC. And since it is not interior wiring the use of URD is fine...

WOW My first post here and its on a thread full of assumptions !!!

First that conductor is not a tap conductor. It is a neutral ( grounded conductor) terminated in a factory provided neutral ( grounded conductor) terminal. Square D has been providing that terminal for at least 30 years.

URD ? how can one determine that the conductor in question is URD ? May be a single conductor of XHHW.

call for it to be moved to a "safer" location on the neutral bar ? WHY ? That is a factory approved location as it is.

If , it is as Roland stated, it is grounding electrode conductor then it is good to go.

Where is Sam and why have you not replied with more information ?

As far as Mr Peck stating that he made contractors remove a conductor because it has a yellow tracer ? I would insist that he provide in writing the jurisdicions adopted code requirement for such needless actions! (Unless he has a pocket of cash to pay for it.)
A simple wrap of white tape that encircles the conductor is all that is required by the NEC. (Provided it is larger than #6) nec 200.6 (B)(3) & 200.7 (A)(3) cover this

Ahhh ... Jack ... you need to clean your glasses before you spit in your own eye ... I have highlighting with bold and underlining the part YOU typed which should clue you in on where you went wrong - if not, let me know and I will point it out very specifically for you (although I am sure you will prefer the bold and underlining below)

Originally Posted by jack davenport

As far as Mr Peck stating that he made contractors remove a conductor because it has a yellow tracer ? I would insist that he provide in writing the jurisdicions adopted code requirement for such needless actions! (Unless he has a pocket of cash to pay for it.)
A simple wrap of white tape that encircles the conductor is all that is required by the NEC. (Provided it is larger than #6) nec 200.6 (B)(3) & 200.7 (A)(3) cover this

Jack ... did you see the difference in what *I* wrote and what *YOU* wrote?

Now, how about *YOU* pointing out where the NEC allows YELLOW to be used as a tracer instead of WHITE (sorry, but "white" text does not show up here ) for the neutral conductor ... did I just hear a muffled "oops" uttered by you?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ahhh ... Jack ... you need to clean your glasses before you spit in your own eye ... I have highlighting with bold and underlining the part YOU typed which should clue you in on where you went wrong - if not, let me know and I will point it out very specifically for you (although I am sure you will prefer the bold and underlining below)


Jack ... did you see the difference in what *I* wrote and what *YOU* wrote?

Now, how about *YOU* pointing out where the NEC allows YELLOW to be used as a tracer instead of WHITE (sorry, but "white" text does not show up here ) for the neutral conductor ... did I just hear a muffled "oops" uttered by you?

WOW impressive - Jerry knows how to add color,bold and underlining ! But that does not impress me nor does it scare me or convince me. I see it as a child yelling trying to get his way while having a temper tantrum.
Please show me where it says you can not have a conductor with a yellow tracer that is reidentified with white tape ?? (Larger than # 6 )
Muffled OOPS ? not here but maybe in Florida !?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ahhh ... Jack ... you need to clean your glasses before you spit in your own eye ... I have highlighting with bold and underlining the part YOU typed which should clue you in on where you went wrong - if not, let me know and I will point it out very specifically for you (although I am sure you will prefer the bold and underlining below)


Jack ... did you see the difference in what *I* wrote and what *YOU* wrote?

Now, how about *YOU* pointing out where the NEC allows YELLOW to be used as a tracer instead of WHITE (sorry, but "white" text does not show up here ) for the neutral conductor ... did I just hear a muffled "oops" uttered by you?

WOW impressive - Jerry knows how to add color,bold and underlining ! But that does not impress me nor does it scare me or convince me. I see it as a child yelling trying to get his way while having a temper tantrum.
Please show me where it says you can not have a conductor with a yellow tracer that is reidentified with white tape ?? (Larger than # 6 )
Muffled OOPS ? not here but maybe in Florida !? ...

Originally Posted by jack davenport

WOW impressive -

Please show me where it says you can not have a conductor with a yellow tracer that is reidentified with white tape ?? (Larger than # 6 )

WOW impressive - Jack knows how to be sarcastic and whiny.

I see it as a child yelling trying to get his way while having a temper tantrum.

Jack also needs to learn how to read what is written ... or ... Jerry needs to make sure that what he writes is what he is trying to say; so far I have not found where Jerry did not write what he was trying to say - maybe Jack can point it out.

Someone posted that the black wire with the yellow tracer was being used as a neutral and that it is possible that the tracer was originally white.

I posted that I have seen several of those with the yellow tracers installed and have them replaced.

Unlike what Jack thinks he read (or maybe Jack can point this out) I did not write that if the electrician proposes to re-identify the wire with white that I don't let them ... I do - however - take the advantage when an electrician is willing to replace those conductors to have them replaced, I also take the advantage when an electrician does not think of re-identifying the conductor to white to have them replaced.

I take the same advantage when a builder installs a guardrail along the open side of a stair with openings which are 5" - I point out that a guard should not allow a 4" sphere to pass through (another true statement, and one I've stated here many times in the past) ... when the contractor replaced that guard along the open side of the stair with one which matches the guard they installed along the balcony ... *IT IS NOT MY JOB* ... *to tell them that they could have installed the guard along the open side of a stair with openings which would not allow a 4-3/8" sphere to pass ... *IT IS THEIR JOB* ... to know that and bring that point up.

When I point out that black with a yellow tracer is not an allowed neutral color and that the conductor needs to be replace ... *IT IS NOT MY JOB* to explain that, oh, by the way, you could just re-identify that conductor to white if the electrician does not realize that or know that.

I point out what is wrong and point out the way it should have been. It is up to the contractor to realize and understand the options.

Now, Jack, please point out where I stated that I would not allow the contractor to re-identify that conductor, I believe I just pointed out that I would, and have, have it replaced. If I did say that, show me, I will read the context and if as you are claiming what I did is correct, I will make sure to edit it so that it is correct and you will get an apology from me ... show me, I do miss things and make mistakes too ... as I am sure *YOU* do.

Stop the child-like whining and be a man - show me ... be really impressive, Jack.

Rainy days and Mondays. Allow me through a little fuel to our argument
Always interesting to see so much tension over so little.

post #9

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.... Fortunately for the contractor the replacement was relatively easy as they were short pulls.

post #14

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.....I posted that I have seen several of those with the yellow tracers installed and have them replaced.
......... did not write that if the electrician proposes to re-identify the wire with white that I don't let them ... I do - however - take the advantage when an electrician is willing to replace those conductors to have them replaced, I also take the advantage when an electrician does not think of re-identifying the conductor to white to have them replaced.
.........
When I point out that black with a yellow tracer is not an allowed neutral color and that the conductor needs to be replace... *IT IS NOT MY JOB* to explain that, oh, by the way, you could just re-identify that conductor to white if the electrician does not realize that or know that.

I point out what is wrong and point out the way it should have been. It is up to the contractor to realize and understand the options.

.... please point out where I stated that I would not allow the contractor to re-identify that conductor, I believe I just pointed out that I would, and have, have it replaced. If I did say that, show me, .....
.

Post #9 doesn't say that the contractor was required to replace the lines. Just that they were short runs implying that they were replaced. So I took it as the contractor thought '' what the heck I will pull the replacement line and make everybody happy. No big deal".

But, Jack does bring out the psyche behind the #9 post in the posting of #14 by the concept of "take the advantage" . coupled with "...When I point out that black with a yellow tracer is not an allowed neutral color and that the conductor needs to be replace . ..." I then interpenetrate the original situation in the light of the Inspectors demand/directs the "...conductor needs to be replace... ". The contractor rather than fight with the Inspector's attitude and ego and to have the Permit signed off he replaces the line rather than just reidentify the line and meet code.

The contractor should have billed the customer for the additional work since the Inspector stated that the line had to be replaced even though all it needed was some white tape. Yet, the Inspector is the authority and it was the Inspector that stated to replace the line. The Inspector left no option by his wording "conductor needs to be replace". IT'S Not My Job (contractor) TO ARGUE WITH THE INSPECTOR OVER INTERPENETRATION OF CODE REQUIREMENTS, THE INSPECTOR IS THE AUTHORITY. It was not left to the contractor's discretion after the Inspector made his determination of required replacement. If the Inspector just stated that the line is incorrect due to its identification then the correction, using $ .10 white tape, would have been done and it would have meet code at no additional cost.

Jerry, it is how you worded your statements.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Rainy days and Mondays. Allow me through a little fuel to our argument
.
.
.
.
Jerry, it is how you worded your statements.

Garry,

I agree that it is in the wording, both in the writing of the words (here, saying the words on the job-site) and the reading of the words (here, listening to the words on the job-site).

They words are, sometimes (many times? ) chosen to not taint the thoughts of the listener or reader while not saying what one does not want to say, yet allowing the listener or reader to add whatever inflections, thoughts, predetermined opinions, etc., one might already have into what they are reading or listening too.

Remember, code inspections are based on the minimum code, nothing more is (is allowed to be) enforced; additionally, the code (being the "minimum") is the "most unsafe"/"least safe" one is legally allowed to do something, and that it is not the code inspectors job to make the code 'more' unsafe or 'less' safe than it is as the code stands.

Here is an example (further information on my example of the guard on the open sides of a stair): everyone - almost everyone - knows that the openings in guards cannot exceed 4", right?

Wrong. The openings in guards are required to be small enough that a 4" sphere cannot pass through the opening, which means that the opening is not allowed to be 4", the opening must be ' less than 4" '. Additionally, most people apply that guard requirement to the guard on the open sides of stairs, but the requirement is different, the requirement for the open sides of stairs is that a 4-3/8" sphere cannot pass through the openings.

Why the difference? Is the larger opening on the open sides of stairs somehow "safer" than it would be along a balcony?

No. The reason has *nothing at all to do with safety*, the reason is for "convenience" and "appearance" ... NOT "safety".

The reason for allowing 4-3/8" is that installing two typical balusters per tread would leave the openings slightly larger than the allowed 4" for the other sections of the guardrail, and installing three typical balusters per tread would require additional work and expense and would leave the openings considerably smaller than the allowed 4" size (what is wrong with the openings being considerably smaller, smaller openings would be safer); however, three typical balusters per tread would 'look busy' and less appealing, in addition to being more work for the builder.

Okay, so if the guardrail on the open sides of stairs is allowed to have openings which reject the passage of a 4-3/8" sphere and that meets the safety requirements, then 4-3/8" openings would be allowed for the opening sizes in open risers ... right? Nope. The opening sizes for open riser must not allow the same 4" sphere to pass through as the rest of the guard openings reject.

4-3/8"? Absolutely nothing to do with safety.

Thus, because the code is based on 'safety', when I mention 'guards' to builders and then mention 'must not allow a 4" sphere to pass' ... in their minds they thing of the entire guard including the guard along the open sides of the stair - and I simply don't point out that the requirements are different for that section of the guard as the code recognizes that, for a small child on a tread, the less-than-4' opening limitation which applies to open risers is needed to keep the child from falling though, and I allow that thinking to continue to the openings alongside the stair. Makes perfect sense in a "safe" way.

The not-forcing-the-electrician-to-replace-the-conductors-if-they-realize-that-the-code-allows-reidentifying-the-ends-with-white holds true to a similar degree ... let the electrician replace the conductors if they think that is easier, or not enough trouble to bring up reidentifying with white tape or other means, or if they simply did not think of reidentifying the conductors.

Yes, wording is critical to thinking, but it can also play tricks with the mind - consider trying to edit a letter you just wrote ... your mind will likely have a hard time finding the mistakes when you read it and edit it because your mind already wrote it and "knows" what is in the letter, so editing the letter yourself seldom reveals the errors you want it to. Have someone else edit your letter and you will be surprised what they come up with. ("You" as in the plural for anyone/everyone, not as in the singular for 'you' in particular.)

Reading code books is fun ... just don't trip up on the "or" words when your mind reads "and" in place of the "or".

Here is an example:
Q. What is the minimum width of the working space in front of electrical equipment?
- A. 30"
- B. 36"
- C. Either A or B, depending on other factors
- D. Neither

I'll give the working space depth as 3 feet being required for the example condition with a voltage of 0-150 volts to ground.

Jerry,
Found out my 1st yr of college that I needed an English major to edit my work. Made the profs think I was a great writer. I am sure I jumbled up what I had written in an effort to not create an argument, but a discussion or a continuation of the ongoing discussion.

Point was that you were saying that you said that "the conductor needs to be replaced" and I was taking by assumption it was from your code inspector days. If HI were to say that then the electrician would just use some tape and say it meets code and the HI was full of it to say that it needed to be replaced.

Originally Posted by Garry Sorrells

Point was that you were saying that you said that "the conductor needs to be replaced" and I was taking by assumption it was from your code inspector days.

Garry,

You are correct that is what I say ... but contractors do not do what they are told to do, heck, they don't even do what they themselves say the will do.

My point was that when I say that, and I do say that, the contractor has several options: tell me they know differently (I am always learning new things that way); tell me to "show them in the code" and I do, either they learn new things that way or I learn new things that way by reviewing the actual wording in the code; or they just do it. The last option is the least often taking option as I encourage all the contractors to 'show me where it says they can do what they are doing' and then I show them where it says they are not allowed to do it that way - regardless who is correct, we both learn something by doing it that way.

Many times the contractors will say 'tell me how you want me to do it and I will do it that way', my response is always 'I want you to do it the way you said you would and the way the code says you are to do it - the way *I* want you to do it has no meaning here'. The contractors submit documents for plan review and those documents tell us how the contractor says they will do the work, we approved those documents (many times with comments showing corrections which need to be made so the documents meet the codes) and then we *expect* the contractors to do it that way ... if only the contractors would read what they submitted to us ... (sigh) wishful thinking that they would actually do what they say they are going to do

If HI were to say that then the electrician would just use some tape and

say it meets code and the HI was full of it to say that it needed to be replaced.

And if the electrician said that I would say (and have said) 'Yep, you are correct.', but if the contractor does not know what their code says, then let that contractor do the work the best way possible.

We are having difficulty getting electricians to use clamps listed/identified for 'direct burial' when the clamps are in earth, and to use clamps listed/identified for being 'concrete encased' in concrete encased electrodes, their whining is always 'but I can't find any clamps listed/identified for that anywhere' ... today I stopped by the local electrical supply store and, within 30 minutes, had 3 pages of clamps which were either listed/identified for 'direct burial' and or 'concrete encased' - most were listed for either use. The next time one of them whines about not being able to find ... I will show them those pages and say they can use any of these which are suitable for the use (that is the polite way of saying 'STFU and quit whining' ... always being 'the nice guy', you know ... )

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Wouldn't a black conductor with a yellow stripe be indicative of URD?

It might. ( URD - Underground Residential Distribution wire/cable and is for utility company use )

But then ... URD is not a conductor type listed in the NEC the last time I checked.

If it was dual listed as USE then I suspect that the tracer would be white and this discussion would have ended many posts ago ...

Is that polybutylene piping coming off the manifold?

Jerry-

I simply asked you for the reference that states one can not use a conductor that has a yellow tracer on it and reidentify it white, then use it for a grounded conductor (neutral) ???
( Provided it is larger than #6)

You have yet to answer a simple question, yet you keep insisting that it is not allowed.
Please enlighten the forum and post where that is written

Please - we're waiting .................................................. .....

Originally Posted by jack davenport

Jerry-

I simply asked you for the reference that states one can not use a conductor that has a yellow tracer on it and reidentify it white, then use it for a grounded conductor (neutral) ???
( Provided it is larger than #6)

You have yet to answer a simple question, yet you keep insisting that it is not allowed.
Please enlighten the forum and post where that is written

Please - we're waiting .................................................. .....

Jack,

You didn't 'simply ask that', you asked that in an accusatory manner implying that (and you now saying this specifically) that I said you are not allowed to reidentify that conductor and I did not ... BUT ... I WILL SAY IT NOW that Robert asked if that could be URD as it had not clicked with me on what that yellow stripe typically designates (from what I have seen): You are *not allowed to reidentify that yellow stripped condcutor with white tape*.

Why? I don't have my NEC with me at this time, but here is why, I will need to wait until tomorrow for the code sections (unless someone else provides those sections in the meantime): Only the wiring methods and types listed in the NEC are allowed for use under the NEC, and, as I stated in my previous posts, URD wiring is not one of the listed types in the NEC.

Thus, the first reference would be 110.3(B) Listing and labeling - that yellow tracer conductor would not be used in accordance with its listing and labeling.

Jack, get off your butt and actually read what was written as I have not stated what you said I have "You have yet to answer a simple question, yet you keep insisting that it is not allowed." ... Now, get something impressive going and correct yourself, pull your foot out of your mouth instead of shoving your foot farther in ... I will pass the salt and pepper if that will make it taste any better ... ... get a life and read something carefully before you go off half-cocked, and continue to mis-fire with blanks ... Crimeny.

where is the "report" post "button"?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

where is the "report" post "button"?

Bottom left of each post, red triangle with and exclamation point..

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Bottom left of each post, red triangle with and exclamation point..

110.8 Wiring Methods. Only wiring methods recognized
as suitable are included in this Code. The recognized methods
of wiring shall be permitted to be installed in any type
of building or occupancy, except as otherwise provided in
this Code.

310.13 Conductor Constructions and Applications. Insulated
conductors shall comply with the applicable provisions
of Table 310.13(A) through Table 310.13(E).

These conductors shall be permitted for use in any of
the wiring methods recognized in Chapter 3 and as specified
in their respective tables or as permitted elsewhere in
this Code.

The NEC doesn't recognize URD cable and does't allow its use, so identifying it with white tape is not an option..

ok
1) - no clear proof that it is URD
2) - Jerry only said he made contractors replace a cable with a yellow tracer- NOT URD conductors.
3) You stated that one can not reidentify a conductor with yellow tracer - Did not say a URD conductor
4) I posted the code refernce for identifying conductors larger than #6
5) I will add NEC 310.110(A) --- ( in the 2011)
6) article 310.13 does not exist in the 2011 NEC -- It was relocated to section 310.110
7) Southwire makes a URD thats is allowed inside a structure as it is RHH /RHW. Which by the way is covered in the NEC Table 310.104(A) that Roland referred to as 310.13

8000 Series AL Triplex 600V

Originally Posted by jack davenport

2) - Jerry only said he made contractors replace a cable with a yellow tracer- NOT URD conductors.
3) You stated that one can not reidentify a conductor with yellow tracer - Did not say a URD conductor

Jack,

So far you have repeated yourself multiple times regarding the above, yet you have not once provided where I have said what you have said even though I have asked you multiple times to show me where I said that.

Seems to me that all you want is to hear yourself belly-ache about something ... anything ... rather than respond to questions where your response would show that you are incorrect ... seems like you are rather like Watson in that way - apparently believing that if you say something enough times it will be thought as true even though it is not. Watson has that nearly perfected ... in his mind, that is,, in the real world we have learned to see right through it, just like you are teaching us to see through and ignore your belly-aching and not producing backup to support what you are belly-aching about. Maybe we should all start yelling "wolf .. wolf ... wolf" when you post ...

This was a timely discussion regarding the yellow tracer on that conductor ...

Yesterday I inspected in installation which had ... a conductor with a yellow tracer coming up from the raceway from the underground service lateral, and two conductors with yellow tracers in the service equipment side of the meter/panel combination service equipment panel going into the structure to Panel A and Panel B.

The conductor was identified (labeled) as being Type USE-2.

This is what the NEC says about insulation identified as type USE: (which includes USE-2)
ARTICLE 338 Service-Entrance Cable: Types SE and USE
I. General
- 338.1 Scope.
-- This article covers the use, installation, and construction specifications of service-entrance cable.
- 338.2 Definitions.
- - Service-Entrance Cable. A single conductor or multiconductor assembly provided with or without an overall covering, primarily used for services, and of the following types:
- - - Type SE. Service-entrance cable having a flame-retardant, moisture-resistant covering.
- - - Type USE. Service-entrance cable, identified for underground use, having a moisture-resistant covering, but not required to have a flame-retardant covering.

- 338.10 Uses Permitted.
- - (A) Service-Entrance Conductors. Service-entrance cable shall be permitted to be used as service-entrance conductors and shall be installed in accordance with 230.6, 230.7, and Parts II, III, and IV of Article 230.
- - (B) Branch Circuits or Feeders.
- - - (1) Grounded Conductor Insulated. Type SE service-entrance cables shall be permitted in wiring systems where all of the circuit conductors of the cable are of the thermoset or thermoplastic type.
- - - (2) Grounded Conductor Not Insulated. Type SE service-entrance cable shall be permitted for use where the insulated conductors are used for circuit wiring and the uninsulated conductor is used only for equipment grounding purposes.
- - - - Exception: Uninsulated conductors shall be permitted as a grounded conductor in accordance with250.32 and 250.140 where the uninsulated grounded conductor of the cable originates in service equipment, and 225.30 through 225.40.
- - - (3) Temperature Limitations. Type SE service-entrance cable used to supply appliances shall not be subject to conductor temperatures in excess of the temperature specified for the type of insulation involved.
- - - (4) Installation Methods for Branch Circuits and Feeders.
- - - - (a) Interior Installations. In addition to the provisions of this article, Type SE service-entrance cable used for interior wiring shall comply with the installation requirements of Part II of Article 334.
- - - - - FPN: See 310.10 for temperature limitation of conductors.
- - - - (b) Exterior Installations. In addition to the provisions of this article, service-entrance cable used for feeders or branch circuits, where installed as exterior wiring, shall be installed in accordance with Part I of Article 225. The cable shall be supported in accordance with 334.30. Type USE cable installed as underground feeder and branch circuit cable shall comply with Part II of Article 340.


- 338.12 Uses Not Permitted.
- - (A) Service-Entrance Cable. Service-entrance cable (SE) shall not be used under the following conditions or in the following locations:
- - - (1) Where subject to physical damage unless protected in accordance with 230.50(A)
- - - (2) Underground with or without a raceway
- - - (3) For exterior branch circuits and feeder wiring unless the installation complies with the provisions of Part I of Article 225 and is supported in accordance with 334.30 or is used as messenger-supported wiring as permitted in Part II of Article 396
- - (B) Underground Service-Entrance Cable. Underground service-entrance cable (USE) shall not be used under the following conditions or in the following locations:
- - - (1) For interior wiring
- - - (2) For aboveground installations except where USE cable emerges from the ground and is terminated in an enclosure at an outdoor location and the cable is protected in accordance with 300.5(D)
- - - (3) As aerial cable unless it is a multiconductor cable identified for use aboveground and installed as messenger-supported wiring in accordance with 225.10 and Part II of Article 396

Type USE cable (Underground Service Entrance) *shall not be used for interior wiring*. Wiring "outside" the building is, obviously, "outside" the building and is not interior wiring, however, wiring which is actually *in* the building may be considered to be "outside of a building" if it meets the requirements of 230.6 shown below.
- 230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building.
- - Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:
- - - (1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure
- - - (2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick
- - - (3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III
- - - (4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure

The conductor with the yellow tracer in the installation I inspected did not meet the conditions specified in 230.6 and thus could not be considered "outside of a building".

The conductor with the yellow in the original posters photos also likely does not meet those requirements.

As such, neither the conductor I saw with the yellow tracer nor the conductor with the yellow tracer in the original photo is allowed to be inside a building (unless the conductor in the original photo was labeled as some type of wiring which is approved for use in a building -if it was labeled as USE or USE-2, then that conductor with the yellow tracer is not allowed to be "inside" a building or structure.

Why?

This is the reason (and there may be other reasons as well):
- 338.2 Definitions.
- - Service-Entrance Cable. A single conductor or multiconductor assembly provided with or without an overall covering, primarily used for services, and of the following types:
- - - Type SE. Service-entrance cable having a flame-retardant, moisture-resistant covering.
- - - Type USE. Service-entrance cable, identified for underground use, having a moisture-resistant covering, but not required to have a flame-retardant covering.