# When is a code violation picture not that violation?



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

rexowner said:


> This picture is on the City of Palo Alto's website supposedly picturing a violation
> of 230.7:
> http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/building_division/code_defect_photos.asp
> 
> ...


How about the pipe fill rules,,And no bushing on the connector..

Were all those wires de-rated?:blink:


----------



## Master Apprentice (Jan 25, 2012)

What is CEC?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

230.7 refers to service conductors. That looks like ser so I assume it is not the service entrance conductors-- no violation but fill or something else may be.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Master Apprentice said:


> What is CEC?


CEC is the California electrical code. I presume either that or Canadian Electrical code. :laughing:


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Master Apprentice said:


> What is CEC?


Can't explain [email protected]


Just kidding .

Canadian electrical code.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Wirenuting said:


> Canadian electrical code.


 Being that the OP is from California and they have the 2010 California Electrical Code-- That would be my bet. :thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> CEC is the California electrical code. I presume either that or Canadian Electrical code. :laughing:


Didn't California annex them selves to Canada..?:blink::laughing:


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

HARRY304E said:


> Didn't California annex them selves to Canada..?:blink::laughing:


Nah. Canada wouldn't take it, and Americans are the only ones dumb enough to keep it.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

Wirenuting said:


> Can't explain [email protected]
> 
> 
> Just kidding .
> ...


In the case of the OP, it's actually California Electrical Code, aka Title 24 Part 3.

California needs a bureaucracy to take the NEC and make it into the CEC,
so we can always be one code cycle behind.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> 230.7 refers to service conductors. That looks like ser so I assume it is not the service entrance conductors-- no violation but fill or something else may be.


I pretty sure it's picture of a feeder going into a Square D all-in-one or
meter main, and I am pretty sure that is an NM or SE cable connector
where the gray SER goes through, since that is such a common residential configuration around here. I don't think it's a raceway since you could never
cram those cables in there. Probably the only violation is that the cable
connector is not technically not listed for that combination of cables, but I
have never seen that enforced.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

InPhase277 said:


> Nah. Canada wouldn't take it, and Americans are the only ones dumb enough to keep it.


Maybe we can give them to Mexico.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

rexowner said:


> In the case of the OP, it's actually California Electrical Code, aka Title 24 Part 3.
> 
> California needs a bureaucracy to take the NEC and make it into the CEC,
> so we can always be one code cycle behind.


We are one cycle behind so we don't have to pay full price for the code book. We can get an old one off eBay for around 50% off.


----------



## oliquir (Jan 13, 2011)

dont know for california but it is a violation in canada :laughing:


----------



## niteshift (Nov 21, 2007)

knowshorts said:


> We are one cycle behind so we don't have to pay full price for the code book. We can get an old one off eBay for around 50% off.


Agreed. Better that way. :thumbup:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

rexowner said:


> I pretty sure it's picture of a feeder going into a Square D all-in-one or
> meter main, and I am pretty sure that is an NM or SE cable connector
> where the gray SER goes through, since that is such a common residential configuration around here. I don't think it's a raceway since you could never
> cram those cables in there. Probably the only violation is that the cable
> ...


Well NM is not rated for outdoor in a conduit either. In terms of 230.7, as long as the wires are in the correct wireway then it is not an issue.


----------



## rexowner (Apr 12, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Well NM is not rated for outdoor in a conduit either. In terms of 230.7, as long as the wires are in the correct wireway then it is not an issue.


You are right. It is hard to tell from the picture, but I think the box
is mounted "semi-flush", which is SOP with those cans, and the cables
are actually behind the sheathing visible on the upper right of the picture,
so I don't think they are outdoors or in a raceway. In the picture, it
is visible that the box is a Square D SC2040M200C which most people here
use because you can install it surface mount or semi-flush and you pretty
much have to stock only one thing for 200A residential services -- I am pretty
sure this is a semi-flush installation with the flange kit.


----------



## Manbearpig (Dec 15, 2011)

Pretty sure they just put the wrong picture up. That ser cable is a feeder for a subpanel most likely, not the service conductors, as those are isolated in the other side of the can. There is an awful lot of jacket left on those cables, the panels probably not even tied in, and the city just found some stock photo or asked the inspector to take a pic at his next stop.:no:


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

HARRY304E said:


> Didn't California annex them selves to Canada..?:blink::laughing:


Oregon is California's Canada


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

oliquir said:


> dont know for california but it is a violation in canada :laughing:


And should be here too. Looks like some non-union slacker did it.


----------

