Kids play here

Inspection today found this 100 amp secondary service to a barn from the house. House was built in 1996 barn was buit a few years later. Would you want your kids playing here?

Stoller 10 27 07 037.jpg

What type of wire is that, doesn’t look like thhn. It could be wire trough wire, I forget the name, but I would not have a problem with it.

can’t quite find what i am looking for.

That’s not cable. Those are conductors, and SHOULD be in conduit in that installation.
Could very well be small URD, which IS direct burial rated but MUST be protected where exposed.

Good call Scott.

Could also be SJ wire. None the less it should be protected.

If it were SJ there would be a litany of other violations associated with this installation.

Sorry getting to this one late…I agree with the SPEEDSTER on this one…more than likely direct bury rated wires that came into the dwelling from the conduit and then they did not continue it to the enclosure for the barn. They indeed need to be protected…

Also looks like they used Plumbing Pipe on what they DID protect…hmmmm

Direct bury wires there, and yes DWV pipe used. I see that all the time here. Just could’nt believe they left it exposed under the deck like that. 3’ of crawl space there. The couples grand kids would love that area. Out the back of the deck it sloped down to the river. Kids would have been there all the time. Here is what else was at the back of the deck.

Stoller 10 27 07 048.jpg

Stoller 10 27 07 049.jpg

This is classic DIY stuff.
They know enough to make it work, but not enough to make it safe.


well…hopefully when you see Plumbing Pipe being used for electrical conduit…you call that out also…if you see it all the time we have a serial DIYer on the loose…lol

Actually if that is really USE I would question the fact that it is not “outside the building”

It’s been years and years since USE hasn’t also been dual rated as other conductor types such as RHHW and XHHW.

…and that installation is relatively new due to the cheesy DIY “two-nail” romex staples used.

I hope you didnt put that comment in your report as stated on the photo. That comment will probably end up filling some attorneys pocket. The reason I say this is because you have given an opinuanated “cure” to the defincency that you found. I ask u this…You stated “should be in conduit” So if I as a homeowner decide to have this repaired and use the wrong type of conduit and my kids decide to play there and get electricuted…Are you responsible for this??? I would think the proper statement here would be that the condition does not appear to be compliant with industry standards and should be further evaluated by a proffesional licensed electrical contractor.

I agree with Paul’s last comment. I am always careful not to describe the solution in a photo caption, but to only describe the problem. “Unprotected Wiring” instead of “Wires Should be in Conduit”. Nearly all of my recommendations start with a description of the issue, and end with “Recommend repairs by a licensed…”

Good point I’ll get it changed and watch out for that in the future.

all things electrical I recommend a “licensed Electrician” regardless of what it is.

I only recommend a “qualified person” for stuff like removing debris from gutters.

All others its “licensed” ______ <- place tradesmen type here!:slight_smile:

I think this is the easiest way to keep your liability down, 1st is to look at everything and this is second. IMHO