SE Cable in conduit underground? NEC 2005

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Iceman

Senior Member
Location
Florida
I installed about 10' of 2 1/2" PVC with 4/0 aluminum SE Cable underground. Without getting into alot of details my inspector passed it but didn't like seeing SE Cable in conduit underground. Our county is still using the 2005 NEC. I know that SE Cable is only moisture-resistant, but 338.10 (A) refers back to 230.6 and part III in article 230.32 which refers to table 300.5. What do you guys think? I know the 2008 NEC doesn't allow SE in conduit underground, but the 2005 looks to me like it's ok.
 
SERVICE CABLE (TXKT)
Service-entrance CableTYLZSERVICE-ENTRANCE CABLE (TYLZ)
Service-entrance CableTYLZGENERAL
This category covers service-entrance cable designated Type SE and Type USE for use in accordance with Article 338 of ANSI/NFPA 70, "National Electrical Code" (NEC).
Service-entrance cable, rated 600 V, is Listed in sizes 14 AWG and larger for copper, and 12 AWG and larger for aluminum or copper-clad aluminum.
The cable is designated as follows:
Type SE ? Indicates cable for aboveground installation. Both the individual insulated conductors and the outer jacket or finish of Type SE are suitable for use where exposed to sun. Type SE cable contains Type RHW, RHW-2, XHHW, XHHW-2, THWN or THWN-2 conductors.

This is from the UL White Book. Even though it is not spelled out in the 05 NEC it is not permitted per 110.3(B) IMHO
 
It is not as clear in the 2005 NEC, but the UL white book shows that it is not designed to be installed underground just for above ground use.

I agree with C3PO, this type of installation is not permitted even under the 2005 NEC. I know some AHJ's have been permitting this though.

Chris
 
Thanks for the info. The 2005 NEC seemed vague to me on this issue. Thanks for clearing it up. I'm glad my inspector was cool about it. :smile:
 
iceman

now that you realize that your installation is wrong, do you plan on changing the wiring method to a code compliant method?
 
The Iceman said:
....... I'm glad my inspector was cool about it. :smile:

I hope you're not saying "My inspector is cool because even though this installation is a known violation, he's going to waive the rule for me."

If that's the fact, then there's a condition known as gross negligence where an inspector overlooks some violation he knows is wrong. Not "cool" in my opinion. :smile:
 
Easy guys. Some of the installation is going to be changed for other reasons starting tomorrow. Given what I now know, I will be changing my underground SE Cable. Doing things wrong is not acceptable IMA. I am one of the 10% of the electricians who cares about doing things right :grin: .

Hey wbalsam1, maybe the inspector didn't know it was a known violation but just didn't like seeing it. In that case am I still guilty of gross negligence?:rolleyes:
 
Iceman-- one of the problems with SE aluminum cable underground is the bare conductor. As you know aluminum and underground don't do well. Apparently the minerals from the soils etc can leech into the conduit and break down the conductor. Probably not a big issue with copper but it is still prohibited clearly in 2008.

You are not alone in thinking your install was okay. Many members here have argued it was okay for a long time. 2008 has cleared that up for everyone.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Iceman-- one of the problems with SE aluminum cable underground is the bare conductor. As you know aluminum and underground don't do well. Apparently the minerals from the soils etc can leech into the conduit and break down the conductor. Probably not a big issue with copper but it is still prohibited clearly in 2008.

You are not alone in thinking your install was okay. Many members here have argued it was okay for a long time. 2008 has cleared that up for everyone.

I agree, thanks for the help. Some changes have come up on this job. It will be no problem to change the 10' underground as well.
 
The Iceman said:
................
Hey wbalsam1, maybe the inspector didn't know it was a known violation but just didn't like seeing it. In that case am I still guilty of gross negligence?:rolleyes:

Nope. Then it's called "simple negligence". :smile:
 
I think if the inspector is the AHJ under the 2005 code he, she, it, we, they , can approve the installation....
 
M. D. said:
I think if the inspector is the AHJ under the 2005 code he, she, it, we, they , can approve the installation....


Inspectors are not permitted to make up their own rules. Barring local laws, they have to follow the NEC or whatever codes they are referencing just as ECs have to.
90.4 is not a panacea to do what they want. Too many inspectors hide behind 90.4 when they do not understand what they are doing.
 
No new rules are needed,..I agree with this guy based on the 2005 NEC.
I have not done it and thanks to the 2008 I can't:wink:

Question 1. I am trying to find a Code article or reference to the use of SE cable in conduit underground. Chapter 9 states that for multiconductor cables, you have to use the actual dimension. This is not a problem, because you just measure the outside diameter. My question is, Is USE cable listed for use in conduit underground? ? R.P.

Answer 1. The use of Type SE or USE in conduit either underground or aboveground is not prohibited by the NEC. However, neither of these cable types is listed for such use so the decision to accept or reject is up to the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ).

The following information may be helpful in considering such a decision. There are two serious concerns with this type of installation. The first is damage to the cable or individual conductors as they are pulled into the raceway. The other is the added resistance to heat dissipation. Both concerns can be addressed to some extent by using a conduit one size larger than required in Chapter 9. This reduces the friction of the pull, making it less likely that the conductors will be damaged during installation, and provides a larger air space to dissipate the heat buildup in the conductors under operating conditions.

In general, such an installation is poor practice and should not be permitted where there are more than two ninety-degree bends in the run of raceway or where the circuit is expected to run at full load (80 percent of rated ampacity) for any length of time. The sole advantage to running SE cables in conduit underground is the ability to replace them, if necessary, without excavating. Of course, the use of THHW conductors in conduit provides this same advantage with none of the drawbacks identified above and is probably more economical as well. ? T.E. Trainor, CMP-7
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top