SE Cable outside

[Andy1099]

I was recently failed on a project. I could not come into the back of an enclosure mounted on the outside of a house so I penetrated the wall just below the enclosure and ran SE cable into the bottom of the enclosure. I build a soffit around the SE cable to protect from physical damage. The inspector failed me, and after reading the code I cannot see that he is wrong. Yet, I want to verify. The inspector says that per 338.10(B)(4)(3)(b)(1) when installed outside, I need to comply with part one of article 225. Article 225.20 says conductors installed on building structures or poles shall be protected against physical damage as provided in 230.50. Article 230.50 says they need to be installed in conduit. What am I missing?

 

[infinity]

The inspector says that per 338.10(B)(4)(3)(b)(1) when installed outside, I need to comply with part one of article 225.

Is there an OCPD on the outside? If not Article 225 wouldn't apply. Anyway that doesn't answer your question, did you come out of the bottom of the meter enclosure and enter the structure?

 

[LarryFine]

It's common in many areas, like here, to have entire runs of exposed service cables.

You could ask what ls likely to damage the cable, beyond it merely being visible.

 

[Eddie702]

I am not getting this. Why is it any different from coming out of the bottom of a meter socket into the house to feed a panel?

Where is the physical damage coming from?

 

[Andy1099]

The SE cable is a feeder. It is on the load side of the service disconnect. It is coming in to an added transfer switch. The transfer switch does not allow me to come into the back.

 

[Andy1099]

The physical damage is the SE cable is about 3 feet from grade. It is not really exposed to physical damage, but a soffit would seem to me to make it not exposed to physical damage.

 

[infinity]

The physical damage is the SE cable is about 3 feet from grade. It is not really exposed to physical damage, but a soffit would seem to me to make it not exposed to physical damage.

Subject to physical damage is not defined so its up to the AHJ to decide what is and what isn't.

 

[Andy1099]

I agree with that. But if there is no physical damage, because the cable is incased in a soffit.

 

[infinity]

I agree with that. But if there is no physical damage, because the cable is incased in a soffit.

Then there should be no issue if it is not exposed. Any photos?

 

[acin]

I was recently failed on a project. I could not come into the back of an enclosure mounted on the outside of a house so I penetrated the wall just below the enclosure and ran SE cable into the bottom of the enclosure. I build a soffit around the SE cable to protect from physical damage. The inspector failed me, and after reading the code I cannot see that he is wrong. Yet, I want to verify. The inspector says that per 338.10(B)(4)(3)(b)(1) when installed outside, I need to comply with part one of article 225. Article 225.20 says conductors installed on building structures or poles shall be protected against physical damage as provided in 230.50. Article 230.50 says they need to be installed in conduit. What am I missing?

I used a vertical wireway for the same thing and passed

 

[Fred B]

I build a soffit around the SE cable to protect from physical damage

I would say That alone increases the chance of damage by "hiding" the SE. Seen cases where they "covered" the SE then years later someone comes around to make some sort of alteration to building and drives a deck screw right through the supply side of SE shorting it out and blowing the transformer breaker at the pole shutting off half a block, but not before a big bang and flames.

 

[infinity]

I would say That alone increases the chance of damage by "hiding" the SE. Seen cases where they "covered" the SE then years later someone comes around to make some sort of alteration to building and drives a deck screw right through the supply side of SE shorting it out and blowing the transformer breaker at the pole shutting off half a block, but not before a big bang and flames.

The SE cable is after the service disconnect so it is protected an OCPD. Running it through a soffit is no different than running NM cable through a soffit.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't see where the cable is susceptible to damage. Btw, is this seu or ser? Just curious if he is looking at something else. What code cycle are you using?

 

[infinity]

I don't see where the cable is susceptible to damage. Btw, is this seu or ser? Just curious if he is looking at something else. What code cycle are you using?

I'm not sure what the issue is that the inspector is citing. If it's not exposed how can it be subject to physical damage?

 

[augie47]

"Subject to physical damage" is unfortunately by it's nature a judgement call. Without seeing the installation it's difficult to judge.
Unless it was obviously subject to damage I would be like Fred (Post #11) and have more concern about it being concealed behind the soffit

 

[infinity]

Unless it was obviously subject to damage I would be like Fred (Post #11) and have more concern about it being concealed behind the soffit

Augie, any particular reason why you would be concerned? SE cable in the soffit would be required to be run using the same rules as NM cable so if those rules are followed is the SE cable run in a soffit unsafe?

 

[Fred B]

The SE cable is after the service disconnect so it is protected an OCPD. Running it through a soffit is no different than running NM cable through a soffit.

OP referenced SE designation, it would typically not be used "protected by OCPD" but as service. SER should have been used. But either should not be an issue to run "uncovered", being "uncovered" does not automatically make it "subject to damage".

If running SEU from the disconnect to the ATS to the Panel (allowed in 2020 marked as "Emergency Disconnect Only") then there is no OCPD ahead of "panel".

Is OP issue the use of SE uncovered "subject to damage" or the failure to use SER?

Problem with fighting the inspector on "Subject to damage" is, there is no code definition of "Subject to damage", so it is up to the discretion of the inspector to make the subjective call.

 

[infinity]

Is OP issue the use of SE uncovered "subject to damage" or the failure to use SER?

I've not read anything in his posts to suggest that the issue is SEU verses SER. The cable is a feeder so it has overcurrent protection ahead of it. The issue is subject to physical damage which has been mitigated by concealing it in a soffit. It sounds more like the inspector want the feeder conductors run in a raceway and not SE cable.

 

[Andy1099]

The inspector simply said SE cable is required to be ran in conduit and ran outside. He did not mention exposed to damage.

 

[infinity]

The inspector simply said SE cable is required to be ran in conduit and ran outside. He did not mention exposed to damage.

Either he's quoting a local code amendment or he's mistaken. According to the NEC SE cable is permitted to be run exposed on the outside of a building. If it is determined to be subject to physical damage then it must be protected in accordance with 230.50(B).