ECN Forum
Posted By: Redsy SE vs. USE - 09/01/01 08:27 PM
I got a call yesterday to re-do a service upgrade(someone elses)that failed inspection due to 10-12' distance between entrance and Service Panel. The inspector didn't seem to mind that--
1) Service Entrance is 200 amp SE cable buried in 2" PVC from pole-mounted meter socket 30' away.
2) PVC is buried 6-8" deep. Enters below grade. Pokes out in crawl space as cable (no pipe).

Owners suggestion-
1)He will dig new 18"(O.K. with PVC)trench to closer proximity of Panel(2-3').
2)Re-route conduit. Re-use SE Cable.
3)Keep entrance point underground.

I'm thinking no SE Cable underground, even in conduit.
Install new run of USE.
Keep conduit to reduce burial depth from 24" to 18".

Question-
I have only ever installed USE as single conductors. Is multi-conductor USE available as a covered assembly that, when I enter the building, I can run exposed 2-3' to the panel?
Posted By: sparky Re: SE vs. USE - 09/01/01 09:19 PM
Redsy;
I only know of triplex, and some quadriplex USE, no outer covering....
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/01/01 09:51 PM
The penetration to the basement will be close to the panel and if I pipe it, there won't be a lot of room to work 2" fittings. Maybe I'll hit the back of a j-box, and switch(splice)to SE there.
Posted By: golf junkie Re: SE vs. USE - 09/01/01 10:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Redsy:
The penetration to the basement will be close to the panel and if I pipe it, there won't be a lot of room to work 2" fittings. Maybe I'll hit the back of a j-box, and switch(splice)to SE there.

I know it probably won't be easy to get the conduit in, but I would not install a splice box in the SE conductors. I know that the code allows it now.....but I think that it's still a poor practice.

Run the conduit all the way to the panel. You'll sleep better.

GJ
Posted By: sparky Re: SE vs. USE - 09/01/01 11:42 PM
Can you arrange for a stub of pipe directly into the back of the panel?
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 03:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by sparky:
Can you arrange for a stub of pipe directly into the back of the panel?
Good idea! Maybe, but a pain in the you-know-what. The top would be too high with regard to the burial depth. The bottom would be so low as to require the depth to be increased by about 10" at the penetration point. I guess I could slope the last few feet of pipe prior to the penetration.And I'll have to swing the panel out of the way, but it still might be the least aggravating way to go.(Glad I thought of it! [Linked Image])
Posted By: sparky Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 10:10 AM
hey great! I hope it works. just be sure and stuff a pack of dux seal in it so it does'nt let h20 into your panel....
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 02:11 PM
Question,

Would it be allowed to strip the jacket from the SE cable that's in the conduit? And the conduit pokes into the crawlspace with a Female connector on the end and SE cable connector, so it runs as SE to the panel?

What do you think? What would the objections (if any) be?

Bill
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 02:36 PM
What about this buiness of running SE in the buried PVC. Bad thing, not approved for bvurial. Correct? This was a big(full page ad in Yellow Pages, probably $800.00/month)local outfit. On the other hand, they didn't install a ground rod, didn't upsize the GEC, and didn't extend it to <5' of water entrance.
I hope to eventually find out how much they charged.

[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 09-02-2001).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 06:24 PM
Redsy,

If it's in the conduit it's not Direct Buried. If it's stripped is it still SE?
The conductors have to be rated for wet locations don't they? Anyone know an official position on this?

Bill
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 07:08 PM
Bill,
338-1(b)states that USE is identified for underground use.
338-1(a)says nothing about underground use of SE, so I'm guessing that, by omission of the reference to underground use, it is not acceptable, even in pipe.
I'm struggling myself, with the conductors in the SE. I know they are XHHW, which is approved for wet locations, but I'm thinking maybe the uninsulated neutral (aluminum)would be trouble.
It would be nice if Art.338 had a "Uses permitted" & "Uses not permitted" sections like Articles 336 & 339.
It would greatly simplify the installation if I could re-use the SE.

[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 09-02-2001).]
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 07:18 PM
I think I'll call the inspector.
Meanwhile, how about our own ECN poll?

Can you install SE Cable underground in PVC conduit.

YES or NO?
Posted By: Max Summerville Re: SE vs. USE - 09/02/01 08:59 PM
Typical SE-U with aluminum conductors is not identified for underground use, in raceway or not. It’s because the bare aluminum conductor is subject to corrosion. If it is copper SE-U, then the cable assembly must be specifically identified for use underground.

Type USE is permitted to be installed underground (338-1b) but only where emerging outdoors at electrical equipment (338-2). Type USE is not permitted to be installed indoors, in raceway or not. Individual conductors of THW, THHW, THWN, XHHW (found in SE-U) and RHW-2 (commonly used for trailer feeders) are OK for wet locations and indoors. Any of these cable insulations must be in a raceway that extends from the basement panel to a point outside the structure. The only two cable types I know of that can be run as the main service/feeder indoors without raceway are SE-U and SE-R, neither of which can be direct buried. Splicing is not advised. Use PVC. Arrange raceways to drain.

The original post did not describe the equipment on the pole and I find it doubtful that the utility would permit unfused service conductors to run 30 feet from a customer pole to a structure and not require a service disconnect at the pole. Indeed, since the original inspector did not take exception to the 12 feet from the point of entry to the panel, I would suspect that there IS a disconnect at the pole and these are not service conductors but feeder conductors.

If so, the feeder neutral conductor should be insulated, the feeder cable should include an equipment grounding conductor that runs from the pole service equipment grounding lug or neutral bar in to the basement panel equipment grounding bar (not neutral bar), the structure’s metal water system AND at least one ground rod should be bonded to the basement panel equipment grounding bar (not neutral bar) and the basement panel neutral bar should be left unbonded. Circuits fed by the panel should be wired with neutrals on the neutral bar and EGCs on the ground bar. In some cases you may be permitted to omit the grounding conductor from the feeder, bond the basement panel neutral and treat it as a service disconnect. That is up to the local AHJ.

If the utility really does permit the metered service conductors to be run unfused from the pole to the structure, then all the normal service requirements would apply, in addition to the cable insulation requirements above. I would expect the utility to want a disconnect though or at least to bury unfused conductors at least 24 inches in raceway or not.

If there are errors found in my assertions, NEC references would be appreciated.

[This message has been edited by Max Summerville (edited 09-02-2001).]
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: SE vs. USE - 09/03/01 12:52 AM
Redsy,

I didn't realize that your SE Cable was Aluminum. We can only use Copper SE around here. That may put a different slant on things.

Bill
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/03/01 01:15 AM
Max,
Thanks for the in-depth response. Actually, the inspector did take exception to the 10-12' distance. That is why I was called. Apparently, he had no problem with the installation, otherwise.
BTW,
No disco on pole, no objections from anyone. Go figure!

Bill,
We use aluminum SE all the time. I only used copper once, 15 years ago. It was hard to find.
That is one of the reasons I like seeing peoples location on their profiles.
Interesting local regulations.

Man, I like this forum!!

[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 09-02-2001).]
Posted By: Max Summerville Re: SE vs. USE - 09/03/01 04:10 AM
I got the "cared about" and "didn't care about" items backwards. I'd say both the installer and the inspector were not doing very well at their respective duties. Seems the inspector was more concerned that someone might drive a nail into exposed service cable in the cellar than he was that the cable might loose a neutral due to corrosion or be dug up by a tiller with no protection at the pole.
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 09/03/01 01:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Max Summerville:
I got the "cared about" and "didn't care about" items backwards. I'd say both the installer and the inspector were not doing very well at their respective duties. Seems the inspector was more concerned that someone might drive a nail into exposed service cable in the cellar than he was that the cable might loose a neutral due to corrosion or be dug up by a tiller with no protection at the pole.
That's the way it is in this area(suburban Phila). Some of the AHJs are township employees(retired electricians or maintenance men, even retired policemen, or family members of local officials) with little, if any, formal training. Some are actual employees of inspection agencies. But it's always a crap shoot, depending on the town.

You offer good insight, Max. Stick around!



[This message has been edited by Redsy (edited 09-03-2001).]
Posted By: tdhorne Re: SE vs. USE - 11/26/04 04:37 PM
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.

Notice that the difference between the two cable types is that type USE is not required to have a flame retardant outer jacket. That is what limits it to outdoors, if sunlight resistant, and underground. Type SE has all the characteristics of Type USE and it also has a flame-retardant covering. Type SE can be used anywhere that type USE can be used as well as being used as feeder and branch circuits in any application were type NM can be used.
--
Tom H
Posted By: iwire Re: SE vs. USE - 11/26/04 04:58 PM
Tom please take a look at the UL white book information I posted on the other SE thread.

UL does not list SE for other than above ground use.

https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/001764.html
Posted By: George Little Re: SE vs. USE - 11/26/04 05:28 PM
The letter "U " as used in USE and SEU for Service entrance cable mean different things. In USE the "U" stands for Underground. The "U" in SEU stands for- Are you ready? The U stands for "Unarmored" to show that it is different from the Service Cable that used to have an armor on it to prevent damage and theft of electricity. Found it in an old, old electrician's hand book.
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 11/27/04 02:06 PM
George,
A few years ago I posted a picture of ASE "Armored Service Entrance" cable.
I'll do a search for it later. Indeed the "U" in SE-U stands for "Unarmored"
Posted By: George Little Re: SE vs. USE - 11/27/04 10:48 PM
Please do Redsy, I think the group would benefit from a photo. I know I would.
Posted By: Redsy Re: SE vs. USE - 11/28/04 07:48 PM
George,
I searches the ECN board in every manner I could think of, but couldn't find the picture I sent.
ASE resembles SE-U on the outside, but inside is a flat, metallic, spiral wound armor over top of the neutral & line conductors.
Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner, but the picture appears on page 615 in the 1990 NEC Handbook by McGraw-Hill. It is written by Joe & Brian McPartland.
These handbooks are different than the familiar NEC Handbook, in that, with the exception of Article numbers, no NEC Text is included, just explanatory material.
BTW,
They explain that SE Cable is for aboveground use.
Posted By: woofy Re: SE vs. USE - 12/02/04 03:31 AM
quote:

If so, the feeder neutral conductor should be insulated, the feeder cable should include an equipment grounding conductor that runs from the pole service equipment grounding lug or neutral bar in to the basement panel equipment grounding bar (not neutral bar), the structure’s metal water system AND at least one ground rod should be bonded to the basement panel equipment grounding bar (not neutral bar) and the basement panel neutral bar should be left unbonded. Circuits fed by the panel should be wired with neutrals on the neutral bar and EGCs on the ground bar. In some cases you may be permitted to omit the grounding conductor from the feeder, bond the basement panel neutral and treat it as a service disconnect. That is up to the local AHJ.

Max..
I think that 250.28 exception no.1
applies here.
Where more than one service disconecting means is located in an assembly listed for use as service equipment, an unspliced main bonding jumper shall bond the grounded conductor(s) to the assembly enclosure.

.....Mike
© ECN Electrical Forums