# S.E sleeved with 2" pvc



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

kielarsp said:


> looked at a job today where they installed a newer 200 amp underground,they came out of the meter socket with 2' pvc.But when they got into the house I noticed that they ran S.E. cable in the pipe then to the panel. I was wondering if they should have installed a pvc female adaptor with a S.E. box connector.What code art. supports my
> findings? thanks


 

If the wire leaves the pipe, then keeps going through walls, no fitting is needed. If the pipe backs up to the panel, a male adapter and locknut/bushing should be used. I like to use a box adapter on both ends without a locknut.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*SE sleved with 2'pvc*

Could be the part that talks about "In a workmanlike manner" Other than that I don't see anything unsafe.


----------



## KayJay (Jan 20, 2008)

kielarsp said:


> looked at a job today where they installed a newer 200 amp underground,they came out of the meter socket with 2' pvc.But when they got into the house I noticed that they ran S.E. cable in the pipe then to the panel. I was wondering if they should have installed a pvc female adaptor with a S.E. box connector.What code art. supports my
> findings? thanks


Your probably thinking of 300.15 [F], which allows a fitting “identified for the use” that is accessible after installation, to be used instead of a box when transitioning from cable to raceway. 
I believe the ‘05 NEC used to reference using a “combination fitting”, but I guess that phrase fell out of favor.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I have no time right now to dig in the code book, but the ends of the pvc have to have a smooth fitting or bushing to protect the cable from abrasion, and that is probably what he is talking about. Man, its Friday night, and I am no 480 so bear with me on this.....


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Ok, 300.15 (C). not (F) deals with conductors entering (or leaving) a raceway that provides physical protection. Accesable not required for (C). That be the answer. Look at it.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Could be the part that talks about "In a workmanlike manner"


This is worth a look, it is from the NFPA manual of style

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/MOS1-3.pdf


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

kielarsp said:


> looked at a job today where they installed a newer 200 amp underground,they came out of the meter socket with 2' pvc.But when they got into the house I noticed that they ran S.E. cable in the pipe then to the panel. I was wondering if they should have installed a pvc female adaptor with a S.E. box connector.What code art. supports my
> findings? thanks


If this pipe is all above ground then I see no problem with the install. The 2" PVC is basically a sleeve not a raceway.


----------



## KayJay (Jan 20, 2008)

macmikeman said:


> Ok, 300.15 (C). not (F) deals with conductors entering (or leaving) a raceway that provides physical protection. Accesable not required for (C). That be the answer. Look at it.


Mac,
The way it is generally interpreted in my area is that 300.15 [C] is for when you use the conduit as a protective sleeve that does not terminate in a box at either end.
300.15[F] is for when one end of the conduit terminates in a box and the other end is a transition to a cables such as NM, or SE.
I believe the cable still needs to be secured at both ends as required elsewhere in the code when run into boxes. This article just gives you an option instead of having to go box to box when changing wiring methods.

One example I can think of would be when NM is run in 1/2" EMT down a basement wall into a 4-square for a receptacle or switch. Here in my area, you would need a fitting, such as a changeover fitting [1/2" EMT to NM] on the open end of the EMT to secure the cable to the raceway/box. This fitting would need to be below the finished ceiling, if there is one, so it is accessible after installation. 
I know a lot of guys, including myself, occasionally run UF cable in conduit underground box to box, which I don't have any problem with, but I'm not sure that it is actually code compliant.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

KayJay said:


> Mac,
> The way it is generally interpreted in my area is that 300.15 [C] is for when you use the conduit as a protective sleeve that does not terminate in a box at either end.
> 300.15[F] is for when one end of the conduit terminates in a box and the other end is a transition to a cables such as NM, or SE.
> I believe the cable still needs to be secured at both ends as required elsewhere in the code when run into boxes. This article just gives you an option instead of having to go box to box when changing wiring methods.
> ...


Kay Jay, I respect your interpretation, and description, but must also respectfully disagree based on the actual wording of the paragraphs presented, regardless of how the local cops in your area make you guys do the job. (C) states conduits used to provide physical protection. There is no reference to box at one end included in that wording, and that fact leads to allowance of having a box at one end and no box at the other end of the conduit, which still needs to be bushed somehow to protect the cable from abrasion. They installed (s) at the end of the word end to allow one or two ends. A look at the first paragraph of 300.15 is also helpful to determine the allowance for the use of conduits to protect the cables. If it keep inspectors smiling, I would use a female adaptor with a romex connector in it to secure the cable and pass go, no problem here...


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

One thing I can think of is that the PVC in the dirt might be a wet location and that the SE might not be rated for that.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

*Service-entrance cable (tylz) ul 854*



nitro71 said:


> One thing I can think of is that the PVC in the dirt might be a wet location and that the SE might not be rated for that.


Here's what UL says: :thumbup:

*SERVICE CABLE (TXKT)*​ 
*SERVICE-ENTRANCE CABLE (TYLZ)*​ 
*GENERAL*​ 
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).


*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.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

nitro71 said:


> One thing I can think of is that the PVC in the dirt might be a wet location and that the SE might not be rated for that.


Se cable is not rated for direct burial nor is it rated to be installed sleeved in a conduit underground.


----------



## KayJay (Jan 20, 2008)

macmikeman said:


> Kay Jay, I respect your interpretation, and description, but must also respectfully disagree based on the actual wording of the paragraphs presented, regardless of how the local cops in your area make you guys do the job. (C) states conduits used to provide physical protection. There is no reference to box at one end included in that wording, and that fact leads to allowance of having a box at one end and no box at the other end of the conduit, which still needs to be bushed somehow to protect the cable from abrasion. They installed (s) at the end of the word end to allow one or two ends. A look at the first paragraph of 300.15 is also helpful to determine the allowance for the use of conduits to protect the cables. If it keep inspectors smiling, I would use a female adaptor with a romex connector in it to secure the cable and pass go, no problem here...


Mac, that’s fair enough. 
Although it has me wondering... if 300.15 [C] now covers both using conduit or tubing as a sleeve for physical protection and also when transitioning from a conduit and box or enclosure to other cables or wiring methods, then what would be the need or application for 300.15[F]? 
It seems that it would have no purpose in the NEC.

Granted there is a similar type of installation allowed for cables entering a surface mounted enclosure in 312.5[C], exception, but this seems to specify that the entry be in the top of the enclosure among other things listed in [a] through [d].


----------

