Code section re: entrance cable passing through soffit?

[newservice]

Older 2 story house, soffit all the way around the top of the first floor, kind of a decorative thing with shingles, sticks out a couple feet from the house. Old entrance cable goes in on top and out the bottom. Some day I will buy a new code book, but, since this doesn't pass through any part of the house proper, is it allowable? I should say it doesn't pass through any accessible interior of the house. Looks shabby but don't see a good way around it.

 

[iwire]

This is one of those questions that a code book can't answer. In 230.70(A)(1) the code book says

The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors.

Beyond that it is up to the local authority.

Would your AHJ consider that short section inside the building? We cant say.

 

[Smart $]

It's a gray area. AHJ can go either way on it. POCO too.

 

[newservice]

It's a gray area. AHJ can go either way on it. POCO too.

All of which makes bidding the job such a happy process. :angel:
I'm just not sure I'm even comfortable with it; after all, you have a 2 or 3 foot section that you cant see, will be energized with no disco ahead of it, and it also likely is a waterway funpark slide into that section, I see chaffing issues where it goes through the shingles, etc etc etc.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The code was changed in 2014 to permit service conductor to pass through an eave, but only where installed in IMC or rigid. That change does make it clear that the installation in this post is a violation. The picture is an example of what is permitted by the 2014 change. 230.6(5)

 

[xformer]

The code was changed in 2014 to permit service conductor to pass through an eave, but only where installed in IMC or rigid. That change does make it clear that the installation in this post is a violation. The picture is an example of what is permitted by the 2014 change. 230.6(5)

I would agree wit Don, SE cable is allowed to run through the eave but only when in RMC or IMC as per 230.6(5)

 

[Smart $]

The code was changed in 2014 to permit service conductor to pass through an eave, but only where installed in IMC or rigid. That change does make it clear that the installation in this post is a violation. The picture is an example of what is permitted by the 2014 change. 230.6(5)

The installation in this post does not pass through an eave.

 

[petersonra]

The installation in this post does not pass through an eave.

I agree. That is not an eave.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The installation in this post does not pass through an eave.

Yes, but close enough to say that you can't do it.

I would even suggest that an AHJ might permit you to use 230.6(5) for the application in this post. There is really no difference in the safety hazard.

 

[Smart $]

Yes, but close enough to say that you can't do it.

I would even suggest that an AHJ might permit you to use 230.6(5) for the application in this post. There is really no difference in the safety hazard.

That's a matter of opinion... which is what my first post in this thread (and iwire's) eludes to. One has to consider a portion of the SEC run to be inside before any of 230.6 is even invoked. It would be different if the criteria were the SEC cannot be seen or examined from outside the building or structure.

 

[newservice]

That's a matter of opinion... which is what my first post in this thread (and iwire's) eludes to. One has to consider a portion of the SEC run to be inside before any of 230.6 is even invoked. It would be different if the criteria were the SEC cannot be seen or examined from outside the building or structure.

Such is the case here. Noting goes inside but it passes through an eave, bigger than the one in the picture.

 

[newservice]

OK Well I just was talking to the inspector on a different matter and asked him, and he just said NO, because you can't see the SEU you don't know if a squirrel has been chewing on it, etc.. That's along the lines of what I was thinking.

He didn't cite code but that was good enough for me. He did suggest something like a mast, then transitioning to SEU to go up to the front peak of the house, made little sense to me but I think the only way to do this 100% right is to do it in pipe all the way or underground.

He did suggest "drive around that neighborhood and there are probably other houses in the same situation and see what they did, and you'll probably do something like that".

 

[cowboyjwc]

Here POCO won't allow that install, but they also don't allow SER cable.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

That's a matter of opinion... which is what my first post in this thread (and iwire's) eludes to. One has to consider a portion of the SEC run to be inside before any of 230.6 is even invoked. It would be different if the criteria were the SEC cannot be seen or examined from outside the building or structure.

Yes it is an opinion, but it is my opinion that if we needed a special rule for the eave, we would need the same for this application.

I don't see how the rule that was cited here could even apply. That rule address conductors that enter the building and then go to the service disconnect. It does not address conductors that enter the building and then leave the building without connecting to a disconnect.

 

[iwire]

This is a home I drove by some years ago.

Here is how someone handled this issue and apparently passed inspection. You can never guess what will and will not be acceptable. :happysad:

 

[newservice]

This is a home I drove by some years ago.

Here is how someone handled this issue and apparently passed inspection. You can never guess what will and will not be acceptable. :happysad:

That looks EXACTLY like what I'm facing, except the cable then snakes up to the roof peak in the front to keep ground clearance, so mine is worse in that way. They just punched a couple holes and through it went. Being that here in Syracuse we usually win the 'Golden Snowball' award every year for most snowfall, I cannot see possibly how that would survive a good old fashioned ice dam or similar ice formation.

 

[newservice]

S0 ..I went ahead and installed it something like Dennis's picture above, I toured the neighborhood and that was the predominant method. I also think that while 230.6(5) does allow a service mast through the eave, however, in my case this was NOT a service mast. I still had another 14 feet of roof to climb to the weatherhead and point of attachment. I did find a spot where it only crossed over about a 18" of roof, and then added a section of 2x4 to the roof and strapped to that. Overall I must say it came out looking pretty good.
I do think having that section of cable disappear inside 3 foot of eave is the wrong way to go regardless. It could be tapped into for free power, and a squirrel could get to it, a fault would be invisible, etc. The short section of pipe idea is not covered by 230.6(5) imo.
We shall see if I can convince the ahj.:angel:

 

[newservice]

Update.. The City inspector, (himself licensed), passed my job as described above, :thumbsup:with the caveat that I replace the old 18" piece of a 2x4 stud I put in between the SE cable and the shingles with a piece of pressure treated 5/8" pine deck board, as it has a lower 'profile' than the 2x4 and is also pt. Suggested a bead of caulk too to keep water out from under. I am only too happy to oblige.
He agreed completely that to have the SE through the eave would be a violation, saying if there was a short or fire in there, you'd never see it.
He also noted there was a 3 way discussion among the inspectors on this job before he ever got there, so it was on the radar already and this is what they came up with.