Failed inspection for only 1 gec ran to panel

reid24202 said:
Failed for only having 1 gec conductor ran to panel. I permanently attached #6 from water line and #6 from ground rods and ran 1 unbroken to main service panel. Inspector says both must terminate in main breaker panel. Trying to figure out how to post a photo, will do so
Click to expand...
A water ground is a SUPPLEMEMTAL ground connection,one #6 from one ground rod is all you need if you can prove the ground w a tester. And its only valid if the water line is buried in the ground 12 ft b4 it comes up within a certain distance from the service entrance. I do not agree w inspectors requiring water grounding along w ground rods and bonding pex water pipes at the metal clips at water heater,its not required and if it was your ONLY ground connection you would have to dig water line up to prove its validity as a ground source....its supplemental ,not required. We put 2 ground rods in because no one has a ground tester to prove that one is enough,to be failed b/c you included a water ground is crazy.
 
russellyoungblood said:
A water ground is a SUPPLEMEMTAL ground connection,one #6 from one ground rod is all you need if you can prove the ground w a tester. And its only valid if the water line is buried in the ground 12 ft b4 it comes up within a certain distance from the service entrance. I do not agree w inspectors requiring water grounding along w ground rods and bonding pex water pipes at the metal clips at water heater,its not required and if it was your ONLY ground connection you would have to dig water line up to prove its validity as a ground source....its supplemental ,not required. We put 2 ground rods in because no one has a ground tester to prove that one is enough,to be failed b/c you included a water ground is crazy.
Click to expand...
If the buried water pipe qualifies as an electrode it is not supplemental anything. If it is not an electrode then it is required to be bonded if there is a complete metallic water piping system according to 250.104(A). Not sure what you mean by "A water ground is a SUPPLEMENTAL ground connection,".
 
russellyoungblood said:
A water ground is a SUPPLEMEMTAL ground connection,one #6 from one ground rod is all you need if you can prove the ground w a tester. And its only valid if the water line is buried in the ground 12 ft b4 it comes up within a certain distance from the service entrance. I do not agree w inspectors requiring water grounding along w ground rods and bonding pex water pipes at the metal clips at water heater,its not required and if it was your ONLY ground connection you would have to dig water line up to prove its validity as a ground source....its supplemental ,not required. We put 2 ground rods in because no one has a ground tester to prove that one is enough,to be failed b/c you included a water ground is crazy.
Click to expand...
Read through 250.50, 250.52, and 250.53
 
russellyoungblood said:
A water ground is a SUPPLEMEMTAL ground connection,one #6 from one ground rod is all you need if you can prove the ground w a tester. And its only valid if the water line is buried in the ground 12 ft b4 it comes up within a certain distance from the service entrance. I do not agree w inspectors requiring water grounding along w ground rods and bonding pex water pipes at the metal clips at water heater,its not required and if it was your ONLY ground connection you would have to dig water line up to prove its validity as a ground source....its supplemental ,not required. We put 2 ground rods in because no one has a ground tester to prove that one is enough,to be failed b/c you included a water ground is crazy.
Click to expand...
A very common misconception. See 250.50. All electrodes present shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. If there is a metal water pipe stubbing into the house from underground, it is a grounding electrode.

If there is an isolated section of metal water piping in the house that is not attached to a grounding electrode, it still needs bonded per 250.104. I don't worry about small, irrelevant sections, but it is technically required.

If I see metal pipe stubbing into the house, and it changes to PEX after that inside the house, you still have to ground your service to it with a properly sized GEC. The rebuttal presumption is that the pipe is intact outside the house, unless the electrical contractor can prove that it isn't. Driving two ground rods does not mean that you don't have to comply with 250.50, you still have to bond to the water pipe electrode.

An intact water pipe electrode might run for miles underground, and is connected to a bunch of other electrodes at everyone else's house. The resistance to ground of a water pipe electrode could be close to 0 ohms by the time it's said and done. Driving two ground rods is not even close to achieving the same thing.
 
Last edited:
NEC Inspector said:
If there is an isolated section of metal water piping in the house that is not attached to a grounding electrode, it still needs bonded per 250.104. I don't worry about small, irrelevant sections, but it is technically required
Click to expand...
Isolated sections of metal water pipe are not a system and therefore do not require bonding. The water pipe bonding requirement clearly states that only a system requires bonding.
 
I have challenged inspectors many times. Lost a “discussion” once.
What I have found is a lot of inspectors inspect, because they can’t make it as an electrician.

Some that can’t do, inspect.

Now on the flip side, I dealt with one in Greensboro NC that was extremely knowledgeable. He was also an instructor for CE classes.

So no, it’s not about dumping them all in the same barrel

And I’m not near as good and knowledgeable as most on this forum.
 
Hv&Lv said:
I have challenged inspectors many times. Lost a “discussion” once.
What I have found is a lot of inspectors inspect, because they can’t make it as an electrician.

Some that can’t do, inspect.
Click to expand...
That is certainly true of a couple of inspectors with whom I have crossed swords. Just because someone has a master electrician's license does not necessarily mean that they understand basic electrical theory.
 
It is my experience that there are all types of inspectors out there. I do not believe there is any one perfect way to deal with them. I try to use the path of least resistance and keep the jobs moving. I do understand that there is times when you need to say no and stand up for yourself. It's sad that some inspectors are such a pain in the butt.
 
NJTommy said:
It is my experience that there are all types of inspectors out there. I do not believe there is any one perfect way to deal with them. I try to use the path of least resistance and keep the jobs moving. I do understand that there is times when you need to say no and stand up for yourself. It's sad that some inspectors are such a pain in the butt.
Click to expand...
Valid point. I once dealt with an infamous EI for a town in Northern Bergen County. He came to the job looking all surly like he was bothered to be there. Didn't even acknowledge me when I asked him if he had any questions. He was all business and no personality. I eventually asked him his opinion on being an electrical inspector and if he thought that I should take the exam and he sort of came around. I would later see him at electrical inspector seminars and he was all cheery, smiling, and kidding around with other inspectors. For the final inspection which was after a few big snow storms he refused to walk on the snow to inspect the AC unit on the side of the house so the homeowner had to dig him a walking path around the house from the driveway.

To your point I can see why a few contractors I know would do whatever he said just to get rid of him. He had numerous complaints about him to the licensing board. Allegedly one time he was punched out by a contractor.
 
This question is related to the OP question. Maybe it should be in a new post:

I have an electrical service entrance made up of several steel enclosures (meter, disconnect, MLO breaker box), with conductors in EMT that make the connections. Per 250.118 The EMT can be the primary EGC. But I read of AHJs requiring supplemental ECGs in bare copper to connect the grounding lugs of the various components. Regardless of inspector preference, under what conditions would it make sense to add a wire EGC in a system assembled with EMT between metal enclosures? Assume listed components (fittings, etc) made up tight and used per manufacturer instructions.
 
paullmullen said:
This question is related to the OP question. Maybe it should be in a new post:

I have an electrical service entrance made up of several steel enclosures (meter, disconnect, MLO breaker box), with conductors in EMT that make the connections. Per 250.118 The EMT can be the primary EGC. But I read of AHJs requiring supplemental ECGs in bare copper to connect the grounding lugs of the various components. Regardless of inspector preference, under what conditions would it make sense to add a wire EGC in a system assembled with EMT between metal enclosures? Assume listed components (fittings, etc) made up tight and used per manufacturer instructions.
Click to expand...
517.13(B) is the only one I know of.
 
paullmullen said:
But I read of AHJs requiring supplemental ECGs in bare copper to connect the grounding lugs of the various components.
Click to expand...
With the exception of redundant grounding which Roger posted the NEC doesn't require "supplemental" EGC'S. If an inspector requires them then they're making up their own code rules. It's a design issue, as to whether or not someone will sleep better at night knowing that along with the raceway being an EGC there is a second wire type EGC that's up to them to decide. Often the people paying for the installation want the code minimum or the cheapest method.
 
paullmullen said:
This question is related to the OP question. Maybe it should be in a new post:

I have an electrical service entrance made up of several steel enclosures (meter, disconnect, MLO breaker box), with conductors in EMT that make the connections. Per 250.118 The EMT can be the primary EGC. But I read of AHJs requiring supplemental ECGs in bare copper to connect the grounding lugs of the various components. Regardless of inspector preference, under what conditions would it make sense to add a wire EGC in a system assembled with EMT between metal enclosures? Assume listed components (fittings, etc) made up tight and used per manufacturer instructions.
Click to expand...
When I lived in southern Oregon, the city I lived in required wire EGCs in conduit - it was a local amendment. Reasoning was we lived in an earthquake zone, and they didn't want EMT pulling apart in an earthquake and possibly interrupting bonding. It was mostly a first responder protection, or so I was told. I really couldn't argue with that rationale.


SceneryDriver
 
paullmullen said:
This question is related to the OP question. Maybe it should be in a new post:

I have an electrical service entrance made up of several steel enclosures (meter, disconnect, MLO breaker box), with conductors in EMT that make the connections. Per 250.118 The EMT can be the primary EGC. But I read of AHJs requiring supplemental ECGs in bare copper to connect the grounding lugs of the various components. Regardless of inspector preference, under what conditions would it make sense to add a wire EGC in a system assembled with EMT between metal enclosures? Assume listed components (fittings, etc) made up tight and used per manufacturer instructions.
Click to expand...

I see a wire EGC as generally a waste of money and resources, however there are some instances where I will pull one. One is outside conduits, like on flat roofs feeding HVAC. Due to weather and them not actually being secured to anything (other than each other). Another is often around concentrics or reducing washers (actually most likely it would be adding a bonding bushing not a wire EGC). I really despise concentrics and will generally take them out and use reducing washers. IF its a pained enclosure, I will generally want a BB on there. But most other times, the conduit is a fantastic EGC.
 
infinity said:
If there's a local amendment that's fine. What most of us here find abhorrent is when the inspector makes up their own rules.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, it does happen, and when it does we have to decide whether or not to fight it, and figuring into that decision is what the probability there is for us to prevail, what the longer term effects of the fight will be whether or not we win, and how much trouble and/or expense we would incur if we just go along to get along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top