Failed inspection "communications not grounded"

[Fred B]

Isn't there a requirement to have a ground bar in certain rooms that contain IT/ comm equipment? Article 700 something perhaps , Or am I making that up?

250.94 Intersystem Bonding termination point required.

But never seen the telcom actually use it when provided. Installed on every new installation and come back after telcom comes in and they usually just tag onto the GEC with split bolt or a metal water pipe avoiding only 3 extra feet of wire. Even pre install on rough an interducting for them to use and come back to find holes drilled through the window sill and/or floors.
Caught one while on site and asked why he's not using the bonding bridge or the interduct and his response was "what's that? never saw one before". Home owners also complain to me that the telcom was drilling through their new window and floors, even after providing the interducting. Had a customer even make it seem that I should give a refund on the interduct installation seeing the telcom to stupid to use it.

 

[kwired]

250.94 Intersystem Bonding termination point required.

But never seen the telcom actually use it when provided. Installed on every new installation and come back after telcom comes in and they usually just tag onto the GEC with split bolt or a metal water pipe avoiding only 3 extra feet of wire. Even pre install on rough an interducting for them to use and come back to find holes drilled through the window sill and/or floors.
Caught one while on site and asked why he's not using the bonding bridge or the interduct and his response was "what's that? never saw one before". Home owners also complain to me that the telcom was drilling through their new window and floors, even after providing the interducting. Had a customer even make it seem that I should give a refund on the interduct installation seeing the telcom to stupid to use it.

was the duct either labeled or otherwise fairly obvious what it was for? I know some still wouldn't use it but you have to at least give them a nudge in the right direction and see if that works.

 

[Fred B]

was the duct either labeled or otherwise fairly obvious what it was for? I know some still wouldn't use it but you have to at least give them a nudge in the right direction and see if that works.

Hanging tag and labeled.
Even on site for one and the telcom tech could figure it out even when pointing it out and telling him what it was for. He still wanted to drill hole in window and floor. Ended up pulling his wire for him and then he didn't even seem to know how to make the coax termination at the wall plate,

 

[roger]

Note: those only work with a maximum of 4 AWG for the conductor that runs through it, and if you were using an insulated conductor for whatever reason it won't fit without stripping off insulation.

Gee, who'd have thought an insulated conductor would need to be stripped.

 

[winnie]

Separate from what you may be _required_ to change, the telco network interface should not have its own ground rod. Every wire entering the building should be connected to a single unified grounding system. If by contract and local code you are not required to change the telco grounding, you should inform the customer that this is an issue which should be addressed.

Current flows through the soil all the time. If you have two separate electrodes in the soil, then they will act to measure the voltage difference at different points in the soil, then the internal building wiring will act to bring that voltage difference close together somewhere in the building or in some piece of equipment. Having two separate electrodes for separate conductor systems is the exact opposite of equipotential bonding.

I personally encountered a situation at a rural residential structure, where the electrical service entered on one side of the building and the phone line entered on the opposite side of the building. The electrical service was properly grounded, and the phone entrance had a lightning arrestor connected to its own ground rod. The phone was not working. About 10 feet inside the building, several feet of phone wire was completely destroyed. Every few inches along the wire there was a jagged spike of copper sticking out about 1 inch, looking like a miniature lightning bolt frozen in time. Near the tips of the copper spikes were darkened sections of wood where the wire was stapled up. There was no evidence of a lightning strike external to the building. My best guess was a lightning strike to the nearby high voltage transmission lines, conducted into the ground, and the two separate ground rods bringing the soil voltage difference into the building.

 

[electrofelon]

250.94 Intersystem Bonding termination point required.

No not 259.94, I'm aware of that one. May have been a local code, or maybe just inspector bs, I'll see if I can dig up the notes from the inspection.

 

[tom baker]

This is the one Tom mentions.

View attachment 2572252

Thanks for posting that, I was on one bar cell and could not post image

 

[kec]

Has anyone ever seen a telco, cable, satellite installer land a conductor on an intersystem bonding device without being prompted to do so?

I've had many times with brand new construction where they did their install after I was all done and if I happen to come back to the site for some reason they will put one those adjustable meter/panel clamps on an enclosure even though the IBT is directly below the enclosure with nothing landed on it except the main conductor I landed on it.

Satellite dish guys are good at putting those things on the AC disconnect enclosure, in fact the clamp they like to use on those tends to interfere with opening the cover.

Note: those only work with a maximum of 4 AWG for the conductor that runs through it, and if you were using an insulated conductor for whatever reason it won't fit without stripping off insulation.

Notice the IBT and look what he connected it to.

 

[jaggedben]

..., the inspector said the communications utilities bond tie on to accessible grounded parts and since we removed those parts we are required to re-bond those utilities. ...

Well, did you remove those parts? Sounds like you didn't because they are on the other side of the building. Code aside, I always push back at inspectors who make up facts about what I did or didn't do.

Tell them your not a communications utility worker and since you didn't unterminate anything that needs to be reterminated it's not your business. Install the IBT. Around here that's generally all we have to do. (Half the people around here have fiber that doesn't need grounding anyway, so the IBT will go forever unused.)

 

[jaggedben]

What the inspector could legitimately cite is 250.50, all electrodes present must be bonded together.

 

[Eddie702]

If the GEC is already concealed, why can't you come out of the panel from with a new ground wire and attach the IBC?

The one in the picture I think you can fit a #6 in it I tried getting a #4 through one once and I don't think that worked

 

[Little Bill]

This is the one Tom mentions.

View attachment 2572252

We call those Christmas Trees! I use them on occasion, but they are way more expensive than the other type.

 

[augie47]

You might want to take a look at 800.100 especially (D).

From an inspectors standpoint it is akin to CSST bonding or sizing HVAC overcurrent protection, Best we can do is point out the installation does not meet Code and let the parties involved decide who is responsible to correct it.

 

[gene6]

Well you nailed it Augi, Thanks everyone here is the pertinent part of the response I got back this morning:

The scope of work is a service change that involves replacing a grounding electrode system per article 250 of the NEC.
Article 800.100 requires communications protectors to be bonded to this system. Recent incidents of energized abandoned communications lines have brought attention to this section.
Ensuring that the bonding for all communication drops present is the responsibility of the permit holder. The bonding of all communications systems present will need to meet 800.100 of the Electrical Code for final approval.
This inspection department does not decide if a communications utility such as Charter or the electrical contractor are responsible for performing said work, nor do we contact or notify any utilities on your behalf. You are encouraged to contact the communications utility to coordinate the work.
Another option is to have the communications utility remove abandoned communications drops from the building if any.

 

[gene6]

I personally encountered a situation at a rural residential structure, where the electrical service entered on one side of the building and the phone line entered on the opposite side of the building. The electrical service was properly grounded, and the phone entrance had a lightning arrestor connected to its own ground rod. The phone was not working. About 10 feet inside the building, several feet of phone wire was completely destroyed. Every few inches along the wire there was a jagged spike of copper sticking out about 1 inch, looking like a miniature lightning bolt frozen in time. Near the tips of the copper spikes were darkened sections of wood where the wire was stapled up. There was no evidence of a lightning strike external to the building. My best guess was a lightning strike to the nearby high voltage transmission lines, conducted into the ground, and the two separate ground rods bringing the soil voltage difference into the building.

My retired Verizon buddy has a stack of manuals going back to the Bell system days and he sent me this:

 

[zbang]

"Ensuring that the bonding for all communication drops present is the responsibility of the permit holder. The bonding of all communications systems present will need to meet 800.100 of the Electrical Code for final approval."

Is there an ordinance which specifies that? Is it in the permit language? One could certainly argue that where the telco terminals are on the other side of the house, they're not present at the service. One could also argue that 800.100 covers installation of the covered services (telco, cable tv, etc) and those haven't been touched by the electric service upgrade.

Unfortunately, might just be easier to run a wire to the telco rod; OTOH it's not your responsibility if someone steals it later (that is, don't bother sleeving it unless otherwise required).

 

[gene6]

One could also argue that 800.100 covers installation of the covered services (telco, cable tv, etc) and those haven't been touched by the electric service upgrade.

I was arguing that, but the inspector said that since we replaced the grounding electrode system all the ground electrode conductors and all grounding electrodes present have to be tied to the new ground electrode system.

 

[LarryFine]

I was arguing that, but the inspector said that since we replaced the grounding electrode system all the ground electrode conductors and all grounding electrodes present have to be tied to the new ground electrode system.

But that doesn't make it your obligation to do, especially free.

Offer the customer a price for complying with requirements outside the scope of work.

In other words, "blame" the inspector for adding on extras and take the customer's side.

 

[jaggedben]

Change order!!

Or have the customer tell their comms utilities to come out and fix their grounding, then remove that ground rod.

 

[n1ist]

The cable guy bonded to my PVC service mast. Not sure anything would have helped him...