Homeowner DIY

[bthielen]

Re: Homeowner DIY

My only comment. I personally think that marking a wire is more than just a formality. It is a safety issue and therefore it should be done in such a way that it is easily noticed and not mistaken. When I first looked at the photo, my first reaction was that you did not mark the grounded conductor and I was perparing to reply with that comment. Then I read some of the other comments and so I opened the photo a second time and did notice the tape. The type of method you used to mark the grounded conductor was adequate per NEC requirements but I would prefer a more noticeable application. In other words, I would rather the white tape were wrapped so it covers more of the insulation. I didn't even notice the white marking until I looked at it a second time. Maybe this is what the inspector didn't like. Maybe he didn't notice it the first time either and this may be his concern. He can't fail it but he didn't get a warm fuzzy either.

Bob

 

[eprice]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Three comments

1. Nice looking panel job.

2. If the conduit is metal, I believe 250.64(E) requires the GEC to be bonded to it where the GEC exits through the LB.

3. If you have not been able to verify 25 ohms or less resistance to ground at the ground rod, and if the only other grounding electrode in the system is the metal water line, then I believe 250.56 requires that you add another rod.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by eprice:3. If you have not been able to verify 25 ohms or less . . . 250.56 requires that you add another rod.

I have never been clear about who owns the burden of proof on that requirement. I could suggest that the Inspector must prove it is over 25 ohms, in order to compel the installer to add a second rod.

 

[eprice]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by charlie b:
I have never been clear about who owns the burden of proof on that requirement. I could suggest that the Inspector must prove it is over 25 ohms, in order to compel the installer to add a second rod.

I believe 250.56 is no different than any other section of the NEC. It is the responsibility of the electrician to follow it whether the inspector asks or not. If the electrician can not verify compliance with the 25 ohm test, then it is his obligation to install the other rod. If as inspector I ask an electrician to show me that he has complied with proper bonding requirements in a panel by opening it up so that I can look inside, would he be justified in saying it's not his job to open up the panel? We require an inspection of the wiring while the walls are open and the wiring is visible for inspection. It is just as reasonable to require that the electrician perform his resistance test of the rod while we are present to witness it.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Steelbuster , that is almost too neat and workman like,.. great job !

Roger could you please explain why you think it "unnecessary" to identify the grounded conductor in the panel ?

Doesn't article 200.6(b) of the NEC 2005 require it

Originally posted by roger:

Very nice work.

BTW, I don't personally see a problem with using the medical tape, and in fact, I think it's unnecessary to have to mark this conductor in the panel in the first place, at the weather-head yes.

Roger

 

[charlie b]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by eprice:I believe 250.56 is no different than any other section of the NEC.

I believe that article is different from every other article. Where else is there a statement that requires us to do something if a test shows a given result, but does not require us to do the test?

Originally posted by eprice: It is just as reasonable to require that the electrician perform his resistance test of the rod while we are present to witness it.

I won't disagree that this is reasonable. I just don't think the code requires it.

Originally posted by eprice: If as inspector I ask an electrician to show me that he has complied with proper bonding requirements in a panel by opening it up so that I can look inside, would he be justified in saying it's not his job to open up the panel?

Not the same thing at all. If he did the bonding correctly, then it will still be correct whenever when you come by to inspect it. The problem with the 25 ohm requirement is that the installer might have performed, and documented, a test, and be able to show you the results of the test were below 25 ohms. But if you make him perform the test again, so that you can witness the test, the conditions might have changed, and the results you see might be above 25 ohms. But the installer had followed the code. If that happens, would you require the second ground rod? If so, why should the second test be used as the basis for whether or not to install a second rod? Why shouldn't the documented first test be used instead?

Do you see why I have found this article to be unclear?

 

[iwire]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Roger could you please explain why you think it "unnecessary" to identify the grounded conductor in the panel ?

Doesn't article 200.6(b) of the NEC 2005 require it]

I hope Roger does not mind that I take a shot at this answer.

Any person that decides to take the cover off a panel to perform electric work should DARN WELL KNOW WHICH TERMINAL IS THE NEUTRAL WITHOUT THE WHITE TAPE!

Before we bring any wires into the panel we are expected to know where the neutral conductor will land and I have seen very few panels that have the neutral terminal labeled neutral, grounded or white.

Why once the wires are brought in do we now need it clearly labeled?

That is putting the horse after the cart.

Makes little sense to me.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Steelbuster, I went back to look at that picture , I have one question . How does that , what looks like a # 4 bare copper , leave the panel ?

I ask this because of what has been described to me as "the choke coil effect ".

It was once common in these parts to sleeve the grounding electrode conductor in EMT from the panel/meter socket to a grounding electrode, While box connectors were used at the panel/meter socket , often at the electrode , none were used to connect the EMT to the clamp . I'm told that there have been cases where the "choke " effect has burned the conductor through while dealing with lightning strikes.

I have seen bare GECs run through little holes in meter sockets and panels and have wondered if that "coil effect' could not occur there as well??

 

[roger]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by marc deschenes:

Roger could you please explain why you think it "unnecessary" to identify the grounded conductor in the panel ?

Doesn't article 200.6(b) of the NEC 2005 require it

Marc, I don't dispute and I know that it is a code requirement.

The reason I think it is unecessary (especially considering an inspector would think of tagging it for not liking the way it's done) is because of the fact, that anyone in the future that should be in this panel would know what the conductor is by looking at where it's landed.

If they didn't know what the conductor was, then they shouldn't be in this panel.

I also think it's unecessary to have to reidentify a white conductor in cable assemblies when used in a switchloops as well as multi-leg or multi-phase circuits.


My stand is that a qualified individual knows what these cables are doing.

Now, even though I think it's unecessary, that doesn't mean I don't do it.

Roger

 

[roger]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Bob,

I hope Roger does not mind that I take a shot at this answer.

I don't mind at all, and we are on the same page.

Boy that last post took me a long time to type though.

Roger

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Originally posted by steelbuster:
Yes, I was asking for an opinion on the possible infractions in the panel.

You came to the right place. Some of these guys will find fault with ANY installation.

Four pages....and counting.

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Roger and Bob , I get it , not needed,.. just required .

 

[iwire]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by marc deschenes:
Roger and Bob , I get it , not needed,.. just required .

Yeah it is required and of course I comply usually with a good 6" to 8" of conductor covered with white tape.

 

[eprice]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by charlie b:
I won't disagree that this is reasonable. I just don't think the code requires it.

Nor does the code require that an inspection of the wiring be made while the walls are open. AHJs require it because it is necessary to verify compliance with the code.

Not the same thing at all. If he did the bonding correctly, then it will still be correct whenever when you come by to inspect it. The problem with the 25 ohm requirement is that the installer might have performed, and documented, a test, and be able to show you the results of the test were below 25 ohms. But if you make him perform the test again, so that you can witness the test, the conditions might have changed, and the results you see might be above 25 ohms. But the installer had followed the code. If that happens, would you require the second ground rod? If so, why should the second test be used as the basis for whether or not to install a second rod? Why shouldn't the documented first test be used instead?

If the installer is able to document in a credible way that a test has been made showing the resistance of the rod to be 25 ohms or less, then I would be satisfied that he has met the requirements of the code. It seems to me that the easiest way to document this would be to invite me to come witness the test. I recognize that the resistance of the rod will vary as conditions change, and that a rod that is incompliance with the 25 ohm rule one day may not be on another day. The easiest and most certain way to comply with 250.56 would be to install a second rod.

Where else is there a statement that requires us to do something if a test shows a given result, but does not require us to do the test?

You are right, the code does not require a test. The code requires a certain level of performance, ie. 25 ohms or less resistance to ground. A test seems the only way to verify that level of performance.

I could suggest that the Inspector must prove it is over 25 ohms, in order to compel the installer to add a second rod.

This is the point that I was responding to in my last post. I do not think it is the inspector's responsibility to prove that it is over 25 ohms. Rather, it is the installer's responsibility to comply with the code. It is reasonable for the inspector to require some evidence of compliance. The presence of two rods would be evidence of compliance. Credible test results showing 25 ohms or less would be evidence of compliance.

Other examples of testing used to verfy code compliance can be found in the construction industry. 700.12 requires a certain level of performance. Emergency power must be available within a specific time period. That section does not require a test, but AHJs ofen require a test to verfiy that the required level of performance is achieved. Plumbing systems are required to not leak. The same goes for gas piping systems. Tests are conducted by the installers and witnessed by inspectors to verfy compliance. Fill material is required to be compacted to a specific degree. Concrete is required to achieve a specific strength. In none of these instances is it the inspector's responsibility to prove failure.

 

[steelbuster]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Good Grief , 4 pages? Wow..Ah, to try to anwser a few.. It's PVC Sch80 ridgid so no grounding bushing used...ground rod measured less than 25ohms when I drove it, was never questioned by the inspector at any time....

from Marc ..It was once common in these parts to sleeve the grounding electrode conductor in EMT from the panel/meter socket to a grounding electrode, While box connectors were used at the panel/meter socket , often at the electrode , none were used to connect the EMT to the clamp . I'm told that there have been cases where the "choke " effect has burned the conductor through while dealing with lightning strikes.

I have seen bare GECs run through little holes in meter sockets and panels and have wondered if that "coil effect' could not occur there as well??

The #4 exits the can thru a vry small KO (1/4"), no connecter was used, it is run open thru the joists.

The tape should have been , and would be in the future, a much larger piece. I thought code required it but it was, from a practicle sense, there for my use to ID the conductors after I pulled them in.

 

[tshea]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by charlie b:
I have never been clear about who owns the burden of proof on that requirement. I could suggest that the Inspector must prove it is over 25 ohms, in order to compel the installer to add a second rod.

Wisconsin takes the burden of proof away from everybody. It is mandatory, per State Code, to install 2 ground rods.

edited for spellcheck

[ November 18, 2005, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: tshea ]

 

[marc deschenes]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Steelbuster , Thanks for responding.

For the record I think that the work you did is great.

I only raised the question of the grounding electrode conductor because , while I have seen it, it is not common where I live and work, and I'm not at all sure it would be acceptable to the AHJs around here.
Also , it seems funny to me that this conductor would not require a fitting of some sort upon entering a panel or meter socket enclosure for termination. I do not mean to take anything away from your work.


Again, that work is something to be proud of .

 

[iwire]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Originally posted by iwire:
I was looking at a pipe run and all I kept asking myself was "What the heck was I thinking?"

I suppose this was the one day you had no camera, right?

Just 'cause ya asked.

 

[macmikeman]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Hi Steelbuster. Yesterday I questioned there being no ark faults, and you answered for that. So as far as the rest, your work looks very good to me, and I don't find anything else in the picture I need to squak about.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Homeowner DIY

Steelbuster, that panel better have a glass cover.

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Originally posted by iwire:
I was looking at a pipe run and all I kept asking myself was "What the heck was I thinking?"

I suppose this was the one day you had no camera, right?

Just 'cause ya asked.

(Picture)

This truly seperates the housemonkey from the electrician.

I look at the picture and think the bends look fine. The extra 90? to that run from popping out the back of the box is questionable, but what do I know?

[ November 19, 2005, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]