Inspectors?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lcdrwalker

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Ohio
I have been working on a custom home and called for a rough for today. First mistake...I wasn't there. Inspector failed the job because I used wire nuts to splice my EGCs. He cited 110.2 and scribbled a note that said that wire nuts are not listed or labled for grounding. I have changed everything to compression sleeves (Buchanons) and called for a reinspection. After 35+ years in this business am I learning something new or is the inspector one fry short of a Happy Meal. In commercial/industrial, that's all I ever use and no one has said a thing. I welcome any input.
Thanks
Mike
 
Lcdrwalker said:
I have been working on a custom home and called for a rough for today. First mistake...I wasn't there. Inspector failed the job because I used wire nuts to splice my EGCs. He cited 110.2 and scribbled a note that said that wire nuts are not listed or labled for grounding. I have changed everything to compression sleeves (Buchanons) and called for a reinspection. After 35+ years in this business am I learning something new or is the inspector one fry short of a Happy Meal. In commercial/industrial, that's all I ever use and no one has said a thing. I welcome any input.
Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...

The inspector is correct for some reason it is only enforced in residential. Welcome to residential. Either ferrules or greenies are compliant.
 
Last edited:
Lcdrwalker said:
I have been working on a custom home and called for a rough for today. First mistake...I wasn't there. Inspector failed the job because I used wire nuts to splice my EGCs. He cited 110.2 and scribbled a note that said that wire nuts are not listed or labled for grounding. I have changed everything to compression sleeves (Buchanons) and called for a reinspection. After 35+ years in this business am I learning something new or is the inspector one fry short of a Happy Meal. In commercial/industrial, that's all I ever use and no one has said a thing. I welcome any input.
Thanks
Mike
Click to expand...

Are you talking about "Grounding electrode conductors" 250.64 (C)(1) or are you talking about "Equipment grounding conductor" 250.120 ?
I haven't heard of equipment grounding conductor needing an irreversible splice before? Wire nuts are what I always see, maybe I am just misreading your post.
 
infinity said:
Got a code reference the bans regular old wire nuts from splicing EGC's?
Click to expand...

No, but I have one that allows it.

250.8(A)(1)
250.8(A)(3) requires the pressure connector to be listed as grounding and bonding equipment, but (A)(1) just requires the pressure connector to be listed.
 
The information that the inspector used to fail this was provided by a company that makes green wirenuts...the only ones listed for grounding use, however as John pointed out, the code does not require the wirenut used for the EGC to be listed for grounding use.
 
Minuteman said:
Not to pick on ALL resi inspectors, but sometimes they panic when a guy they don't know does something they have not seen. They revert to the not in my town mentality.
Click to expand...

Amen. I always get dinged with I rough in a basement using this method.

DSC_1892a.jpg
 
That's a similar fitting? Seems to me it's being cheap.

I agree it's better. I guess you could call it a strap. But the sheathing is not an approved method.

Attic joists....
Secured and supported. If they staple the NM to the attic joists I accept it!
 
Standard wirenuts are not listed for grounding purposes, just look in Ideal's catalog and you will see the listing of the different types of wirenuts they manufacture.

As a matter of fact, there are very few wirenut types that are listed for grounding purposes. [Standard 486C used for regular wirenuts, and Standard 467 for testing of grounding type wirenuts]


With that said, it has been industry practice to use regular wirenuts for grounding purposes. The only reason in the past that the regular wirenuts were not listed, is because no manufacturer wanted to spend a substantial fee to have them tested, when no one was requiring it to be done.


The recent change in 250.8 of the '08 NEC now reflects an agreement with UL and the NFPA that regular wirenuts are fine to use for bonding purposes.


This inspector may have read some older information that has led him to his present reasoning, and he is not really off the mark.
 
GrayHeadedMule said:
That's a similar fitting? Seems to me it's being cheap.

I agree it's better. I guess you could call it a strap. But the sheathing is not an approved method.

Attic joists....
Secured and supported. If they staple the NM to the attic joists I accept it!
Click to expand...

You don't accept it if they're not stapled? Why?
 
480sparky said:
You don't accept it if they're not stapled? Why?
Click to expand...

GrayHeadedMule said:
Because they are not secured.
Click to expand...

I do not like it, and I can not remember if I have ever stapled a wire sufficiently (I had to change my wording from "properly" :smile:) supported by a joist or rafter, but the wording is there in 334.30 ('02 version) as to how it is to be supported every 4 1/2 ft. When I get called on it I will rethink my position, but for now I have my reasons and I make sure that it is protected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top