Inspectors?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wbalsam1 said:
I'll bet they're code compliant! :smile:
Click to expand...

No... the strings were white. That makes them the 'neutral'.
post-14105-1131311653.gif
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
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.
Click to expand...

I beg to disagree. Grounding wire nuts can only be used for grounded connections because they have a "hole" in them. No inspector has ever provided me with a copy of an NRTL statement that says regular wirenuts may not be used on grounded conductors.

People have been misinterpreting "green only for ground" as "only green for ground". This is why the NEC 250.8 now specifically recognizes all wire nuts as being acceptable even though there have been no design or testing changes.
 
He don't like it.

He don't like it.

110.2 means as the Authority having juristicion it is not approved. Most of these guys don't use thier authority this way. I would find out if he is the chief or not. If he is, I feel bad for you. If not I would have a talk with his boss.
 
LCD,

There are Wire Nuts which are Green in color, which is a type of Labeling.
They are required to be used Only on EGC joints.

Also, they have a passage hole in the tip.
I suppose this helps in pigtailing.
This hole would prohibit them from being used anywhere other than EGC joints.

Could the inspector have been pointing to these green wire nuts?

Hope you find this forum useful.

...
 
Last edited:
Bill Davis said:
110.2 means as the Authority having juristicion it is not approved. Most of these guys don't use thier authority this way. I would find out if he is the chief or not. If he is, I feel bad for you. If not I would have a talk with his boss.
Click to expand...

AHJ is not the chief inspector, it is what the town/city/state has officially adopted as code.
 
480sparky said:
Amen. I always get dinged with I rough in a basement using this method.

DSC_1892a.jpg
Click to expand...

I love it. I make a commit about inspectors and it gets deleted for being off topic. 480 quotes me and cracks wise about hack NM strapping with a supporting pic, which has nothing to do with the topic, and his post stays. :cool:
 
Minuteman said:
I love it. I make a commit about inspectors and it gets deleted for being off topic. 480 quotes me and cracks wise about hack NM strapping with a supporting pic, which has nothing to do with the topic, and his post stays. :cool:
Click to expand...

You really have to admit that you would rather see this than a metal staple flattened into the romex.
I would say that if the inspector pulled the romex in this installation, and did the same to one that was directly stapled, the jacket of the stapled one would be damaged before this method.
This method is far superior!
 
Minuteman said:
I love it. I make a commit about inspectors and it gets deleted for being off topic. 480 quotes me and cracks wise about hack NM strapping with a supporting pic, which has nothing to do with the topic, and his post stays. :cool:
Click to expand...

Where did I call anyone a hack?:confused:
 
DCinspector,

Interesting example.
I think the soft strapping technique is a good one

I have been stopped by an inspector and asked about loose stapes on Romex.
I simply replied that it eliminated the possibility of 'pyroformic-carbonization'.
I was 'passed'.

For those who missed the fancy word:
Tight stapling can crush and fracture the insulation,
allowing small leakage currents to flow to the 2x4 stud,
and out towards a minute (small) ground.
This grounding path, over many years, will build up a slight carbon path.
(I have read) that if lightning strikes, it will push against everything,
and if it finds this little carbon path, then the current flow will cause major damage.
...
I need some comments on this,
since it has been many years since I read that.
...
Anyway, I think the soft strapping technique is a good one,
having no sharp bends, and no crushing.
Although it is more time consuming than a staple.
...
 
Dungar,

That is the way our inspectors interpret the code.

As you said
Quote/People have been misinterpreting "green only for ground"
as "only green for ground"./Quote

...
 
cowboyjwc said:
I already told you what my position is, I'm just letting you know that the people that write the code book agree with me.

And Wayne, I agree that you could do that, but if you wanted to get paid.....:smile:
Click to expand...


I guess you polled the members of CMP-2? Because the people who write the handbook aren't the ones that write the code.
 
ryan_618 said:
I guess you polled the members of CMP-2? Because the people who write the handbook aren't the ones that write the code.
Click to expand...

I could, I know some of them. They may not write it, but they are on the advisory committiee.

480sparky said:
If that's the case, why not write a proposal to that affect (I think the term is 'clarification') for the next code cycle and see if they truly agree? If so, then every inspector should be requiring 3-ways today, not just what's stated in the book.

How about a poll? Up for it? I'm game....;)
Click to expand...

I just may do that.

I have no problem with a poll, it won't change the way I call it (though I've never seen anyone do it any other way, but I've only been an inspector for 20 years, it could still happen). Then again I've never had a house with just a meter on the outside and cable run to a panel in the basement.:smile:

Like we tell them all that say, "they don't make us do that in _______", You're not in _________ you're in Simi Valley now.

iwire said:
90.4 does not permit you to make up requirements that do not exist.
Click to expand...

It says that I have the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, and I keep trying to say that two three ways is my interpretation.
 
cowboyjwc said:
It says that I have the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, and I keep trying to say that two three ways is my interpretation.
Click to expand...

So, if I have a split-foyer home, with a landing at the front door, and steps going from there up to the upper level as well as the lower level, how do you interpret that so I can wire that home in your jurisdiction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top