Questioning inspector/boss

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pierre C Belarge said:
250.53(D)(2) would seem by the wording to not permit the installation of the supplemental electrode for the the cold water to be bonded/attached to the cold water electrode within the first 5 ft of the entrance to the building.
Click to expand...
That's how it gets interpreted here.

The other day I had a disagreement with an Inspector. I had installed GFCI's in on old apartment kitchen. The apartment was an old ungrounded system. Article 406.3(D)(3)(b) allows for this. The Inspector told me that I could not do what I did because:

1. His GFCI Receptacle Tester did not work. (Because it relies on the ground wire to create a fault.)

2. Also, he had "never seen that done in his ten years as an inspector."

It was all I could do to not call him every name in the book.

Anyway, he told me he was going to have to check on this. I called him back the next day with a photocopy of the article and a diagram showing how a GFCI actually works. I faxed them to him. He finally saw the light.




One more thing to add, even though your installation might be technically correct, sometimes you run into jurisdictional wiring methods. That is to say what you did may not be the common way to do such-and-such job for your area. Just my 2? + tax, title, and doc fees.
 
Chamuit said:
That's how it gets interpreted here.

The other day I had a disagreement with an Inspector. I had installed GFCI's in on old apartment kitchen. The apartment was an old ungrounded system. Article 406.3(D)(3)(b) allows for this. The Inspector told me that I could not do what I did because:

1. His GFCI Receptacle Tester did not work. (Because it relies on the ground wire to create a fault.)

2. Also, he had "never seen that done in his ten years as an inspector."

It was all I could do to not call him every name in the book.

Anyway, he told me he was going to have to check on this. I called him back the next day with a photocopy of the article and a diagram showing how a GFCI actually works. I faxed them to him. He finally saw the light.




One more thing to add, even though your installation might be technically correct, sometimes you run into jurisdictional wiring methods. That is to say what you did may not be the common way to do such-and-such job for your area. Just my 2? + tax, title, and doc fees.
Click to expand...


I think its said to see an 'inspector' thats charged with enforcing the code and doesnt take the INITIATIVE to find the truth him/herself. Its good that you were able to convince, but my point is that you should not have had to!

If there was a code violoation he/she should have gave you code #, if he cant then pass it and be done with it.
 
if we are speaking of the requirement of the supplimental electrodes then I agree 100% with Pierre. If we are speaking of simply bonding the "present" electrodes other than the supplimental then I dont see a problem with them connected to the Water Pipe Electrode within 5' of entry.

Also I would sure not to lump all inspectors in that "specific" labeled box.....many of us are very open to listening to the contractors point of view and I am 100% for putting any violation on the ticket...if you can't find the violation then you can't fail the inspection.
 
I think the connections given in the later part of Pierres example are " Shall Be Permitted" locations. The connection from the water pipe to the rod I believe would fall under 250.53(E).
 
Here is what I was trying to post ( 2 posts above )...but I have Paste and Post Issues....lol..This is from the 2005 Handbook

Section 250.53(D)(2) specifically requires that rod, pipe, or plate electrodes used to
supplement metal water piping be installed in accordance with 250.56. This
requirement clarifies that the supplemental electrode system must be installed as if it
were the sole grounding electrode for the system. If 25 ohms or less of earth resistance
cannot be achieved with one rod, pipe, or plate, another electrode (other than the metal
piping that is being supplemented) must be provided. One of the permitted methods of
bonding a supplemental grounding electrode conductor to the primary electrode system
is to connect it to the service enclosure.
The requirement to supplement the metal water pipe is based on the practice of using a
plastic pipe for replacement when the original metal water pipe fails. This type of
replacement leaves the system without a grounding electrode unless a supplemental
electrode is provided.
 
roger said:
Well, I guess there would be no splices that would make the grade if you were inspecting. :grin:
Roger
Click to expand...
I have all but banned splices in my projects, but now and then they are unavoidable.

But there is a big difference between inspecting to the code and inspecting to a stricter specification.
 
Anyway....I figured everyone would like the updated image of 250.50 that mike is using for his new stuff...it clears up some issues with the ASSUMPTIONS of the old 250.50 image in regards to the within 5' thing.

250.50.gif
if you wish.



Enjoy !
 
Last edited:
petersonra said:
But there is a big difference between inspecting to the code and inspecting to a stricter specification.
Click to expand...

And repairing a nicked wire with tape is no more of a code violation than taping over a splice is.

If a job spec prohibited it for some reason it would be another story.

Roger
 
rookie4now said:
Hi,
My boss tends to "bend" to the requests of the inspector(s) more easily than I wood. He has good reputation with inspectors and maybe he figures that in the long run it is better to pick your battles. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but perhaps I draw the line a little differently than he would.

On a swrvice (which I did) he was present for the inspection and the install failed for three reasons.

1) The grounded service donductor had a splice.
2) The ground rods were attached to the cold water pipe, but the conductor did not continue to the panel. The GEC was a seperate conductor which also attached to the water pipe 3' away (within 5' of the point of entry of the building).
3) There was splicing tape over one service conductor that was nicked during installation.

My comments to my boss were:
1) 230.46 specifically allows for splicing of service conductors. It does not specify grounded or undgounded.
2) 250.52(D)2 "exception" allows me to attach to the water pipe and does not require that the conductor continue to the service panel.
3) I don't have a code section on this one, but I don't know why a nick in a service conductor wouldn't be allowed to be protected with a wrap of rubber tape followed by a covering of electrical tape.

I guess what I am looking for is this. Do you agree that the service is OK? If not, where are the problems. And second, if you agree it's OK, any suggestions for dilpomatically explaining that I'd like to convince the inspector that the install is OK rather than go repull 40' of 2/0 wire for for no good reason. (see, profit sharing does work :)

Thanks for your input
Click to expand...


When we go for inspections we always have a code book in hand or near by,in the event we are failed for a particular installation we are quick to ask the inspector to review it on site and explain his or her findings.Also by doing your homework up-front, -regarding the code articles you referenced to do a particular installation you will be able to tell inspectors how and why you did what you did.we find when going thru inspections it is alwasy best to explain the wiring method used and what NEC articles we referenced for that particular installation,this may save a re-inspection and get you going on your next task...
 
roger said:
And repairing a nicked wire with tape is no more of a code violation than taping over a splice is.

If a job spec prohibited it for some reason it would be another story.

Roger
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can repair a nicked wire with tape. nicked insulation yes. once it gets into the conductor tape is not a repair.
 
petersonra said:
I don't see how you can repair a nicked wire with tape. nicked insulation yes. once it gets into the conductor tape is not a repair.
Click to expand...
From post #14:
rookie4now said:
...It was just a little nick in the insulation that probably didn't even need tape, I just did it as a precaustion...
Click to expand...
 
If one is in the business of pulling conductors, or entering conductors in to an enclosure or any other installation where the conductors are exposed (not in a sheath, raceway, etc...), one is bound to do some damage to the insulation of the conductors at some point. Insulation damage repair does not mean removal of the damaged conductors. There are a multiple of means to repair the insulation, one is to use an insulating type of tape.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top