sfav8r
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
Few things in life are certain. To the traditional death and taxes, I propose we add article 250 debates.
We failed an inspection today on a 200a service upgrade. The reasons were:
1) No bonding between cold water and gas pipe at HW heater.
2) Conductor that goes from ground rod 1 to ground rod 2 to panel was not continuous.
The inspector commented "You wasted time and money running from the panel all the way to the cold water pipe (55 feet). That wasn't necessary since you had 2 ground rods at the panel." I said it was my understanding that the GEC was the one going to the water pipe and that the rods were supplemental. He said " a lot of people make that mistake. There is nothing in the code that requires a connection to the water pipe." I explained that 250.52 required the pipe and the ground rod to be tied together but that we had the OPTION to run them separately to the panel. He insisted that the water pipe was not required. I requested that the supervisor weigh in , which he did...and backed up the inspector.
As to item #2, they are claiming it must be be continuous from rod 1 to rod 2 to the panel. I have heard this argued before. To me the JUMPER from rod 1 to rod 2 is ust that, a jumper and is not required to be continuous. But I'm not going to bother arguing that because it's harder to argue than to "correct" it.
The final item, the required bonding of the gas pipe at the HW heater is really getting old. Some jurisdictions in the surrounding areas demand this in addition to bonding the load side of the main gas pipe. Others actually tell us NOT to connect to the gas pipe where in comes from the meter. I literally feel like throwing my code book in the trash sometimes. Not sure what to do when you already go over the inspector's head and they support the call.
We failed an inspection today on a 200a service upgrade. The reasons were:
1) No bonding between cold water and gas pipe at HW heater.
2) Conductor that goes from ground rod 1 to ground rod 2 to panel was not continuous.
The inspector commented "You wasted time and money running from the panel all the way to the cold water pipe (55 feet). That wasn't necessary since you had 2 ground rods at the panel." I said it was my understanding that the GEC was the one going to the water pipe and that the rods were supplemental. He said " a lot of people make that mistake. There is nothing in the code that requires a connection to the water pipe." I explained that 250.52 required the pipe and the ground rod to be tied together but that we had the OPTION to run them separately to the panel. He insisted that the water pipe was not required. I requested that the supervisor weigh in , which he did...and backed up the inspector.
As to item #2, they are claiming it must be be continuous from rod 1 to rod 2 to the panel. I have heard this argued before. To me the JUMPER from rod 1 to rod 2 is ust that, a jumper and is not required to be continuous. But I'm not going to bother arguing that because it's harder to argue than to "correct" it.
The final item, the required bonding of the gas pipe at the HW heater is really getting old. Some jurisdictions in the surrounding areas demand this in addition to bonding the load side of the main gas pipe. Others actually tell us NOT to connect to the gas pipe where in comes from the meter. I literally feel like throwing my code book in the trash sometimes. Not sure what to do when you already go over the inspector's head and they support the call.
