ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Ground rod not permitted

We just did a 200 a home service where the inspecter would not permit a ground rod. The original service never had a g rod just the cold water ground.

The new service the inspecter was adament about not permitting a ground rod on both the service and rough inspections. He said they only allow grounding the cold water pipe and that's it.

Tried to ask why. Was it some worry about stray current or something? He said he did not know why they had that rule. Also that it was a local amendment left by the last electric inspector. The village has their amendments online but I can't find anything about forbidding a g rod. Only that you must ground the cold water.

I would say that the utility required a g rod but probably would not look for or notice it.

We have normal dirt ground around here. Were not on an iceberg or rock.

Right now the serviced is passed inspection. I don't know if I want to cause problems over this. We have a lot of other issues with the inspectors. He wants the "Architect" to turn in revised blue prints to reflect the changes the designer made to the lighting. He's going around with the print saying the plans call for 4 cans and you have 3. We can't pass that without changing the plans or doing it like the print.

Tom


[This message has been edited by Active 1 (edited 03-02-2005).]

It seems to me that there is a requirement for using the underground water pipe as the first and foremost grounding electrode (if such is available..i.e. not plastic pipe). Thereafter, it's required that you supplement that water pipe with additional electrodes like rods, pipes, plates, tanks, etc. (If commercial, then you would also have to supplement the pipe with all other available electrodes, like building steel, ground ring, and Ufer ground.)
As for the prints, I suspect that the inspector is just trying to make sure the village gets its cut in permit fees.
I don't think that an inspection agency has the authority to relax code requirements, which is what the inspector seems to be doing by not enforcing the supplementary electode requirement.

Sounds like the inspector is a little kooky. If you are under the NEC with no amendments you have to have the ground rods or some type of suplemental electrode. I would ask for, In writing, the ruling that says it is not required. If there is none that he can show you I would install the rods. As for the lighting layout that is really a design issue and not for him to say.

While a ground rod may not be the best solution, I can think of no condition where a ground rod would make the grounding worse.

I can. The point of the ground rod in this case is to suplement the water pipe sould it become unavailable for grounding. If there were no ground rods installed that would make it worse.

What town is it Tom?

That's what we live with around here. Some inspectors are as sharp as any in the country, and others are...well...much less so. In new towns I try to call the inspector to see what they look for, but don't always remember to. Sometimes it's the same town with a new inspector. It's good to call to find out what code they're on. It varies from 1999 to the most recent.

If I feel they're wrong I try to work it out in a call with both of us looking at the same book (sometimes I'm wrong), but some are stubborn. You can either do what they want & burn a little money, or make a federal case out of it & hope they don't go for a bit of revenge in the future.

Then they wonder why people don't get permits. I've created varying prices for permits and bonds with different departments depending on the "degree of difficulty".

Dave

Hey Dave,

It's Buffalo Grove. I did check their code ver. and amendments before hand. 1996 NEC. with like I said nothing about no G rods. http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/buffgrove/

We did a service a few years ago there when they had the last inspecter and never remember anything about this.

Just feels like were getting a hazing cause were not known to the inspectors.
It's other things too:

The first secluded rough inspection he refused to inspect because the plans stamped approved could not be located.

He spent an hour to inspect >1000 sf residential 1st floor.

Had to disassemble a Juno 3" can to prove the factory box was accesible.

Will not permit 3/8 greenfield for fish in existing walls. Wants no less than 1/2 flex. Could not find anything about that in their local amendments.

Wanted existing drywall torn out to remove existing abandoned dead end boxes and pipes.

Probably the biggest problem is the designer changes made to the lighting plans. Now he said he would not pass the final unless everything is exactly like the approved plans. Or the "Architect" can submit revised drawing for approval. The GC did not seem to be to worried about this so I'm stuck in the middle.

Of coarse the GC is still trying to get the framing inspection. 1st time they did not have the approved plans. 2nd time the approved job site plans were too hard for the inspector to read.

Tom


[This message has been edited by Active 1 (edited 03-02-2005).]

Tom, look at Art.350-10(99 NEC) for the 3/8" flex/greenfield issue.

steve

Stamcam, Your right about the 3/8. It does have a limited acceptable use. But a 3/8 wip for a remodel can would seem acceptable. 1/2" is a bit stiff and hevier which makes can make a remodel can fit bad. 1/2" flex would be great except it has a huge bending radius.

Tom

[This message has been edited by Active 1 (edited 03-02-2005).]

Welcome to the big world. The inspector's job is to inspect according to the approved plans. He is just following the rules that he should. It's not his fault that your architect didn't have his "stuff" together.


Here's from '99 NEC
350-10. Size
(a) Minimum. Flexible metal conduit less than ½-in. electrical trade size shall not be used unless permitted in (1) through (5) below for 3/8-in. electrical trade size.
1. For enclosing the leads of motors as permitted in Section 430-145(b)
2. In lengths not in excess of 6 ft (1.83 m)
a. For utilizing equipment, or
b. As part of a listed assembly, or
c. For tap connections to lighting fixtures as permitted in Section 410-67(c)
3. For manufactured wiring systems as permitted in Section 604-6(a)
4. In hoistways, as permitted in Section 620-21(a)(1)
5. As part of a listed assembly to connect wired fixture sections as permitted in Section 410-77(c)

How about MC cable?



[This message has been edited by electure (edited 03-01-2005).]