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).]

How about MC cable?

This is "pipe land" and anything other than EMT, RMC and sometimes NMC cannot be used.

I have never had an inspector make an issue about residental plans. Rarely is there an electrical plan and no one needs to approve. Inspector inspects what you have installed.

I suppose submitting an electrical plan can eliminate alot of mistakes but that depends on who is approving them.

-Hal

"Welcome to the big world."

Do they use ground rods in the big world?

"How about MC cable?"
electure:
Local amendment article 334 not enacted (no MC cable)

Stamcam already brought up the 350-10. Does a remodel can not qualify for a lighting tap 3/8 greenfield with ground <6'?

Talked with archetect today and he will make as built lighting drawings to submit to the village.

What is there to "approve" with residential living space lighting? Do you have a switched outlet or any type of light fixture? Besides 3 ways what more is there to approve?

Is it a buildings inspectors job to enforce the exact layout of lighting fixtures. The print shows cans dead center in the room and for all our safety thats where it's got to be. At least not without an "Architect" to sign off to say we will be safe to put a light fixture in a slightly different location.

Tom



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

Is it a buildings inspectors job to enforce the exact layout of lighting fixtures. The print shows cans dead center in the room and for all our safty thats where it's got to be. At least not without an arkitect to sign off to say we will be safe to put a light ficture in a slightly different location.

You left out the part about the inspector being the mayor's brother-in-law.

-Hal

I didn't say anything about your ground rod, and believe you're right.

If you submitted plans for approval, you should install what was approved. The inspector isn't and shouldn't be required to make calls on your planning, or lack thereof.
If the designer decides to addfixtures, should an inspector ignore it as a design issue? Should he buy 3/8" flex used contrary to Code because you don't like working with the minimum?
Apparently you haven't gotten energy regulations that dictate the lighting that you have in residential. Time will fix that. You'll get them.

Is there a difference between commercial and residential work with regards to approved plans and following them? Will they let you go into a store or office and put in whatever you want regardless of what was approved?

My only point was that if you had to submit plans, then you have to follow them. We'd eat dirt if we didn't in this area. Maybe it's regional. It's a big World




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

I don't know about your part of the country, but here in NJ if we really don't like the AHJ, we can go to the " Court of Appeal." Which really is a set of 5 people who sit on a panel and they either decide in your favor or the AHJ's favor. These 5 people are usually made up of a Plumbing inspector, Electrical inspector, Building inspector, and a fire code oficial, and the last person could be almost anyone. A GC, and architect, engineer, etc. You might lose some time and it might cost you but if you feel that you are right you can take your chance.

I can't let this go. I tried. I really did. The word is "Architect"!

Scott - - I really wondered if you could

Active 1 ---

There should be 2 electrical plans.

One plan for the inspector. It is as close to blank as possible. I prefer a statement saying only "electrical to conform to xxxx NEC."

One plan for the installer. It should specify only those parts of the system that are important - placing of important recepts and lights, placement of subpanels, how the circuits are spread over the building, which side of doors light switches are on, where to drill holes in LVLs.

The less there is on the plans, the closer the installer can work using the methods and techniques he is comfortable with.

My favorite builder spray paints the location of critical outlets, switches etc on the floor. That makes it easier than sorting through 20 pages of change orders to see where the TV or phone goes and there isn't any question which side of the door the switch goes on. Of course this is only as good as the plans they give her.

If you submitted plans for approval, you should install what was approved. The inspector isn't and shouldn't be required to make calls on your planning, or lack thereof.
If the designer decides to addfixtures, should an inspector ignore it as a design issue?

I have a real problem with this concept. I can see submitting plans with receptacle locations and fixture locations ONLY for the purpose of ensuring that their spacing and location satisfies the code. Other than that what the h**l business is it of the inspector and building department?

This business of measuring locations and comparing them to the dimensions on the "approved" drawings is asinine and looks more like abuse of power than anything else.

-Hal

There is no reference in this thread to moving a fixture location. A fixture was not installed that was shown on the approved drawing. No big deal, but when do you call it quits? How far does it go until it becomes the AHJ's business? (I won't ask this question again if you choose to ignore it again)

Is the whole idea of Plan Check and approved plans something you haven't dealt with before?

The approval and permit process is in essence your contract with the AHJ. If you change something, you must resubmit, just like it was a change order.
I connected a pair of resi AC condensers yesterday, and the locations had to be approved by the planning dept. before the AC guy or I could pull a permit.

If you don't like the concept, don't work in the Cities that require it. But if you decide to work there, follow the rules and have the stamped plans ready when they come to inspect it.
Maybe distasteful but quite simple.

Scott,

I fixed my spelling mistakes to make you happy. Now you can work on your words:
Should
Supplement
Supplemental

Maybe you should start you own spelling forum seeing as your so good at it.

Update
The following has done at this job:
-No ground rods, only a cold water ground
-The (not my) architect will turn in as built drawings to match the (not my) designers lighting details
-Two 3/8” remodel can light feeds were replaced with 1/2” Greenfield


As far as plan check and approval yes every print gets turned in. But what gets done with them sometimes including this case is a joke. Nothing was checked on the electrical plans.

Yes A/C condensers locations need to be approved here also. Local laws dictate where it can not go. This is so it can not be too close to the lot line, an adjacent house, or an eye sore in the front yard. What does that have to do with where a can light is inside a home? We don’t have energy laws here. We don’t have limits or minimum requirements beyond the NEC.

The debate here is how much leeway an EC should have with a residential indoor lighting layout. The inspector had a problem with 1 can too many, 3 too few, location as far as 1 not being in the middle of the room but in line with others, and another location issue. Like I said the issue will be resolved with the as built drawings.

As far as waiting for an inspector with the stamped plans there is no requirement for the EC to be present during an inspection.

Nobody said you had to be there. The stamped prints do, though.

Although it sounds like your inspector may be a bit overboard on the issue, he's really just following his Code as it's written for his jurisdiction.. Maybe he got stung by a seat of the pants electrician.

Please don't get me confused with the other Scott. I can spell as well as he can, but I don't enjoy picking on others. I haven't even pointed out his spelling errors

Frum knowe on, noe huemour aloud hear! Wow, touchy bunch.

The humor usually is put in the form of insults to people that disagree

It's 'you're' so good at it. Sorry just had to jump in to the spelling/grammar forum.

If the amendments don't say no ground rod, then 'nicely' show him the code section you wish to follow. If something goes wrong, guess who will have immunity from prosecution. If insistent, ask him how long he worked for the City of Chicago and tell him that even Chicago now requires a ground rod (or other supplemental electrode).

As far as the light goes it may be picky, until the owner decides he really wanted 4 cans instead of 3 and bitches at the inspector for not enforcing what was on the plans. It happens more than you may realize. Owners like to use inspectors as a tool to get every non written contractual element out of the contractor. All at the same time, I'd probably let that one go.

Use AC cable to fish the wall.

Make a plan that shows possible future use of the existing stuff in the wall. Maybe a computer network cable or something not yet invented.

Just my 2 cents here guys, When I do plan review and I see a Licensed Ec on the job, I am not so "Picky" about the drawings because I know that the EC knows the code and it is usually meets the code when I get there. If I see the homeowner sign the permit, then I am more careful about his prints. I want to know that they have the proper spacing of receptacles, etc. If I go out to the job and see that a light fixture is moved by a few feet, no big deal. However if the HVAC is moved from one side of the house to the other, then there might be a problem with Zoning. The Zoning people look at the prints to make sure HVAC and Gens are not too close to a neighbor.

Hi,
I hope you are making a lot of money for putting up with all that BS!

Does this house have a nuclear reactor and a fuel pool too?

My guess it that the rest of the house will fall down and the electrical will remain standing!

regards

Greg