# Making a prediction for a re-inspection



## jar546 (Feb 3, 2010)

Simple issue, wondering if you guys come across the same situation.

2008 NEC, IRC 2009 applies

Replacement 100A exterior service and new main panel.  Contractor not present.  Violations as follows:

1) Inadequate support of PVC per 352.30

2) SE cable inside above panel not secured per 338.10(B)(4) but really 334.30

3) Lack of an intersystem grounding bar per 250.94

4) Only 1 ground rod, no paperwork proving <25 Ohms

And I did mention that the meter was not placed at the height the POCO wants it and told him to contact the POCO for approval.  It is not an NEC/IRC issue

Anyway, he will have to install a new ground rod and run a new GEC from the panel. On the report next to violation #4 I put "GEC must be continuous" as a reminder but this is the reason for this post.

I did not write up the GEC as a violation but was being nice to remind him.  From experience I know that when I go back out to reinspect I will find another piece of GEC added under the existing acorn on the first rod.  Even though I place this on the report, I end up failing it a 2nd time because they just don't get it.

Do you know what I am getting at?  If I go back and it is not continuous and I fail it again, the response is always "Why didn't you tell me when you were here the first time?"  I should not even have to put that on the sheet and when I do they never seem to read it.  I only want to do an inspection once.

OK Opinions?


----------



## High Desert (Feb 3, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

Quit being nice and write it as a correction the first time if they aren't catching on.


----------



## chris kennedy (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Anyway, he will have to install a new ground rod and run a new GEC from the panel. On the report next to violation #4 I put "GEC must be continuous" as a reminder


You might want to read 250.53© before you tag him, although I don't believe an acorn is listed for 2 conductors.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



			
				chris kennedy said:
			
		

> jar546 said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Anyway, he will have to install a new ground rod and run a new GEC from the panel. On the report next to violation #4 I put "GEC must be continuous" as a reminder


You might want to read 250.53© before you tag him, although I don't believe an acorn is listed for 2 conductors.

The acorn is not rated for 2 and that is the issue.  They always do it with acorns and put two GEC ends under one acorn.  This is why I remind them "continuous"


----------



## north star (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

*Jeff,*

*That you are even citing the correct NEC & IRC sections is a plus for the contractor.*

*Unfortunately, it seems like we [ the code enforcement community ] are having to*

*specifically spell out every little detail and nuance in the code books.     The better*

*contractors out there DO know the codes,  ...probably own a few of the code*

*books and even moreso, actually read those code books.    However, those type*

*of contractors are few and far in between.       In today's building climate, it is*

*just the norm for the majority of contactors [ and their employees ] to*

*' not ' know the code and to do things the right way,  without someone having*

*to spell out every little detail for them and then for the inspectors to go back*

*and verify.    It is what it is!   * 

*Some AHJ's have adopted a reinspection fee.    Some other AHJ's have*

*adopted and actually use a very hefty reinspection fee as a means of*

*deterrence to "less than compliant" installs.*

*From the [ our ] AHJ point of view, we are expected to also educate the*

*various contractors, ...to provide assistance in any form that we can*

*[ even literature hand outs ], ...to be available at all times for the*

*contracting community, ...to be as accomodating as possible, ...to be*

*as polite and courteous as possible, ...to ' not ' enforce too much on*

*certain contractors because of their political affiliations, ...and on and*

*on and on and on.   Our hands are tied very tight!   On the flip side*

*though, we DO get to stay employed with said AHJ [ for the time*

*being ].  * 

*Are you able to require re-inspection fees? *

*Now stepping down off of ye old soap box...*


----------



## raider1 (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> chris kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The acorn is not rated for 2 and that is the issue.  They always do it with acorns and put two GEC ends under one acorn.  This is why I remind them "continuous"

You are actually mixing up requirements.

The GEC ends at the first electrode. Only the GEC is require to be "continious" the bonding jumper that is used to connect the electrodes together can be spliced.

The actual violation is the use of a "acorn" ground rod clamp to splice 2 wires together. They can install a second ground rod clamp on the rod and run a bonding jumper from the first rod to the second rod.

As Chris already pointed out 250.53© permits bonding jumpers to connect grounding electrodes together to make the grounding electrode system.

Chris


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

jar546 ---

It is always nice for you to note what you expect to see during re-inspection. Continuous or not is a code issue that you better be correct on.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 4, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

100 out of 100 times they will place a bonding jumper from rod to rod with the use of an acorn on the first rod that now has 2 separate wire ends terminating under it.  Like I stated, this is the issue.

I find it easier to tell them it must be continuous since they will still use the same acorn anyway.  It solves the problem and we get to the same end result of a compliant installation.


----------



## raider1 (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> 100 out of 100 times they will place a bonding jumper from rod to rod with the use of an acorn on the first rod that now has 2 separate wire ends terminating under it.  Like I stated, this is the issue.


Then make that comment on the first inspection report. The violation is the use of a single acorn nut to connect 2 wires.



> I find it easier to tell them it must be continuous since they will still use the same acorn anyway.  It solves the problem and we get to the same end result of a compliant installation.


The problem with that is the contractor now must replace then entire GEC. IMHO telling an electrician that the GEC must be continuous from the service to both ground rods is way overstepping you authority. The code clearly permits a bonding jumper to be run between both rods provided that the bonding jumper is connected properly (Not under a single ground rod clamp).

Chris


----------



## FredK (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

Well I spell out what I want to see on the re-inspection.  No one going to read section this or that since most don't even have a code book on the job site.

All well and good to say the section and print it out(if you got a printer in the truck) but a waste of time IMHO and sets the guy put for failure when you re-appear.


----------



## Mule (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

The you are putting yourself at liability if what you ask for is not what the code allows.

I'll write up what's wrong and let them make the corrections to the code the way they want too, not the way I want it...as an inspector!


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



			
				FredK said:
			
		

> Well I spell out what I want to see on the re-inspection.  No one going to read section this or that since most don't even have a code book on the job site. All well and good to say the section and print it out(if you got a printer in the truck) but a waste of time IMHO and sets the guy put for failure when you re-appear.


Your red tag and this post may cost you your job.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

I think you are forgetting the issue here is that the initial inspection that failed only had 1 ground rod with an acorn clamp on it.  At that time, there is not violation for having more than 1 wire under the acorn so that violation does not exist.

These guys only use acorns unless they are going to be encased in concrete or attached to rebar.  I already know from dozens of previous inspections that they will splice the wire under the acorn and fail again.  I am trying to keep that from happening.  This does not happen on commercial jobs as most get caldwelded anyway.

From previous discussions, they would prefer to replace the wire than spend the money on another fix.

Not many have irreversible crimps either.

I see your points.  This is what works here.


----------



## raider1 (Feb 5, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



> From previous discussions, they would prefer to replace the wire than spend the money on another fix.


The other fix would be a second acorn clamp to connect to the first rod and 6' of wire to run to the second rod.



> Not many have irreversible crimps either.


You don't need an irreversible crimp in this situation.

Chris


----------



## jar546 (Feb 6, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



> The other fix would be a second acorn clamp to connect to the first rod and 6' of wire to run to the second rod.


Only once did someone think of this acceptable method


----------



## EPrice (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection

When writing your first correction notice, why not just say something along the lines of "A second ground rod is required unless you can show a resistance of 25 ohms or less on the first ground rod.  If adding a second ground rod, be sure not to place more than one conductor under a single acorn nut."?  Let them decide how they are going to solve the problem.


----------



## GHRoberts (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: Making a prediction for a re-inspection



			
				EPrice said:
			
		

> When writing your first correction notice, why not just say something along the lines of "A second ground rod is required unless you can show a resistance of 25 ohms or less on the first ground rod.  If adding a second ground rod, be sure not to place more than one conductor under a single acorn nut."?  Let them decide how they are going to solve the problem.


That is a wonderful suggestion. (I miss assigning 5 stars to thoughtful professionals.)


----------

