# Sometimes It Is Cheaper Not to Argue!



## Bootss (Dec 30, 2011)

Where was that San Jose?
sometimes a little overkill goes a long ways.

I agree with your decision slap it in and move on.
:thumbup::whistling2:


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

San Francisco...

I pulled out the NEC and the SF Code Amendments, he couldn't find what he was referencing, but was not going to pass it. He wanted to double check with the head inspector. I didn't want to waste another 1/2 day waiting around for him to not be stupid.


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

I always bond the gas line at the water heater. The water service bond has to be with-in 5', but they never call you on that here.


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

dronai said:


> I always bond the gas line at the water heater. The water service bond has to be with-in 5', but they never call you on that here.


I always bond at the WH normally too. I apparently would have been wrong to do that as well. I attempted to explain the definition of "Bonding", but as he told me "He has been doing this for 36 years".....

I just let it go.


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

You let it go this time?

Now he'll expect you to do it EVERY time you're in his jurisdiction.:no:


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

Cow said:


> You let it go this time?
> 
> Now he'll expect you to do it EVERY time you're in his jurisdiction.:no:


Yes.... There in lies the problem. I just didn't want to waste another day there..... and I'm taking a 3 day weekend!:whistling2:


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

Switched said:


> Yes.... There in lies the problem. I just didn't want to waste another day there..... and I'm taking a 3 day weekend!:whistling2:


I understand. Sometimes you just can't wait to leave a job!!

And I just got back from a 5 day weekend. This week has been short!:thumbsup:


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Switched said:


> I always bond at the WH normally too. I apparently would have been wrong to do that as well. I attempted to explain the definition of "Bonding", but as he told me "He has been doing this for 36 years".....
> 
> I just let it go.


I have been doing this 40 years and studying the NEC all along, I am wrong sometimes and it will get pointed out on the forums, that is what's great about these boards:thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'm often accommodating the main code w/o pointing out the EX to it for AHJ's who _demand _, but do not _reference_.

Like most of you, I carry a tabbed NEC in the truck, but if we're talking small $, it can stay there. IDK:whistling2:

I'm an EC, not the NEC's emissary to the _great unwashed_....:no:

~CS~


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

The stubborn Italian in me won't let me cave in to those idiots.

Not sure if that's a blessing or a curse. :laughing:


----------



## Hawkrod (Mar 19, 2012)

Switched said:


> I always bond at the WH normally too. I apparently would have been wrong to do that as well. I attempted to explain the definition of "Bonding", but as he told me "He has been doing this for 36 years".....
> 
> I just let it go.


See, you did it right, if it were me I would have said "you mean to tell me you have been wrong for 36 years?" and that would be when the fight started! LOL


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

Hawkrod said:


> See, you did it right, if it were me I would have said "you mean to tell me you have been wrong for 36 years?" and that would be when the fight started! LOL


I've gotten into it with them before and did just that. We installed a floor outlet and the customer put a couch over the top of it. The "Head" electrical inspector said that was a code violation and it had to be readily accessible....

Uhm...NO! We went back and forth, with him leaving. He calls me about 30 min. later to let me know that I was right and that he would sign off. :thumbsup:

I thought it pretty cool of him to call me up like that though and apologize.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Switched said:


> I've gotten into it with them before and did just that. We installed a floor outlet and the customer put a couch over the top of it. The "Head" electrical inspector said that was a code violation and it had to be readily accessible....
> 
> Uhm...NO! We went back and forth, with him leaving. He calls me about 30 min. later to let me know that I was right and that he would sign off. :thumbsup:
> 
> I thought it pretty cool of him to call me up like that though and apologize.


If I meet the electrician on a job and the owner is there I will not get into a debate about "right" or "wrong" in front of the owner. I wouldn't want an inspector to point out an error in my job in front of the owner making me look like I don't know what I'm doing (that is IF the inspector is even correct).

If I see something I take the electrician aside and we discuss it. If something is wrong I think it better that the electrician explain to his customer the situation even if it results in "That stupid inspector just wants it this way". 

I think it's just a professional courtesy.

Pete


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

That's because your a true pro Pete:thumbsup:

loose that game face on the job, and we all loose.

But let's play _'what if'_ .....

What if there is no direct code reference, what if it takes a formal interpretation which any of us can do ? 

This is where it gets interesting because a 3rd party is involved.....

~CS~


----------



## Switched (Dec 23, 2012)

Pete m. said:


> If I meet the electrician on a job and the owner is there I will not get into a debate about "right" or "wrong" in front of the owner. I wouldn't want an inspector to point out an error in my job in front of the owner making me look like I don't know what I'm doing (that is IF the inspector is even correct).
> 
> If I see something I take the electrician aside and we discuss it. If something is wrong I think it better that the electrician explain to his customer the situation even if it results in "That stupid inspector just wants it this way".
> 
> ...


You are cool then!

But I would say 90% of the inspectors I have come into contact with would not be that professional. 

On the other hand, It is a lack of disrespect on the electricians part to berate an inspector as well.


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

I make sure to never belittle the inspector in front of anyone and I damn well expect the same respect. 
Pete is a true professional and does it the right way....in private.:thumbsup:


Engineers, on the other hand, are open game and I feel free to belittle them at every turn.:laughing::laughing:


----------



## OaklandElec (Jan 4, 2011)

San Francisco wants gas bonded at the service in addition to at the water heater. No other cities require that around here. No idea why. My favorite SF code is no mc, no flex below 9'. I asked an inspector how I was supposed to do the cash wrap, hard pipe through mdf from underneath, then set the cashwrap down on the pvc stub up?


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

switched said:


> so i did a service change and installed a bonding jumper for the metal piping, including the gas line. It was all adjacent to the panel so we just ran a single #4 and daisy chained the grounding & bonding.
> 
> The inspector called me on "not having a dedicated wire to bond the gas, directly from the service and it has to be within the first 5' of the gas lines entering the house".
> 
> Uhm.... I argued with him for about 5 minutes and then put the codebook down and gave up. I ran another #4 5' to the gas line.....


learning curve


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> That's because your a true pro Pete:thumbsup:
> 
> loose that game face on the job, and we all loose.
> 
> ...


Sometimes you do have to deal with the "grey" areas but even then it can be handled in a manner where neither party has to have egg (apologies Steve) on their faces.

Even situations like that I don't think the owner should be involved with on a technical level and I still think the electrician should explain it to their customer instead of me.

Pete


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> Even situations like that I don't think the owner should be involved with on a technical level and I still think the electrician should explain it to their customer instead of me.
> 
> Pete


I couldn't agree more Pete. Most building/home owners would not understand what the hell we were discussing anyway, plus its MY customer and its MY problem if I did something stupid, wrong or just in blatant disrespect of the code rules.

Since its my problem....its up to me to deal with it. 

Most of the inspectors in my jurisdiction realize that and they would never presume to step on my toes by pointing out any issues they may have to the owner.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Rollie73 said:


> I couldn't agree more Pete. Most building/home owners would not understand what the hell we were discussing anyway, plus its MY customer and its MY problem if I did something stupid, wrong or just in blatant disrespect of the code rules.
> 
> Since its my problem....its up to me to deal with it.
> 
> Most of the inspectors in my jurisdiction realize that and they would never presume to step on my toes by pointing out any issues they may have to the owner.


Good to hear that you have some inspectors that have some common sense and professionalism. Sadly, it seems to be the exception instead of the rule.

Pete


----------



## Sparky J (May 17, 2011)

I guess we are usually lucky here. Mainly I have one bonehead every few years. But generally I am present and walk all my inspections. It's funny here it generally goes well. Knock on wood...


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> Good to hear that you have some inspectors that have some common sense and professionalism. Sadly, it seems to be the exception instead of the rule.
> 
> Pete


I attribute it to the fact that all of our inspectors are required to be licensed electricians as well and must have a minimum of 10 years experience in the field. They remember what its like in the field.

That doesn't account for the odd a$$hole that slips through the cracks. We had a couple of them around here.


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

> 250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed
> Structural Steel.
> (B) Other Metal Piping. Where installed in or attached to
> a building or structure, a metal piping system(s), including
> ...


I always ask for a jumper between the hot, cold and gas pipes at the water heater. The gas pipe could be considered to be bonded by an EGC that serves a gas appliance but there is hardly ever anyone home at the time of inspection to verify that appliance EGC. 

Now my question. If there are no appliances that have gas and electricity, would the bond be required? Water pipe is required to be bonded no matter what but this wording for Other Metal Piping opens a door: "The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize the piping....." The code is stating that the pipe is likely to become energized if there is a circuit. 

Alrighty then, if there is no circuit, is there no likelihood that the pipe would become energized? If the pipe is not likely to be energized, is it required to be bonded?



> Where installed in or attached to a building or structure, a metal piping system(s), including gas piping, *that is likely to* become energized shall be bonded....


This happens where there is a gas water heater, a stove that is lit with a match or it's an electric stove, and a wall heater. The clothes dryer is a rope strung across the yard. Our less affluent neighborhoods have lots of this going on.

There is no commingling of gas and electricity. I still ask for the bond because...well I'm just anal that way.

The inspector in the OP is confused. You really should set him straight. That is after all one way that we learn the craft. Nobody else woke up one day and knew it all and neither did that inspector.


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

Rollie73 said:


> Most of the inspectors in my jurisdiction realize that and they would never presume to step on my toes by pointing out any issues they may have to the owner.


Most of the time the contractor isn't there for the inspection. The owner is. Even when the contractor is there, the owner wants to know what's up. What then, I can refuse to discuss the corrections with the owner present?

Often enough it's just me and a housewife and she wants every last detail. I get in trouble if I tell them to ask the contractor to explain the corrections.

A good example is this lady here. You can tell that she wasn't too pleased with the results of my inspection.


----------



## rookie sparky (Nov 6, 2014)

Why were you using the code book to argue this? There's not one single word in there to help you on this subject.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Tigerloose said:


> I always ask for a jumper between the hot, cold and gas pipes at the water heater.



Is this normal? I've never heard of an inspector ask for this. Are they all wrong?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

rookie sparky said:


> Why were you using the code book to argue this? There's not one single word in there to help you on this subject.


We must have different code books.


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> Is this normal? I've never heard of an inspector ask for this. Are they all wrong?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Well no, actually they are all right ....in my AHJ.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Tigerloose said:


> Well no, actually they are all right ....in my AHJ.



What does that even mean? How come I've never had or heard of an inspector asking for the electrician to bond the hot, cold, and gas at the water heater? Is it a legitimate requirement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Try this- take your t-25 and test for continuity across the hot water and cold water pipes on your ''unbonded'' heater. Beep Beep. Now do some serious investigation- using same tester, remove cover of t-stat and test voltage from element to hot water pipe. My goodness gracious golly gee, it seems they are bonded together, who would have thought............


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

The hot water pipe is isolated from the cold water pipe with the exceptions of faucets and appliances. Those connections are not a reliable, low impedance connection. My jurisdiction has taken the position that a bonding jumper is required and the water heater is the logical place to do it. As to the gas pipe, there are other ways but the easiest to deal with is at the water heater.


----------



## rookie sparky (Nov 6, 2014)

Tigerloose said:


> We must have different code books.


Please prove your statement, the nec doesn't even cover gas pipe bonds except to say that the egc is enough bond.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Tigerloose said:


> Most of the time the contractor isn't there for the inspection. The owner is. Even when the contractor is there, the owner wants to know what's up. What then, I can refuse to discuss the corrections with the owner present?
> 
> Often enough it's just me and a housewife and she wants every last detail. I get in trouble if I tell them to ask the contractor to explain the corrections.


Each inspection is different. The homeowner will typically not know the difference between bonding, grounding, likely to become energized or any other term electricians and inspectors use every day. 
You could just simply say; "The electrician has a couple minor things to take care of." You could use this simple line to do two different things at the same time.
1. You don't instill a feeling of fear in the owner.
2. It allows the electrician the chance to make the necessary repairs and explain, in their own terms, what the problem is.

At the end of the day everything is code compliant and no one looks like they got lost in the weeds.

Pete


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> Each inspection is different. The homeowner will typically not know the difference between bonding, grounding, likely to become energized or any other term electricians and inspectors use every day.
> You could just simply say; "The electrician has a couple minor things to take care of." You could use this simple line to do two different things at the same time.
> 1. You don't instill a feeling of fear in the owner.
> 2. It allows the electrician the chance to make the necessary repairs and explain, in their own terms, what the problem is.
> ...


You know Pete.....I started to type a response to this same post and realized that what I had to say would never sink in anyway. 

You have the right idea.....bottom line is its the contractors responsibility to keep the customer happy and do the job right.

If I had an inspector who pulled that crap with a homeowner (especially if it instilled a sense of fear and unease in the customer) I would do everything in my power to ensure that he/she was removed from their position and at the very least they would never set foot on one of my jobs again.

Nobody....inspector or not...has the right to give one of my customers, that I worked hard to get and harder to please, the impression that I or my employees didn't know what they were doing, and I get the impression that this guy feels that his idea of how something should be done is absolute gospel.


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

Rollie73 said:


> You know Pete.....I started to type a response to this same post and realized that what I had to say would never sink in anyway.
> 
> You have the right idea.....bottom line is its the contractors responsibility to keep the customer happy and do the job right.
> 
> ...


The way you toss insults around I figure you to be a special kind of contractor Rollie. 
When I hand the man that owns the building a list of corrections he should wonder about the skill level of the people that forgot the second ground rod, bonding conduit through intact knockouts and oh I'm sorry but the copper water main at the front is an electrode. Then there's the doozy correction that really instills confidence: Your surface mount can't be over a flush mount that is still in the wall. 

Those and many more are typical mistakes in the place where I work. So don't be giving me your indignation over you looking less than stellar. 

You puds are some self righteous individuals. There's something not quite right about this forum so I'll leave it to you.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Tigerloose said:


> The way you toss insults around I figure you to be a special kind of contractor Rollie.
> When I hand the man that owns the building a list of corrections he should wonder about the skill level of the people that forgot the second ground rod, bonding conduit through intact knockouts and oh I'm sorry but the copper water main at the front is an electrode. Then there's the doozy correction that really instills confidence: Your surface mount can't be over a flush mount that is still in the wall.
> 
> Those and many more are typical mistakes in the place where I work. So don't be giving me your indignation over you looking less than stellar.
> ...



Knock knock


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> Each inspection is different. The homeowner will typically not know the difference between bonding, grounding, likely to become energized or any other term electricians and inspectors use every day.
> You could just simply say; "The electrician has a couple minor things to take care of." You could use this simple line to do two different things at the same time.
> 1. You don't instill a feeling of fear in the owner.
> 2. It allows the electrician the chance to make the necessary repairs and explain, in their own terms, what the problem is.
> ...


Great advice there Pete. I always try my best to downplay the corrections and not alarm the occupant I want out of there as soon as possible and what will it benefit anyone if I stay and explain away. 

But be honest with me and admit that many want the corrections explained and questions answered. How often do you hear, "Shouldn't they know that?" "What's this going to cost?" "How long will it take them"? "Is this in the code?". 

Then at the next inspection, "The contractor says that he has never heard of that." "He is charging me extra for ARC fault breakers because that just barely came into the code and XYZ City doesn't require that". And on it goes. So I should *****foot around so everybody gets a warm fuzzy feeling.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Tigerloose said:


> *The hot water pipe is isolated from the cold water pipe with the exceptions of faucets and appliances.* Those connections are not a reliable, low impedance connection. My jurisdiction has taken the position that a bonding jumper is required and the water heater is the logical place to do it. As to the gas pipe, there are other ways but the easiest to deal with is at the water heater.



Only if a dielectric union is installed as an aftermarket device on the heater. Normally they are not built in.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Tigerloose said:


> Great advice there Pete. I always try my best to downplay the corrections and not alarm the occupant I want out of there as soon as possible and what will it benefit anyone if I stay and explain away.
> 
> But be honest with me and admit that many want the corrections explained and questions answered. How often do you hear, "Shouldn't they know that?" "What's this going to cost?" "How long will it take them"? "Is this in the code?".
> 
> Then at the next inspection, "The contractor says that he has never heard of that." "He is charging me extra for ARC fault breakers because that just barely came into the code and XYZ City doesn't require that". And on it goes. So I should *****foot around so everybody gets a warm fuzzy feeling.


What a contractor does and does not charge for is not my business. My only concern is that the installation meets the applicable code. 

I agree that different jurisdictions enforce some things and not others just the same as some inspectors know the NEC better than others. The way you handle the inspection with the owner and electrician should be as important as your knowledge of the code.

I'm not implying that you go out of your way to belittle a contractor that makes a mistake. I'm simply saying that telling an owner, for example, that their service is not properly grounded or bonded can cause an uneasy feeling when the actual danger probably won't match the worry that they will have when they truly don't understand what you've said to begin with. That's why I attempt to downplay most violations I encounter especially when an owner who typically isn't an electrician wants an explanation.

Pete


----------



## Rollie73 (Sep 19, 2010)

Tigerloose said:


> The way you toss insults around I figure you to be a special kind of contractor Rollie.
> When I hand the man that owns the building a list of corrections he should wonder about the skill level of the people that forgot the second ground rod, bonding conduit through intact knockouts and oh I'm sorry but the copper water main at the front is an electrode. Then there's the doozy correction that really instills confidence: Your surface mount can't be over a flush mount that is still in the wall.
> 
> Those and many more are typical mistakes in the place where I work. So don't be giving me your indignation over you looking less than stellar.
> ...


What insults??? I voiced my opinion which, based on all of your statements, is something you should be very familiar with. 

Since we are such self-righteous puds.......don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.


----------

