# Bonding Confused Inspector



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Recently I Installed a new service in a new dwelling, we Install Siemens P4040B1200CU panels. These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board. The inspector is insisting that this screw does not provide enough "path" for any fault current. I argued till I was blue in the face and even contacted Siemens which they thought this inspector was way out of line and assured me through their testing that the bonding screw is more than sufficient for the purpose it was intended. This inspector could not site any code violations just that he wanted me to "jump" a #4 conductor from the neutral bars to the grounding bars. I thought it was code that all panel boards must have a separate grounding bar, and that a Bonding jumper or screw is to be used when the panel board is used as a main. This guy has me Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.......:blink:
￼￼


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

Is this the main panel? The screw is sufficient. 
Now, what will it cost you to run that bare copper that this inspector wants?


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Yes Main Panel in new dwelling, been doing this job too Fricken long to put up with this lunacy......Any Code references I can give this.....inspector......?


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

The inspectors are the biggest bunch pf dummies when it comes to grounding/ bonding. I know you DON'T want to hear it but you're best off putting the damn #4 copper jumper in and calling it a day, or battle on and on and have your client lose faith in your ability to do the job properly. Been there, done that, and trust me, this IS the best way.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board


Siemens sells their G-bars as an accessory to their panels , like most manufacturers, A P4040B1200CU is an MLO w/_ 'main breaker convertible' _accessory. 

So is this an MLO, or does it have a main & MBJ 'Lectric dude.......?

~CS~


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Lectric said:


> Recently I Installed a new service in a new dwelling, we Install Siemens P4040B1200CU panels. These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board. The inspector is insisting that this screw does not provide enough "path" for any fault current. I argued till I was blue in the face and even contacted Siemens which they thought this inspector was way out of line and assured me through their testing that the bonding screw is more than sufficient for the purpose it was intended. This inspector could not site any code violations just that he wanted me to "jump" a #4 conductor from the neutral bars to the grounding bars. I thought it was code that all panel boards must have a separate grounding bar, and that a Bonding jumper or screw is to be used when the panel board is used as a main. This guy has me Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.......:blink:
> ￼￼


Ask the Inspector when is the last time he picked up the tools if any, that screw is listed for the purpose, so he's a dope.

Put the #4 in so he will get off of your case....


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

From the 2008 NEC:



> *250.28 Main Bonding Jumper and System Bonding
> Jumper.* For a grounded system, main bonding jumpers
> and system bonding jumpers shall be installed as follows:
> *(A) Material.* Main bonding jumpers and system bonding
> ...


Ask Mr. Picklenuts to explain what this means then.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I can understand sheet metal being viewed as _inadequate_ of carrying a fault under higher_ (close /large KA Xformer) _AIC conditions here

Some local poco's will not accept anything less than a* directly N/G bonded* meter can , even though they are listed.

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

I like the copper jumper myself, but like others have said, it's not a code requirement. 

If it were me, I'd put the copper jumper in and after the final, I'd take it up with the inspector and his boss. Someone needs to make the inspector understand he is enforcing the adopted codes and ordinances not his opinion.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

I installed a generator neutral conductor in an ATS with MBJ installed in the "Ground Bus" and the EI told me no good. 

What code I asked. 

110.3(B)

BS. 

It's bonded you big dope and def not a SDS. 

Wasted 3 hours of my day and half a tank of gas driving back out there to make the unnecessary change.

Try taking money out of the inspectors pocket and see how they like it. 

Bastards.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Lectric said:


> Yes Main Panel in new dwelling, been doing this job too Fricken long to put up with this lunacy......Any Code references I can give this.....inspector......?


Your screw is called a main bonding jumper. 



250.28 Main Bonding Jumper and System Bonding Jumper. For a grounded system, main bonding jumpers and system bonding jumpers shall be installed as follows:
(A) Material. Main bonding jumpers and system bonding jumpers shall be of copper or other corrosion-resistant ma- terial. A main bonding jumper and a system bonding jumper shall be a wire, bus, SCREW, or similar suitable material


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Black Dog said:


> Put the #4 in so he will get off of your case....


**** that. I'm not gonna play dumbass just because he's one.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> The inspectors are the biggest bunch pf dummies when it comes to grounding/ bonding. I know you DON'T want to hear it but you're best off putting the damn #4 copper jumper in and calling it a day, or battle on and on and have your client lose faith in your ability to do the job properly. Been there, done that, and trust me, this IS the best way.


**** that. Inspectors around here know god damn well They're not making me do **** , just because "they want it"


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Lectric said:


> Yes Main Panel in new dwelling, been doing this job too Fricken long to put up with this lunacy......Any Code references I can give this.....inspector......?


Yes, don't put up with that ****. Put this fool in his place


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> The inspectors are the biggest bunch pf dummies when it comes to grounding/ bonding. I know you DON'T want to hear it but you're best off putting the damn #4 copper jumper in and calling it a day, or battle on and on and have your client lose faith in your ability to do the job properly. Been there, done that, and trust me, this IS the best way.



Sorry, but I ain't buying into that. If the inspector said you had to wear a pink tutu while working, would you immediately cave in and wear one?


----------



## aftershockews (Dec 22, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Sorry, but I ain't buying into that. If the inspector said you had to wear a pink tutu while working, would you immediately cave in and wear one?


Bad, very bad example. Good try though. I give you a D+.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

aftershockews said:


> Bad, very bad example. Good try though. I give you a D+.


OK, if the inspector said the bonding screw had to be a hex-head, would you go find a green hex-head screw?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Lectric said:


> Recently I Installed a new service in a new dwelling, we Install Siemens P4040B1200CU panels. These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board. The inspector is insisting that this screw does not provide enough "path" for any fault current. I argued till I was blue in the face and even contacted Siemens which they thought this inspector was way out of line and assured me through their testing that the bonding screw is more than sufficient for the purpose it was intended. This inspector could not site any code violations just that he wanted me to "jump" a #4 conductor from the neutral bars to the grounding bars. I thought it was code that all panel boards must have a separate grounding bar, and that a Bonding jumper or screw is to be used when the panel board is used as a main. This guy has me Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.......:blink:
> ￼￼


well, we all know that we have to play nice with these guys or it will haunt us later, but I think what I would've done in this situation is take the inspector aside, and said, "are you sure that's your call on this, because I think you're wrong ?", and if he didn't budge, just nicely say "well, let's see what your bosses call is on this, because I really disagree" and call his boss right there on the spot and let the chips fall where they are. If his boss backed him up, I would've sent a nice letter with the manufacturer's dissenting opinion, and possibly technical backup from nfpa if I could get it. You can't let these guys make up their own rules unless they adopt them into the local amendments or you might as well not have a code book.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

Remaining professional with this inspector is the best approach. Show him the listing for the equipment and ask if this is what he needs to approve the installation. If not, remember 90.4 and just install the jumper. I'm not necessarily agreeing with his opinion on this, I'm merely stating he's within his rights to request it. 

90.4 Enforcement. 
This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making
interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining
effective safety. This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted. In such event, the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products, constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

90.4 is often misinterpreted as giving inspectors free reign to interpret the code any way they want.

But toss 90.7 at 'em should they try.

*90.7 Examination of Equipment for Safety. *
For specific items of equipment and materials referred to in this Code, examinations for safety made under standard conditions provide a basis for approval where the record is made generally available through promulgation by organizations properly equipped and qualified for experimental testing, inspections of the run of goods at factories, and service-value determination through field inspections. This avoids the necessity for repetition of examinations by different examiners, frequently with inadequate facilities for such work, and the confusion that would result from conflicting reports on the suitability of devices and materials examined for a given purpose.
It is the intent of this _Code_ that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this _Code_.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

flyboy said:


> Remaining professional with this inspector is the best approach. Show him the listing for the equipment and ask if this is what he needs to approve the installation. If not, remember 90.4 and just install the jumper. I'm not necessarily agreeing with his opinion on this, I'm merely stating he's within his rights to request it.
> 
> 90.4 Enforcement.
> This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making
> ...


90. 4 in no way gives them permission to simply make up rules.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> 90. 4 in no way gives them permission to simply make up rules.


I totally agree.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

480sparky said:


> 90.4 is often misinterpreted as giving inspectors free reign to interpret the code any way they want.
> 
> But toss 90.7 at 'em should they try.
> 
> ...


I agree. 
Exactly the reason I suggested he provide the listing to the inspector.


----------



## papaotis (Jun 8, 2013)

480sparky said:


> OK, if the inspector said the bonding screw had to be a hex-head, would you go find a green hex-head screw?


i couldnt find it quick, but i think i saw somewhere in the code that the ground screw has to green and 5/16 hex head. is that in there somewhere?


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

papaotis said:


> i couldnt find it quick, but i think i saw somewhere in the code that the ground screw has to green and 5/16 hex head. is that in there somewhere?


Wow, your're as bad as the inspector.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

papaotis said:


> i couldnt find it quick, but i think i saw somewhere in the code that the ground screw has to green and 5/16 hex head. Is that in there somewhere?



250.126.
406.10.


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

chicken steve said:


> Siemens sells their G-bars as an accessory to their panels , like most manufacturers, A P4040B1200CU is an MLO w/_ 'main breaker convertible' _accessory.
> 
> So is this an MLO, or does it have a main & MBJ 'Lectric dude.......?
> 
> ~CS~


Its a main breaker panel board, just your every day run of the mill 200 amp service in a single family dwelling. These panels come equipped with 2 grounding and 2 separate neutral bars installed, all one has to do is thread in the captive GREEN bonding screw to bond the panel if it is to be used as a main panel


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...4DQBQ&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CCkQMygLMAs


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Thanks for the support guys, honestly I was too lazy to look up the code myself so I knew someone here is smarter than me. We will be doing another home in the very near future in this guys jurisdiction, so here we go........


----------



## Carultch (May 14, 2013)

Lectric said:


> Recently I Installed a new service in a new dwelling, we Install Siemens P4040B1200CU panels. These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board. The inspector is insisting that this screw does not provide enough "path" for any fault current. I argued till I was blue in the face and even contacted Siemens which they thought this inspector was way out of line and assured me through their testing that the bonding screw is more than sufficient for the purpose it was intended. This inspector could not site any code violations just that he wanted me to "jump" a #4 conductor from the neutral bars to the grounding bars. I thought it was code that all panel boards must have a separate grounding bar, and that a Bonding jumper or screw is to be used when the panel board is used as a main. This guy has me Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.......:blink:
> ￼￼


Maybe he's dealt with a lot of contractors who loose the bonding screw, and think they can get away with a regular screw and a "bonding Sharpie".










Per 90.4, the inspector is required to base citations of violations on a specific code requirement.

If the screw is part of the product's UL Listing to be installed in this application, then it is sufficient to establish your neutral-to-ground connection. And the NEC permits listed factory bonding hardware in place of neutral-to-ground jumper wires.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Carultch said:


> Maybe he's dealt with a lot of contractors who loose the bonding screw, and think they can get away with a regular screw and a "bonding sharpie".



More likely he's an idiot who inherited the job


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Green Sharpie....now thats a different approach..


----------



## Carultch (May 14, 2013)

Lectric said:


> Green Sharpie....now thats a different approach..


I can't take credit for that joke. I think I heard it from either Harry304E or BlackDog, when we were on the "Codes I Violate" thread.

A Sharpie would actually make it a worse connection, because that ink is an insulator. I used it for making the OFF position on the very primitive commutator of a nearly useless electric motor.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Lectric said:


> Recently I Installed a new service in a new dwelling, we Install Siemens P4040B1200CU panels. These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board. The inspector is insisting that this screw does not provide enough "path" for any fault current. I argued till I was blue in the face and even contacted Siemens which they thought this inspector was way out of line and assured me through their testing that the bonding screw is more than sufficient for the purpose it was intended. This inspector could not site any code violations just that he wanted me to "jump" a #4 conductor from the neutral bars to the grounding bars. I thought it was code that all panel boards must have a separate grounding bar, and that a Bonding jumper or screw is to be used when the panel board is used as a main. This guy has me Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.......:blink:
> ￼￼


Sorry that you have to deal with this lunatic.

It's stuff like this that makes me cringe and makes my job 10 times more difficult. Unfortunately, because of clowns like this, good EI's and ones that really try to be get stereotyped.

Pete


----------



## Big Pickles (Oct 25, 2014)

Barjack said:


> Ask Mr. Picklenuts to explain what this means then.


Please leave my nuts out of this


----------



## Carultch (May 14, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> I can understand sheet metal being viewed as _inadequate_ of carrying a fault under higher_ (close /large KA Xformer) _AIC conditions here
> 
> Some local poco's will not accept anything less than a* directly N/G bonded* meter can , even though they are listed.
> 
> ~CS~


I would think that a panelboard or disconnect would at least be rated for fault current that matches its KVA and typical transformer primaries/impediances.

For instance, I'd expect that the N-to-G grounding screw of an 800A panelboard at 120Y208V would at least be rated for the typical fault current expected from a 300kVA transformer.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Carultch said:


> I would think that a panelboard or disconnect would at least be rated for fault current that matches its KVA and typical transformer primaries/impediances.
> 
> For instance, I'd expect that the N-to-G grounding screw of an 800A panelboard at 120Y208V would at least be rated for the typical fault current expected from a 300kVA transformer.


Well i'm playing devils advocate Carl, not every non-code referenced concern uttered by an AHJ being 'EI-hackism'....:no:

So lets get codified then....first consider the codes sizing for MBJ's at>>>


> *Table 250.102(C)(1) * Grounded Conductor, *Main Bonding
> Jumper*, System Bonding Jumper, and Supply-Side Bonding
> Jumper for Alternating-Current Systems


comes down to the two screw threads ability to mitigate AIC in sheet metal.:whistling2:



> *(B)* Attachment. Bonding jumpers shall be attached in the
> manner specified by the applicable provisions of *250.8 *
> for circuits and equipment and by 250.70 for grounding
> electrodes.


a few pages flipped and....



> *250.8 Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment*.
> (A) Permitted Methods. Equipment grounding conduc-
> tors, grounding electrode conductors, and *bonding jumpers *
> _shall be connected by one or more of the following means: _
> ...


Note here the EI could have cited the 'or more' 250.8(A) validated on proximity of and/or larger Xformer 

The EI (and possibly POCO) could also have requested a fault calc be made against the new equipment listings....:shifty:



> *110.24 Available Fault Current. *
> 
> *(B) Modifications.* When modifications to the electrical
> installation occur that affect the maximum available fault
> ...


Further, decades of service work has revealed to me panelborads in less than pristine environs have ONE common malady

Bad connections

Many of them being MBJ's in sheet metal_ (manufactured in 3rd world sweat shops)_ found to be cackling away at a mere touch

So *thiMk*, what does a bum MBJ amount to for the impedance path of _EVERY BRANCH CIRCUIT GROUNDING CONDUCTOR_ served by it?




~CS~


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

I like where Steve is going with this.

While I don't agree with the inspector, I am wondering if there is not another misinterpretation. 

Without taking the time to look up the article, doesn't the code require the grounding electrode to be connected to the neutral at the same location? If it was connected to the ground bar, and the fault current had to go through the bond screw, to get to the neutral, that may be a problem. Maybee that is what the inspector is looking at?

Where did you land the grounding electrode conductors?


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Magnettica said:


> The inspectors are the biggest bunch pf dummies when it comes to grounding/ bonding. I know you DON'T want to hear it but you're best off putting the damn #4 copper jumper in and calling it a day, or battle on and on and have your client lose faith in your ability to do the job properly. Been there, done that, and trust me, this IS the best way.





Black Dog said:


> Ask the Inspector when is the last time he picked up the tools if any, that screw is listed for the purpose, so he's a dope.
> 
> Put the #4 in so he will get off of your case....





hardworkingstiff said:


> I like the copper jumper myself, but like others have said, it's not a code requirement.
> 
> If it were me, I'd put the copper jumper in and after the final, I'd take it up with the inspector and his boss. Someone needs to make the inspector understand he is enforcing the adopted codes and ordinances not his opinion.


This why those knuklehead inspectors do this damn crap !
When I was in the field I never bowed to an idiot inspector. 
I keep saying the reason these idiot inspectors do this stuff is because you allow them to.

I give my business card to the EC on the jobs when I first go there. I was asked once why I do this. My reply was " This way they have my email and cell number should they want to discuss an inspection disapproval or a situation on the job".


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

cabletie said:


> I like where Steve is going with this.
> 
> While I don't agree with the inspector, I am wondering if there is not another misinterpretation.
> 
> ...


I landed the Electrode conductors to the neutral bus, knowing that by using the bonding screw, which by the way is a 1/4 fine threaded bolt, that I would be satisfying the code.


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

Then you should have been good to go.


----------



## Tom Solanto (Mar 11, 2011)

Has to be a green screw in this case. Don't know how he could write a violation for this if it is a green screw that comes with the equipment. 250.28 A and B says it all.

(A) Material. Main bonding jumpers and system bonding
jumpers shall be of copper or other corrosion-resistant material.
A main bonding jumper and a system bonding jumper
shall be a wire, bus, screw, or similar suitable conductor.
(B) Construction. Where a main bonding jumper or a system
bonding jumper is a screw only, the screw shall be
identified with a green finish that shall be visible with the
screw installed.


----------



## amishman Elec (Feb 1, 2015)

I think when we cave to these monsters it only compounds our problem. I have successfully challenged on several occasions and have gained the inspectors respect. Now he knows that I know the code and will hold him accountable.


----------



## Tom Solanto (Mar 11, 2011)

amishman Elec said:


> I think when we cave to these monsters it only compounds our problem. I have successfully challenged on several occasions and have gained the inspectors respect. Now he knows that I know the code and will hold him accountable.


*Amishman, I happen to be one of those monsters you refer to. If I can't quote a code reference I don't write the violation. The inspector in this case is clearly wrong if the screw used came with the equipment. No question about it. I encourage all the contractors that I deal with to challenge me with the NEC. If they think they are right just prove it. Where we all get into trouble is when Pride and Ego get in the way of the truth. And it happens on both ends. The right answer to the problem is really all that matters, or at least that is all that should matter.*:thumbsup:


----------



## amishman Elec (Feb 1, 2015)

Monsters may be a bit harsh. It's very frustrating when an inspector that we have "trained" quits his job and then we have to train a new one.


----------



## Tom Solanto (Mar 11, 2011)

Well, the right answer is what matters. New guy or not. Unfortunately if the new guy is actually a new inspector he or she is likely to be a bit gung ho... It takes time for newbies to understand that the job is not about writing as many violations that you can think of. I was an electrical contractor for 13 years so I feel your pain lol


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Amishman Elec......now thats a contradiction in terms.....Chust kiddin boova.....


----------



## Carultch (May 14, 2013)

Lectric said:


> Amishman Elec......now thats a contradiction in terms.....Chust kiddin boova.....


Even the Amish rely upon electricity. It just isn't obvious.

Just about every force that isn't gravity, which you can experience at the familiar level, relies upon electricity to exist.


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Carultch said:


> Even the Amish rely upon electricity. It just isn't obvious.
> 
> Just about every force that isn't gravity, which you can experience at the familiar level, relies upon electricity to exist.


All too familiar, I do alot of new homes in the heart of Pa. Amish area in South eastern Pa.. A lot of the subs around here are Amish, primarily siding/roofers/framers, but hardly any Amish electricians.


----------



## Tom Solanto (Mar 11, 2011)

I used to work in Lancaster PA and I never saw an Amish Electrician. Tons of carpenters though. An Amish friend bought a house that had electric but they did not have it turned on by the utility. Super nice people!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

At the risk of monster_ville_ , there's more to our trade than pure code verbatim fellas.:whistling2:

There's the theory that underscores it...:thumbsup:

I say the OP's inspector was spot on, _theory _-wise , i've posted my best shot for you fellas pining away for a code(s) for it all....

thx for playin' ........:laughing:

~CS~


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

Well I was not going to add my own experiences, but what the hell. 
Years ago I lost the bond screw that came with a panel. So I installed a wire type. The inspector did not like it. He said I needed the listed one that came with the panel. He was afraid someone else would see the wire and think it was a mistake, and remove it. 
I guess you could say the inspector got his screw and so did I.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> .............I say the OP's inspector was spot on, _theory _-wise .......


..... but fails miserably when it comes to empirical evidence.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

480sparky said:


> ..... but fails miserably when it comes to empirical evidence.


You seem to have a strong dislike for inspectors! Why is that?

Borgi


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> At the risk of monster_ville_ , there's more to our trade than pure code verbatim fellas.:whistling2:
> 
> There's the theory that underscores it...:thumbsup:
> 
> ...


So you doubt the accuracy of the manufacturer's tests?

I still say this is a case of inspector's opinion vs NEC compliant installation using UL approved equipment.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Barjack said:


> So you doubt the accuracy of the manufacturer's tests?
> 
> I still say this is a case of inspector's opinion vs NEC compliant installation using UL approved equipment.


Well , this forum has lamented the _'manufacturers'_ sheet metal grounding for equipment responsible for a solid EGC as_ cheesy_ in the past Bar dude.

Now we're focused on the very same EGC's _integrity_, but for _every_ EGC served downstream of the OCPD enclosure.

So lets extend that focus....:whistling2:, most resi panels are 22K , what is the *AIC **rating *of _two screw threads _ that MBJ makes into?, because i just placed a spanking new 240V 10HP air compressor next to that siemens panel!:laughing:

~CS~


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

cabletie said:


> Well I was not going to add my own experiences, but what the hell.
> Years ago I lost the bond screw that came with a panel. So I installed a wire type. The inspector did not like it. He said I needed the listed one that came with the panel. He was afraid someone else would see the wire and think it was a mistake, and remove it.
> I guess you could say the inspector got his screw and so did I.


You both did the right thing. Chit happens. You lost the screw and installed a wire bonding jumping. That should have been a temporary fix until you ordered and installed the listed bonding screw for the panel.

The inspector did the right thing by not approving your solution, although I would not have used his reason for not approving it. The legitimate reason he should have given you is that it isn't approved. He doesn't have to tell you this, but as remote as it may be, there is some liability that could come back on him as well as you. Maybe that was his way of telling you that.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Borgi said:


> You seem to have a strong dislike for inspectors! Why is that?
> 
> Borgi


I dunno why Borgi. I always strich 'em behind the ear, and bring something for them to chase, and we get along fine....:laughing:~CS~:jester:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

flyboy said:


> You both did the right thing. Chit happens. You lost the screw and installed a wire bonding jumping. That should have been a temporary fix until you ordered and installed the listed bonding screw for the panel.
> 
> The inspector did the right thing by not approving your solution, although I would not have used his reason for not approving it. The legitimate reason he should have given you is that it isn't approved. He doesn't have to tell you this, but as remote as it may be, there is some liability that could come back on him as well as you. Maybe that was his way of telling you that.


Do you care to take the time and show me where a wire bonding jumper needs to be listed? Betcha can't


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Is there a manufacturer in the forum.....? ~C:jester:S~


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Borgi said:


> You seem to have a strong dislike for inspectors! Why is that?
> 
> Borgi


No dislike. Just stating a fact, that's all.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Do you care to take the time and show me where a wire bonding jumper needs to be listed? Betcha can't


I can't and won't, because it doesn't exist, but I don't think the question is relevant to the issue. 

If it (the *wire bonding jumper*) isn't written in the manufacturers specifications as an approved means of bonding the equipment then it is *not listed* for the equipment and technically should not be used. The screw is part of the equipment and engineering. In other words, if the manufacturer doesn't permit a *wire bonding jumper* in lieu of their cheesy azz bonding screw then it is not approved. 

There's nothing wrong with the wire bonding jumper. It's just as good if not better then the screw. I'd probably let it go if I were the inspector, but that doesn't mean I'd have contempt for the inspector who wouldn't. Unfortunately we live in a very litigious society and the liability is real.


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Do you care to take the time and show me where a wire bonding jumper needs to be listed? Betcha can't


I am sure in the NEC there is wording that states all equipment must be approved for it's intended use. I am not knowing the NEC, but the CEC most certainly states that. :thumbsup:

Borgi


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

Borgi said:


> I am sure in the NEC there is wording that states all equipment must be approved for it's intended use. I am not knowing the NEC, but the CEC most certainly states that. :thumbsup:
> 
> Borgi


90.7 Examination of Equipment for Safety. For specific items of equipment and materials referred to in this Code, examinations for safety made under standard conditions provide a basis for approval where the record is made generally available through promulgation by organizations properly equipped and qualified for experimental testing, inspections of the run of goods at factories, and service-value determination through field inspections. This avoids the necessity for repetition of examinations by different examiners, frequently with inadequate facilities for such work, and the confusion that would result from conflicting reports on the suitability of devices and materials examined for a given purpose.
It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described in the preceding paragraph and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this Code.
Informational Note No. 1:  See requirements in 110.3.
Informational Note No. 2:  Listed is defined in Article 100.
Informational Note No. 3:  Informative Annex A contains an informative list of product safety standards for electrical equipment.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.
Informational Note:  See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed.

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated:
(1) Suitability for installation and use in conformity with the provisions of this Code
Informational Note:  Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Special conditions of use or other limitations and other pertinent information may be marked on the equipment, included in the product instructions, or included in the appropriate listing and labeling information. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.
(2) Mechanical strength and durability, including, for parts designed to enclose and protect other equipment, the adequacy of the protection thus provided
(3) Wire-bending and connection space
(4) Electrical insulation
(5) Heating effects under normal conditions of use and also under abnormal conditions likely to arise in service
(6) Arcing effects
(7) Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, and specific use
(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment
(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

flyboy said:


> I can't and won't, because it doesn't exist, but I don't think the question is relevant to the issue.
> 
> If it (the *wire bonding jumper*) isn't written in the manufacturers specifications as an approved means of bonding the equipment then it is *not listed* for the equipment and technically should not be used. The screw is part of the equipment and engineering. In other words, if the manufacturer doesn't permit a *wire bonding jumper* in lieu of their cheesy azz bonding screw then it is not approved.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the wire bonding jumper. It's just as good if not better then the screw. I'd probably let it go if I were the inspector, but that doesn't mean I'd have contempt for the inspector who wouldn't. Unfortunately we live in a very litigious society and the liability is real.


The nec permits a main bonding jumper to be contructed of wire, so unless the panel manufacturer specifically says a wire is not permitted (never seen that in my life), then there would be no substantiation to fail that install.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

mcclary's electrical said:


> The nec permits a main bonding jumper to be contructed of wire, so unless the panel manufacturer specifically says a wire is not permitted (never seen that in my life), then there would be no substantiation to fail that install.


Article and Section please. 

...or we can agree to disagree. No hard feelings.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

*250.28 Main Bonding Jumper and System Bonding **Jumper.* For a grounded system, main bonding jumpers and system bonding jumpers shall be installed as follows:
(A) Material. Main bonding jumpers and system bonding jumpers shall be of copper or other corrosion-resistant material. A main bonding jumper and a system bonding jumper shall be a wire, bus, screw, or similar suitable conductor.


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

480sparky said:


> *250.28 Main Bonding Jumper and System Bonding **Jumper.* For a grounded system, main bonding jumpers and system bonding jumpers shall be installed as follows:
> (A) Material. Main bonding jumpers and system bonding jumpers shall be of copper or other corrosion-resistant material. A main bonding jumper and a system bonding jumper shall be a wire, bus, screw, or similar suitable conductor.


Where does it say you can use it (the above referenced bonding jumper in 250.28) in place of the listed equipment (in this case, the screw)?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

flyboy said:


> Where does it say you can use it (the above referenced bonding jumper in 250.28) in place of the listed equipment (in this case, the screw)?



*250.24(A)(4). **Main Bonding Jumper as Wire or Busbar. *Where the main bonding jumper specified in 250.28 is a wire or busbar and is installed from the grounded conductor terminal bar or bus to the equipment grounding terminal bar or bus in the service equipment, the grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be connected to the equipment grounding terminal, bar, or bus to which the main bonding jumper is connected.


Happy now?


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

480sparky said:


> *250.24(A)(4). **Main Bonding Jumper as Wire or Busbar. *Where the main bonding jumper specified in 250.28 is a wire or busbar and is installed from the grounded conductor terminal bar or bus to the equipment grounding terminal bar or bus in the service equipment, the grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be connected to the equipment grounding terminal, bar, or bus to which the main bonding jumper is connected.
> 
> 
> Happy now?


I'm always happy! We have a difference of interpretation and I'm happy leaving it right there. 

^^^
Happy


----------



## Aegis (Mar 18, 2011)

If the panel is certified to be used in that way (and it has), the inspector can't argue with the certification.

What if he said "I want a bond wire ran in that EMT?". I've actually had this once, I had a 12x12 and a panel with a 2" nipple in between them, locknuts tightened down and everything. I had 20 15A circuits running through the nipple fully derated. The inspector wanted a #6 from the panel to the 12x12 through the nipple. He said I'm counted on the locknuts and nipple to act as a bond for ALL of those circuits. What are the chances of two circuits having a ground fault at the same time? Anyway I put the #6 in and called it a day.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

flyboy said:


> I'm always happy! We have a difference of interpretation and I'm happy leaving it right there.
> 
> ^^^
> Happy


So you actually still think the inspector was correct to reject a wire, properly sized? 

That's like choosing a chapter 3 wiring method and him turning down, "just because"

Or wiring a dwelling to meet all the requirements of 210, but he fails it "just because"


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

flyboy said:


> Where does it say you can use it (the above referenced bonding jumper in 250.28) in place of the listed equipment (in this case, the screw)?


Unless it specifically says you cant, YOU CAN.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

flyboy said:


> I'm always happy! We have a difference of interpretation and I'm happy leaving it right there.
> 
> ^^^
> Happy



Well, everyone is entitled to their opinions........ even if they're wrong. :laughing:


----------



## amishman Elec (Feb 1, 2015)

Lectric said:


> Amishman Elec......now thats a contradiction in terms.....Chust kiddin boova.....


I just signed up yesterday and was trying for a creative username. Being from amish country I thought it was fitting. Can you imagine a homeowners dismay if he were to see an amish electrician coming to wire his house!


----------



## 51360 (Jun 9, 2014)

This was the original post:



Lectric said:


> Recently I Installed a new service in a new dwelling, we Install Siemens P4040B1200CU panels. These panels are manufactured with separate grounding and neutral bars which are easily bonded together with a 1/4 inch screw that goes through the neutral lug into the panel board. The inspector is insisting that this screw does not provide enough "path" for any fault current. I argued till I was blue in the face and even contacted Siemens which they thought this inspector was way out of line and assured me through their testing that the bonding screw is more than sufficient for the purpose it was intended. This inspector could not site any code violations just that *he wanted me to "jump" a #4 conductor from the neutral bars to the grounding bars. *I thought it was code that all panel boards must have a separate grounding bar, and that a Bonding jumper or screw is to be used when the panel board is used as a main. This guy has me Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.......:blink:
> ￼￼


This is the post half way through!




cabletie said:


> Well I was not going to add my own experiences, but what the hell.
> Years ago I lost the bond screw that came with a panel. So I installed a wire type. The inspector did not like it. *He said I needed the listed one that came with the panel. *He was afraid someone else would see the wire and think it was a mistake, and remove it.
> I guess you could say the inspector got his screw and so did I.


The inspector is trashed in both. Now you see what these people deal with. Not to mention you are only getting one side of the story. 

Be nice to your inspector, he/she is only trying to help and doing their job as best he/she can. :thumbsup:

They make mistakes too. 

Borgi


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

Borgi said:


> This was the original post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Borgi, when it comes to inspectors I have the utmost respect for them and the job that they do. That being said, our profession, and theirs should have a working relationship. I personally have been in the trade since 1983 and have installed many services, but this guy was the one bad apple out of the many that I have dealt with in my years. It was not my intent to slander any inspector but to only share an experience on this forum and gain insight from my fellow tradesmen. The utter disregard that this inspector had for the code and myself by stating"because I want it that way" is not a good way to enforce code or to do his job. So in this situation he was not doing "the best he can". I was warned many years ago by an inspector that in P.A. there would be an influx of new inspectors that have never did an install in their lives but because they have an degree of some sort and can pass a test they have become an inspector. I am quite sure this is the case with this gentleman. I recently had to "educate" an young inspector on derating because he didnt know to use the 90 degree rating....but thats for another time.


----------



## Lectric (Nov 22, 2014)

amishman Elec said:


> I just signed up yesterday and was trying for a creative username. Being from amish country I thought it was fitting. Can you imagine a homeowners dismay if he were to see an amish electrician coming to wire his house!


Amishman, I hear ya, I often joke with the Amish tradesmen about using electric and they give it right back by jokingly ask if I need any help:no:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This is a milbank #U7040-XL








This is a milbank #U9319-XL









The major difference here is a solid N to G connection. Milbank 'lists' alll their products , with a disclaimer right on their site>>>




> *IMPORTANT NOTICE:*
> Utility requirements for this equipment may vary. Always consult the serving utility for their requirements prior to ordering or installing this equipment. This product must be installed by a licensed electrician. Installation of this equipment may require local electrical inspector approval.


So, the manufacturer is granting the AHJ a _field _decision .

Because this is based on factors revealed in the field. 

There will be no specific code violation, it will most likely be one of the broader scope codes i've previously posted here. 

This does not make an AHJ inept , but that's jmho ~CS~


----------



## Aegis (Mar 18, 2011)

Lectric said:


> I recently had to "educate" an young inspector on derating because he didnt know to use the 90 degree rating....but thats for another time.


 I'd like to hear the story about the 90 degree derating with the inspector.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> .......So, the manufacturer is granting the AHJ a _field _decision .....



Something that 99.999% of the products out there do NOT do.


----------

