# failed inspection



## Pr-02211968 (May 9, 2018)

Has anyone here been failed for the ground electrode conductor depth between the ground rods


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

Nope. Why, have you? Just pour concrete over it.


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

Do you mean keeping them six feet apart?

Edit: never mind I know what you mean, and no. I usually scrape it in with my claw hammer. Inches deep.


----------



## Pr-02211968 (May 9, 2018)

Yes i was turned down today the inspector stated that the ground should be 24" deep between the rods


----------



## Pr-02211968 (May 9, 2018)

however Nec 250.64 states that ground electrode conductors shall not be required to meet 300.5 cover requirements


----------



## Pr-02211968 (May 9, 2018)

that is the usual in this area too just deep enough to cover wire


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Pr-02211968 said:


> that is the usual in this area too just deep enough to cover wire


The inspector can say anything, but,can he produce a code section to back it up? Ask what code he is referring to and see what happens.


----------



## Pr-02211968 (May 9, 2018)

He qouted 300.5 but after rereading 250.64 d states that ground electrode conductors shall not be required to follow 300.5 I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with the inspector but i also don't want to be failed for stupid s**t


----------



## Cow (Jan 16, 2008)

Oregon has "cite it, write it" rules in place.

The inspector has to write the code violation on the inspection report with the code article violated.

Is that not the case where you are?


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Pr-02211968 said:


> He qouted 300.5 but after rereading 250.64 d states that ground electrode conductors shall not be required to follow 300.5 I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with the inspector but i also don't want to be failed for stupid s**t


If it were something simple, I would agree. But digging a 2 foot deep trench at least 6 feet long isn't what I would call trivial. That's like 500 pounds of dirt. Besides that, they sometimes need to have their egos yanked back a notch, and calling them on their bullchit is necessary.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I went back to a service change recently because the inspector failed it for me not using Noalox on the lugs. It wasn't worth arguing that it's not required by code.

But trenching 24" is crazy, I would definitely tell him to FOAD.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Shame on you for getting a permit in the first place.


----------



## MisterCMK (Jul 5, 2009)

MTW said:


> Shame on you for getting a permit in the first place.


Can't fail the inspection if you never pull a permit!


----------



## Eddie702 (Aug 7, 2015)

The trick with inspectors is to know the code better than they do. Let's face it , a lot of electricians don't have a code book much less look inside it. 90% of the inspectors are decent guys.


I have had inspectors tell me that many electricians call them up and ask them to tell them how to do the job.......that really pises them off


----------



## B-Nabs (Jun 4, 2014)

Eddie702 said:


> The trick with inspectors is to know the code better than they do. Let's face it , a lot of electricians don't have a code book much less look inside it. 90% of the inspectors are decent guys.
> 
> 
> I have had inspectors tell me that many electricians call them up and ask them to tell them how to do the job.......that really pises them off


If I'm unsure about a particular rule, I have no problem asking the inspector how they expect to see it done. 

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

If you let him run over you on this he will do it all the time. I would not make it official but I would call him and let him know that he may have missed a code section. 
Grounding is stupid anyway but it makes good money.


----------



## kb1jb1 (Nov 11, 2017)

I think a good electrician knows more than many inspectors. I have worn both hats and I prefer the contractor hat better.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Pr-02211968 said:


> He qouted 300.5 but after rereading 250.64 d states that ground electrode conductors shall not be required to follow 300.5 I really don't want to get into a pissing contest with the inspector but i also don't want to be failed for stupid s**t


Don't fight it, point it out, when he see's the error of his ways, say see AZZHOLE, that is how the NEC works.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

HackWork said:


> I went back to a service change recently because the inspector failed it for me not using Noalox on the lugs. It wasn't worth arguing that it's not required by code.
> 
> But trenching 24" is crazy, I would definitely tell him to FOAD.


I had an inspector tell me that Cu/Al means approved only if you use antioxidant. It’s a tough point to argue.


----------



## JoeSparky (Mar 25, 2010)

HackWork said:


> I went back to a service change recently because the inspector failed it for me not using Noalox on the lugs. It wasn't worth arguing that it's not required by code.
> 
> But trenching 24" is crazy, I would definitely tell him to FOAD.


You can borrow my can of Noalox :biggrin:


----------

