# Would you make a fuss?



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

I needed a short piece of #8 the other day to bond a jacuzzi tub. I had a short piece of yellow #8 on the truck and being to lazy to find the green roll I decided to use it. The inspector told the GC it needs to be changed to green. The water pipe is about ~3' from the motor and is visible, now I realize he is right (can we call the wire "originating and ending in the same box") but do you think it is worth making a fuss about (from his side)? keep in mind I already changed it.


----------



## BryanMD (Dec 31, 2007)

No green tape? #8 shouldn't have any issues with being re-identified as a ground.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Strip it bare. 'Nuff said.


----------



## heel600 (Oct 31, 2007)

Wireless said:


> I needed a short piece of #8 the other day to bond a jacuzzi tub. I had a short piece of yellow #8 on the truck and being to lazy to find the green roll I decided to use it. The inspector told the GC it needs to be changed to green. The water pipe is about ~3' from the motor and is visible, now I realize he is right (can we call the wire "originating and ending in the same box") but do you think it is worth making a fuss about (from his side)? keep in mind I already changed it.


It's not a grounding conductor, it's a bonding jumper.

I once failed for using a white wire as a bond jumper (in the PVC of a pool light). Inspector failed me, said it needed to be green.

Long story short, State said it did not have to be green, but as in art 200, only a grounded condictor can be white. I too thought it was BS. Does anyone think a #8 attached to a big brass lug was anything else? If you can't figure that out, you don't know what a 'grounded conductor" is anyway.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

heel600 said:


> .... If you can't figure that out, you don't know what a 'grounded conductor" is anyway.


Well, it _is_ for a 'hot tub'.... maybe it's a 'hot wire'.:jester:


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Well, it _is_ for a 'hot tub'.... maybe it's a 'hot wire'.:jester:


 
BA DUMP BUMP.......


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

Wireless said:


> I needed a short piece of #8 the other day to bond a jacuzzi tub. I had a short piece of yellow #8 on the truck and being to lazy to find the green roll I decided to use it. The inspector told the GC it needs to be changed to green. The water pipe is about ~3' from the motor and is visible, now I realize he is right (can we call the wire "originating and ending in the same box") but do you think it is worth making a fuss about (from his side)? keep in mind I already changed it.


 
What code section says it has to be green?


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

most likely the inspector is going by the "industry standard" of grounds / bonds be green in color. The AHJ would most likely give you code article 250.119 Identification of Euipment grounding conductors.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwelectric said:


> What code section says it has to be green?


It _can_ be green. Or bare. Or green with one or more yellow stripes. 250.119.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

manchestersparky said:


> most likely the inspector is going by the "industry standard" of grounds / bonds be green in color. The AHJ would most likely give you code article 250.119 Identification of Euipment grounding conductors.





480sparky said:


> It _can_ be green. Or bare. Or green with one or more yellow stripes. 250.119.


I don't think that the conductor from the metal water pipe to the pump motor is an "equipment grounging conductor"
As a matter of fact I think that it is a "bonding conductor" and I can't find any requirement that it be any color. Install a pink and purple one if it trips your trigger. 



Wireless said:


> I needed a short piece of #8 the other day to *bond* a jacuzzi tub. I had a short piece of yellow #8 on the truck and being to lazy to find the green roll I decided to use it. The inspector told the GC it needs to be changed to green. *The water pipe is about ~3' from the motor* and is visible, now I realize he is right (can we call the wire "originating and ending in the same box") but do you think it is worth making a fuss about (from his side)? keep in mind I already changed it.


Why would 250,119 come into play here? :no:
*250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors.*

*680.74 Bonding.*

Surely you are not saying that the #8 at a pool is required to be green or the conductor from the service panel to a metal water pipe has to be green. How about the conductors used to bond electrodes together. Are they required to be green also? :no:

I believe his yellow conductor will be just fine.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

You are correct - there is very little in the code when it comes to colors of conductors. In the perfect world the yellow conductor is perfectly fine, but seeing how we are not in the perfect world- The AHJ asked for it to be green. Like I said in the previous post "industry standard" Translation..
put a green conductor in. No matter how it irritates you to do so.You know the AHJ will fall back on 90.4 - enforcement. A wise person once told me " pick your battles wisely" this is not a wise battle.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

manchestersparky said:


> You are correct - there is very little in the code when it comes to colors of conductors. In the perfect world the yellow conductor is perfectly fine, but seeing how we are not in the perfect world- The AHJ asked for it to be green. Like I said in the previous post "industry standard" Translation..
> put a green conductor in. No matter how it irritates you to do so.You know the AHJ will fall back on 90.4 - enforcement. A wise person once told me " pick your battles wisely" this is not a wise battle.


I totatlly disagree. Even with a code enforcement officaial there is a right and wrong.

As to 90.4, there is not one word in 90.4 that a code enforcement officer can use to turn down a job


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

As to 90.4, there is not one word in 90.4 that a code enforcement officer can use to turn down a job[/quote]

OK - 90.4 AHJ has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules,for deciding on the Approval of equipment and MATERIALS

article 100 - Authority Having Jurisdiction An Organization,office,or Individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or STANDARD or for APPROVING equipment, MATERIALS, or a PROCEDURE.

I'm saying that between those 2 the inspector can make a case for his decision and I'm sure if someone was to call him/her out on it their superior in the office would stand behind the inspector. 

I agree that there is nothing in writing stating that the bond must be green, but the code book does give the AHJ the ability to enforce a "standard" as in Industry Standard.
Even you must admit that it is an industry standard to use green for bonds/grounds.


----------



## gilbequick (Oct 6, 2007)

If you're going to pick a battle with the inspector don't pick this one, it's not worth it. Wait for something where you know you're right and it's worth fighting over, not a $3 piece of wire and a few minutes of your time. It's code and an industry standard that ground wires are bare, green, or green with yellow stripe, and it's also a standard that the bond wires are the same wether it says so in the code book or not.


----------



## knothole (Mar 10, 2007)

I agree with the others. It's not worth the hassle for no more cost involved........


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

gilbequick said:


> If you're going to pick a battle with the inspector don't pick this one, it's not worth it. Wait for something where you know you're right and it's worth fighting over, not a $3 piece of wire and a few minutes of your time. It's code and an industry standard that ground wires are bare, green, or green with yellow stripe, and it's also a standard that the bond wires are the same wether it says so in the code book or not.


How are we gonna educate electrical inspectors on the electrical code unless we fight em on the little stuff? (to be taken in complete jest for all the inspectors out there).....


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

I say if you want to fight this battle start with submitting a change for the NEC. Request that this issue be clarified- Bonding and grounding conductors be required to be bare, green in color, or green with yellow stripe.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

manchestersparky said:


> OK - 90.4 AHJ has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules,for deciding on the Approval of equipment and MATERIALS


 I think you left out a lot of this section. 
90.4 Enforcement.
This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies
Is the inspector the governmental body?




manchestersparky said:


> article 100 - Authority Having Jurisdiction An Organization,office,or Individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or STANDARD or for APPROVING equipment, MATERIALS, or a PROCEDURE.


 at least here you included organization which is the governmental body




manchestersparky said:


> I'm saying that between those 2 the inspector can make a case for his decision and I'm sure if someone was to call him/her out on it their superior in the office would stand behind the inspector.


 He can only make a case as it is written. He can not make his case based on his opinion




manchestersparky said:


> I agree that there is nothing in writing stating that the bond must be green, but the code book does give the AHJ the ability to enforce a "standard" as in Industry Standard.





manchestersparky said:


> Even you must admit that it is an industry standard to use green for bonds/grounds.



Well I just don’t know what industry you are working in but in 42 plus years I have never installed a green bonding jumper to the building steel, metal water pipe, ground ring or any other bonding jumper. I have never in my entire life stripped the insulation off a conductor either. 

I am a professional and I install code compliant installations. Should the code official have a beef with something I have installed all he has to do is show it to me in writing. If he can’t show it to me in writing then he can go get into his little car and leave, plain and simple. 




manchestersparky said:


> I say if you want to fight this battle start with submitting a change for the NEC. Request that this issue be clarified- Bonding and grounding conductors be required to be bare, green in color, or green with yellow stripe.


Which section do you feel makes the statement that the bonding conductors are required to be green or bare? Would you please post that section so I might could learn something?


----------



## KayJay (Jan 20, 2008)

Standard black insulated cable is also very common for bonding in commercial buildings. Some guys make the effort to add some green tape at the connection points, which is always a nice touch, but not required.


----------



## TheRick (Apr 13, 2008)

jwelectric said:


> Which section do you feel makes the statement that the bonding conductors are required to be green or bare? Would you please post that section so I might could learn something?


I am new to being on the "other side" as an inspector, and try to enforce the code with a little common sense mixed in. The only requirement for equipment bonding conductor identification can be found in 250.102 (see below). However, if I understand the OP correctly this would not apply as I believe the equipment bonding jumper in question was not installed in a raceway. So to answer the OP...no your equipment bonding jumper in this particular case should not have been required to be green or bare, but if installed in a raceway the requirements of 250.119 apply. 

NEC 2005 Article 250.102(E)
The equipment bonding jumper shall be permitted to be installed inside or outside of a raceway or enclosure. Where installed on the outside, the length of the equipment bonding jumper shall not exceed 1.8 m (6 ft) and shall be routed with the raceway or enclosure. *Where installed inside of a raceway, the equipment bonding jumper shall comply with the requirements of 250.119 and 250.148.*

*Also, please note that my response is based on the 2005 NEC which is what I am currently enforcing/inspecting to on military installations in Iraq.*


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

TheRick said:


> I am new to being on the "other side" as an inspector, and try to enforce the code with a little common sense mixed in. The only requirement for equipment bonding conductor identification can be found in 250.102 (see below). However, if I understand the OP correctly this would not apply as I believe the equipment bonding jumper in question was not installed in a raceway. So to answer the OP...no your equipment bonding jumper in this particular case should not have been required to be green or bare, but if installed in a raceway the requirements of 250.119 apply.
> 
> NEC 2005 Article 250.102(E)
> The equipment bonding jumper shall be permitted to be installed inside or outside of a raceway or enclosure. Where installed on the outside, the length of the equipment bonding jumper shall not exceed 1.8 m (6 ft) and shall be routed with the raceway or enclosure. *Where installed inside of a raceway, the equipment bonding jumper shall comply with the requirements of 250.119 and 250.148.*
> ...


Rick 
The original post wasn't talking about an equipment bonding jumper as outlined in 250.102 nor have I been addressing an equipment bonding jumper. 



Wireless said:


> I needed a short piece of #8 the other day to bond a jacuzzi tub. I had a short piece of yellow #8 on the truck and being to lazy to find the green roll I decided to use it. The inspector told the GC it needs to be changed to green. The water pipe is about ~3' from the motor and is visible, now I realize he is right (can we call the wire "originating and ending in the same box") but do you think it is worth making a fuss about (from his side)? keep in mind I already changed it.


What the original post was addressing was a eequipotential bonding jumper and it can be any color except white or gray


----------



## TheRick (Apr 13, 2008)

jwelectric said:


> Rick
> The original post wasn't talking about an equipment bonding jumper as outlined in 250.102 nor have I been addressing an equipment bonding jumper.
> 
> 
> What the original post was addressing was a eequipotential bonding jumper and it can be any color except white or gray


 
My mistake...I assumed the OP was talking about an equipment bonding jumper to the pump motor, I should have read a little closer!

And you are 100% correct concerning the equipotentional bonding jumper required in 680.74, it can be any color under the rainbow except for white or gray and be code compliant, as there is no color requirement for that conductor.:thumbsup:


----------



## Pierre Belarge (Feb 3, 2007)

If I was the contractor, I would not hesitate to ask for a code section, if I thought that there was a question about the inspection. Contractors will do the same with my determinations.

Identification of conductors in the NEC is not hard information to find. For an inspector to ask for that makes me wonder what else is he/she asking for.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 11, 2008)

As I have been told, the NEC is only the bare minimum required. The local jurisdiction can and does make regulations to "improve" upon the code. I have to agree, you need to pick your battles. The inspector can be your best friend or your worst enemy. Yeah, any idiot should be able to tell that its a bonding jumper, but green or bare is the norm.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

I just don’t understand what people mean when they say something about picking battles.

I don’t see where learning the code is a battle. Should I have been the contractor making the installation in the original post I would simply ask the code enforcement officer could he show me where they are finding this requirement. If they can show me in writing then I have learned something, this is good.
If he can’t show it to me in writing buy I can show him where this is not a requirement then they have learned something, this is good.

We both have been looking at our code book making this be a total of three goods and I can’t see even one bad.

Goods win by a landslide so what is meant by battle?

If the electrical contractor spends his time and money just to humor the code enforcement official then this would be very bad. This would mean that the electrical contractor is not looking in their code book and is not as knowledgeable as they should be or they wouldn’t be wasting money doing something that is code compliant in the first place.
It would also be bad because the code official is not looking at their code books and they are not as knowledgeable as they should be or they wouldn’t be asking you to redo something that is code compliant.

Both of these bads could be negated simply if the contractor and code official have a little fellowship and both do a little looking in the code book and do some studying of the book both use in their chosen profession.


----------



## TheRick (Apr 13, 2008)

Kevin J said:


> As I have been told, the NEC is only the bare minimum required.


100% Correct!



Kevin J said:


> The local jurisdiction can and does make regulations to "improve" upon the code.


Also correct, but the AHJ cannot change requirements from inspection to inspection, which is why they are required to be in writing...if this were the case the inspector would have had no problem producing the local code requiring the conductor to be green or bare.



Kevin J said:


> I have to agree, you need to pick your battles. The inspector can be your best friend or your worst enemy.


Also true...and though there is no code requirement we all know the conductor in this case _should_ be green or bare BUT it is not required by the NEC



Kevin J said:


> Yeah, any idiot should be able to tell that its a bonding jumper, but green or bare is the norm.


The big difference between Genius and Idiocy?............................Genius has it's limitations! :whistling2:


----------



## Wireless (Jan 22, 2007)

Pierre Belarge said:


> If I was the contractor, I would not hesitate to ask for a code section, if I thought that there was a question about the inspection. Contractors will do the same with my determinations.
> 
> Identification of conductors in the NEC is not hard information to find. For an inspector to ask for that makes me wonder what else is he/she asking for.


 
Lots and lots! How about not connecting the equipment ground between two buildings with common metallic paths and floating the neutral.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

TheRick said:


> Also true...and though there is no code requirement we all know the conductor in this case _should_ be green or bare BUT it is not required by the NEC ! :whistling2:


Wht do you think it "should" be green or bare?

Is it an equipment grounding conductor? Only the equipment grounding conductor is required to be green or bare as outlined in 250.119 and not bonding jumpers


----------



## TheRick (Apr 13, 2008)

jwelectric said:


> Wht do you think it "should" be green or bare?
> 
> Is it an equipment grounding conductor? Only the equipment grounding conductor is required to be green or bare as outlined in 250.119 and not bonding jumpers


I said _SHOULD_ as a matter of opinion, I did not say it was _REQUIRED_ as an inspector.

One of the biggest problems I have seen with fellow inspectors is that they try to enforce the way they would like to see something done as what is code compliant. We have already established that the yellow bond wire in question is compliant with the NEC. I am simply stating that in my "professional opinion" (and we all know what opinions are like) it _SHOULD_ be green or bare. 

As an inspector however it is my job to enforce the code not my opnion, if more inspectors realized this we would have a lot fewer of these discussions.:whistling2:


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

If I understand this bonding jumper it can be insulated or bare but Not Green as Green is for equipmemt grounding and NOT bonding.

Would the inspector be more correct to require the insulated wire to not be green?


----------



## gilbequick (Oct 6, 2007)

Holy crap man come on, you're just getting ridiculous.


----------



## TheRick (Apr 13, 2008)

jwelectric said:


> If I understand this bonding jumper it can be insulated or bare but Not Green as Green is for equipmemt grounding and NOT bonding.
> 
> Would the inspector be more correct to require the insulated wire to not be green?


*WOW* 

I can't argue with logic (or the lack there of) like that! :laughing:


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

gilbequick said:


> Holy crap man come on, you're just getting ridiculous.


 
Then help me to better understand the code. Can you show me a requirement for a bonding conductor to be Green?

I can show you a requirement for an Equipment Grounding Conductor to be Green.



> *250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors.
> *Unless required elsewhere in this Code, equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be bare, covered, or insulated. *Individually covered or insulated equipment grounding conductors shall have a continuous outer finish that is either green or green with one or more yellow stripes except as permitted in this section.* Conductors with insulation or individual covering that is green, green with one or more yellow stripes, or otherwise identified as permitted by this section shall not be used for ungrounded or grounded circuit conductors.


In this code section the requirement is that an insulated Equipment Grounding Conductor is to Green. 
What is not mentioned in this section is bonding conductors.

So please show me the code section that requires a bonding conductor to be green. 

One of two things is for sure and certain;
Either there is a requirement for the bonding jumper to be green 
or 
There is no requirement for the bonding jumper to be green
so 
Which is it?


----------



## gilbequick (Oct 6, 2007)

Nobody is arguing that anymore. What I'm saying is the the wording of the NEC has been proven and no one is denying what it actually says. Let's not beat this into the ground.


----------



## jwelectric (Sep 28, 2008)

gilbequick said:


> Nobody is arguing that anymore. What I'm saying is the the wording of the NEC has been proven and no one is denying what it actually says. Let's not beat this into the ground.


So when you made this statement 


gilbequick said:


> Holy crap man come on, you're just getting ridiculous.


You was just eager to bang on the key pad or something like that and had no reason for the statement other than the need to type something?

Can you explain why you made this statement? Would you take a few minutes and explain why you think someone is getting ridiculous?
Was there some type of hidden meaning in this statement?
Come on now and explain just what you were saying.


----------



## TheRick (Apr 13, 2008)

He made the statement because you are being ridiculous!

Nobody is arguing here but you...we all have been in agreement that the bonding conductor does not need to be green or bare to be code compliant...you win, find another dead horse!


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

*Thread hijacking*

I have to throw this in here. I posted it awhile back on Holt's forum, I figure I'll put it here for a few laughs. I live in upstate NY. I once had a new inspector tell me the SEU cable on a service drop was no longer UV resistant because the HO painted it brown. He said,..."Replace it." I said "Cite it",...he said "Replace it" again.

I am not one to argue:whistling2:


----------



## Effectively Grounded (Dec 15, 2008)

Strip It, Strip It Good, Go For It, Move Ahead, Now Strip It, Strip It Good. (as sung to Devo)

Or just use it in its original color since it would still be compliant. What is important is that you bonded with the right size conductor.


----------

