Thread: ground wire butt splice

Hi guys, who can refer me to the proper NEC section. I have the 08 version and am not finding what I need.
Situation is as such, I was asked to look at a ground wire installation from a main disconnect to the water service. Soon as I looked I knew something was wrong but wasn't sure what. I had to walk back and forth 4 times to figure it out. Wire at disconnect, black. Wire at water disconnect, red. Clearly a splice somewhere, couldn't find a junction box. Sparky says he butt spliced it in the 3/4" conduit cause he ran short. I told him wasn't allowed as far as I knew.
Sparky says its ok, muni insp says its no big deal. I'm thinking both are idiots. I spoke with two licensed Sparky's both stated, Hell No. Unless, 1) hy-press connection or 2) cadmium arc weld connection. Neither of which will fit into 3/4" conduit or is used in Res work. No way this particular Sparky did that either. None of the pipe was strapped. 100' pipe run was atrocious and laying on top of heating and plumbing pipes.
Code section, PLEASE guys.

Similar Threads:

• Glowing wire nut
• Ground in crawlspace
• Disconnected Wire
• 2 Wire Load Side Fuse Panel
• Recalled Ladders for Above-Ground Pools

Start with Article 250.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Start with Article 250.

As helpful as ever ... sheesh.

(bold and underlining are mine)
ARTICLE 250 Grounding and Bonding
III. Grounding Electrode System and Grounding Electrode Conductor
- 250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
- - Grounding electrode conductors at the service, at each building or structure where supplied by a feeder(s) or branch circuit(s), or at a separately derived system shall be installed as specified in 250.64(A) through (F).
- - - (A) Aluminum or Copper-Clad Aluminum Conductors. Bare aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be used where in direct contact with masonry or the earth or where subject to corrosive conditions. Where used outside, aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding conductors shall not be terminated within 450 mm (18 in.) of the earth.
- - - (B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage. Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is carried. A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection where it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.
- - - (C) Continuous. Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint except as permitted in (1) and (2):
- - - - (1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.
- - - - (2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be connected together to form a grounding electrode conductor.
- - - (D) Service with Multiple Disconnecting Means Enclosures. Where a service consists of more than a single enclosure as permitted in 230.71(A), grounding electrode connections shall be made in accordance with (D)(1), (D)(2), or (D)(3).
- - - - (1) Grounding Electrode Conductor Taps. Where the service is installed as permitted by 230.40, Exception No. 2, a common grounding electrode conductor and grounding electrode conductor taps shall be installed. The common grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance with 250.66, based on the sum of the circular mil area of the largest ungrounded service-entrance conductor(s). Where the service-entrance conductors connect directly to a service drop or service lateral, the common grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66, Note 1. A tap conductor shall extend to the inside of each service disconnecting means enclosure. The grounding electrode conductor taps shall be sized in accordance with 250.66 for the largest conductor serving the individual enclosure. The tap conductors shall be connected to the common grounding electrode conductor by exothermic welding or with connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment in such a manner that the common grounding electrode conductor remains without a splice or joint.
- - - - (2) Individual Grounding Electrode Conductors. A grounding electrode conductor shall be connected between the grounded conductor in each service equipment disconnecting means enclosure and the grounding electrode system. Each grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance with 250.66 based on the service-entrance conductor(s) supplying the individual service disconnecting means.
- - - - (3) Common Location. A grounding electrode conductor shall be connected to the grounded service conductor(s) in a wireway or other accessible enclosure on the supply side of the service disconnecting means. The connection shall be made with exothermic welding or a connector listed as grounding and bonding equipment. The grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance with 250.66 based on the service-entrance conductor(s) at the common location where the connection is made.
- - - (E) Enclosures for Grounding Electrode Conductors. Ferrous metal enclosures for grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically continuous from the point of attachment to cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode and shall be securely fastened to the ground clamp or fitting. Nonferrous metal enclosures shall not be required to be electrically continuous. Ferrous metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode conductor. Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening ferrous raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the cabinets or equipment and the grounding electrode. The bonding jumper for a grounding electrode conductor raceway or cable armor shall be the same size as, or larger than, the enclosed grounding electrode conductor. Where a raceway is used as protection for a grounding electrode conductor, the installation shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate raceway article.
- - - (F) Installation to Electrode(s). Grounding electrode conductor(s) and bonding jumpers interconnecting grounding electrodes shall be installed in accordance with (1), (2), or (3). The grounding electrode conductor shall be sized for the largest grounding electrode conductor required among all the electrodes connected to it.
- - - - (1) The grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be run to any convenient grounding electrode available in the grounding electrode system where the other electrode(s), if any, are connected by bonding jumpers per 250.53(C).
- - - - (2) Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to be run to one or more grounding electrode(s) individually.
- - - - (3) Bonding jumper(s) from grounding electrode(s) shall be permitted to be connected to an aluminum or copper busbar not less than 6 mm × 50 mm (¼ in. × 2 in.). The busbar shall be securely fastened and shall be installed in an accessible location. Connections shall be made by a listed connector or by the exothermic welding process. The grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be run to the busbar. Where aluminum busbars are used, the installation shall comply with 250.64(A).

Thanks Jerry.
Its in court tomorrow morning.

Well it seems the cut & paste magician has beat to the punch.

I was busy hunting and pecking out a list of citations beginning with chapter 1.

Since there was so many things wrong as described.

Took me half an hour alone typing, selected portions from 250.24, 250.64, and portions on EMT which I assumed the "pipe" in question.

250.64(C)(1) esp. and the last sentance of 250.64(E) Was still typing the EMT sections when I realized (hit preview to check formatting) that I had timed out (forgot to check remember me box) and had to start all over again!

So..... I LOGGED IN AGAIN, TYPED THE QUICK ARTICLE NUMBER so Marcus K could check his own copy, while I STARTED OVER AGAIN the typing process for more details, and viola, JP already cut and pasted the entire 250.64 COMPLETE WITH NASTY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ME.

I'm really SICK of your crap JP.

Marcus:

You can find more General Requirements at Chapter 3 & EMT @ 358.

I've timed out now three times typing this out so I'm not going to do this again.

Where this unsupported EMT is in contact with the other pipes (heating system, water lines, etc.)
See: 350.12(6) (avoiding galvanic)
See also 358.30 Securing and Supporting. all of it,
358.56.

Since you've said you had the 2008 NEC hard copy, you can read it faster than I can type it (3 times now).

Markus,

If the conduit is metal, it must be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor at both ends too.

MK, is this in a burb or Chicago (don't think Chicago is using 2008 NEC - still lots of references to 1999 in the ordinances?).

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I'm really SICK of your crap JP.

As much as some here are of your crap?

If so, you know what one of your options is, and some have suggested, on many occasions, that you take it.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Markus,

If the conduit is metal, it must be bonded to the grounding electrode conductor at both ends too.

250.64(E) you already posted it, I already mentioned it being applicable. Sure MK knows all about "Pipe" (EMT) bonding its the norm for Chicago & immediate burbs.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

As much as some here are of your crap?

If so, you know what one of your options is, and some have suggested, on many occasions, that you take it.

Go fluff yourself. And fluff yourself again next time you nag nag nag on a stroke survivor for a typo or a missing carriage return.

You are indeed a LITTLE "man".

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Go fluff yourself. And fluff yourself again next time you nag nag nag on a stroke survivor for a typo or a missing carriage return.

You are indeed a LITTLE "man".

Yet another example of a typical Watson-not-being-able-to-get-over-himself post.

Jeez.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yet another example of a typical Watson-not-being-able-to-get-over-himself post.

Jeez.

GET OVER YOURSELF PECK.

You cut and paste with no comprehension, then chime in with an also (something you already cut and pasted). EmbarASSED again you take another stab at another.

GEEZUS GET A LIFE OF YOUR OWN MAN and GROW UP.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Hi guys, who can refer me to the proper NEC section. I have the 08 version and am not finding what I need.
Situation is as such, I was asked to look at a ground wire installation from a main disconnect to the water service. Soon as I looked I knew something was wrong but wasn't sure what. I had to walk back and forth 4 times to figure it out. Wire at disconnect, black. Wire at water disconnect, red. Clearly a splice somewhere, couldn't find a junction box. Sparky says he butt spliced it in the 3/4" conduit cause he ran short. I told him wasn't allowed as far as I knew.
Sparky says its ok, muni insp says its no big deal. I'm thinking both are idiots. I spoke with two licensed Sparky's both stated, Hell No. Unless, 1) hy-press connection or 2) cadmium arc weld connection. Neither of which will fit into 3/4" conduit or is used in Res work. No way this particular Sparky did that either. None of the pipe was strapped. 100' pipe run was atrocious and laying on top of heating and plumbing pipes.
Code section, PLEASE guys.

The connection should be on the street side of the water service. There should be bonding jumpers over the shut off valves and meter and any unions on the water main - these are usually bare stranded Cu.

The black/red confusing - it shouldn't be black OR red insulation, it should be identified correctly.

Thanks for the replies Jerry and HG. Sorry this started another spat between you two. I'm aware of all the misc problems with the install such as the lack of proper pipe support, no identification on the wire, etc. Thanks for the Code sections. I was sure a splice wasn't allowed, just didn't know the Code section. Sparky told me it was ok, it's done all the time. I can't remember ever seeing anyone butt splice a ground connection before. It just seems like one of those common sense things any decent Sparky would not do.
This isn't my case, a colleague asked me to look into it. Apparently there is a lot of controversy over exactly what should be done. Hire a new Sparky would be my first option. It will be interesting to see what happens on this one. From what I was told, the muni insp stated the Code wasn't clear on the issue and it wasn't a big deal. He also didn't seem to have a problem with all the other problems. It defies reason.
Based on the work I saw, my guess is the butt splice is nothing more than the two ends straight twisted together and taped.
BTW, Jerry I think I will be hating you in about a half hour when I leave. It's 8 degrees here, temp not wind chill. That's what about 60-70 degrees less than where you are.

I wonder if a HyReducer butt splice sleeve with die crimp (irreversible) and insulation sleve (shrink kit) is UL 467 listed. What size? Seems to me these (crimp dies) are avail for stranded #8 & #6 stranded Cu. and a bit more than 2" long. Not sure of finished dia IIRC its quite close to the wire dia. I'm quite sure there are HyReducers down to #4, not sure if they have for #6 & #8. What size service?

HG, #6 wire. Both of my Sparky's said they were not aware of an approved butt splice that would fit inside of 3/4" emt. There is no junction box. My guess is he did it in the pipe, a) knowing it wasn't allowed and b) hoping no one would notice the splice inside of the pipe. Of course he was too stupid to use the same color wires or tape the ends white.

A Hyground (HYLINK GROUND SPLICE) Cat. No. YGS6C (Type YGS: Irreversible compression HYLINK ground splices are specifically designed for ground applications. Each conductor element has an inspection probe hole and a center stop to insure proper cable insertion. UL 467 & 486A Listed.) with Heavy Wall shrink Insulation. YGS6Cs & 8Cs aren't normally stock (2C is the smallest "stock" size) - special order, min. order = 1 ea). Doubt a Sparky would have on the truck, they're usually over a month lead time. With the buyout/merger the information portal site is a transitional mess right now. If interested you could call tech support/engineering and verify the specifications (dia) and compare to 40%/55% fill.

"Of course he was too stupid to use the same color wires or tape the ends white."

Say WHAT?

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

"Of course he was too stupid to use the same color wires or tape the ends white."

Say WHAT?

Whoa, good catch BK, I missed that he said that in the post.

Markus,

No, never, on white identification for the 6AWG GEC. (BTW that's also no on white reidentification of a 6 AWG grounded conductor but that's another topic).

Any color other than white or gray [200.7(A)]. (or orange in some installations).

Smaller than 4AWG insulation marking/color must be continuous.

Black or bare often used. Some controversy in the past over using green insulation or marking green on black (for 4AWG or larger) for a while (2002), seems to be clarified now (2008): Since the Grounding Electrode Conductor is neither a Grounded nor an Ungrounded CIRCUIT conductor (250.119) green insulation or green with three yellow stripes is an acceptable alternative for GEC insulation (if not prohibited by local rule/ruling); however, green is the required insulation color for Equipment Grounding Conductor(s), which serve a different purpose.

Jeeeze!! I was looking forward to getting into one of my favorite discussions when I read the title, one of my specialties, buttt, Jerry beat me to it by posting a huge chunk of Art 250. Then I thought I could make mention of a the metallic conduit being bonded to the GEC at both ends....but He beat me to the punch a few threads later. No fun tonight.

I must tell U's that by the time I finished reading all the nit-pickin and cat fighting, I had to go back and check that I didn't click on some bored house wife's w/a axe to grind web site.
ENUF
Bob Smit, County Electrical Inspector

Originally Posted by bob smit

Jeeeze!!

I must tell U's that by the time I finished reading all the nit-pickin and cat fighting, I had to go back and check that I didn't click on some bored house wife's w/a axe to grind web site.
ENUF
Bob Smit, County Electrical Inspector

That, IMO is the quote of the day........

Sorry guys wasn't actually meaning to imply he should have taped the wires white, sloppiness on my part. What I was actually implying (sarcasm) and clearly failed to do so, was that if he was going to scum the job, he should have done it with brains.
If the Sparky had either taped the ends or used the same color wire at both ends I would not have seen the difference in color and realized that there was a splice somewhere. I would have wondered why he taped it but I doubt it would have made me think, 'splice in the conduit'.
Update: after seeing the actual install the muni E inspector told the Sparky to fix it. New wire run, strap the pipe off of boiler and water lines, etc.

Markus,

Thanks for the update. Well done.

Markus,
In both your business and mine, the devil is in the DETAILS. Stuff that slides right on by some people just reaches out and grabs others. And, if you haven't noticed, that's especially true on this board. No harm - no foul.

FYI -
Burndy DOES make a UL listed, butt splice that is for #6 AWG copper.
Yes it will fit inside a 3/4 conduit.
Burndy # YS6C (they make them for # 8 also.)
Pretty much stock item at supply houses.

Originally Posted by ken horak

FYI -
Burndy DOES make a UL listed, butt splice that is for #6 AWG copper.
Yes it will fit inside a 3/4 conduit.

Burndy # YS6C

they make them for # 8 also.

Pretty much stock item at supply houses.

KH: I believe you will find that TYPE YS Cat. No. YS6C is not UL 467 Listed (for GROUNDING).

No can use in this application (no "G"). Must be listed for Grounding. Hence the reference to YGS 6C earlier.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

KH: I believe you will find that TYPE YS Cat. No. YS6C is not UL 467 Listed (for GROUNDING).

No can use in this application (no "G"). Must be listed for Grounding. Hence the reference to YGS 6C earlier.

OK
YGS6C = # 6 AWAG & YGS8C = # 8 AWG

And yes they will fit in a 3/4 conduit

Originally Posted by ken horak

OK
YGS6C = # 6 AWAG & YGS8C = # 8 AWG

And yes they will fit in a 3/4 conduit

Which of course I mentioned in post #17 above. However, as MK indicated the EMT is greater than 50 ft (closer to 100 ft as MK posted) which although single conductor (55% max fill) due to its length must be reduced another 15% for max fill. Its touchy since it must further be insulated with H level shrink and the overlap of the existing wire insulation.

It also is not a stocked item, neither in trade supply, distribution, nor by the manufacturer - it is a special order item, minimum order one each, with a minimum 4+ week lead time from the date of order receipt at the manufacturer's NH office (for sizes smaller than 2C) as previously indicated.

To meet 250.64(C)(1) the butt splice must be irreversible & LISTED for grounding & bonding.

Still have the question of the accessiblity for inspection, verification, pulling, etc. of the splice.

Thanks for the reference on the butt splice connectors Ken and HG. Might come in handy to know at some point. I wouldn't sign off on a butt splice in 3/4" emt regardless of whether the connector is UL listed or not. If a connector is going to be used I want it in a junction box so it can be seen. I don't see the type of connection listed in the Code being reasonably possible within 3/4" emt. The two Sparky's I spoke with, stated they didn't think a Code compliant connection would fit into 3/4" pipe. Sure the connector might fit but how much tugging would be necessary to get it in there. What if it has to get pulled through a 90? The run should be a straight line without any splices, IMnotsoHO.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Thanks for the reference on the butt splice connectors Ken and HG. Might come in handy to know at some point. I wouldn't sign off on a butt splice in 3/4" emt regardless of whether the connector is UL listed or not. If a connector is going to be used I want it in a junction box so it can be seen. I don't see the type of connection listed in the Code being reasonably possible within 3/4" emt. The two Sparky's I spoke with, stated they didn't think a Code compliant connection would fit into 3/4" pipe. Sure the connector might fit but how much tugging would be necessary to get it in there. What if it has to get pulled through a 90? The run should be a straight line without any splices, IMnotsoHO.

I agree. Couldn't pull an insulated 2" + long butt splice + shrunk insulation through an offset or bend, just pull it back taught from the emt bonded connector a bit to reduce slack in a straight run of pipe. I too wouldn't accept it not being accessible nor befitting the Code.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

To meet 250.64(C)(1) the butt splice must be irreversible & LISTED for grounding & bonding.

- 250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
- - Grounding electrode conductors at the service, at each building or structure where supplied by a feeder(s) or branch circuit(s), or at a separately derived system shall be installed as specified in 250.64(A) through (F).
- - - (C) Continuous. Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint except as permitted in (1) and (2):
- - - - (1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.
- - - - (2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be connected together to form a grounding electrode conductor.

Taking a snippet out of context, JP.

"the butt splice" referred to was clear using an irreversible compression crimp item. The discussion on that post was in reference to the irreversible compression crimp item suggested by another poster (Ken Horak), namely the Burndy type YS Cat. No. YS6C connector which is not listed for grounding & bonding and therefore does not meet the provisions of 250.64(C)(1) [vs. the Burndy type YGS Cat. No. YGS6C, which IS listed for grounding and bonding and I had referenced earlier, connector, and does meet the provisions of 250.64 (C)(1)].

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Taking a snippet out of context, JP.

"the butt splice" referred to was clear using an irreversible compression crimp item. The discussion on that post was in reference to the irreversible compression crimp item suggested by another poster (Ken Horak), namely the Burndy type YS Cat. No. YS6C connector which is not listed for grounding & bonding and therefore does not meet the provisions of 250.64(C)(1) [vs. the Burndy type YGS Cat. No. YGS6C, which IS listed for grounding and bonding and I had referenced earlier, connector, and does meet the provisions of 250.64 (C)(1)].

Huh?

*YOU* posted an NEC section NUMBER.

*I* posted the NEC SECTION ... to show what it stated.

Are *YOU* somehow now implying that you were wrong by stating that NEC section?

What a remarkable waste of bandwidth. It has already been posted IN THIS THREAD and BY YOU, despite the fact the OP indicated he had hardcopy freely available and at his disposal. Lets load up Brians server and muddy the waters of this thread with more wasted bandwidth and posts by JP the Sunday evening virtual ankle biting stalker critic.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

What a remarkable waste of bandwidth.

Your posts are typically a waste of Brian's bandwidth, never seems to bother you or even dawn on you.

You are so intent on jumping down everyone's throat that even when someone posts documentation supporting what you are saying ... you still jump before you look ... or read ... or think ... or whatever it is you are or are not capable of.

I've said it many times before, and it seems that I have to say it with great frequency for it so soak into your think skull, before it leaks out and has to be said again ... and again ... and again ...

You could be a great asset to this board ... IF ONLY YOU WANTED TO BE.

Instead, you would rather huff and puff and blow your own house down, and contribute much less than you could IF ONLY YOU WANTED TO.

Sheesh.

Little Peck man playing King of the Hill and Last Word-itis one-up-oneship. Look in the mirror man, and remember the adage about glass houses and throwing stones.

Mr Watson... I think I have to agree with JP that you over react and put people down. You know this stuff but somehow feel like JP is competing with you. So what that he can look it up faster. Relax, guy, and enjoy it here - or take a break.

JP - While I agree with you most of the time, and appreciate your quick reply, pounding on Watson isn't nice. We all see each party for what they can contribute.... you're the fast computerized guy, and he's the manual guy. I learn from both of you. Please ease up a bit and let him rant when he needs to. Maybe this email will take the focus off of you and onto me for the next round?

A bit of advice...this site requires reference to the NEC. It's inherent to your trade (inspectors) the NEC is intended to be used as a document that can be enforced by law authority.....so point is why would you sit at a puter and type manually out entire sections of code?? Either get the discs so you can cut and paste or just refer poster to the necessary article and section. Inspectors can read can't they...?? ahhhh but it's in the comprehension....LOL.
Further there are no forums...message boards... to my knowledge that allow you to sit and type for extended periods of time in a reply without timing you out... and you do not lose your reply and must to do it over you only have to log back in ...if your that inclined to type yourself into LaLa land then copy your text as you go...jeeez.

Further yet ... saying "start with article 250" is a bit of a stretch of ones ego on a message board where the policy is to provide an answer backed by known code sections. Then take offense when someone calls you on what you already knew was a response of ego mania.

This thread should have ended in at the most 4 replies....LOL

This was the water pipe bond sized to 250.66 ... it cannot have a splice inside of a pipe....how you going to inspect a splice you can't see ?? How ya gonna know if it is a GEC listed splice if it is already in conduit before the inspector gets there? It might be required to be in conduit though...the gec that is . The only argument if you wanted to waste text is if it was an accessible splice. Or I suppose you could argue color if you wanted, though that would be hard to have a consensus. So far as I know (meaning I don't know what I don't know) the GEC can be any color...though I wouldn't choose white...

It seems there is always some one who wants to drown posters with needless rhetoric about how much they know about the GES or the NEC when only a simple question was asked..the OP did not ask for a basics 101 on the GES. Knowing that not all questions turn out simple...but this one was....

Just my opinion

All one needs to do is go to the NFPA website.
You can sign up (it's free) then you can access the NEC online.
Cut and paste from there.
You can open up a second window on the computer then toggle back and forth between the two windows while doing your cut and paste replies.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

A bit of advice...this site requires reference to the NEC. It's inherent to your trade (inspectors) the NEC is intended to be used as a document that can be enforced by law authority.....so point is why would you sit at a puter and type manually out entire sections of code?? Either get the discs so you can cut and paste or just refer poster to the necessary article and section. Inspectors can read can't they...?? ahhhh but it's in the comprehension....LOL.
Further there are no forums...message boards... to my knowledge that allow you to sit and type for extended periods of time in a reply without timing you out... and you do not lose your reply and must to do it over you only have to log back in ...if your that inclined to type yourself into LaLa land then copy your text as you go...jeeez.

Further yet ... saying "start with article 250" is a bit of a stretch of ones ego on a message board where the policy is to provide an answer backed by known code sections. Then take offense when someone calls you on what you already knew was a response of ego mania.

This thread should have ended in at the most 4 replies....LOL

This was the water pipe bond sized to 250.66 ... it cannot have a splice inside of a pipe....how you going to inspect a splice you can't see ?? How ya gonna know if it is a GEC listed splice if it is already in conduit before the inspector gets there? It might be required to be in conduit though...the gec that is . The only argument if you wanted to waste text is if it was an accessible splice. Or I suppose you could argue color if you wanted, though that would be hard to have a consensus. So far as I know (meaning I don't know what I don't know) the GEC can be any color...though I wouldn't choose white...

It seems there is always some one who wants to drown posters with needless rhetoric about how much they know about the GES or the NEC when only a simple question was asked..the OP did not ask for a basics 101 on the GES. Knowing that not all questions turn out simple...but this one was....

Just my opinion

1. You have no idea apparently as to the colors that may NOT be used, the color that some areas REQUIRE in this situation (by specific local ammendment or authoritative ruling), nor when and when one is not allowed to reidentify (AWG size).

2. You're new here, you have no idea what the history is between posters. You obviously didn't "catch" MK only had a 2008 NEC handy, wouldn't help much using citations (re-numbered, moved) for 1997 & 1999 (City), nor unincorporated Cook, nor most of the burbs, since VERY FEW of them are using the 2008 and almost every home-rule community has specific ammendments that address, based upon the edition they have adopted.

3. You're obviously ignorant about the Chicago area and burbs. MK often inspects in the City of Chicago, as well as the surrounding burbs in COOK COUNTY. They have their own rules. The NEC adoptions within the City of Chicago are based on OLDER editions and are highly ammended and restricted. The local burbs likewise adopt via home rule which addition they choose and likewise make restrictions within the requirements of the County of Cook. The rest of the state is a free-for-all regarding local ammendments and adoptions.

4. You are obviously likewise ignorant that the City of Chicago Electrical inspectors despise exothermic welding for grounding/bonding applications and actually prefer irreversible crimp connections. You are also obviously ignorant about what the City of Chicago and most Cook County suburban village/city electrical inspectors require, i.e. EMT or similar for all res and actually allow and prefer burried ground splices.

5. Who the heck are you? Try introducing yourself and filling out your profile. You speak to HIs as though you are NOT one. Is your occupation a secret?

6. Where does the "this site requires reference to the NEC" dictate come from? The NEC is NOT LAW. It (by edition reference and local ammendments (if only to insert who the authority IS) becomes a basis for the local LAW/Code when/IF it is ADOPTED ty the jurisdiction. It is rare indeed for it to be adopted without ammendment. There are jurisdictions that still use their own developed codes and that use reference model code editions which were developed prior to 2005 (2002 IRC, UBC, UPC, UMC, Cabo, NYC, etc.).

Ok I'll fill out my profile that is a fair request. But in short I'm a lowly retired residential wireman. I am rather out of touch with Chicago. But why all the hoopla over the NEC if it is so locally amended in Chicago ? I am aware of the pipe requirements. I am also aware of the fact they are very restrictive. Even so can you give me a reason that splice inside the pipe is allowed? My point being why turn a simple thing into such a drawn out mess? Is it or isn't it allowed?? Didn't the OP ask where in the NEC??

The insulation comment was a .. JOKE .. jeez man give it a rest. I'll give up on my futile attempts at humor here....

6. Where does the "this site requires reference to the NEC" dictate come from? The NEC is NOT LAW. It (by edition reference and local ammendments (if only to insert who the authority IS) becomes a basis for the local LAW/Code when/IF it is ADOPTED ty the jurisdiction. It is rare indeed for it to be adopted without amendment.

I am merely saying that you are primarily inspectors here.. so in order to say what you say you would need to back it up with codes references .... no?

The NEC is not law but it is intended to be the document to be enforced along with local amends in the event of a legal dispute.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

Ok I'll fill out my profile that is a fair request. But in short I'm a lowly retired residential wireman. I am rather out of touch with Chicago. But why all the hoopla over the NEC if it is so locally amended in Chicago ? I am aware of the pipe requirements. I am also aware of the fact they are very restrictive. Even so can you give me a reason that splice inside the pipe is allowed? My point being why turn a simple thing into such a drawn out mess? Is it or isn't it allowed?? Didn't the OP ask where in the NEC??

The insulation comment was a .. JOKE .. jeez man give it a rest. I'll give up on my futile attempts at humor here....

Because it (the Listed YGS) is expressly in Chicago in straight EMT where connection another straight ended section of EMT is properly connected and bonded if it meets fill, or near a pull. It is also allowed to be directly burried. This particular connector is also factory pre-lubed up with anti oxidation compound which contains strands of copper in it. Burndy set the standard for this type of connector and use - actually working with applications in Chicago and working with the City - way back, after having years of success with Lineman and underground POCO applications proven in the field more than 20 years to be tested and anylalized by UL, and during the time that they practically got out of the exothermic side (late 70s early 80s); they pretty much were responsible for developing the standards for irreversible crimps in grounding and bonding applications over exothermic welds.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

Ok I'll fill out my profile that is a fair request. But in short I'm a lowly retired residential wireman. I am rather out of touch with Chicago. But why all the hoopla over the NEC if it is so locally amended in Chicago ? I am aware of the pipe requirements. I am also aware of the fact they are very restrictive. Even so can you give me a reason that splice inside the pipe is allowed? My point being why turn a simple thing into such a drawn out mess? Is it or isn't it allowed?? Didn't the OP ask where in the NEC??

The insulation comment was a .. JOKE .. jeez man give it a rest. I'll give up on my futile attempts at humor here....


I am merely saying that you are primarily inspectors here.. so in order to say what you say you would need to back it up with codes references .... no?

The NEC is not law but it is intended to be the document to be enforced along with local amends in the event of a legal dispute.

Okay, so now you've proven you:
1) have no clue. (what an HI is vs. a Code Inspector; nor the difference between a published "model code" and what IS law/code and enforcable; nor who does the "enforcing" - hint it is NOT an HI and that's not what a "home in$pection" is it is not a Code Inspection).


2) haven't bothered to do any sort of reading on this site or another, or done research as to just what a home inspector is and is not, nor what the SOPs are (from associations, nor those which are adopted as LAW in certain jurisdictions).

Before you start contributing and directing others as to how to perform their occupation, or how they contribute on this board, I suggest you first learn something about what you are talking about. If you want to ASK questions about HI, start your own topic or find one that deals with the topic and ask a question. You really should do some reading first. I see you joined in August and its December now as you've chosen to start tell others what to do, obviously haven't bothered to investigate.

See how simple you can answer a simple question..?

To be clear, that particular connection is allowed inside properly sized EMT, and is specified in the local code for the jurisdiction in question. The only issue then.... is the splice hidden in the EMT a listed grounding splice the jurisdiction accepts. I hate to go through that entire thread again with all the bickering.. Anyway I best be very careful about Chicago it seems....

Sparky said ... yes ....municipal inspector said yes .. but was later inclined to have the run for the GEC replaced after further investigation. So MK did good I would say.

So all that battle (after MK's update post on the resolution) was just a discussion over whether splicing could be allowed in that jurisdiction given a certain splice connector that had nothing to do with the OP's situation.

So I would say an apology is in order on my part.

As for the white insulation comment I was only poking more humor at MK's comment about white tape at the ends of the GEC. My mistake again ... I think humor doesn't have much place on this board... So I will refrain in further posts.

Ok first I'm surprised you find a need to have someone spell out the use of the term inspectors on a home inspection site.

Second I don't answer to you or your bully tactics...and you are not a moderator nor I suspect you ever will be.

I haven't told anyone how to do their job here ...your words not mine.

You are officially off my buddy list.

Go fluff yourself....

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

Ok first I'm surprised you find a need to have someone spell out the use of the term inspectors on a home inspection site.

Second I don't answer to you or your bully tactics...and you are not a moderator nor I suspect you ever will be.

I haven't told anyone how to do their job here ...your words not mine.

You are officially off my buddy list.

Go fluff yourself....

You still have no clue as to what a "home inspector" is do you?

Yes you did, and I quoted it and highlighted it by bolding, marking it in red, and making the font larger - and by the way it of course was entirely and completely wrong. You made similar remarks elsewhere but noted you deleted within 2 minutes so a history of the post being deleted does not linger.

And you are likewise invited to fluff off.

Roger
Welcome to InspectionNews.
Now that you have been Pi%%ed on, insulted, and called various names.
You have passed the test.
Whats that, you have not been Pi%%ed on yet, well just wait.

Hey, Watson
Roger says you did not Pi%% on him yet.
As I understand it, your job is to insult, call names AND TO PI%% on everyone.
If you can't do it, maybe we need to find someone who can.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Roger
Welcome to InspectionNews.
Now that you have been Pi%%ed on, insulted, and called various names.
You have passed the test.
Whats that, you have not been Pi%%ed on yet, well just wait.

Hey, Watson
Roger says you did not Pi%% on him yet.
As I understand it, your job is to insult, call names AND TO PI%% on everyone.
If you can't do it, maybe we need to find someone who can.

Naw, that's not my job. Might be JPs when he puts on that hat, but its not mine.

And hey, sew - reap. I didn't cast the first insulting stone at this guy - he landed one square upon me - its only seven posts so far (less one he immediately removed as I posted a response) you can easily find - plus had the self-important view a post I made had anything to do with his limited activity on this board.

Dare anyone try to post anything that he cannot cut and paste instantaiously. I personally always stay out of the code questions other than short, is or is not, allowed. I for one could not tolerate myself long enough to read from any code book and then transfer it to this site. What state and what city in that state follows what guidlines.....Geee by gosh my golly.

When I do have a specific code question I always find same way of hunting it down. Again. No immediate cut and paste for a responce and you are dead meat around here. Oh well. I know I am more than half dead anyway. I certainly don't think I am living to one hundred

I certainly got my monies worth.....
Thanks for the welcome.

You know I actually did and have done some reading here... but it is true that I likely cast the first stone at Mr. Watson..not intended as a personal attack just some considerations for him..... though I don't think it would have changed the outcome.

My comments directed at him were simply things to consider...to save him keystrokes. He took it personally so I won't make the same mistake again. I tried to tell him how to save his posts after he was timed out. That is not telling him how to do his job. I tried to joke to make it less likely to be taken personally....I must now fluff off.

I also suggested he consider purchasing the NEC in disc form as ...and correct me if I am wrong....he hand types entire subsections of the code......regularly. Again not intending to insult him but ...jeez seems that would solve several of his time out issues...no? That is also not telling him how to do his job but maybe how to work here with fewer keystrokes.

Things I now

Many threads here I have read to try to learn something and just maybe have some constructive input... morph into ridiculous argument and I won't mention the names or who the perpetrators maybe. These threads are too numerous to mention. This is ego nothing less nothing more ... one person throwing code articles at the other on and on and on and on. An frankly the thread is controlled by those people and there is little they want to hear outside of their own voice. Some are flat bullying the other posters who they decide don't cut the mustard.

Mr. Watson puts his own spin on peoples words. I would venture to say no one else would have taken my comments and turned them into ignorant and clueless and being a cad. Gosh I have a huge dislike for people that elevate themselves to the point they feel they can call you names.

Mr. Watson is not Sherlock Holmes, or Dick Tracy or Elliott Ness

I now know who I will respond to and those who are on my ignore list.

I am not Elvis Presly

I can be anybody I want to be in my profile

I likely will not spend much time here so....sorry.

When I leave I will be missed by the members just about as much as Mr. Watson would be... only difference is they won't throw a party when I go.

I wouldn't have butt spliced a metal water pipe bond then stuck it in conduit with black wire at one end and red at the other. Crossing my fingers the inspector would pass it without seeing it.

A home inspector is Home inspection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia so go tell them they are ignorant and caddy....jeeez

I don't recall deleting any posts... I did correct my spellin....no I'm not a politician.