CEE Foundation Ground (Ufer) vs. two ground rods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe.B

Joe.B

Senior Member
Location
Myrtletown Ca
Occupation
Building Inspector
Hello, I'm new to the forum and I absolutely love the content here. I am also in a relatively new career for myself as a city building inspector, although I've been in the trades since I was 12. Electrical is my weakest subject and I'm currently studying for my electrical inspector certification which is how I found this amazing resource.

First I'll say that in my short 3 years as an inspector I have had 5 different building officials and it has been a roller coaster of a ride. Each official has their own interpretation of codes and I respect my bosses authority to make the final call, but I'm out in the field making real-life decisions that have long lasting implications. Enough preamble, here are my questions.

On CEE (Ufer) ground connections, I read in the 2019 Ca Electric code (based off of 2017 NEC) 250.52 "All grounding electrodes...that are present...shall be bonded together..." as saying all components where available shall be incorporated into the grounding electrode system. When a new structure is being built from the ground up I see the rebar in the bottom of the footing as being "available" so I have been requiring a CEE to be installed and I have not been requiring additional ground rods to be installed provided that all available components have been incorporated into the GES. My new boss has been including on his plan-check comments the following statement (sorry for the poor wording but that's exactly how his comments appear):

"Provide grounding electrode system ( two ground rods or provide test that
shows the grounding system have 25 OHM’s or less ) and bonding of metal
water lines, metal gas lines, and all steel structures. Per 2019 CEC Article 250. 250.53"

He is telling me that they can also use a foundation ground but that is not required, and they still need to do the ground rods as well.

What are your impressions on my understanding of the GES requirement (that were approved by my previous bosses) vs. my new bosses interpretation. I respect my new boss and his previous experience, but from my research I feel that a foundation ground is far superior to ground rods and I want to continue asking for that. I have a very good working relationship with builders here and nobody is complaining about the CEE's, but I expect they will be frustrated if I am now requiring them to also install two ground rods.

Your thoughts, expertise, and experience are greatly appreciated.
 
Your boss/building official is wrong. Also, a CEE is not required to be supplemented with ground rods. There is no requirement to prove the resistance of the CEE. And, yes, in new construction the CEE must be used if available.
Is there anything in the CEC in this area that differs from the NEC?
 
Thank you for your quick replay and interpretation.

From what I can tell the 2019 CEC includes everything that the 2017 NEC has with the addition of a few Ca amendments. For example section 590.3 has a Ca specific amendment (C.1) added by the state fire marshal. The most significant amendments I have found are for OSHPD (hospitals/clinics) that are scattered throughout and heavily in 517. Section 700 has quite a few amendments as well and there are also quite a few referenced standards throughout that are Ca specific.

California has the entire code (Title 24 is the entire CA Building Standards Code, not just the energy code) available for view at:

Codes

www.dgs.ca.gov www.dgs.ca.gov

If you're interested... Thanks again!
 
Article 250 in the 2019 CEC has no specific Ca amendments, but it does have a couple referenced standards in there. Throughout all of the Ca codes the Ca amendments are notated by using italics to distinguish from model codes. This breaks down a little bit in the CEC because the NEC also uses italics. To help define Ca amendments they add CACACA vertically to the left of amendments. This doesn't help so much with the referenced standards because we have no way of identifying if they were already italicized in the NEC without side-by-side referencing. That's hasn't been an issue for me yet though because it's code whether it's italicized or not.
 
Agree with Texie.
Keep in mind a State or local jurisdictions might have more stringent rules and the Power Co. often requires a rod regardless of other electrodes available,.
 
Yes! when I first saw a "Ufer" ground install it was connected to the top run of rebar, I didn't know anything about it but I immediately asked why it wasn't connected to the rebar at the bottom of the footing. "It's easier." I immediately contacted my boss at the time and he said "at the bottom of the footing where new concrete will be in direct contact with bare native soil. Correction was made and that sent me down the rabbit hole, I found tons of great info about why they're so much better than ground rods IF they are installed correctly!

Thanks for that clarification.

Local jurisdictions can make more stringent rules in CA, but they have to submit them to the building standards commission and receive approval before they can take affect. Fortunately/unfortunately our POCO (PG&E) has a very strict "hands-off" approach to anything beyond their meters. They take the ultra-safe approach of not making any recommendations or corrections to anything on the private side of the meter because they don't want to get sued... again... ah lovely CA. Fresh air, clean water, and lovely forests... up until a few dozen years ago anyways... <cough cough>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top