Connecting UFER to a ground rod

[KaBoom!]

Infinity, we can go back and forth with this all day. I understand your stance and code-wise I agree with you. But not everyone else does, including New Jersey inspectors. And I am sick of going back to jobs to Cadweld the bonding jumpers on multi-family houses because the inspector says it's the GEC and needs an irreversible connection. As I mentioned, even members of this forum and other electrical groups also feel that way. It is an interpretation, and as such the AHJ is going to be the final word on the matter unless the state wants to step in and clear it up, which they haven't after numerous calls.

So I would like a way to splice (2) #4's together both to extend and to tap. As far as I know, C-Taps would be the best way to tap for this purpose, but I am open to other suggestions.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Any crimp lug would work if it is rated for outdoor or direct burial. Of course you would need a crimp tool.

 

[infinity]

Infinity, we can go back and forth with this all day. I understand your stance and code-wise I agree with you. But not everyone else does, including New Jersey inspectors. And I am sick of going back to jobs to Cadweld the bonding jumpers on multi-family houses because the inspector says it's the GEC and needs an irreversible connection. As I mentioned, even members of this forum and other electrical groups also feel that way. It is an interpretation, and as such the AHJ is going to be the final word on the matter unless the state wants to step in and clear it up, which they haven't after numerous calls.

It's just me but IMO inspectors need to be challenged when they're wrong. From a business perspective I get it, going back to fix a violation (that isn't really a violation) to satisfy an inspector who makes a mistake costs you money. We have used split bolts to tap the GEC and never had a problem with an inspector. For the record here in NJ you can call or email the DCA to get an interpretation.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I thought there was a new irreversible connector that was designed to be installed with a hammer. It had pins that you hit that indented the connector. I can't find it.

 

[KaBoom!]

It's just me but IMO inspectors need to be challenged when they're wrong.

I have, many times.

From a business perspective I get it, going back to fix a violation (that isn't really a violation)

The inspector says that it is a violation, he says that it is a GEC going to that second (and/or third) panel, and cites the code that requires an irreversible splice on a GEC.

For the record here in NJ you can call or email the DCA to get an interpretation.

Have you actually tried that since Suzanne left? Rob was OK, but today they simply won't help, and I was forced by law to go back and make an irreversible connection on multiple jobs.

 

[infinity]

I have, many times. The inspector says that it is a violation, he says that it is a GEC going to that second (and/or third) panel, and cites the code that requires an irreversible splice on a GEC.

Have you actually tried that since Suzanne left? Rob was OK, but today they simply won't help, and I was forced by law to go back and make an irreversible connection on multiple jobs.

I hear you. I submitted a question a year ago and was not happy with the response because they made no determination as to what was actually required.

 

[packersparky]

This diagram is from the NEC handbook. It clearly shows the GEC and the bonding jumpers. Only the GEC is required to be continuous to the grounding electrode.

 

[infinity]

This diagram is from the NEC handbook. It clearly shows the GEC and the bonding jumpers. Only the GEC is required to be continuous to the grounding electrode.

View attachment 21020

Yes, this is one of those sections of the NEC that is clear and not open to interpretation which is why it bugs me when installers like KaBoom have to satiate inspectors who are incorrect. :rant:

 

[kwired]

If there is a CEE an ground rod(s) are not needed. The CEE doesn't need supplemental electrodes.

Had there been a water pipe electrode it needs supplemental electrode, but the CEE would have qualified for that.

Bottom line is ground rods are not required but not prohibited either.

Now the point that seems to be getting missed here is if OP doesn't use a rod as a place to land the "bonding jumper" to the CEE, and only has the CEE as the only electrode - now he is splicing the GEC, because the tail that was left there doesn't reach his service equipment. If you splice a GEC it must be an irreversible means AND must be listed for grounding, which you can't just crimp any connector that you want on it.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Now the point that seems to be getting missed here is if OP doesn't use a rod as a place to land the "bonding jumper" to the CEE, and only has the CEE as the only electrode - now he is splicing the GEC, because the tail that was left there doesn't reach his service equipment. If you splice a GEC it must be an irreversible means AND must be listed for grounding, which you can't just crimp any connector that you want on it.

If he drives the rod then the rod is an electrode whether it is needed or not. The wire to the ufer is a bonding jumper. IMO. I don't like it but I think that works. No different than having 2 rods and jump from on to the other. In this case the other rod is a ufer

 

[KaBoom!]

Yes, this is one of those sections of the NEC that is clear and not open to interpretation which is why it bugs me when installers like KaBoom have to satiate inspectors who are incorrect. :rant:

You keep digging in.

First of all, the image that you quoted is NOT the situation that I am talking about, and you know it. I am speaking about multiple main service disconnects. It is NOT clear that the GEC ends before the disconnect and each one of those main discos receives a bonding jumper. Many AHJ's interpret it as being a GEC going to each main disco. Ask Dennis, he is not saying it now, but in my searches I have found him saying multiple times that he feels splitbolts are not complaint. Does he bug you too? If it is as clear as you say it is, that means he is just flat out wrong, correct?

And for you to act as if I am the problem here is out of line. We already discussed how the state will not help. What would you like me to do? Let them fine me the $2,000 every week that the violation exists? What do I do when the inspector and code official won't budge and the state won't help?

I just wanted a crimper that would work to tap (2) #4's.

 

[kwired]

If he drives the rod then the rod is an electrode whether it is needed or not. The wire to the ufer is a bonding jumper. IMO. I don't like it but I think that works. No different than having 2 rods and jump from on to the other. In this case the other rod is a ufer

Correct, if he drives the rod....and the CEE is the supplemental electrode. Some may not like to look at it that way, but complies with NEC.

Some keep saying he doesn't need the rod at all, which is true, but the rod is being used as a way get around needing irreversible splicing method and a tool to install it with, that likely cost more than the rod and the clamps.

 

[packersparky]

You keep digging in.

First of all, the image that you quoted is NOT the situation that I am talking about, and you know it. I am speaking about multiple main service disconnects. It is NOT clear that the GEC ends before the disconnect and each one of those main discos receives a bonding jumper. Many AHJ's interpret it as being a GEC going to each main disco. Ask Dennis, he is not saying it now, but in my searches I have found him saying multiple times that he feels splitbolts are not complaint. Does he bug you too? If it is as clear as you say it is, that means he is just flat out wrong, correct?

And for you to act as if I am the problem here is out of line. We already discussed how the state will not help. What would you like me to do? Let them fine me the $2,000 every week that the violation exists? What do I do when the inspector and code official won't budge and the state won't help?

I just wanted a crimper that would work to tap (2) #4's.

Another diagram from the NEC handbook that deals with taps to the GEC. The GEC does not have to terminate in a service disconnect.




I don't think Infinity's remark was meant as derogatory towards you, rather towards inspectors that apply the NEC incorrectly.

 

[kwired]

Another diagram from the NEC handbook that deals with taps to the GEC. The GEC does not have to terminate in a service disconnect.

View attachment 21021


I don't think Infinity's remark was meant as derogatory towards you, rather towards inspectors that apply the NEC incorrectly.

In OP's case doesn't sound like there is multiple service disconnecting means. GEC pretty much must run to a single service disconnecting means, or be spliced with proper methods. OP is electing to install an additional electrode even though it isn't otherwise required, now he has changed the lead from the CEE to a bonding jumper instead of a GEC.

 

[packersparky]

In OP's case doesn't sound like there is multiple service disconnecting means. GEC pretty much must run to a single service disconnecting means, or be spliced with proper methods. OP is electing to install an additional electrode even though it isn't otherwise required, now he has changed the lead from the CEE to a bonding jumper instead of a GEC.

Not in the original post, but look at post #31.

 

[KaBoom!]

Another diagram from the NEC handbook that deals with taps to the GEC. The GEC does not have to terminate in a service disconnect.

View attachment 21021

That is the image that I have in my iPad that I have shown to these inspectors. Nothing in that image says those taps don't have to be irreversible, so the inspectors say that those conductors are still the GEC and it has to follow the code for the GEC.

 

[KaBoom!]

In OP's case doesn't sound like there is multiple service disconnecting means. GEC pretty much must run to a single service disconnecting means, or be spliced with proper methods. OP is electing to install an additional electrode even though it isn't otherwise required, now he has changed the lead from the CEE to a bonding jumper instead of a GEC.

Yes, we are talking about 2 different things here.

As for the situation with the UFER, that is resolved. Right now we are talking about how I am killing the trade by bowing down to the overloads.

 

[packersparky]

Another diagram from the NEC handbook that deals with taps to the GEC. The GEC does not have to terminate in a service disconnect.

View attachment 21021


I don't think Infinity's remark was meant as derogatory towards you, rather towards inspectors that apply the NEC incorrectly.

I should add that the tap connections do not have to be irreversible, they just have to comply with 250.64(D)(1), (2) or (3),

The tap conductors shall be connected to the common grounding electrode conductor
by one of the following methods in such a manner
that the common grounding electrode conductor remains
without a splice or joint:
(1) Exothermic welding.
(2) Connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment.
(3) Connections to an aluminum or copper busbar not less
than 6 mm thick × 50 mm wide (1⁄4 in. thick × 2 in. wide)
and of sufficient length to accommodate the number of
terminations necessary for the installation.

 

[david]

Another diagram from the NEC handbook that deals with taps to the GEC. The GEC does not have to terminate in a service disconnect.

View attachment 21021


I don't think Infinity's remark was meant as derogatory towards you, rather towards inspectors that apply the NEC incorrectly.

i do not see how it is concluded the NEC continuous without spicing the GEC is being applied incorrectly.

The illustration of GEC taps with multi and ganged service disconnects is specifically allowed in the NEC
and the grounding electrode conductor conductor is still required to be with out splice unless irreversible


And just for what it is worth i do not see a splice in the GEC or the bonding conductors bonding the grounding electrodes together in the illustration of the grounding electrode system that posted here in 27

 

[kwired]

Not in the original post, but look at post #31.

Kind of missed that, plus missed the fact that poster of #31 was the OP.

That is the image that I have in my iPad that I have shown to these inspectors. Nothing in that image says those taps don't have to be irreversible, so the inspectors say that those conductors are still the GEC and it has to follow the code for the GEC.

I'd say if you did the tap method with your OP install, you at least need to bring those multiple taps all the way to this common GEC that was left there for you. If you only ran them to a 4 AWG in the vicinity of the disconnecting means, and a single conductor to the tail left for you, you'd need irreversible splicing method and listed for grounding at that connection to the tail.