No ufer ground installed. Options?
- Thread starter crtemp
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
Interesting. The local amendments seem to consider that any poured concrete foundation automatically contains a CEE. But, on the other hand, you are not required to connect to it unless it is accessible.
Since the NEC does not contain this provision, either the NEC does not consider such an isolated set of rebar a CEE or else the NEC requires you to connect to it whether it is accessible or not (or at least to one inaccessible CEE if there is more than one.)
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
When was the foundation poured? If before March 31, you can claim it was existing, and a Ufer is not required - that was the way the Chief Electrical Inspector allowed as explained in an electrical currents article.
New Requirement for Concrete Encased Electrodes (Ufer Grounds)
Beginning March 1, in accordance with
WAC 296-46B-250(2), except for mobile/manufactured homes, a concrete encased grounding electrode must be installed and used at each new building or structure that is built upon a permanent concrete foundation. If the concrete encased grounding electrode is not available for connections, a ground ring must be installed per NEC 250. The concrete encased electrode must comply with NEC 250.52(A)(3). Inspection of the electrode may be accomplished by the following methods:
a) At the time of inspection of other work on the project, providing the concrete encased electrode is accessible for a visual inspection;
b) At the time of the service inspection providing the installer has provided a method so the inspector can verify the continuity of the electrode conductor along its entire length (e.g. attaching a length of copper wire to one end of the electrode that reaches the location of the grounding electrode conductor that will enable the inspector to measure the resistance with a standard resistance tester). The concrete encased electrode does not have to be accessible for a visual inspection; or
c) Other method when prior approval, on a jobsite basis, is given by the inspector. If a special inspection trip is required to inspect a grounding electrode conductor, a trip fee will be charged for that inspection in addition to the normal permit fee.
This is what the inspectors are going off. It is Washington state code. This house is about 3800 square feet so if a ground ring was installed it would be pretty expensive. I don't know why all of the sudden ground rods aren't good enough??
They said it matters when the building permit was issued to get around it. His was issued on April 16th
Beginning March 1, in accordance with
WAC 296-46B-250(2), except for mobile/manufactured homes, a concrete encased grounding electrode must be installed and used at each new building or structure that is built upon a permanent concrete foundation. If the concrete encased grounding electrode is not available for connections, a ground ring must be installed per NEC 250. The concrete encased electrode must comply with NEC 250.52(A)(3). Inspection of the electrode may be accomplished by the following methods:
a) At the time of inspection of other work on the project, providing the concrete encased electrode is accessible for a visual inspection;
b) At the time of the service inspection providing the installer has provided a method so the inspector can verify the continuity of the electrode conductor along its entire length (e.g. attaching a length of copper wire to one end of the electrode that reaches the location of the grounding electrode conductor that will enable the inspector to measure the resistance with a standard resistance tester). The concrete encased electrode does not have to be accessible for a visual inspection; or
c) Other method when prior approval, on a jobsite basis, is given by the inspector. If a special inspection trip is required to inspect a grounding electrode conductor, a trip fee will be charged for that inspection in addition to the normal permit fee.
This is what the inspectors are going off. It is Washington state code. This house is about 3800 square feet so if a ground ring was installed it would be pretty expensive. I don't know why all of the sudden ground rods aren't good enough??
They said it matters when the building permit was issued to get around it. His was issued on April 16th
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
And if the slab was poured before March 1st and the building permit was issues on April 16th, do not expect any sympathy.
UFER
UFER
How do you know rebar is present? Resi construction, in my area, typically does not use rebar in footings. Commercial does.
If there is no rebar, what do you connect to--nothing!
I would dig a 20' trench, bury a 20' piece of rebar and cover it with cement. Might cost a few bucks but in the economic sence it's probably a heck of a lot less expensive than chipping out a hole to get to the rebar in the footing.
Good luck!
UFER
How do you know rebar is present? Resi construction, in my area, typically does not use rebar in footings. Commercial does.
If there is no rebar, what do you connect to--nothing!
I would dig a 20' trench, bury a 20' piece of rebar and cover it with cement. Might cost a few bucks but in the economic sence it's probably a heck of a lot less expensive than chipping out a hole to get to the rebar in the footing.
Good luck!
mitukerner
New member
- Location
- Atlanta, GA
I ran into this situation when the framer cut the rebar (and framed over it) that i had installed for a multi-family building. This may or may not be the correct solution, but the AHJ allowed me to dig a supplementary footer next to the service that was 2' deep and 20' long, i installed a 20' piece of rebar (or #4 bare wire) that was raised 2" off of the earth and then had the concrete sub fill it in with concrete. Its an expensive solution, but the framer had to pay for it, so i didn't mind.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
Sounds like a workable solution, especially since the AHJ accepted it, although it is not clear from the code language whether a "supplementary" footer that is not actually a structural footer for the building is OK. Chipping down to a piece of rebar and then repairing the concrete has also been discussed as an option. Either one could be less expensive than a ground ring, depending on the soil, etc.I ran into this situation when the framer cut the rebar (and framed over it) that i had installed for a multi-family building. This may or may not be the correct solution, but the AHJ allowed me to dig a supplementary footer next to the service that was 2' deep and 20' long, i installed a 20' piece of rebar (or #4 bare wire) that was raised 2" off of the earth and then had the concrete sub fill it in with concrete. Its an expensive solution, but the framer had to pay for it, so i didn't mind.
I'm supprised that the inspector could be so bold as to not allow 2 ground rods in this case, if it is a new foundation he should have verified there was a UFFER installed before signing off on the inspection prior to pouring it and since he did he should have worked with you.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
I think that the inspector does not feel that he has the ability to waive the state code requirement even if they did not catch the problem before the pour.
- Status