ufer question for small residential addition

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
You need 20 feet before it will become a NEC qualifying electrode, so what good does 12 do?

If you would already have a CEE connected to the electrical system you don't need to add additional CEE's to the electrical system just because they were added to the structure, nothing prohibits bonding to them either though.
Click to expand...


We can agree to disagree on this point -- the building has changed & an accessible electrode is added -- where in code do you find your opinion?
 
mwm1752 said:
We can agree to disagree on this point -- the building has changed & an accessible electrode is added -- where in code do you find your opinion?
Click to expand...

Where do you find yours? The NEC is an inclusive document. If it doesn't tell you you have to do something you don't have to do it. So the burden of proof is on you. Quote the code section or codes sections that say you have to bring the service up to current codes when something such as a UFER is added.
 
Pretty clear -- I see no time period limit --

250.50 Grounding Electrode System
All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist , one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used.

now you know where to find it
 
Where does it say that if a CEE such as rebar is installed in the footing for an addition that it must be bonded to the existing Service GES after it has already been established ?

To me the purpose is to bond the Service to a CEE if its available, not to require a CEE to be bonded to the service after a grounding system has already been established.

What hazard is there of rebar encased in concrete 2 foot in the ground installed next to a bonded rebar that is encased in concrete 2 foot in the ground?

JAP>
 
mwm1752 said:
Pretty clear -- I see no time period limit --

250.50 Grounding Electrode System
All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist , one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used.
Click to expand...

If the service is untouched I don't see how you can require the GES to be updated.

now you know where to find it
Click to expand...
That right there was funny.
 
jap said:
Where does it say that if a CEE such as rebar is installed in the footing for an addition that it must be bonded to the existing Service GES after it has already been established ?
Click to expand...

You know the NEC is not written like that. 250.50 would be the section.

To me the purpose is to bond the Service to a CEE if its available, not to require a CEE to be bonded to the service after a grounding system has already been established.
Click to expand...

And that is a fine opinion, but you are not the AHJ.

What hazard is there of rebar encased in concrete 2 foot in the ground installed next to a bonded rebar that is encased in concrete 2 foot in the ground?
Click to expand...

Who in this thread said a buried unused electrode is a hazard?
 
mwm1752 said:
Pretty clear -- I see no time period limit --

250.50 Grounding Electrode System
All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist , one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used.

now you know where to find it
Click to expand...

And if the AHJ determines that you need to bring that portion of the code up to current code and the laws of you state allow that AHJ to make that determination then and only then is that code applicable. I am not an idiot and I know where to find that section, but your reading comprehension is obviously less than stellar because your sarcastic answer didn't answer the question. If that section is applicable, then I assume in your jurisdiction, one must add garage receptacles, make sure the bathrooms are on dedicated 20 amp receptacles, that all exterior GFI's are weather resistant and exist. Arc faults on all the required circuits, All interior receptacles are upgraded to tamper resistant, etc. Regardless of when the home is built. Do you wait until the next code cycle and then go through the area upgrading all the houses? I know where to find all of those requirements in the code as well.
 
Strathead said:
And if the AHJ determines that you need to bring that portion of the code up to current code and the laws of you state allow that AHJ to make that determination then and only then is that code applicable.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in 250.50 telling us it only applies when a service is installed.

An AHJ could quite easily decide 250.50 applies when an qualifying electrode is created.

You are choosing to believe it only applies when a service is installed, you are certainly entitled to that common opinion but that does not make an AHJ out of line feeling differently.
 
iwire said:
There is nothing in 250.50 telling us it only applies when a service is installed.

An AHJ could quite easily decide 250.50 applies when an qualifying electrode is created.

You are choosing to believe it only applies when a service is installed, you are certainly entitled to that common opinion but that does not make an AHJ out of line feeling differently.
Click to expand...

As I stated and has been stated here The code is inclusive. Tell me any one of the code upgrades I listed where the code tells you they only apply when the particular system is upgraded. By definition, the AHJ has the authority to decide anything, he is the authority. I clearly stated that. In my state, however, the only authority that has jurisdiction to decide an issue like that is the State authority, not the local one. This was written to prevent every little district to create its own set of rules.
 
Strathead said:
As I stated and has been stated here The code is inclusive.
Click to expand...

Strat, earlier you said
I am not stupid
Click to expand...

No one here is saying you are, I certainly am not. I am suggesting you are not reading what the code says, you are saying what you feel it should say.

Here is the code section

III. Grounding Electrode System and Grounding
Electrode Conductor
250.50 Grounding Electrode System. All grounding electrodes
as described in 2S0.S2(A)(l) through (A)(7) that are
present at each building or structure served shall be bonded
together to form the grounding electrode system. Where
none of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of
the grounding electrodes specified in 2S0.S2(A)(4) through
(A)(8) shall be installed and used.

Exception: Concrete-encased electrodes of existing buildings
or structures shall not be required to be part of the
grounding electrode system where the steel reinforcing bars
or rods are not accessible for use without disturbing the
concrete.
Click to expand...

What words in that section tell you it only applies when work is being done on a service?


Tell me any one of the code upgrades I listed where the code tells you they only apply when the particular system is upgraded.
Click to expand...

Lets stay on this electrode topic for now.


By definition, the AHJ has the authority to decide anything, he is the authority. I clearly stated that. In my state, however, the only authority that has jurisdiction to decide an issue like that is the State authority, not the local one. This was written to prevent every little district to create its own set of rules.
Click to expand...

But you are making it sound like in this case the AHJ is asking for more than what the code requires. I disagree, if you read 250.50 it is required.
 
iwire said:
Strat, earlier you said

No one here is saying you are, I certainly am not. I am suggesting you are not reading what the code says, you are saying what you feel it should say.

Here is the code section



What words in that section tell you it only applies when work is being done on a service?




Lets stay on this electrode topic for now.




But you are making it sound like in this case the AHJ is asking for more than what the code requires. I disagree, if you read 250.50 it is required.
Click to expand...

You didn't say or inply I was stupid, mwm1752 implied it by his sarcastic quip about now knowing where to find it.

Other than that, we are going around and around in a circle. I keep saying the code is an inclusive document. Unless it tells you to do something you don't have to do it. You keep ignoring that statement and asserting the AHJ's right to interpret that section to require existing services to be upgraded. Which is more than the code requires.
 
Strathead said:
Other than that, we are going around and around in a circle. I keep saying the code is an inclusive document. Unless it tells you to do something you don't have to do it.
Click to expand...

250.50 tells us 'to do it'. It uses the world 'shall' and 'all'

You keep ignoring that statement and asserting the AHJ's right to interpret that section to require existing services to be upgraded. Which is more than the code requires.
Click to expand...

I have not ignored it.

I have pointed out that 250.50 is section in the NEC, I have pointed out that it says we 'shall' bond 'all' the electrodes.

I have asked you where you see any code section that says 250.50 only applies when a panel is worked on / changed etc?


You have ignored that request.
 
Actually I was asked to find the section that states all existing GEC's are to be connected to form the grounding system -- It was implied I had no section to refer to or I was stupid to ask such a thing -- I apologize if my humor was insulting but if you knew the section why did you ask? You could have left it as we agree to disagree -- the building has changed -- you change receptacles should they be tp & afci/gfi upgraded per code? you add an outlet what happens --upgrade???? There is always a fine line to upgrades
 
Last edited:
Strathead said:
You didn't say or inply I was stupid, mwm1752 implied it by his sarcastic quip about now knowing where to find it.

Other than that, we are going around and around in a circle. I keep saying the code is an inclusive document. Unless it tells you to do something you don't have to do it. You keep ignoring that statement and asserting the AHJ's right to interpret that section to require existing services to be upgraded. Which is more than the code requires.
Click to expand...


9 0.4 Enforcement
This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
 
mwm1752 said:
9 0.4 Enforcement
This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including signaling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
Click to expand...

Interpretation is not even close to making rules up which strat seems to feel is happening here. :huh:
 
iwire said:
Interpretation is not even close to making rules up which strat seems to feel is happening here. :huh:
Click to expand...


I have not changed the words of the code & have given many examples to support my point -- way more than the code is inclusive -- we all know how well 2 grd rods are as an electrode system & how important it is to the structure & not to make the system better due to minor effort seems to ignore 90.1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top