ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues New Grounding Methods ???

Actually Gary, there was an official interpretation of that very thing that stated that it was not required to break into the concrete to get at the rebar. This code change is indicating that it better be made accessible or someone will have to break up concrete after it is poured.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Here is a good article from IAEI concerning the concrete encased electrode.
http://www.iaei.org/magazine/01_d/johnston.htm

It is still my opinion that the intent of previous codes was that the rebar was supposed to be connected. An official interpretation to the contrary and then a rewording of the 2005 Code requiring it to be connected is an admission that the NFPA messed up the wording. If it is good for safety in 2005, it was also good for safety in 2002. For safety's sake, we should have been using the rebar all along.

Gary, I totally agree with this part of the paragraph but can’t agree with the first part. The Code Making Panel has agreed that the Code needed to be changed to take advantage of the premiere grounding electrode and was aware that the intent was not to require concrete to be broken to gain access before.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Maybe we are making two different points here.

My point is in reference to Megawatts statement of "it looks like Building Steel, Rebar, Metal Waterline etc will ALL be connected now." In previous codes, those things should have all been tied together anyway.

Now, if the concrete was already poured, then the interpretation was that you didn't have to break out the concrete to get to the rebar "because it wasn't considered available". Unfortunately the wording of the rule resulted in the Electrical Contractor himself having the de facto option to either do it or not do it. I do not believe this was ever the intent.

If it was a new building, and it had a new foundation, and if the EC neglected to make the connection, then he was shirking his responsibilities. By saying "we didn't have any conduits in the slab and we weren't there when it was poured" is a cop-out. The EC should have sent a man out there to make a connection that was approved for encasement in concrete. And if the AHJ let them get by without doing it, then shame on them too.

It will be interesting to see how the 2005 Code is interpreted and enforced on this issue. The new "if present" combined with the exception for existing slabs could certainly be abused. For instance: Is a new foundation poured the week before the EC shows up on the job considered "existing"?

Unfortunately there is a whole lot more "interpreting" and "dollar saving" going on than understanding of the theory and the purpose of the rule.

One more thought. The National Electrical Code applies to ALL crafts AND the GC, not just to electrical contractors. And since the rebar system is to be a part of the grounding electrode system, then the GC and the foundation contractor may certainly be responsible for providing a means of attachment if the EC isn't on the jobsite before the pour. I wonder if any electrical manufacturers will come up with a new product to help with this?

Comments?

It is hard if not imposable to make general statements like that on a National forum.

Enforcement is not up to the NEC it is up to each area that adopts it.

Here in MA we have strict licensing and permitting, the electrical inspector can not write up a failure to the GC, the GC can not pull an electrical permit.

Any electrical issues will be written to the electrical contractor on site.

Here the cement contractor or GC can not install a whip to the re-bar for the electrician.

Here a licensed EC would have to pull a permit and have the connection to the re-bar inspected before the pour.

My point is enforcement is very different around the country.

It is hard for me to understand how the NEC applies to a carpenter when they can not perform electric work in the first place.

Bob





[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 01-01-2005).]

Here in nebraska it is illeagal for any one not a licensed electrician to do ANY electrical work for another.
The GC or carpenter of concrete guy are therefore legally prohibited from doing electrical work.
All too often the GC will not have signed the electrical contract until after the footing is in. That is when the electrician is on the job site for the first time. If a connection to the rebar is availble then we attach for the ufer ground but if it is not we use other grounding methods. Busting up some one elses work especally a footing is not a good idea from a practacle and financial point of view.

Yeah, I thought about the licensing issue after I made the statement about the NEC applying to all crafts. (doh!) In most jurisdictions, anyone doing electrical work would need to be licensed.

Now, thinking of past practices, some rebar systems got tied in and some didn't. So the buildings that didn't get the rebar used as a part of the grounding electrode, are they any less safe than a building that did have it tied in?

Comments please?

So back to the original question... Is the rebar system going to HAVE to be tied in to the grounding electrode system wherever the 2005 NEC is enforced? Could the AHJ require a foundation to be chipped up to get to the rebar where the rebar was not tied in before the pour? Or is the exception for "existing buildings" going to make it optional?

Yes, all this is totally up to the AHJ, but I am looking beyond the wording and semantics and interpretations of the Code. Just exactly what should we be doing for safeties sake?

Note: Being new to the forum, I am slowly getting a feel for it. I realize that the majority here are the electricians and contractors who are dealing with the realities of the construction site and dealing with the AHJ and I totally respect that. Since that is not my capacity, I tend to view these things from a more theoretical aspect, "What should we be doing to make this as safe as possible?" and "Why does that code rule exist" instead of "What is the AHJ going to make us do?"

[This message has been edited by Gary S (edited 01-01-2005).]

Gary, you are not the only one that doesn’t work in the trade, I haven’t been in the trade since I let my license expire in 1979. So far, I haven’t seen anybody try to get rid of me. In my opinion, this provision will be abused a lot until we get past the rough spots. I think it will be easy for the concrete people to turn up a piece of rebar so that it will be accessible after the pour.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Yes the concrete footings poured before the EC of his people show up are existing. After all it's there. If the EC does not have an existing contract, how do you tell the concrete guys to turn up a piece of rebar?
The only hope for this is the AHJ who may depending on local requirements inspect the footing before the pour. Rarely is this an electrical inspector. It would take the AHJ to make sure that this happens. Personally I doubt this will happen untill some one makes a big enough problem for the AHJ in an area to cause it to be required in the code that covers footings.