• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Q. Do you enforce this?

I have encouraged a few electricians to just encase the acorn in concrete in the wall somehow, maybe in a coffee can or water bottle or something. It would be legal and inexpensive, but really I just wanted the awesome picture. No takers so far...
 
The contrapositive of that is if the GEC to electrode connection is inaccessible, it's required to be non-reversible. Which is what 250.68(A) Exception 2 states, which I had not been aware of. Thanks for the pointer.

But yes, a not accessible, not buried, and reversible connection between the GEC and electrode is not allowed.

250.68 Grounding Electrode Conductor and Bonding Jumper Connection to Grounding Electrodes. The connection of a grounding electrode conductor at the service, at each building or structure where supplied by a feeder(s) or branch circuit(s), or at a separately derived system and associated bonding jumper(s) shall be made as specified 250.68(A) through (C).

(A) Accessibility. All mechanical elements used to terminate a grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper to a grounding electrode shall be accessible.

Exception No. 1: An encased or buried connection to a concrete-encased, driven, or buried grounding electrode shall not be required to be accessible.

Exception No. 2: Exothermic or irreversible compression connections used at terminations, together with the mechanical means used to attach such terminations to fireproofed structural metal whether or not the mechanical means is reversible, shall not be required to be accessible.
 
Exactly...the violation is installed with the drywall...not before...
Steveray, regarding WH disconnect: I agree with your post and that is how I would approach it. Currently open studs with an electrical panel visual. If drywall is applied and the visual is lost, at that point a WH disco would be required. I noticed a breaker lock which was a surprise to me, someone gave the sparky a heads up on the requirement, presumably the GC.
 
That connection is required to be accessible per NEC 250.68(A). So if it covered with drywall, an access panel should be provided at that time.
IMO, the acorn ground wire connection to the UFER upright (rebar attached to the footing steel) above the foundation wall would negate the exception No. 1 of NEC 250.68 (A) Accessibility rule. The grounding connection in question is covered with 5/8-inch Type-x drywall used as a ceiling fire separation between the garage and bedrooms above. So to gain access to the connection there would need to be a fire rated access door or panel.

The picture posted by below by Joe B, is a nice way to provide access, and a box plate cover would conceal the opening. Would have to be a larger access to the ceiling/foundation wall top plate, IMO.
 
IMO, the acorn ground wire connection to the UFER upright (rebar attached to the footing steel) above the foundation wall would negate the exception No. 1 of NEC 250.68 (A) Accessibility rule.
Certainly if the connection is not buried or encased in concrete, Exception No. 1 does not apply.
The grounding connection in question is covered with 5/8-inch Type-x drywall used as a ceiling fire separation between the garage and bedrooms above. So to gain access to the connection there would need to be a fire rated access door or panel.
I'm a bit unclear on the code path for this conclusion for the IRC.

R302.5 covers "Openings and penetrations through the walls or ceilings separating the dwelling from the garage". Is this an opening or a penetration?

R302.5.1 covers openings into a room of the dwelling, which this is not. R302.5.2 covers duct penetrations, which this is not. So that leaves R302.5.3 "other penetrations", which "shall be protected as required by Section R302.11, Item 4."

Then R302.11, Item 4, says "At openings around vents, pipes, ducts, cables and wires at ceiling and floor level, with an approved material to resist the free passage of flame and products of combustion. The material filling this annular space shall not be required to meet the ASTM E136 requirements." But we don't have a "vent, pipe, duct, cable or wire," nor an annular space.

So?

Cheers, Wayne
 
The problem with burying the UFER in the footing is that the electrician has to provide the clamp and wire prior to concrete pour which is a coordination issue. When that does happen the coiled up grounding wire laying next to the footing sometimes gets covered with the base gravel for the floor slab never to be found.

When it all goes right you're left with a wire coiled up against a foundation wall that needs conduit protection to prevent damage. The vertical rebar attached to the horizontal footing rebar has been done here numerous times and seam to be the norm, however they do not always make the connection accessible.
 
I have a contractor that is blocking off the top of the foundation wall where the UFER rebar is located. They can bust out the blocks of wood and make their acorn clamp connection just below the garage ceiling and not breach the fire separation. At least their thinking about the accessibility requirement.
 
Back
Top