Just the Concrete Encased Electrode

[jar546]

A recent thread got me thinking so I thought I would pose the following scenario and ask a question to see what opinions we have out there when it comes to Article 250 of the NEC. Here it goes.

Scenario
An electrician goes above and beyond by attaching 22' of #4awg copper in two places with appropriate clamps to rebar for a footer. There are hundreds of feet of rebar connected in this footer. This #4awg copper, wire with 22' of it embedded in the footer and connected in two places to the rebar is being used as the grounding electrode and grounding electrode conductor.

Question
When the electrical service is built for this structure, will the electrician also be required to install one of more ground rods in addition to the CEE that is already in place?

 

[Gregg Harris]

Not required

 

[wwhitney]

Definite no for the NEC. A single CEE suffices.

NEC 250.53 tells us which electrodes require a supplemental electrode, and they are rod, pipe, plate, and metal underground water pipe electrodes. No supplemental required for a CEE.

I have heard that some POCOs require a ground rod to be installed and connected at the meter or service, but that is not an NEC requirement.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jar546]

Not required

Definite no for the NEC. A single CEE suffices.

I must agree. Since two electrical heavies have weighed in, I will share my story.

My dad, a general contractor, was building an addition for his sister—my aunt—and asked if I’d wire it and install a new service. I didn’t have time for this, but since it was family, I agreed. At this point, I had been working for years as a Building Code Official, Electrical Inspector, and thought I had hung up my license as a Master Electrician—but apparently, blood is thicker than water.

A few days later, my dad called me to say the footing inspection was scheduled for the next morning and that I needed to be there to connect the rebar to the grounding electrode system. The new service was going to be relocated to the addition, so I needed to install the Concrete Encased Electrode (CEE).

I cleared my schedule, got there early, and picked up 30 feet of #4 AWG copper, two rated clamps, and some zip ties. Since I like to go above and beyond, I decided to install 22 feet of copper in the footer, attaching it in two places to the rebar, leaving the last 8 feet for my connection to the neutral in the service disconnect. I could have just thrown in a 10-foot piece with one clamp and called it a day, but that’s not how I roll.

As I was making my connections, I heard the inspector arrive for the footing inspection. He was a combination residential inspector—meaning he was going to be the same guy inspecting my electrical work. As I was down in the trench, I heard him ask my dad:

"What is that wire he’s putting in?"

My dad, without missing a beat, responded, "He’s the electrician. Why don’t you ask him?"

The inspector then called out to me, "What’s that wire for?"

At first, I was surprised he even asked the question, knowing he was also the electrical inspector. I climbed out of the trench, looked him in the eye, and said:

"It’s a Concrete Encased Electrode (CEE)."

Then came his next question: "What’s it for?"

Really?

I explained that it exceeded NEC requirements and that by installing the CEE, I wouldn’t need to drive ground rods, which was great because the foundation was being built over rocky terrain.

That’s when he hit me with this gem:

"Oh no, you have to put ground rods in."

I told him, "No, I don’t. And I won’t be installing any ground rods."

Then came the kicker: "You have to put in ground rods. That’s what I see everyone else do."

And that’s when it hit me. This inspector wasn’t basing his inspections on the NEC—he was learning by watching what electricians were doing, whether they were following code or not.

At this point, I asked him for the specific NEC section that required ground rods in addition to the CEE. Silence.

I told him I’d be happy to show him exactly where the code says ground rods are not required in this situation.

Then, and I swear this part is 100% true, he looked at me and said:

"What do you think you are, some kind of inspector?"

I smiled.

"Yeah, as a matter of fact, I am."

Then I gave him some free advice—if he was going to be doing electrical inspections, he needed to actually know the code. Otherwise, some contractors would take advantage of him and lead him around by the nose.

A few years later, my uncle called me and said he knew a really good guy looking for a job as an inspector.

Guess who it was?

I told my uncle I wasn’t interested.

 

[Gregg Harris]

Unfortunately, this holds true for a great many cross inspectors, and their technical expertise is not what it should be. I have known some that were okay but the majority especially when it comes to electrical and mechanical failed miserably

 

[Mr. Inspector]

A problem with CEE's is when the existing house gets a solar system the contractors can't prove the connection to the rebar, so they now disconnect the CEE and add 2 ground rods. The same goes for a upgraded or reconnection of service. So eventually the majorly of houses that had a CEE when new will be switched to 2 ground rods.

 

[jar546]

so they now disconnect the CEE

Which creates a violation. They don't have to prove it if the house has a CO and the records show it was inspected. That would never fly with me. If they want to add additional ground rods, that's OK, but do not disconnect the GEC that connects the CEE. Automatic failure.

 

[steveray]

Typically here the rods are supplemental to the water pipe...per 250.53A2..The CEE needs no supplement....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Which creates a violation. They don't have to prove it if the house has a CO and the records show it was inspected. That would never fly with me. If they want to add additional ground rods, that's OK, but do not disconnect the GEC that connects the CEE. Automatic failure.

What records? I never saw a CEE on plans or in a C. O. for a house. Even if it was recorded, I would not know it the existing CEE is still good. It's easier for the contractor to install two rods than to find any records about it which probably don't exist. Most of the time all we ever see is a wire going into the ground. Once in a while they will bend the rebar up into the basement when the house is first built where I could see the connection and know it's ok.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Typically here the rods are supplemental to the water pipe...per 250.53A2..The CEE needs no supplement....

A CEE doesn't need any supplements, BUT ... once one or two ground rods are driven into the ground they have to be bonded to the CEE, not disconnected.

 

[bill1952]

What records? I never saw a CEE on plans or in a C. O. for a house. Even if it was recorded, I would not know it the existing CEE is still good. It's easier for the contractor to install two rods than to find any records about it which probably don't exist. Most of the time all we ever see is a wire going into the ground. Once in a while they will bend the rebar up into the basement when the house is first built where I could see the connection and know it's ok.

So if the existing panel is grounded, you feel it still needs to be proven if making a change?

 

[SCBO1]

The POCO wants it's meter socket grounded here, so we see a GE and GEC with the Ufer.

 

[jar546]

What records?

The pemit records and previous inspections. If you know they are disconnecting the CEE as you stated, then you know it exists and can be hooked back up.

 

[ICE]

Quite often there is a bare wire leaving the panel with no explanation as to where it went, Here in California there is usually a connection to a rebar that was stubbed up from the footing. That connection is sometimes available behind a cover plate.

During service upgrades and solar installations there is a need to find and verify the connection to the CEE. Lets have a look at some of the examples that are out there. Rotten, stinking messes that have been painted, plastered and bastardized are typical. The last picture was an archeological expedition.

 

[steveray]

Those all look good from the East coast...

 

[wwhitney]

Lets have a look at some of the examples that are out there.

In the first picture, if the armor is steel (not aluminum), there's a violation--the end of the armor would need to be bonded to the GEC or grounding electrode. NEC 250.64(E)(1).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[SCBO1]

True story:
Gas station going in and they call for a footing inspection in segments, I get there and the cement is coming around the corner and I say "Hey buddy, where's your Ufer ground!" JOE, JOE! Get the ground wire, quick! they started trying to hold back the cement with shovels, he ended up laying on his belly and was doing the breaststroke trying to keep cement from getting in the way, he was able to get the grounding clamp on.

That job had a salt ground, copper water pipe ground, Ufer and building steel ground.

 

[ICE]

In the first picture, if the armor is steel (not aluminum), there's a violation--the end of the armor would need to be bonded to the GEC or grounding electrode. NEC 250.64(E)(1).

Cheers, Way

Something like this? Every picture that I have is a code violation.

 

[wwhitney]

Something like this? Every picture that I have is a code violation.

Maybe, hard to see behind the paint. If the clamp on the armor is rigidly connected to the clamp body on the ground rod, then yes. Below is a picture of such a product without all the paint. [And again, not required if the armor is aluminum.]

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The pemit records and previous inspections. If you know they are disconnecting the CEE as you stated, then you know it exists and can be hooked back up.

It is the contractor that needs to prove if there was a CEE there not the inspectors. If they cut the wire to the CEE then inspector would not know. If i held up a service reconnect because they may have cut the wire to the CEE and installed two ground rods I would get in a lot of trouble with the boss. I know he would say no inspector did that before, pass it. It also would comply to code because code just says to connect to the rebar if it is available.
Also even if we want to find a record, we can't get inspection records from the 3rd party inspection company that did the inspections when the house was new if it had an inspection.

Where does it say that you cannot replace the CEE with a different grounding system?

 

[bill1952]

It is the contractor that needs to prove if there was a CEE there not the inspectors

This suggests anytime work is done on an existing building, everything has to be resubmitted and reinspected, and that no one can rely on anything having been done correctly before. I guess no crazier than what's happening elsewhere.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It is the contractor that needs to prove if there was a CEE there not the inspectors. If they cut the wire to the CEE then inspector would not know. If i held up a service reconnect because they may have cut the wire to the CEE and installed two ground rods I would get in a lot of trouble with the boss. I know he would say no inspector did that before, pass it. It also would comply to code because code just says to connect to the rebar if it is available.
Also even if we want to find a record, we can't get inspection records from the 3rd party inspection company that did the inspections when the house was new if it had an inspection.

That doesn't comply with code. From the 2021 IRC:

E3608.1 Grounding electrode system. All electrodes specified
in Sections E3608.1.1, E3608.1.2, E3608.1.3, E3608.1.4
E3608.1.5 and E3608.1.6 that are present at each building or
structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding
electrode system. Where none of these electrodes are
present, one or more of the electrodes specified in Sections
E3608.1.3, E3608.1.4, E3608.1.5 and E3608.1.6 shall be
installed and used. (250.50)

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. (250.50 Exception)

E3608.1.1 is a metal underground water pipe,
E3608.1.2 is a concrete-encased electrode,
E3608.1.3 is a ground ring,
E3608.1.4 is rod and pipe electrodes,
E3608.1.5 is a plate electrode, and
E3608.1.6 is any other grounding electrode.

If an existing connection to a CEE is cut (disconnected), that's a violation. Unless they cut the wire leading to the CEE flush with the face of the concrete, it should be possible (and required) to repair the connection, not abandon it.

Where does it say that you cannot replace the CEE with a different grounding system?

IRC E3608.1. The CEE is present, therefore any other grounding electrodes you add must be bonded to the CEE.

 

[ICE]

Maybe, hard to see behind the paint. If the clamp on the armor is rigidly connected to the clamp body on the ground rod, then yes. Below is a picture of such a product without all the paint. [And again, not required if the armor is aluminum.]

Cheers, Wayne

Since I always show the wrong way to do things, I decided to show some examples of how it is done.

Here is a correct clamp on the bottom and an incorrect clamp on the top. Makes me wonder which clamp was done first.



This is the work of one individual and the top half is better than the bottom half. The extra wire is a violation....but other than that...



I did find a nearly correct installation. Of the 582 pictures in that album, there was just one.


I also found a picture showing how it is done in Canada.

 

[SCBO1]

NEC section 250.53 (1) Below permanent moisture level.

Ground rods (GE) that are 8-ft, should be placed below the soil. I see about 90% of ground rods above grade, I ask that they be about 1/2 a coffee can below grade with the approved fitting visible.