# "That's F*&'n Bullsh&%" He said



## jar546 (Feb 12, 2019)

2014 NEC applies, here is the scenario.

Inspection for a temp service for a commercial construction site.

Temp Service with #6 copper THWN to panel with a 60A breaker (used as main) along with a 30A and two 20A breakers supplying 4 GFCI receptacles.  The wire to the temp mast was THHN black, red and another black with white tape to signify neutral (strike one), there was just one ground rod installed (strike 2), upon further inspection there was heavy oxidation on all connection and when I gave a slight tug on the service conductors from the mast to the 60A breaker, they just pulled right out they were so loose (strike 3).  Some other wires on the neutral bar also pulled right off from being so loose (see strike 3).  No electrician on site, just the GC who gave the news to.  His first response was: "I never heard of 2 ground rods, is that new?"  He then proceeded to call the electrician to tell him he failed the inspection.  When he broke the news and told him he was standing here with the inspector, the electrician's lound response was "That's fu^&'n bulls&^$t!" at which point I stated that I am not here to argue and to please call for a reinspection when you are ready.

So the NEC violations were:
250.53(A)(2)
110.14
200.6 

Would anyone have added anything else or done something different?

I forgot to check for 408.36(D) when I was there so I hope that is not an issue on reinspection.


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2019)

I ask for the available fault current on commercial sites.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 12, 2019)

ICE said:


> I ask for the available fault current on commercial sites.



For a temp pole?  Hmmmmm


----------



## ICE (Feb 12, 2019)

A temporary service can blow up the same as a permanent service. And temporary service can be there for a long time.  The last fast food restaurant took eight months to build. The aic was 65k.

Trust me on this, the pushback is tremendous.  I’m pretty sure that few inspectors pay attention to this.  But it is important.  The Edison planner was incredulous.... he said that nobody enforces this but me.  I told him that if one explodes, everybody will.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 13, 2019)

See exception under 250.53 (2) Depending on resistance to earth of 25 ohms.

Here the POCO sets the temporary electric and their install drawing only shows one electrode. with that said, I've never gave it much thought to require two GE's on a temporary meter set up.

If required (depending on resistance to earth of 25 ohms) will you allow the second GE to be > 6ft and daisy chained?


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> See exception under 250.53 (2) Depending on resistance to earth of 25 ohms.
> 
> Here the POCO sets the temporary electric and their install drawing only shows one electrode. with that said, I've never gave it much thought to require two GE's on a temporary meter set up.
> 
> If required (depending on resistance to earth of 25 ohms) will you allow the second GE to be > 6ft and daisy chained?


That's how we do it here, I've seen one ground rod at one location and two required a block away, it's none of the business of the building inspector, totally the business of the utility inspector.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> See exception under 250.53 (2) Depending on resistance to earth of 25 ohms.
> 
> Here the POCO sets the temporary electric and their install drawing only shows one electrode. with that said, I've never gave it much thought to require two GE's on a temporary meter set up.
> 
> If required (depending on resistance to earth of 25 ohms) will you allow the second GE to be > 6ft and daisy chained?



When was the last time an electrician had the equipment necessary and took the time to do the ground rod resistance testing?  It is a lot cheaper to do the 2nd ground rod.  I can also tell you that many times a single ground rod won't give you the 25 Ohms you need depending on soil conditions.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

conarb said:


> That's how we do it here, I've seen one ground rod at one location and two required a block away, it's none of the business of the building inspector, totally the business of the utility inspector.



Nice trolling statement.  Luckily everyone else knows better.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 13, 2019)

conarb said:


> it's none of the business of the building inspector, totally the business of the utility inspector.


I agree it might not be the AHJ inspectors business we work with the utility companies and if they have requirements above ours that is what we educate the contractors about and only approve inspections that will meet the utility providers requirements. Example the gas company has a higher minimum pressure than the code requires and the electric co op requires two ground rods minimum 8 ft apart


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 13, 2019)

The POCO here said the temps are rigged to the yard box at the curb. Service wires are in flex conduit that enters their transformer or pedestal. Out of my hands.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

JAR said:
			
		

> He then proceeded to call the electrician to tell him he failed the inspection. When he broke the news and told him he was standing here with the inspector, the electrician's lound response was "That's fu^&'n bulls&^$t!" at which point I stated that I am not here to argue and to please call for a reinspection when you are ready.



For all we know the electrician is right, he could have contacted the utility and/or had the soils analyzed and only one driven ground is necessary. The last home I built was 4,000 feet and $4 million dollars, only one driven ground was required, on the other hand at the meeting with PG&E where their chart called for one driven ground they required larger conductors running thorough the property at a cost of $33,000.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 13, 2019)

The figures that conarb throws out for construction cost raise my uni-brow. I'm sure the ICC BVD SF construction cost chart is a joke in his area of the country.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

The POCO in every county, state and municipality that I work in will not hook up power to a building or temp pole without an inspection by a state licensed electrical inspector.  In PA for example, PPL has their own REMSI standard that has to be met in addition to the NEC.  We as inspectors have to agree that the installation meets the NEC and the REMSI standards for power to be applied.  The contractor pulls a permit for the temp power setup or it is in the initial permit submissions for the project and all inspections are under the state law that adopted the NEC.  In Florida is it pretty much the same thing as PPL has their own requirements in addition to the NEC.  A temp setup is not for the POCO or under POCO control, they are just hooking up a customer that needs temp power and all applicable codes are enforced.  I am not sure how this is done in other states or how familiar everyone else is with the processes in their jurisdiction but where I have inspected, it is all pretty much the same.


----------



## ICE (Feb 13, 2019)

Edison jurisdiction stops at the weather-head.  Edison will energize damned near anything as long as an AHJ inspector releases it. I know that because I've seen that.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

Our utility is PG&E and they provide a *Green Book* that has several hundred pages of their rules and regulations, within that book is rule 3.2.6:



> 3.2.6. Inspecting and Approving Overhead and Underground Services. *An applicant must contact* the local PG&E project coordinator to arrange for a field representative to inspect and approve the applicant-furnished and installed service equipment, as well as any other mandatory components required for an underground service installation.



During the pre-construction meeting the PG&E field representative has maps showing soils conditions throughout their service area showing the number of driven rods required. 

Tiger, doesn't Edison have something like a Green Book like PG&E has with hundreds of pages showing requisite clearances, weatherhead and underground service locations, as well as gas meter locations, etc.?


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

Conarb, the world does not revolve around northern California.  Here are a few examples:

PA
_PPL EU requires that customer's new, changed, or upgraded electric service entrance facilities be inspected and approved by individuals who are registered or certified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. This requirement applies to temporary and permanent electric service entrance facilities._

FL
_When a Customer's electrical installation has been completed, it shall be inspected by the local electrical inspector to ensure compliance with the National Electrical Code and such local rules that may apply. FPL cannot energize new service installations until such inspection has been made, and until formal notice from the inspecting authority has been received by FPL._

PG&E
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION POWER
_There's usually construction power available if we have existing facilities with enough capacity next to or on your construction site. Your PG&E representative will let you know the costs for construction power, which vary from site to site. If construction power is available, we may be able to install it within three to five working days. You'll need to pay these costs, and the city or county building department will need to inspect and approve your temporary meter panel before we can install the temporary service and meter.
_
So you see Conarb, you are cherry picking only what you want people to see.  PG&E clearly requires that the local AHJ inspect the electrical installation before they can apply power.  You live in the spin zone.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

Of course the local inspector inspects and releases the panel, but the PG&E rules in the Green Book must be followed,  and only the PG&E has the maps that tell how many ground rods must be installed, I can't believe that Edison and other utilities nationwide don't have something similar to the Green Book.  None of this excuses you from forcing a contractor to install an extra ground rod just because you like to.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

Oh yeah and Black Hills Energy that serves Colorado not only states on their website that they "*DO NOT PERFORM INSPECTIONS*" and like all others require that the local AHJ inspect and approve the installation before they apply power but they also state the following:

_Requirements of the NEC®, NESC®, or the Public Authority which are more stringent than the requirements of this document will take precedence._


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

conarb said:


> Of course the local inspector inspects and releases the panel, but the PG&E rules in the Green Book must be followed,  and only the PG&E has the maps that tell how many ground rods must be installed, I can't believe that Edison and other utilities nationwide don't have something similar to the Green Book.  None of this excuses you from forcing a contractor to install an extra ground rod just because you like to.




Not because we like to but because they have to in order to meet the NEC if they can't prove 25 Ohms or less to earth.  POCOs all state that the more stringent local codes apply.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

Oh and the "Green Book" isn't the bible for installations.  See this right from the F'n Green Book mr Conarb.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

jar546 said:


> Not because we like to but because they have to in order to meet the NEC if they can't prove 25 Ohms or less to earth.  POCOs all state that the more stringent local codes apply.



Jeff:

What's the original electrical contractor doing, is he going to get POCO maps to try and prove the additional rod isn't necessary or is he going to cave in and install it?


----------



## jar546 (Feb 13, 2019)

conarb said:


> Jeff:
> 
> What's the original electrical contractor doing, is he going to get POCO maps to try and prove the additional rod isn't necessary or is he going to cave in and install it?



See my previous post, even PG&E require local enforcement before they will apply power.  If the contractor wants to prove he has less than 25ohms with 1 rod, he has that option.  Not sure why you are making a big deal out of something that has been routine for several NEC code cycles.  You are now arguing just for the sake of arguing when you have no legitimate factual argument.  The contractor has lots of options for a choice of grounding electrode.  If they choose to use a ground rod then they have to prove less than 25 ohms or add a second rod.  Simple for most.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

I don't see your answer as to what they are going to do, in your original post you said:



> No electrician on site, just the GC who gave the news to. His first response was: "I never heard of 2 ground rods, is that new?" He then proceeded to call the electrician to tell him he failed the inspection. When he broke the news and told him he was standing here with the inspector, the electrician's lound response was "That's fu^&'n bulls&^$t!"



It appears that neither the general nor the electrical contractors ever heard of two ground rods, that tells me that your local soils probably don't require them or they would have heard of them, or maybe you're the only inspector that ever required them. The fact is that the AHJs don't have charts showing the soils conditions and PG&E and others do, so why install additional rods if the utility says you don't need them? If the AHJs want to start testing the soils so their inspectors know how many rods are necessary all right, but why should then when the utilities have this information? If your utilities don't have this information then maybe the AHJs should invest in some testing equipment rather than force contractors to spend extra money.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 13, 2019)

I look at it just the opposite, if the contractor can't prove that he has 25 ohms are less with a single ground rod that he should install 2. As a rule, at least around here, inspectors don't actually perform tests, they just perform inspections and may review the results of tests done by others.


----------



## conarb (Feb 13, 2019)

BTW, I've never seen two ground rods on a power pole either, they are required to be 6' apart so I would have seen them, on building installations Ufer grounds are supposed to eliminate them; however, on remodels you can't prove the existence of the Ufer ground so PG&E requires driven rods.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 14, 2019)

If someone can attach to a concrete encased electrode such as qualifying rebar for a footer or slab, a ground rod is not even required.  Again, there are options out there.


----------



## Rick18071 (Feb 14, 2019)

Maybe this is a reason that I see so many temp services with only one rod. Also for traffic lights and school slow down signs. Maybe the electricians are from N. CA. I'm in PA and always fail the inspection with one rod. Also no 60 amp services allowed here.



conarb said:


> The fact is that the AHJs don't have charts showing the soils conditions and PG&E and others do, so why install additional rods if the utility says you don't need them? If the AHJs want to start testing the soils so their inspectors know how many rods are necessary all right, but why should then when the utilities have this information? If your utilities don't have this information then maybe the AHJs should invest in some testing equipment rather than force contractors to spend extra money.



Never herd of these charts. Who would pay for the testing?


----------



## tmurray (Feb 14, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Maybe this is a reason that I see so many temp services with only one rod. Also for traffic lights and school slow down signs. Maybe the electricians are from N. CA. I'm in PA and always fail the inspection with one rod. Also no 60 amp services allowed here.
> 
> 
> 
> Never herd of these charts. Who would pay for the testing?



Exactly. These are probably super easy when you have an area undergoing high density development. Now, for the rest of us...


----------



## classicT (Feb 14, 2019)

conarb said:


> It appears that neither the general nor the electrical contractors ever heard of two ground rods, that tells me that your local soils probably don't require them or they would have heard of them, or maybe you're the only inspector that ever required them.


Contractors never lie to save money, right?



conarb said:


> The fact is that the AHJs don't have charts showing the soils conditions and PG&E and others do, so why install additional rods if the utility says you don't need them?


Because the code requires it unless testing indicates otherwise.



conarb said:


> If the AHJs want to start testing the soils so their inspectors know how many rods are necessary all right, but why should then when the utilities have this information? If your utilities don't have this information then maybe the AHJs should invest in some testing equipment rather than force contractors to spend extra money.


It is not incumbent upon the inspector to prove; the inspector provides a code section and the contractor should be able to document how they comply. The utility is a purveyor, not an authority; they are allowed to regulate their own transmission lines, however the service onward is governed by the AHJ. And why should jurisdictions invest in creating these maps to save contractors a minor cost.

You do realize what the cost of generating these maps would be? Add on the liability placed upon the cartographer, I am sure that such a conservative factor of safety would be applied that nearly every location would require (2). 

Oh, and how are AHJ's supposed to pay for creating these maps Conarb? Would that not be one of the taxes that you preach against?


Ultimately, the issue is one of putting the cart before the horse. Purveyor's want a AHJ to provide approval per the NEC; how can one then attempt to use a purveyors map when the code clearly requires testing or (2) ground rods.


----------



## conarb (Feb 14, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> Contractors never lie to save money, right?
> 
> 
> Because the code requires it unless testing indicates otherwise.
> ...



There are all kinds of governing bodies besides building departments, above I posted the rules for a pre-construction meeting between the PG&E rep and the contractor, this information is conveyed at that time, along with gas and electric meter location that are not in the building codes.  I've seen Tiger here post pictures of wires over swimming pools, that's not in the building code but in the Green Book.


> *E. Clearance From Swimming Pools*
> 
> Avoid installing utility service drops above public and private swimming pools, when practical.The CPUC, not local agencies or codes, regulates, by its adoption of G.O. 95, the installation and clearances of utility-owned, operated, and maintained supply lines and service drops. G.O. 95 contains specific requirements for installing and maintaining utility supply-line and service-drop clearances above swimming pools. Figure 4-3, “Minimum Clearance for All Drops Above or Adjacent To Swimming Pools,” on Page 4-6, illustrates the minimum-permitted clearances mandated by G.O. 95 where utility service drops are installed above swimming pools. NOTE:Table 4-1, “Minimum Clearances Over Swimming Pools,” on Page 4-6, also provides clearance information for drops above or adjacent to swimming pools.¹



You do realize what the cost of generating these maps would be? Add on the liability placed upon the cartographer, I am sure that such a conservative factor of safety would be applied that nearly every location would require (2).

Oh, and how are AHJ's supposed to pay for creating these maps Conarb? Would that not be one of the taxes that you preach against?


Ultimately, the issue is one of putting the cart before the horse. Purveyor's want a AHJ to provide approval per the NEC; how can one then attempt to use a purveyors map when the code clearly requires testing or (2) ground rods.[/QUOTE]

Looking for something I came across a Home Inspectors forum:



			
				Inspector News said:
			
		

> The PG&E Green Book has detailed instructions and diagrams for the installation of Gas and Electric meters and associated equipment.So much so, it's a wonder that anyone can install anything anywhere.But, it does cover the protection of gas meters in driveways and exposed areas, and/or located in the vicinity of A/C or elec. equipment.Underground service, and plugged test tee's at the meter are also covered.A new one to me is that braided SS flex connectors are allowed where "subsidence" is possible. But no mention of seismic allowances for SS conn's.Anyhow, as a general resource, esp. for the diagrams, it's an excellent heads-up.²



The maps and charts don't have to cost anybody anything since the PG&E has them for free, they are given to you at the time fo the mandatory pre-construction meeting.


¹ https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/p...icerequirements/greenbook_manual.pdf#page=134

² http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_...mercial-inspection/34190-pg-e-green-book.html


----------



## tmurray (Feb 14, 2019)

conarb said:


> The maps and charts don't have to cost anybody anything since the PG&E has them for free, they are given to you at the time fo the mandatory pre-construction meeting.



You appear to be claiming that all utilities have these maps. How do you know that this is true?
You appear to be claiming that these maps are free. I understand that in this specific situation, the utility company has them for free. How do you know that they are always free?
You appear to be claiming that it is the inspector who must use the maps to determine the number of grounding rods based on these maps. This is contrary to previously posted code sections. The decision by an AHJ to allow the usage of these maps would be based on their level of service. How do you know that each AHJ has set this same level of service?

Based on your claims, I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate with the intention of irritating the other members of this forum.


----------



## classicT (Feb 14, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Based on your claims, I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate with the intention of irritating the other members of this forum.


Could not say it better myself, so I'll just quote it.


----------



## conarb (Feb 14, 2019)

tmurray said:


> You appear to be claiming that all utilities have these maps. How do you know that this is true?
> You appear to be claiming that these maps are free. I understand that in this specific situation, the utility company has them for free. How do you know that they are always free?
> You appear to be claiming that it is the inspector who must use the maps to determine the number of grounding rods based on these maps. This is contrary to previously posted code sections. The decision by an AHJ to allow the usage of these maps would be based on their level of service. How do you know that each AHJ has set this same level of service?
> 
> Based on your claims, I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate with the intention of irritating the other members of this forum.



I just checked and the maps and soils information are created and produced by the County Geologist. the PG&E gets the information from the various County Geologists and distributes the information to the PG&E, at least here the County Geologist is in the same offices on the same floor as the County Building Department. I also called my power pole rental company, they've never heard of two ground rods, they install all of their power poles with one driven ground, the reason I checked is that the second ground has to be 6' away from the first and I can't imagine 6' of copper wire laying on the ground.  I agree that there should be two ground rods if soils require it, but as a matter fo fact the power pole rental companies don't do it.  Now look at what I've done, Tiger is going to read this and go snooping around at every power pole he sees checking the grounds on them.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 15, 2019)

"Based on your claims, I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate with the intention of irritating the other members of this forum."



Ty J. said:


> Could not say it better myself, so I'll just quote it.



Double ditto.....


----------



## ICE (Feb 15, 2019)

Conarb,
Soils maps are a best guess.  The soil can change dramatically from one side of a building footprint to the other.

The utility can do whatever it chooses with it’s own equipment.....they are, after all, exempt from permitting.  Their single rod is their choice and does not follow the NEC.

Power companies get by as cheap as possible.  Look at the size of the wire that’s used for service drops.  Take note of the fires they cause.  I never trust the power company for anything that is my responsibility...well I don’t trust anyone else either so that doesn’t mean a whole lot.

Long ago I worked at a factory in Palo Alto that manufactured high vacuum deposition machines.  The apparatus was comprised of an aluminum chamber of about 30 gallons and pumps that created a vacuum in that chamber equal to deep space.  There were many silicone wafers and an ingot of gold in the chamber.  The ingot was hit with an electron beam and the ingot became a vapor that coated the silicone wafers; forming the substrate for computer chips.

National Semiconductor {Sunnyvale Ca.} was a customer.  The machines quit working properly.....there was a loss of control of the electron beam.  After much investigation the problem was solved by placing a garden hose to keep the ground wet at the premises ground rod.

The electron beam was 100,000 volts.  If done wrong there could be an explosion.  That happened once before I went to work there...killed two people.  I know this because I was the person that wired the machines.  I did not say that I was an electrician.

Parts of the conductor was bar stock that was brazed.  I want to say that silver was part of that but that may be a faded memory.  The welders were from a motorcycle gang.  The smoke in the air wasn't from the welding.

Then came a day when there were two Japanese gentlemen sitting on stools in my workspace.  I was told that they were there because Sony Corp. wanted to understand how I did what I did.  Do they have motorcycle gangs in Japan?


----------



## JPohling (Feb 15, 2019)

ICE said:


> Conarb,
> Soils maps are a best guess.  The soil can change dramatically from one side of a building footprint to the other.
> 
> The utility can do whatever it chooses with it’s own equipment.....they are, after all, exempt from permitting.  Their single rod is their choice and does not follow the NEC.
> ...



BEST STORY EVER!  And yes there are motorcycle gangs in Japan they all ride Harley's or Japanese imitations and dress in American 50's garb with slicked back hair and shaved widows peaks.  not violent, its more of a fashion


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 15, 2019)

conarb said:


> Tiger is going to read this and go snooping around at every power pole he sees checking the grounds on them.



Good luck with that!

I have seen the POCO take the grounding wire and staple it to the very bottom of the wood utility pole end like a cinnamon roll then run the grounding wire up the side stapled and unprotected, (no conduit). 

"That's F*&'n Bullsh&%" I say!


----------



## conarb (Feb 15, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Good luck with that!
> 
> I have seen the POCO take the grounding wire and staple it to the very bottom of the wood utility pole end like a cinnamon roll then run the grounding wire up the side stapled and unprotected, (no conduit).
> 
> "That's F*&'n Bullsh&%" I say!


I know how we install a second ground rod 6' away by stapling the copper ground wire along the foundation under the siding, but with a power pole, like in this instance, how are you going to run the copper wire 6' over the ground to the second rod, now that's "unprotected", you could trip over it?  BTW, the Green Book says these are CPUC rules, I'm sure Tiger carries all the CPUC rules around in his car.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 15, 2019)

Jeeez  Ice has made it clear that he is not concerned about what the utility companies do.  Conarb it must be very frustrating for you to come up against someone that knows more than you and can clearly articulate that.  Quit your petty crap


----------



## conarb (Feb 15, 2019)

JPohling said:


> Jeeez  Ice has made it clear that he is not concerned about what the utility companies do.  Conarb it must be very frustrating for you to come up against someone that knows more than you and can clearly articulate that.  Quit your petty crap


The utilities implement the rules and regulations of the California Public Utilities Commission, they can, and do, tell the local building departments to go pound salt. I've built buildings at the Lawrence Berkeley Labs, and  local schools, where building inspectors don't even show up; whereas, PG&E rules are  followed to the letter, building departments have become nothing but local taxation authorities that try to drive the price of construction through the roof, its' pretty obvious that neither JAR nor Tiger give a damn how high they drive costs.


----------



## classicT (Feb 15, 2019)

conarb said:


> building departments have become nothing but local taxation authorities that try to drive the price of construction through the roof


Conarb, if the hints have not been aplenty, let me spell it out.

You are on a forum that is comprised heavily of code officials. The remaining portion is made of those that want to follow the code.

You are the exception. You do not respect the position code officials are tasked with. You do not want to build per code. If you cannot start to work with the other members of this forum, then you should not be welcome here IMHO.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 15, 2019)

NEC 1996 250-84 only required one ground, What was the reasoning for requiring an additional rod?


----------



## ICE (Feb 15, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> NEC 1996 250-84 only required one ground, What was the reasoning for requiring an additional rod?


It's more expensive.


----------



## jar546 (Feb 15, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> NEC 1996 250-84 only required one ground, What was the reasoning for requiring an additional rod?



 Most water services to a building for copper and the copper pipe was a great grounding electrode. There was one copper rod that was placed was in addition to the copper water service. Many water services are being replaced with plastic pipe, therefore losing the effective ground path required to go back to the utility transformer.   The ohms became important to ensure that there was a low impedance and testing has proved that a second rod lowered the impedance to create a better ground fault path. But then again, a new construction if you hit building steel and have rebar in the footing that qualifies as a concrete encased electrode, then ground rods are unnecessary


----------



## jar546 (Feb 15, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> Conarb, if the hints have not been aplenty, let me spell it out.
> 
> You are on a forum that is comprised heavily of code officials. The remaining portion is made of those that want to follow the code.
> 
> You are the exception. You do not respect the position code officials are tasked with. You do not want to build per code. If you cannot start to work with the other members of this forum, then you should not be welcome here IMHO.



 You are correct in your opinion. If he wants to continue to make a fool of himself with his extremist opinions, I should just let him. The minute that it becomes political or personal, it should be reported or stopped. I have given him multiple warnings in the past for that type of behavior. It is one thing  to disagree, it is another thing to just drown on with unhelpful rhetoric that detracts from the purpose of the forum.  Maybe he should put his full name rather than being anonymous and see if he wants to share his opinions since he’s retired and isn’t risking losing a job anyway


----------



## fatboy (Feb 17, 2019)

"You are the exception. You do not respect the position code officials are tasked with."

Agreed.......

"You do not want to build per code."

Disagree. I really have the impression that CA built large scale structures, and they most likely were completely in line with the code. He seems to think that other builders would have the same standard, which we all know is NOT the case.


"If you cannot start to work with the other members of this forum, then you should not be welcome here IMHO."

Concur

CA, if you want to contribute something positive to the forum, great. If you want to continue to have your anti-government, sanctimonious opinion, then maybe this forum isn't your place.

This is about codes, not opinions related to government oppression.

JMHO


----------

