30" BGL for the rod top IIRC. On inspection, the top foot or so of the
rod would need to be exposed if and so the inspector could verify the
compliance roll-stamping in the top end of all "approved" rods. Also to
inspect/approve the bonding method.
The inspection well would likely (IIRC) ONLY be REQUIRED for a rod in a
cathodic protection field where the rods are doped or some other method
that would likely vastly accelerate the natural corrosion processes.
R56 did cover inspection wells though.
"Inspection" to me would more properly consist of a resistivity test as
described in excruciating detail in R56. If the system is functional to
meet your "code" and or protection requirements, there is a drastically
reduced need to visually inspect the tops of the rods (or anything
else). In fact, visual inspection absent some arbitrary code or
procedure requirement is of dubious value.
As Always, my opinion is worth precisely what you paid for it! <big wink
and a nod>
Y'all have a WONDERFUL day!!!
Clay Autery
KY5G
On 10/23/2017 11:16 PM, RCM wrote:
On Oct 23, 2017, at 23:23, Jeff <keepwalking188@ac0c.com> wrote:
They want to see ground rods.
It might have been from R56. (As once being a Motorola field tech with now faded
brain…All that RF.
Redoing and new two-way sites, we would dig a foot or so, sink the rod down 4”
below grade, then
drop a 3” PVC pipe over the rod. End cap it below mower blades.
The rod and clamp, Cadweld, could be inspected anytime, now and in the future.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|