250.52(A)(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode

north star

Senior Member
: - : - :

Since the NEC is an NFPA document, ...is it possible to
issue an Errata for 250.52(A)(3), clarifying the
intended meaning of 20 "linear" ft., rather than wait
until 2017 ? :?

: - : - :
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
: - : - :

Since the NEC is an NFPA document, ...is it possible to
issue an Errata for 250.52(A)(3), clarifying the
intended meaning of 20 "linear" ft., rather than wait
until 2017 ? :?

: - : - :
Not Errata, errata is used when there is a printing error.

NFPA would have to issue a Tentative Interim Amendment to the NEC to get something into the NEC between code cycles. It is very unlikely that NFPA would issue a TIA for this issue. TIA are typically only issued where there is a severe issue that can't wait until the next schedule revision of the NEC.

This issue will have to wait until the 2017 NEC cycle to be addressed.

Chris
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
And they have had how many opportunities to change the wording? Not like this was something new in the last edition.:roll:
Remember that proposals are submitted by people in the industry, the CMP don't just sit around and randomly change code sections.

For this section to be addressed someone needs to submit a code change proposal to address the wording issue.

Chris
 

kwired

Electron manager
Remember that proposals are submitted by people in the industry, the CMP don't just sit around and randomly change code sections.

For this section to be addressed someone needs to submit a code change proposal to address the wording issue.

Chris
People also have to have a problem with it or they will not submit a proposal.

If they do submit a proposal - the CMP still needs the proposal to contain substantial information for the change or even approve new wording or they will reject the proposal. Very possible proposals were made but were rejected simply because there was no acceptable change submitted.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
That's all well and good but that's not what the wording of the section says. Chris stated that the goal for CMP5 was to have a linear length not less than 20' but the wording doesn't really support that goal.
Actually, I think there is a little misinterpretation going on here. My impression is that when the CMP is referring to "linear", they mean "lineal" (i.e. straight), as opposed to, for example, bent at a right angle... as the zone of influence (mentioned by Golddigger, but not elababorated on, and contradicted in fact) is greater for a straight length.

Also, I interpret the 2011 requirement to cover the 20' linear length...

...One or more bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically
conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of
not less than 13 mm (1⁄2 in.) in diameter, installed in
one continuous 6.0 m (20 ft) length, or if in multiple
pieces connected together by the usual steel tie wires,
exothermic welding, welding, or other effective means
to create a 6.0 m (20 ft) or greater length
; or

...
 
Top