CEE Rebar Stub Out? I don't think so.

[iwire]

Not to sidetrack things, but "near the bottom" is unenforcable code anyway. What is near?

Start you own darn thread. :grin:


(and yes I agree with you)

 

[crossman]

:grin:

I am really enjoying these CEE threads.

I hope everyone understands that there are three philosophical ways to look at anyhting concerning the NEC:

1. What does the code article/section say literally?

2. What is the code article/section's intent?

3. What is actually safe?

Although these three things are usually the same thing, there are occasions when only two of them are the same, and even when none of them are the same.

In this thread, even though we have been considerably side-tracked, we are talking about #1.

 

[paul]

For those that do not know CEE is short for Concrete Encased Electrode.

In my opinion it is a NEC violation to stub the rebar out of the foundation for connection to the GEC.

The facts as I see them.

250.52(A)(3) defines what a CEE is. That description requires that the CEE be surrounded by at least 2" of concrete.

Given that definition the rebar that is stubbed out is not a CEE. It is simply a steel conductor attached to the the CEE so in reality the stubbed out section is a GEC.

250.62 prohibits using steel as a GEC.

In my opinion and due to 250.64(A) the only legal way to connect to a rebar CEE is with a copper conductor connected to the rebar in the area defined by 250.52(A)(3).

All you 'stubbers' are in violation of the NEC. :grin:

I'm thinking you've got too much time on your hands. :grin: Now....if you can tell me how a stubbed out rebar attached to the GEC is somehow unsafe or less safe than attaching in the concrete, electrically unsafe(impalement safety doesn't count as that's building code), then I might buy into your over thought argument.

 

[crossman]

Paul:

Tens of millions of dollars are spent each code cycle precisely on the wording of the code. It is pretty darned important. Plus, some folks may enjoy exercising the cerebral matter along these lines.

right now, I am at my workbench working on one of my other hobbies, at the same time I am viewing the forum and thinking about the NEC. I am enjoying myself.

Now, I don't particularly have a problem with a stubbed out rebar. But shouldn't the code text mean what it says and say what it means?

Concerning the "too much time on my hands" about picking apart the code text, well, in a future life, I should probably be a lawyer.

 

[iwire]

I'm thinking you've got too much time on your hands. :grin:

I waste to much of my time. :grin:

Now....if you can tell me how a stubbed out rebar attached to the GEC is somehow unsafe or less safe than attaching in the concrete, electrically unsafe(impalement safety doesn't count as that's building code), then I might buy into your over thought argument.

Who said this thread has anything to do with electrical safety. It is mostly a wording issue.

I see one potential safety issue (beyond impalement :grin: )

A bare steel re-bar stubbed into the earth under ground will rust away long before the building reaches the end of it's usefulness.

I would have no problem with a code change allowing the stub outs if the stub outs had to be brought up inside the structure protected from the elements.:smile:

 

[paul]

Paul:

Tens of millions of dollars are spent each code cycle precisely on the wording of the code. It is pretty darned important. Plus, some folks may enjoy exercising the cerebral matter along these lines.

right now, I am at my workbench working on one of my other hobbies, at the same time I am viewing the forum and thinking about the NEC. I am enjoying myself.

Now, I don't particularly have a problem with a stubbed out rebar. But shouldn't the code text mean what it says and say what it means?

Concerning the "too much time on my hands" about picking apart the code text, well, in a future life, I should probably be a lawyer.

I see you missed the :grin: in my post.

 

[e57]

Who said this thread has anything to do with electrical safety. It is mostly a wording issue.

Bob has already seen it. But I have another thread on the topic of changing the wording.

 

[crossman]

I see you missed the :grin: in my post.

Paul, perhaps I sounded a bit harsh. If so, you have my apologies.:smile:

What is your take on the way the code is worded concerning the CEE rebar stub-up?

 

[mivey]

As to your graphic, I would move point 'A' 2" into the concrete. Once that is done everything from 'A' into the cement may well be a CEE. Anything from 'A' to the panel has to be a GEC.

As long as you are moving "A", make sure you move it down to the point where the dirt begins.

 

[chevyx92]

This whole thread is moot. Nowhere in the article does it say where you can or can't attach to it. Bob just tells you his perspective on it and you think it's code. IT'S NOT! Yeah the electrode is encased by at least 2 in. of concrete and it's located within or at the bottom of the foundation like it always is. Just cause a portion is left in practicality so you can ground to it doesn't take away from the ground it has established already in the concrete and earth. Come on people this is 2008 and how long has this code section been in effect? There's always gonna be someone trying to dispell something.

 

[iwire]

As long as you are moving "A", make sure you move it down to the point where the dirt begins.

Beyond the scope of the graphic. :grin:

 

[iwire]

This whole thread is moot. Nowhere in the article does it say where you can or can't attach to it.

250.62 prohibits using steel as a GEC.

250.52(A)(3) says the concrete encased electrode is in fact encased.

Bob just tells you his perspective on it and you think it's code.

If people are taking my perspective for code that is a bad choice, that is why I provide code references so they can read it for themselves.

Just cause a portion is left in practicality so you can ground to it doesn't take away from the ground it has established already in the concrete and earth.

So how far can I run that stub?

18"?

24"?

30'?

Come on people this is 2008 and how long has this code section been in effect?

Only a few code cycles.

There's always gonna be someone trying to dispel something.

Yeah those 'dispellers' always wasting everyones time with facts and new thoughts, they should all be shot. :grin: :grin:

 

[Cavie]

Steel is allowed to be stubed out (into a wall, not into the dirt) here because the inspectors know that copper wire will be cut gone before the sun goes down.

 

[crossman]

Dang it, gentlemen, some of you are just not getting it. This thread isn't about what your inspector allows. This thread isn't about what you consider to be safe. This thread isn't about how you do it. This thread isn't about your municipality's local ordinances. This thread isn't even about what is practical and safe. This thread is about WHAT THE CODEBOOK SAYS.

And if you read 250.52(A)(3) very carefully, you will see that the original post in this thread is correct.

 

[crossman]

So how far can I run that stub? 18"? 24"? 30'?

Okay all you stubber-uppers, answer Iwire's question. How far can you run the stub-up? Give me a code section to support your answer.

Because, if the stub-up is good according to code, then there is nothing to stop me from extending the stub-up with some rebar and tie-wire, for example, 200 feet to the service. Heck, I could even run the rebar up inside a wall, into a ceiling cavity, turn horizontal and run a couple hundred feet with sections of rebar tie-wired together, and then take it to the service.

What code section would stop me?

 

[e57]

Dang it, gentlemen, some of you are just not getting it. This thread isn't about what your inspector allows. This thread isn't about what you consider to be safe. This thread isn't about how you do it. This thread isn't about your municipality's local ordinances. This thread isn't even about what is practical and safe. This thread is about WHAT THE CODEBOOK SAYS.

And if you read 250.52(A)(3) very carefully, you will see that the original post in this thread is correct.

I have, and I am sure that is what everyone who dared to post here is talking about - the code - and the many interpations of what it says. Yours and Bob's are but one take on it. Please explain your take on 250.68 in this context.

 

[iwire]

Yours and Bob's are but one take on it.

Now go back and look, there are many who agree with croosman and myself.

 

[crossman]

I have, and I am sure that is what everyone who dared to post here is talking about - the code - and the many interpations of what it says. Yours and Bob's are but one take on it. Please explain your take on 250.68 in this context.

2008 NEC 250.68(A) Exception #1 is in the code expressly because the CMP realized that the CEE connection would have to be embedded in concrete.... that the electrode does not extend out of the concrete.

 

[e57]

Now go back and look, there are many who agree with croosman and myself.

And I do not think I am alone either - would you say that the code is subject to interpetation? I can run SEC ~40' into a building, can you? Cavie and the many other "Stubbers" you have taken issue with can stub-up due to the interpetations of thier inspectors. Because you think you are right does not make it so in this situation, and promoting the idea that you are with your very respected position on this and many other forums will still not make you RIGHT - just opinionated..... And yes - I am a self professed "Electric Heretic" but that neither makes me - or the many others of like thinking wrong.... Only to you and others of like thinking like Crossman in this situation. The AHJ is the decider on this and every other issue when it comes down to it when on-site - thankfully all of them are not drinking the same cool-aid, or coming here to get poisoned by your opinion that you spout as absolute truth.... :grin:

 

[e57]

2008 NEC 250.68(A) Exception #1 is in the code expressly because the CMP realized that the CEE connection would have to be embedded in concrete.... that the electrode does not extend out of the concrete.

1. Show me the link to this....
2. If the intent was that the connection be embedded it would not be in a 'permissible' wording in the exception - it would be required in the code.

Remember that the NEC is not a design manual....