CEE (Ufer) Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the post Charlie!

Now you have actually opened a completely different can of worms if you want to read into the definitions....

Read 250.52 (A) (3) again. Notice "bare copper conductor" in reference to the 4 AWG. It does not say bare copper electrode. It specifically states that in using the 4 AWG method that you are using a conductor.

Now go to the handbook Exhibit 250.22. On the example it says that this connector shall be listed for the purpose.

So I go back to one of my questions: Which connector?

Here is yet another problem with a different example. I present this is just something to consider as it is directly related:

How many of you have ever had to install a ground ring because someone forgot to install or did not have a CEE inspected?

So you leave your 20' of 2 AWG rolled up on the exterior of the house waiting on the trencher to arrive in the next week or so. In the meanwhile, someone decides that the price of copper is nice right now and cuts your 2 AWG off at the wall.

Fortunately, you still have enough to make a splice. So you dig a ditch...install your ground ring per code with a 2 AWG conductor. Now, how do you splice it? Will you use a split bolt?

Based on what some are interpreting with the CEE....the ground ring is still an electrode after it leaves the ground. It is not a conductor. So you can splice it however you wish?

I have another situation that deals with a framer slamming the sole plate down over the CEE and damaging the CEE.....but I will leave that until later in the argument....after all, the reference to 4 AWG protection against physical damage is reserved for a grounding electrode conductor.....not an electrode....right?

Thanks to all who are joining in. Please keep in mind that this is a light-hearted debate and I am just interested to hear everyone's opinions. I mean no offense in anything I say; therefore, I hope no one will take offense.


TXInspect
 
That's not the thread I was thinking of. I was a part of the discussion. Bob was of the opinion that the electrode stopped at the 2" of encasement mark, and I was of the opinion there was no limitation on where the connection was made.

I'm headed for a slow walk through the scrolls, wish me well... :D
 
question.

If the copper GE were to continue unbroken all the way to the service point and bonded there, would this be a violation since there is no GEC?

I think at least in a very legalistic way, you must have both a GE and a GEC. I don't recall there being a code provision for them being the same item.

I also believe that the code specifies a connection between the GE and GEC. There cannot be such a connection if they are not distinct entities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top