continuous grounding conductor?

[mayjong]

have a concrete encased electrode, installed at a 800A gear. copper thief cut off concrete encased electrode just above slab. (contractor had left enough to land on gear).
i told him to clamp to CEE stub with a GEC and he would be o-k , yes? (because the GEC would still be "continuous" , correct?)
thanks!

 

[roger]

have a concrete encased electrode, installed at a 800A gear. copper thief cut off concrete encased electrode just above slab. (contractor had left enough to land on gear).
i told him to clamp to CEE stub with a GEC and he would be o-k , yes? (because the GEC would still be "continuous" , correct?)
thanks!

IMO that is good, but in any case, as long as he uses an irreversible connection he can splice it, 250.64(C)

Roger

 

[infinity]

i told him to clamp to CEE stub with a GEC

What does this mean? He's connecting the GEC to the cut off piece of conductor sticking out of the slab?

 

[LarryFine]

He's connecting the GEC to the cut off piece of conductor sticking out of the slab?

Using what nethod of connection?

 

[eprice]

I think the OP is talking about connecting a GEC to a short stub of copper CEE using a clamp (not necessarily irreversible). I think it could be argued that this is ok. If the copper in the concrete is considered to be the CEE and the conductor being clamped on is the GEC, then the clamp is just a clamp connecting the GEC to the CEE. This is no different than any other connection of a GEC to an electrode and is not required to be irreversible. If it were a rebar stubbed up rather than copper, would anyone require the GEC connection to it to be irreversible?. However, since the clamp is not encased in concrete, 250.68(A) will require the connection to remain accessible.

It might be better to use an irreversible means and consider the connection to be just a splice in the GEC, in which case it is not required to remain accessible.