Re: eufer grounds
Originally posted by charlie:
Bob, I am going to argue with you a little bit. 
...
Hey Charlie,
Sorry I missed your earlier post, I?ve been ?internet indisposed? this last week or so.
A little bit of argument is good ? it keeps us both on our toes
Hopefully instead, I?ll just give a little bit of history of where I?m coming from. Unfortunately, I just don?t have the documentation my mentor had. I can?t even remember what it was called then. I believe it was even pre-TCD/TCR.
In any case, when the current text came out originally, my mentor (Joe Dudor, before he passed away he was on CMP15) claimed the documents required structural rebar to be bonded into the GES. The text sure looked that way. Since we designed facilities that used literally hundreds of tons of rebar and the projects often lasted 3-5 years, the obvious question was, ?What about foundations we?ve already designed / installed?? As you know, the NEC is already rather vague about retroactivity; and many jurisdictions were just as vague. Since we were a nationwide contractor, we dealt with many jurisdictions. We began to contact them.
Before the FI, AHJs told us, more often than not, that all rebar must be ?made available.? The primary reason seemed to be that no one really understood the necessity for the new text in the first place. That is, if not requiring rebar to be ?made available? for bonding is safe, why
require it at all? So - many of the AHJ?s opted for the concept that it must be a hard requirement whether they knew why or not. The rebar was certainly on the premises, so that meant they were ?available? whether they were under 2? or more of concrete or not and thus they must be bonded to the GES.
Remember the ?scope? of the NEC is practical safety. It became obvious that the issue was not between ?safe and unsafe,? but between ?safe and safer.? It's simple to draw a line between ?safe and unsafe,? but where the issue is between ?safe and safer? it's reasonable to consider the cost effectiveness of "safer." ?Cost effectiveness? isn?t always an AHJ concern though and the need for the FI was clear.
In any case, one of the advantages of being a large multi-disciplined EPC was that we were able to coordinate rebar bonding easily. We actually used that as a sales point for a few years.
There are still two issues in my mind. One, even back then, the
?Regulations Governing Committee Projects? had a requirement similar to this:
6-5 Action Following Issuance of Formal Interpretation. Any TC whose Document has been the subject of a Formal Interpretation shall prepare a committee proposal clarifying the text of the Document involved or report to the Standards Council its rationale as to why it believes clarification is not required. The TC shall process such proposal in conformance with procedures set forth in 4-3, and after issuance of the next edition the Interpretation shall no longer be published.
Why has it taken 27 years? While the text has certainly changed with the 2005 Code, I firmly maintain that it was the intent since the FI.
Second, if the new exception is valid and permitting existing rebar installations to remain unbonded is safe, why is the basic rule mandatory for rebar? In other words, the question that started it all, is still out there.
[ August 20, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]
