Re: GEC to gd rods
At the risk of getting something started I think the word
continuous needs to be looked at the way the NEC looks at it.
This grounding electrode conductor has been the debate for some time now with some people fighting to the end that if it is cut it WILL be replaced.
I would like to look at a comparison to this grounding electrode conductor being required to be continuous as the same requirement in the NEC that the equipment grounding conductor of an underwater light at a pool as outlined below.
2005, 680.23 (F)(2) The equipment grounding conductor shall be installed without joint or splice
2002, 680.23 (F)(2) The equipment grounding conductor shall be installed without joint or splice
1999, 680-25 (b)(4) The equipment grounding conductor shall be installed without joint or splice
Now that the sections are posted I ask if the equipment grounding conductor for a pool light is required to be continuous.
While this is given some thought let?s look at the diving board of this pool. Just under this board is a junction box. In this box is a termination of this equipment grounding conductor that is required to be with out joint or splice.
The connection of the grounding electrode conductor at a driven rod is the same as the equipment grounding conductor for this pool light. Both are continuous.
Another comparison I use is found in the 2002 and 2005 cycle in 250.52
(A)(1): electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe)
Would this not sound like 250.64 (C)? The one thing that is not listed in 250.64 (C) is terminations.
As is evidenced by many code cycles the termination of a conductor does not constitute a splice or joint and is considered to be continuous.
As pointed out above, some people (me included) inject a lot of opinion in their statements. Some have merit, other don?t.