# Splicing a broken CEE condcuctor



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2013)

So here is the deal.  Somehow I found this wonderful broken connection buried in the ground below the meter base of a new service installation.

There was a new conductor run from the disco to the ground where it terminated on, well,.........dirt.

As I dug, I found the end that came out of the concrete that was now not long enough to make it to the disconnect.  I am told the plan is to install a ground rod and use that to connect the two with an acorn (probably 2)

Is this an acceptable method??

Current NEC in Florida applies, I think 2008


----------



## fatboy (Jul 12, 2013)

Is there a pic? I am at home and usually see pics.........


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 12, 2013)

Jeff,

Can you verify what is actually in the ground (i.e. - the CEE)?   If not, wouldn't 2 ground rods be required?

.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 12, 2013)

View attachment 757


FWIW you are correct, 2008 here.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 757


/monthly_2013_07/1100202225_2.jpg.b2aba8d6e763d821d083a5b428446d97.jpg


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

IMO I would say no since the ground rod is only as good as a #6.  The concrete encased electrode needs to be #4 unless the service is 100 amps


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 12, 2013)

Dennis a ground rod only requires a #6 but a larger conductor can be installed. I would say it would be alright.

On one of the slides by the IAEI there is a rod between the service and building steel that has a 3/0 landed on it


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

Also look at 250.66 (A)



> (A) Connections to Rod, Pipe, or Plate Electrodes.Where the grounding electrode conductor is connected to rod, pipe, or plate electrodes as permitted in 250.52(A)(5) or (A)(7), that portion of the conductor that *is the sole connection*
> 
> to the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6 AWG copper wire or 4 AWG aluminum wire.


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Dennis a ground rod only requires a #6 but a larger conductor can be installed. I would say it would be alright. On one of the slides by the IAEI there is a rod between the service and building steel that has a 3/0 landed on it


What about what I quoted on 250.66.  This was brought up in Raleigh and I was told it was a no-no


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

Nevermind I believe you are correct.  I think they meant the rod was okay as long as the wire to the rod was not #6.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2013)

View attachment 758


I know for a fact the #4 awg solid copper on the left is connected to the CEE.  The #4 on the right comes down from the disconnect. I believe that the rod will have 2 acorns on it, one for each end of the GEC.  The only other method would be a irreversible crimp
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 758


/monthly_2013_07/IMG_3026.jpg.1bf2405b3b47b485771a63e0949b40ae.jpg


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2013)

So now a technical question is this.  In lieu of a test to prove 25 ohms or less, is a supplemental rod required?

Nevermind the fact that it would be useless, would it be required?


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

If you have a concrete encased electrode then no rods are required .


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

I am sorry I should have given an article  250.53(D)(2)  A metal water pipe as an electrode must be supplemented by one of the methods in 250.52(A)(2)-(A)(7).  No other electrode, except a rod that doesn't get 25 ohms, requires a supplemental electrode.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 12, 2013)

Excellent Dennis.  In this case, the ground rod will be used as a splice point in lieu of an irreversible crimp.


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2013)

It appears that a lack of protection for the GEC resulted in this situation.  Will that be addressed?


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 12, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> It appears that a lack of protection for the GEC resulted in this situation.  Will that be addressed?


Good question.  This situation is exactly why we approve the rebar turned up inside the building, with connecting point inside and protected.  I know - a lot of debate on that issue (is it a CEE, is it a GEC, is it even allowed?)


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 12, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Good question.  This situation is exactly why we approve the rebar turned up inside the building, with connecting point inside and protected.  I know - a lot of debate on that issue (is it a CEE, is it a GEC, is it even allowed?)


 No!                                .


----------



## raider1 (Jul 12, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> No!                                .


It will be in the 2014 NEC. Here is what 250.68©(3) will say,



> (3) A concrete encased electrode of either the conductortype, reinforcing rod or bar installed in accordance with
> 
> 250.52(A)(3) extended from its location within the concrete
> 
> ...


Chris


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 12, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> No!                                .


Care to elaborate?


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?


You didn't have to say that


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 12, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> You didn't have to say that


Sure - I didn't HAVE to - but it seemed warranted.  When someone posts a pretty strong NO in response to a procedure my office follows on a less than precise portion of the code, I see it as an opportunity to learn.  Thus - the request for more info!


----------



## ICE (Jul 12, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Thus - the request for more info!


I was teasing.  Your sure to hear plenty from that guy and the delivery may be something to see.....or maybe not.


----------



## Dennis (Jul 12, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?


Right now the NEC has no provisions for allowing the use of the rebar outside the footing as a connection point for the grounding electrode conductor.  It is often allowed and there really is no reason to not allow it and as Chris stated it will be officially allowed in 2014.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 12, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?





			
				ICE said:
			
		

> You didn't have to say that


Theres may hearty after work chuckle.   Thanks


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 13, 2013)

Couldn't you just use an approved splice method? (a listed crimp on or a cad weld)

They now make a one shot cad weld mold for one time things like this.


----------



## Dennis (Jul 13, 2013)

You can use a cad weld or a irreversible compression type connectors


----------



## jar546 (Jul 13, 2013)

Dennis said:
			
		

> You can use a cad weld or a irreversible compression type connectors


That is what I was hoping they would have done.  I will be stopping by this weekend to see what they did.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 13, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I will be stopping by this weekend to see what they did.


Well... got pics or a vidi?


----------



## fatboy (Jul 13, 2013)

Not a sparky, but the cad weld seems to be the fix.......


----------



## jar546 (Jul 13, 2013)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Well... got pics or a vidi?


I will do both tomorrow after church.  Yes, I go to church every sunday.  Ushering tomorrow.


----------



## fatboy (Jul 14, 2013)

atta boy.............


----------

