Anything wrong here?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A few observations: 1) schedule 80 is not necessarily required. 2) the garage needs a grounding electrode system, not necessarily rods. 3) main breaker is often required to allow disconnection of the structure by no more than 6 throws of the hand (other possible reasons a main breaker would be needed is to protect the panelboard per 408.36 and/or to protect the conductors from over load if using a tap rule).
 
electrofelon said:
1) schedule 80 is not necessarily required.
Click to expand...

Better to have and not need, than need and not have.

I can give numerous situations such as this, and take a survey of a dozen experts on the NEC. Half of them will say it is subject to physical damage, half of them will say it isn't. If you've got schedule 40 risers, you better hope that your inspector is part of the half of them who say it isn't. Better to have and not need, and be covered no matter what the opinions of the inspector.

electrofelon said:
3) main breaker is often required to allow disconnection of the structure by no more than 6 throws of the hand
Click to expand...


How many paces of the foot am I allowed to walk back to the main service disconnect, in order to avoid the 7th throw of the hand to shut down a detached building?
electrofelon said:
if using a tap rule
Click to expand...


Good point. You cannot terminate taps in anything other than an overcurrent device.

If the feeder has the same amps as the main breaker upstream of it, you don't have a tap. So you can run a 200A ampacity feeder off a 200A service, to a 100A detached garage. Maybe you gotta do that already for voltage drop curtailment . In such a case, is no longer a tap.
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I am wrong.
The OP stated that this Garage is Attached, There is no need for a main Breaker, There is no need for rods or GEC.
All that is needed is a proper ground wire sized for the circuit.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Correct me if I am wrong.
The OP stated that this Garage is Attached, There is no need for a main Breaker, There is no need for rods or GEC.
All that is needed is a proper ground wire sized for the circuit.
Click to expand...

I agree it says attached. The going into the ground with the conduit is deceiving.
 
infinity said:
I agree it says attached. The going into the ground with the conduit is deceiving.
Click to expand...
agree..I had to look twice... picture is correct as far as I can see for an ATTACHED garage.
Kinda tricky.. take away those 2 x 12's attaching the two buildings and the whole picture changes.
 
Carultch said:
Better to have and not need, than need and not have.

I can give numerous situations such as this, and take a survey of a dozen experts on the NEC. Half of them will say it is subject to physical damage, half of them will say it isn't. If you've got schedule 40 risers, you better hope that your inspector is part of the half of them who say it isn't. Better to have and not need, and be covered no matter what the opinions of the inspector.
Click to expand...

I think that is what "not necessarily" means no :? Around here for the most part one only needs sched 80 on poles and where the conduit transitions from below grade to above grade.

Missed that it was an attached structure.
 
I posted that for the following reason: here in WA: inspector A required another rod at the garage, inspector B required an extra rod 6' away from the existing rod at the pedestal/service, inspector C does not required extra rod at the pedestal (only the existing one at the service) and in another occasion in another state, inspector D required 2 rods at the garage (main service at the house had already 2 rods and bonded to water pipe and inspector E stated very firm that will not accept another rod besides the one at the service/disconnect because it is dangerous.
So, who should I listen to? How "dangerous" is the last quote?
 
I like this answer. One inspector mentioned that in a fault or Lightining having a rod a the service and at the pedestal is dangerous. I really don't know, but is there any code section related? Will be in my best interest no to discuss it with him? I feel uncomfortable no installing the rod.
 
infinity said:
Adding "extra" grounding electrodes is not dangerous and is not prohibited by the NEC.
Click to expand...


One inspector mentioned that in a fault or Lightining having a rod a the service and at the pedestal is dangerous
Click to expand...

He may have been referring to the contentious auxiliary PV electrode issue. That is different though because in that situation, during a ground potential rise event current would travel through the interconnecting EGC which is likely routed through the dwelling. With a pedestal type situation, most/all of the interconnecting conductor would be underground/outside.

I posted that for the following reason: here in WA: inspector A required another rod at the garage, inspector B required an extra rod 6' away from the existing rod at the pedestal/service, inspector C does not required extra rod at the pedestal (only the existing one at the service) and in another occasion in another state, inspector D required 2 rods at the garage (main service at the house had already 2 rods and bonded to water pipe and inspector E stated very firm that will not accept another rod besides the one at the service/disconnect because it is dangerous.
So, who should I listen to? How "dangerous" is the last quote?
Click to expand...

WA has no amendments on this topic. They did prohibit rebonding the neutral to a detached structure a few code cycles before the NEC did, but that is irrelevant. The difference of opinion is likely partially due to a difference of classification of the pedestal as a structure or not. But each structure would need two ground rods unless one was tested and shown to be 25 ohms or less.

I am still not clear as to what exactly is going on - detached, attached, now we are talking pedestals............?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top