Failed 250.32(A); inspector required us to disconnect ground rods

Status
Not open for further replies.
brantmacga

brantmacga

Señor Member
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Former Child
Customer had an existing 200A service mounted on a pole with a meter; customer brought in a mobile home and set it 75' away. The existing service fed a barn, and has its own ground rod already.

We ran a 4-wire feeder from the existing service to a 200A disconnect on a pedestal next to the mobile home, and continued to the home. Two ground rods were installed at the pedestal for compliance with 250.32(A).

I was not there for the inspection yesterday, but they required us to remove the ground rods from the disconnect, saying this was a violation and created two different grounding potentials.

Guys am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
brantmacga said:
Customer had an existing 200A service mounted on a pole with a meter; customer brought in a mobile home and set it 75' away. The existing service fed a barn, and has its own ground rod already.

We ran a 4-wire feeder from the existing service to a 200A disconnect on a pedestal next to the mobile home, and continued to the home. Two ground rods were installed at the pedestal for compliance with 250.32(A).

I was not there for the inspection yesterday, but they required us to remove the ground rods from the disconnect, saying this was a violation and created two different grounding potentials.

Guys am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You're not missing anything but your inspector is. There is so much mystique and misunderstanding in the electrical world about a little stick of metal stabbed in the earth. What is all the money being spent on continuing ed doing for us?
 
The NEC does not limit how many electrodes that you can install. Since you had a 4-wire feeder the electrode is not connected to the neutral so all is good.
 
Firestarter said:
Separate structure. I have always used ground rods for this setup. Did the mobile home panel also have rods?

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The mobile home panel had a #8 bare going to the frame. The panel is by the back door with a 2" PVC stub coming under the house. We set the disconnect directly behind this panel outside, and took that 2" into the disconnect. I'm going to call him Monday to discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Where were the grounding electrode conductors terminated in the pedestal ??
(an improper termination there could be the basis for some confusion)
 
augie47 said:
Where were the grounding electrode conductors terminated in the pedestal ??
(an improper termination there could be the basis for some confusion)
Click to expand...

Good question but even if they were terminated on the neutral bus why would the inspector require them to be disconnected as opposed to simply terminated to the EGC in the feeder? Sounds to me like the EI doesn't get the concept that even if the ground rods were not required you're still not prohibited from installing them by the NEC.
 
4-wire feeder to the disconnect, no bond, and rods connected to the ground bar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
brantmacga said:
4-wire feeder to the disconnect, no bond, and rods connected to the ground bar.
Click to expand...

100% NEC compliant. Even if it is not required it would still be specifically permitted because it would fall under 250.54.

250.54 Auxiliary Grounding Electrodes. One or moregrounding electrodes shall be permitted to be connected to
the equipment grounding conductors specified in 250.118
and shall not be required to comply with the electrode
bonding requirements of 250.50 or 250.53(C) or the resis-
tance requirements of 250.53(A)(2) Exception, but the
earth shall not be used as an effective ground-fault current
path as specified in 250.4(A)(5) and 250.4(B)(4).
Click to expand...
 
Inspector is mistaken-- simple as that. In fact, you are in violation if you disconnect them. I would refuse to disconnect the rods and explain it to him. If he insists call his superior.
 
Invite the inspector to join the forum. :thumbsup:

Roger
 
Sent an email yesterday and they actually replied today .....

My email

7944190198d2a6c57e45c57270fd0e49.png


Reply

6278c2d7f6609106164b10a0ca4abcdd.png



Again it was 75' away. I'll just go hook them back up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
brantmacga said:
Sent an email yesterday and they actually replied today .....

My email

7944190198d2a6c57e45c57270fd0e49.png


Reply

6278c2d7f6609106164b10a0ca4abcdd.png



Again it was 75' away. I'll just go hook them back up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I understand how he came up with the disconnect being additional.
But there is still no rule saying you can't have additional rods.
 
infinity said:
That is the bottom line......
Click to expand...
This is the bottom line...

550.32 Service Equipment.

(A) Mobile Home Service Equipment. The mobile home
service equipment shall be located adjacent to the mobile
home and not mounted in or on the mobile home. The
service equipment shall be located in sight from and not
more than 9.0 m (30 ft) from the exterior wall of the mobile
home it serves. The service equipment shall be permitted to
be located elsewhere on the premises, provided that a disconnecting
means suitable for use as service equipment is
located within sight from and not more than 9.0 m (30 ft)
from the exterior wall of the mobile home it serves and is
rated not less than that required for service equipment in
accordance with 550.32(C). Grounding at the disconnecting
means shall be in accordance with 250.32.
Click to expand...
 
infinity said:
That is the bottom line......
Click to expand...


Agree --
side note-I have often thought the NEC should consider a definition in which an exterior disconnect not attached to the structure it serves can be referred as the structure disconnect in order to option the single feeder wiring method - case & point single family dwelling with ADU- set a single meter 320Amp service not attached to building- 2 disconnects for service - feeders terminate in building not grouped but accessible per code to occupants. Maybe a with-in sight type clause
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top