Grounding Electrode for RV Pedestal???

[TheGingerElectrician]

1st ISSUE
Is a grounding electrode required for an RV pedestal that has a 50 amp breaker and receptacle with a 20 amp receptacle and breaker? If my understanding is correct it is not required based on 2020 250.50 as the GE is required for each building or structure and in definitions the structure is listed as other than equipment. Is my interpretation correct that the rv pedestal would be considered equipment and not a structure? It does have it's own breakers in it...

Even if not required would it not be beneficial to have them installed? I have an rv park we service and we are in Tennessee which gets just as many lighting strikes as the top ten states minus florida and they are also on a big hill. The owners were asking me about this after a lightning event last night.

In my opinion although not required would be beneficial. I would like some advice from the experts here. Thanks!

2nd ISSUE

The feeders that run to one of their pedestal runs is part of the old infrastructure and they have no equipment ground. The lack of equipment ground obviously has it's own safety issues. However, would the lack of equipment ground have any effect from lighting since the equipment ground serves no purpose for lighting strikes?

I am aware that nothing can protect against a direct strike.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

What would be the benefit that you see?

 

[winnie]

This brings me back to the thread that brought me over to MH forums. On the ECN forum, I'd opined that for long _outside_ feeders, an EGC might actually increase risk. Mr. Holt saw the discussion, questioned me about the point (he didn't agree), and invited me to join MH forums.

In any case my _hunch_ is that treating long outside feeders the way a utility service 'ties' the circuit conductors to local Earth, whereas having a separate EGC means that there is significant impedance to local Earth. So my hunch (not informed by any academic study, if studies exist) is that the feeder which doesn't have an EGC, if it has proper local bonding and no parallel neutral paths, is both not a problem and possibly a benefit.

Regarding grounding electrodes? I have no opinion of the benefits. IMHO bonding is more important; but I don't think there is a requirement to provide redundant bonding to an RV.

-Jon

 

[Little Bill]

1st ISSUE
Is a grounding electrode required for an RV pedestal that has a 50 amp breaker and receptacle with a 20 amp receptacle and breaker? If my understanding is correct it is not required based on 2020 250.50 as the GE is required for each building or structure and in definitions the structure is listed as other than equipment. Is my interpretation correct that the rv pedestal would be considered equipment and not a structure? It does have it's own breakers in it...

Even if not required would it not be beneficial to have them installed? I have an rv park we service and we are in Tennessee which gets just as many lighting strikes as the top ten states minus florida and they are also on a big hill. The owners were asking me about this after a lightning event last night.

In my opinion although not required would be beneficial. I would like some advice from the experts here. Thanks!

2nd ISSUE

The feeders that run to one of their pedestal runs is part of the old infrastructure and they have no equipment ground. The lack of equipment ground obviously has it's own safety issues. However, would the lack of equipment ground have any effect from lighting since the equipment ground serves no purpose for lighting strikes?

I am aware that nothing can protect against a direct strike.

You do realize that Tn is still on the 2017 don't you?
Although I don't think there is a difference in this case.

 

[ptonsparky]

I would not consider an RV pedestal as equipment. Using definition of equipment.
IMO, an EGC would be required to each pedestal with two rods at each. Assuming these are feeders from the park SE.
Will the rods help with lightning? IDK.

 

[TheGingerElectrician]

You do realize that Tn is still on the 2017 don't you?
Although I don't think there is a difference in this case.

I do but your right it doesn't make a difference in this case. I was reading from my 2020 and wanted to make sure everyone knew where I was reading from. Wasn't sure if they'd made any changes that would make the reference number different.

 

[TheGingerElectrician]

I would not consider an RV pedestal as equipment. Using definition of equipment.
IMO, an EGC would be required to each pedestal with two rods at each. Assuming these are feeders from the park SE.
Will the rods help with lightning? IDK.

Agreed on the EGC being required just wasn't sure about the Grounding Electrode or the potential effects of lighting in either case. They just took damage to a bunch of stuff. We have added a lot of new infrastructure out there and we have made sure to run the EGC with each of them but I am not aware of any requirement or benefit to running the ground rod and GE for each pedestal.

 

[augie47]

The 2017 Code added 551.75(B) specifically noting RV supply equipment (other than service equipment) did NOT require a grounding electrode but one could be added. I have seen no documentation referencing an advantage to having one,however, if I was experiencing lightning associated damage I certainly might try it.

 

[TheGingerElectrician]

This brings me back to the thread that brought me over to MH forums. On the ECN forum, I'd opined that for long _outside_ feeders, an EGC might actually increase risk. Mr. Holt saw the discussion, questioned me about the point (he didn't agree), and invited me to join MH forums.

In any case my _hunch_ is that treating long outside feeders the way a utility service 'ties' the circuit conductors to local Earth, whereas having a separate EGC means that there is significant impedance to local Earth. So my hunch (not informed by any academic study, if studies exist) is that the feeder which doesn't have an EGC, if it has proper local bonding and no parallel neutral paths, is both not a problem and possibly a benefit.

Regarding grounding electrodes? I have no opinion of the benefits. IMHO bonding is more important; but I don't think there is a requirement to provide redundant bonding to an RV.

-Jon

Are you referring to bonding the neutral to the metal parts of each of the pedestals until we rerun them since there is no EGC? I know mike has made this suggestion in one of his videos if I remember correctly.

 

[TheGingerElectrician]

Are you referring to bonding the neutral to the metal parts of each of the pedestals until we rerun them since there is no EGC? I know mike has made this suggestion in one of his videos if I remember correctly.

I know that the 2020 since that is what i am reading out of says in 551.76 D says the grounded conductor "shall not be used as an equipment grounding conductor for recreational vehicles or equipment within the recreational vehicle park." Is the assumption that this would be for a new install or for both new and existing applications?

 

[winnie]

Are you referring to bonding the neutral to the metal parts of each of the pedestals until we rerun them since there is no EGC? I know mike has made this suggestion in one of his videos if I remember correctly.

Exactly.

If you do not have an EGC, then you must bond non current carrying metal to the neutral otherwise you don't have a path for fault current.

This has the undesirable effect of making the earth a parallel current carrying path to the neutral, and in the few instances where you are allowed to bond to the neutral you must not have any parallel metallic path (eg. No metal water pipes. )

My hunch (just a gut feel, not supported by any serious research) is that for long outdoor feeders, using the neutral as your fault return path, and bonding the neutral at the remote location, has a safety and performance benefit.

Not enough that I actively advocate against having a separate EGC, but enough that I wouldn't stress an existing installation that was properly installed and bonded but didn't have an EGC.

Jon

 

[TheGingerElectrician]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. This has been a great thread!