Grounding electrode systems on seperate structures in close proximity.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sonnyhughes

Member
Location
Arizona
Occupation
Electrician
I have a shed and house in close proximity. So I bonded the grounding electrode systems together. Inspector says this is a code violation when I just thought it was a good idea.
 
sonnyhughes said:
I have a shed and house in close proximity. So I bonded the grounding electrode systems together. Inspector says this is a code violation when I just thought it was a good idea.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum.

Is the neutral bonded in the shed? If so, he's correct.
 
What code section did he cite as a violation? Often the question is when there are two structures within proximity to each other can you use one GES for both so this is a new wrinkle of bonding the two together.
 
infinity said:
What code section did he cite as a violation? Often the question is when there are two structures within proximity to each other can you use one GES for both so this is a new wrinkle of bonding the two together.
Click to expand...
He did not cite a code section. He just wanted the ground wire between the house ground rods and she'd ground rods removed?

Sent from my SM-S124DL using Tapatalk
 
LarryFine said:
Welcome to the forum.

Is the neutral bonded in the shed? If so, he's correct.
Click to expand...
No it is not. I'm well aware of separate structures. Only difference they were so close I bonded house ground rod to shed ground rod which he didn't like.

Sent from my SM-S124DL using Tapatalk
 
He's wrong. You could have even used the same two rods for both structures.

In most instances, all electrodes in close proximity must be bonded together.

As far as I am aware, being installed for separate structures doesn't alter that.
 
LarryFine said:
Is the neutral bonded in the shed? If so, he's correct.
Click to expand...
Do you have an explicit NEC citation that would prohibit it, or is it just that it would cause objectionable current?

The latter seems unavoidable whenever two structures both have electrical services but have a common grounded metallic facility (water pipe, cable, etc). So providing a bonding jumper between the GESs would be no worse than that.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Do you have an explicit NEC citation that would prohibit it, or is it just that it would cause objectionable current?
Click to expand...
It's the old allowance for a 3-wire feeder. Yes, that objectionable current; don't have the code handy.

wwhitney said:
The latter seems unavoidable whenever two structures both have electrical services but have a common grounded metallic facility (water pipe, cable, etc). So providing a bonding jumper between the GESs would be no worse than that.
Click to expand...
No argument; we know about that from broken-neutral threads. But, the NEC begins at the service.
 
LarryFine said:
He's wrong. You could have even used the same two rods for both structures.

In most instances, all electrodes in close proximity must be bonded together.

As far as I am aware, being installed for separate structures doesn't alter that.
Click to expand...
How do you define proximity to each other? The NEC gives no distance measurement so if the shed is 5' away do the the separate GES's require bonding together? What about 10', 15' or 20'?

Since the shed has a 4-wire feeder and a separate EGC I see no code violation by bonding the two GES's together regardless of distance.
 
LarryFine said:
It's the old allowance for a 3-wire feeder. Yes, that objectionable current; don't have the code handy.
Click to expand...
Agree rebonding the neutral at the shed is disallowed when it is supplied by a feeder with EGC from the main structure. For the possibility that "the neutral is bonded at the shed" I jumped to "then the shed has its own service" as that is the only way it would be allowed to have a neutral-ground bond (for a new installation). So my question was actually if the shed did have its own service, whether there would be a prohibition on connecting the GESs.

Cheers, Wayne
 
infinity said:
How do you define proximity to each other?
Click to expand...
If the two structures are close enough that it causes this discussion, they're within proximity. :sneaky:

infinity said:
The NEC gives no distance measurement so if the shed is 5' away do the the separate GES's require bonding together?
Click to expand...
For a 3-wire feeder (no EGC, bonded neutral), they must be isolated, regardless of distance.

For normally-non-current-carrying conductors, like EGCs, there are no paralleling restrictions.

infinity said:
What about 10', 15' or 20'?
Click to expand...
Optional, beyond what I said above. I consider it to be a matter of economics and practicability.

infinity said:
Since the shed has a 4-wire feeder and a separate EGC I see no code violation by bonding the two GES's together regardless of distance.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree, and have all along. (y)
 
The two systems were already bonded together inherently through the EGC supplying the shed. I see no harm in theory of having them bonded again through another bonding conductor.
 
Dsg319 said:
The two systems were already bonded together inherently through the EGC supplying the shed. I see no harm in theory of having them bonded again through another bonding conductor.
Click to expand...
Unlike a neutral that is bonded at both ends, in which case, only the earth may "interconnect" them.
 
LarryFine said:
Unlike a neutral that is bonded at both ends, in which case, only the earth may "interconnect" them.
Click to expand...
Sorry I should have been clearer about what I meant (or I’m not understanding what you meant, sorry Larry bare with me lol) What I meant and was under the assumption was his shed is fed by a 4wire feeder separated N/G at the shed. With the shed GES connected to the EGC bar in the panel in the shed. Than an additional possible in the dirt bonding conductor connecting both the GES together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top