This is from the 2002 NEC handbook I will probablbly be smoking a turd on purgatory for doing this but it is on my web site at
Consider that if you have ANY metallic path between buildings, a ground at the remote site is inappropriate, and the cable run to the remote should include a ground (not to be confused with neutral) properly tied to the grounding bus in both the service and remote box.
This includes phone lines, cable TV, intercoms, etc. There is much popular confusion on these points.
Greg
Read it again. You still need a grounding system in the 2d building, you just don't reground the neutral.
"no metalic paths" only comes into play if you are NOT bringing over an Equipment Grounding Conductor and you DO reground the neutral.
Err... that's what I said. Read it again. ;-)
"and the cable run to the remote should include a ground (not to be confused with neutral) properly tied to the grounding bus in both the service and remote box."
Perhaps we are just missing each other. This is certainly one of the most misunderstood articles in the code. I am just saying that you need a ground electrode at the second building in both cases. (exhibits 250-16, 3 wire feeder and 250-18, 4 wire feeder, in the handbook). The only time you don't need the local disconnect in the 2d building and ground electrode system is in exhibit 250-17 where you have a single branch circuit. YMMV about getting the exhibit 250-19 exception in a residence. Different inspectors have different feelings about what "management" means. Some think that means you need a published lockout/tagout procedure. Others think a man's home is his castle and he can "manage" turning off the breaker to the shed. If there are no more than 6 breakers in the sub-panel the whole question is moot anyway.
Are you concerned about posting copyrighted material? (the comment about 'smoking a turd on purgatory')
If so, you should know that recently, the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the 5th Circuit court regarding a copyright infringement case. The case in question, Veeck vs. SBCCI, came about when a guy (Veeck) was going to do some remodeling to a building, and discovered that his municipality (somewhere in Texas) relied upon codes crafted by a non-profit organization (SBCCI). He bought a copy of the codes, and thought that he'd be doing the world a favor by posting a copy of the codes on a website he operated. He felt (and there is case law to support this) that public law cannot be copyrighted (i.e., owned) by any one entity. As you might imagine, he recieved a nastygram from the SBCCI's attorney, and instead of backing down, decided to fight it. The last ruling (from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) was in his favor, so as it stands right now, you probably won't be recieving a nastgram from the NFPA (the folks who publish the NEC every three years).
For more reading about this, try here:
rob
Rob Jones, Developer Lightspeed Systems
I would defend this as "fair use". It was credited, will only be available for a limited time and only an excerpt of a small part of the document, relevent to an ongoing question. This seems to address a serious enough problem that I will take my chances. I still would not be surprised to see a cease and desist from NFPA. BTW it is very common to see NEC passages copy/pasted into newsgroups. You just don't see the entire document made available.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.