(Bold emphasis in the following quote added by me..)
The inspector is just a bit ahead of his time ....
If there are no metal paths between the two buildings, the code can be read to say that no ground rod is required. This ambiguity, though, will go away in the 08 code .... where it is said to make clear that detached buildings do need ground rods.
Code finesse aside, though ... that ground rod is there for lightning (more than anything else). It's sure not there to clear faults. It seems only sensible that anything that might make a separate 'target' for lightning have its' own rod.
EVEN WITH a rod, though, I'd keep the neutral and ground separated at this panel. Can't say why ... it just seems right that way.
Thanks, Reno. That confirms what I had thought, i.e. the '05 and earlier Codes are not too clear on this requirement. That was what gave me pause when we got this notification.
And being as this is a remote area somewhat, I agree that lightning protection is a good reason for that extra rod.
I intend to keep the neutrals and grounds separate at the subpanel....now if that inspector had instructed us to bond the neutrals and grounds at the subpanel that would have brought out my claws.
And to be clear, I will be adding the rod, it wasn't an issue of doing it (I'm all for going above what Code asks for) but I was concerned about the duplicate grounding paths possibly being an issue.
Oh yeah, this cabin is being built by my friend (who's an inspector himself) and wired by both of us. He was as surprised as I was by this request from the local AHJ.
Yooupersup, thanks for the Code article references too. Are those from '05 or the upcoming '08?