Parallel paths to ground?

[DooCrewRacing]

If I had a meterbase 500' away from my first means of disconnect.....
#1 The meterbase requires a ground rod (I guess for utillity transformer ground/bond)
#2 The distance to the first means of disconnect being 500' (and where bonding should take place) gets a ground rod and neutral bonded

Question presented is : Would a equiptment grounding conductor be required?
and if so, would that be parallel paths to ground?:-?

 

[raider1]

Welcome to the forum.

If the meterbase does not include an overcurrent device then you are not required to have an EGC run with the conductors to the service disconnecting means.

Chris

 

[ceb58]

If I had a meterbase 500' away from my first means of disconnect.....
#1 The meterbase requires a ground rod (I guess for utillity transformer ground/bond)
#2 The distance to the first means of disconnect being 500' (and where bonding should take place) gets a ground rod and neutral bonded

Question presented is : Would a equiptment grounding conductor be required?
and if so, would that be parallel paths to ground?:-?

Welcome to the forum.

If the meterbase does not include an overcurrent device then you are not required to have an EGC run with the conductors to the service disconnecting means.

Chris

Chris is correct, as usual.
I would be concerned with voltage drop with that long of a run. Also you will need 2 rods. Have fun in the red mud

 

[ceb58]

After thinking about it,dangerous thing, I would question the need for rods at the meter base. But I think it would be allowed based on 250.30 A 1 excpt.2

 

[tom baker]

the title of your post was parallel paths to ground. Are you concerned about the ground rods in parallel?

 

[gndrod]

egc questions...

egc questions...

If I had a meterbase 500' away from my first means of disconnect.....
#1 The meterbase requires a ground rod (I guess for utillity transformer ground/bond)
#2 The distance to the first means of disconnect being 500' (and where bonding should take place) gets a ground rod and neutral bonded

Question presented is : Would a equiptment grounding conductor be required?


and if so, would that be parallel paths to ground?:-?

1. Another take at answering an 'if' question'....No, egc not at the point of the meterbase.
2. Depends on 250.94 (intersystem bonding is most likely, as an additional structure is involved.) where the SE equipment has...Commercial RMC...yes. Residential NM cable...no.

 

[gndrod]

egc questions...

egc questions...

After reading my own answers, they really stir up a can of worms, so here is another attempt to clarify a mind reading...
The two answers I have given pertain to the implementation (or not) of using egc's and not the installation of ground electrodes as the conditions emphasized by the OP.
The OP data given were formative of conditions #1 and #2 that derail a correct answer to the egc questions I refer to as 1. and 2. The 2. answer is a wag based on a 'what if' is most likely to exist in commercial vs residential physical applications but cannot be correct because of how the initial posting was presented. Let the tomato throwing begin.....

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If there is a disconnect with the meter base then yes an egc would be required but it would be be a parallel path as the neutral and egc would be landed on separate bars in the panel at the building. The ground rod is not a parallel path as it is really there to protect from surges and lightning strikes. The ground is hardly parallel to the equipment ground.

Drive a rod and then a test between the rod and the neutral from the power company. I bet the needle won't move on your meter.

 

[gndrod]

parallel

parallel

If there is a disconnect with the meter base then yes an egc would be required but it would be be a parallel path as the neutral and egc would be landed on separate bars in the panel at the building. The ground rod is not a parallel path as it is really there to protect from surges and lightning strikes. The ground is hardly parallel to the equipment ground.

Drive a rod and then a test between the rod and the neutral from the power company. I bet the needle won't move on your meter.

I am liking your answer better about parallel ground electrodes vs egc's. The OP does state the meterbase being 500ft away from the main disconnect panel. No mention of physical interfacing at that.

 

[hurk27]

If there is a disconnect with the meter base then yes an egc would be required but it would be be a parallel path as the neutral and egc would be landed on separate bars in the panel at the building. The ground rod is not a parallel path as it is really there to protect from surges and lightning strikes. The ground is hardly parallel to the equipment ground.

Drive a rod and then a test between the rod and the neutral from the power company. I bet the needle won't move on your meter.

Did you mean "wouldn't" in the above in red?

if EGC and neutrals land of different bars in the panel, and the neutral bar is isolated as it should there wouldn't be a parallel path.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Did you mean "wouldn't" in the above in red?

if EGC and neutrals land of different bars in the panel, and the neutral bar is isolated as it should there wouldn't be a parallel path.

I did.. You and Derek are keeping me straight. I need to proof read. thanks.

 

[ceb58]

If there is a disconnect with the meter base then yes an egc would be required but it would be be a parallel path as the neutral and egc would be landed on separate bars in the panel at the building. The ground rod is not a parallel path as it is really there to protect from surges and lightning strikes. The ground is hardly parallel to the equipment ground.

Drive a rod and then a test between the rod and the neutral from the power company. I bet the needle won't move on your meter.

Did you mean "wouldn't" in the above in red?

if EGC and neutrals land of different bars in the panel, and the neutral bar is isolated as it should there wouldn't be a parallel path.

The second would should be changed to wouldn't. Not the first one. And there is no need for 2 be be
My question is where is the OP

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The second would should be changed to wouldn't. Not the first one. And there is no need for 2 be be
My question is where is the OP

Yes that's correct the second one is changed to wouldn't but I think that is what Hurk meant.

This is a classic situation where the op posts for the first time and doesn't see his/her post and assumes they can't post. I know it is in the information when you sign up but I also didn't read it and wondered why my posts were not there.