Missing EGC’S <_< >_> EVERYWHERE o_o

[Solar Flare Luminare]

I live in rural MO and I CONSTANTLY see the service wires ran to a disconnect under or adjacent to the meter

wires are then ran from the load side of that first disconnect to the house with NO EGC

then inside the house a #6 AWG bare copper is ran from a ground rod to the neutral bar or a bar bonded to the neutral bar (if you’re lucky to find one like this)

Then ALL the neutral conductor’s are landed on the neutral bar with ALL the EGC’s of the branch circuits ran in the home.

It really bothers me that there is no EGC from the first disconnect to the house and landed on a SEPARATE bar and then connect a GEC from the ground rod to the isolated ground bar and land all the EGC’s to this bar (Please let me know if I can describe the set up more clearly if I have not explained it correctly)

For the life of me I cannot describe the consequence of this to the people doing it, that should mean the system won’t clear a fault, is that correct?

I have yet to test it out, but I have seen breakers tripping in homes with this setup.

What am I missing here?

How can I be clear about the negative effect of running a service to a home without an EGC from the source?

 

[ActionDave]

As long as the neutral is bonded at the house it is not a safety issue.

As a matter of fact under 2023 code this is now allowed.

 

[GoldDigger]

Grounding and Bonding is a topic that causes problems for lots of electricians, and is a major topic in Mike's teaching material.

Your concerns make sense, but there are some details that need clarification, based on what you are saying.

1. There is never a separate EGC from the utility. The single grounded service conductor (the neutral in typical residential service) performs this function.
2. The big question is at what point the grounded service conductor is bonded to the building Ground Electrode System (GES). Anywhere past that point the neutrals and EGCs must be kept separate.
3. The NEC specifies that this bond must occur at or near the service disconnect. The service disconnect must incorporate overcurrent protection.
4. In the absence of a state amendment to the Code, the only justification for what you describe is that the outside disconnect is somehow not being considered the Service Disconnect.

 

[LarryFine]

It really bothers me that there is no EGC from the first disconnect to the house and landed on a SEPARATE bar and then connect a GEC from the ground rod to the isolated ground bar and land all the EGC’s to this bar (Please let me know if I can describe the set up more clearly if I have not explained it correctly)

We call that a 3-wire feeder to a panel with the neutrals and EGCs bonded. What you're saying is that there should be a 4-wire feeder to an unbonded panel.

For the life of me I cannot describe the consequence of this to the people doing it, that should mean the system won’t clear a fault, is that correct?

It will function just fine as long as the neutral is never compromised. What you have is what you would have with a main-breaker panel adjacent to the meter.

How can I be clear about the negative effect of running a service to a home without an EGC from the source?

If the EGCs are tied to the neutral, the grounding pathway is intact, and the breakers will trip. You effectively have the neutral-EGC bond in the neutral bus.

 

[LarryFine]

There is no separate EGC before the bonding point, like through the meter. The premises equipment grounding system begins in the main OCPD/disconnect. Ahead of that point, all "grounding" is connected directly to the neutral itself, which is the ground reference for the premises.

The EGC system is bonded to the neutral so a ground fault (contact between an energized line conductor and a normally-grounded surface, housing, or enclosure) makes the OCPD behave as it would with a line-conductor-to-neutral fault. Hour EGCs are connected to the neutral.

To the OP: But, you're correct that it generally isn't compliant, and actually does present some risk. Do you know which code was in use when it was permitted, and whether it actually was?

 

[readydave8]

breakers tripping in homes with this setup.

I don't think location of bond would cause breakers to trip

 

[Sberry]

I dont think that is what he meant,,, yes it will still trip a breaker as long as it is bonded. The whole point of this scheme is to insulate the N currents , with a bond in the second panel there is still the potential for multiple pathways.

 

[ActionDave]

Only if there is a water pipe or phone line from the house attached to the disconnect at the meter.

 

[Solar Flare Luminare]

To the OP: But, you're correct that it generally isn't compliant, and actually does present some risk. Do you know which code was in use when it was permitted, and whether it actually was?

The short answer is no code was in use.

Hence my concern.

There are no regulations or enforcement here. No permits are required to be pulled, no permission is required to build or remodel or anything else. Anyone can install anything they like on private property. It was installed in 2008, and the same was true at that time as well.

 

[Solar Flare Luminare]

So basically the system is ok and even allowed under the 2023 NEC, it just has no redundant pathway for current to flow and faults to clear in the event the neural gets disconnected. So as long as the neutral stays in tact, the system is safe.

Thank you everyone, that helps clear up my confusion and concern.

 

[ptonsparky]

So basically the system is ok and even allowed under the 2023 NEC, it just has no redundant pathway for current to flow and faults to clear in the event the neural gets disconnected. So as long as the neutral stays in tact, the system is safe.

Thank you everyone, that helps clear up my confusion and concern.

You got it.

 

[GoldDigger]

So basically the system is ok and even allowed under the 2023 NEC, it just has no redundant pathway for current to flow and faults to clear in the event the neural gets disconnected. So as long as the neutral stays in tact, the system is safe.

Thank you everyone, that helps clear up my confusion and concern.

If the neutral does not stay intact, then normal current (the imbalance between the two phase conductors) will have to flow through the Ground Electrode System (GES). This can be a problem for damage to equipment if the GES is not a very good current path.
But exactly the same consequences will be seen if the bond is at the outside disconnect and the POCO neutral is lost, so not a big difference between the two cases.
I suspect that the main reason the code wants the bond at the service disconnect is that there may be two or more downstream panels and you must not bond separately at each of them. If there is exactly one downstream panel that carries the entire load of the building, this does not apply.