240.21 (C) (4) 250.30(A)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

InspectorCruzo

Member
Location
Texas
Occupation
Inspector
looking for clarification regarding the separately derived system that is not protected by overload devise. System must be isolated?
 
I can't think of any SDS that isn't protected in some manner by an overload means of some type.
 
You can have overload built into a transformer but I think you mean overcurrent protective device, which is not quite the same as overload.

Not sure what you mean by making its way back to the panel thru bonding. Are you talking about a ground fault?
 
I appreciate yawls’ help. But let me explain.

I am a real estate inspector. This morning while inspecting a home for my client, in the country. I have the main service panel cover off. I notice that the service lugs are double tapped. A 2nd set of wires, service wires leave the cabinet, threw a conduit, into the ground. So, I’m wondering? where the hell are these wires headed. I look around and about 200FT out in the pasture stands an old dewlapped pole barn. I’m thinking NO, No way. So, I wonder on down to the barn. Sure, enough I locate an old conduit. You would assume that this was an abandoned system. BUT NO. this is a live system. I open up what I thought was going to be a sub-panel for the barn, but it was gutted. There were no breakers or disconnects in the box. It was basically being used as a junction box, with one string of 120v running over to a work bench and a 50FT length of Romex hanging over the trusses with a 220v plug, I assume is being used for a welder Etc.

So, I mark it as deficient and told my client that he needs to have an electrician rework his service. Dis connect the barn from the house main service. I emphasized how dangerous this situation is. I was so concerned that I thought that I should give the home owner a heads up. Maybe he was un aware of the situation. Well, apparently, he was fully aware of the situation, I think that he’s the one who rigged it. He proceeded to tell me that the system is Isolated, is out of the city limits and is not under any code and besides it can be shut of at the service panel. I explained that I was not trying to cause any problems, that I thought that I should just bring it to his attention. I would not forgive myself if anyone got hurt because of this situation. I explained that it would be nice if his plugs were GFCI protected. That he separated his 120v from his 220v by using a functional sub panel with individual breakers and a disconnect. Then uncouple his double lug service and connect it in his main panel using a GFCI breaker to the barn. JUST because it would be much safer and easier to service or disconnect if any failure happened, thus avoiding a 200 Ft sprint to the main service panel in order to make a quick disconnect. He was basically pissed.

So, I come back to the office, create my report, then I start to research the code. After reading,,,, and re-reading section 240 and 250 concerning separately derived systems. I am thoroughly confused. Kind of sounds like he is right. Depends on how you interpret the code. I just know that it was one of the most unsafe and unnecessary situations I have ever seen in a modern house.

Help Me. Was he correct? Did I overstep my authority?
 
retirede said:
What you discovered is not an SDS. Just forget that term altogether.

It’s an absolutely dangerous hack and you are correct to call it out.
Click to expand...
I second this.

If what the OP is describing is correct, that's quite the hack job and dangerous indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top