Not per code, but safe?

[Sea Nile]

Exactly my point, the ground of the uf is bonded to the well casing, so electrically the return path of the shed (the defacto neutral) is bonded to the well casing

By the way, is the reason you don't want any neutrals bonded at remote buildings (or any neutrals at all) bonded to the earth (other than the single point) because it creates a voltage gradients or parallel paths? In this particular situation, would you not have a voltage gradient around the well casing and the ground rod at the house? Objectionable current?

 

[wwhitney]

How about 250.24(A)(5), 250.32(B)(1), and 250.142(B)?

None of those say that a grounded conductor has to be insulated.

If it were allowed to have an uninsulated but covered branch circuit grounded conductor, and if the UF cable install is old enough, and if there are no other metal paths between the well and the building supplying the branch circuit (water line must have a plastic section), then the 12/2 wg UF cable could be considered an EGC-less branch circuit with a covered grounded conductor. The use of an existing EGC-less branch circuit is still allowed to a remote structure per 250.32(B)(1) Exception. Then IIRC it is allowed to connect the grounded conductor to the local grounding electrode, in this case the metal well casing. And that would establish a new EGC system, in this case extended to the shed via the RMC. [Unless I've misremembered and the allowance to do this is only for a feeder, not a branch circuit.]

So the only hazard I see here that is in excess of the hazards that may exist in any installation under 250.32(B)(1) Exception are those that come from having the grounded conductor just covered, not insulated.

However, 310.3(D) does say that "Conductors not specifically permitted elsewhere in this Code to be covered or bare shall be insulated." And as far as I can see, the only allowances for bare or covered conductors are for service conductors, EGCs, GECs, and bonding jumpers. So using this covered conductor as a grounded conductor would be a violation of 310.3(D).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

See 340.112

 

[LarryFine]

None of those say that a grounded conductor has to be insulated.

But I want them to!

 

[wwhitney]

See 340.112

That's obviously UF-specific, and it doesn't answer the question of whether a covered but not insulated conductor can be a grounded conductor of a branch circuit. As if there were such an allowance, then as far as 340.112 goes, the covered conductor would qualify under the phrase "identified for such use."

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

That's obviously UF-specific, and it doesn't answer the question of whether a covered but not insulated conductor can be a grounded conductor of a branch circuit. As if there were such an allowance, then as far as 340.112 goes, the covered conductor would qualify under the phrase "identified for such use."

Cheers, Wayne

thats where you find the requirements for cables, under their section. The cable in question is UF.
Since a neutral is a power conductor it has to be one of the types listed in Table 310.104(A)

334.112 Insulation. The insulated power conductors shall be
one of the types listed in Table 310.104(A) that are suitable for
branch-circuit wiring or one that is identified for use in these
cables. Conductor insulation shall be rated at 90°C (194°F).

 

[wwhitney]

Since a neutral is a power conductor it has to be one of the types listed in Table 310.104(A)

Suppose that there were a section in Article 200 that allowed a covered but not insulated grounded conductor in a branch circuit in certain circumstances.

Then there would be no conflict with either 340.112 or 334.112. No conflict with 334.112, as it explicitly only applies to "insulated power conductors." And no conflict with 340.112, even those it applies to all power conductors in UF, because of that phrase "or identified for such use."

Thus the 3XX.112 sections don't address the question of whether the grounded conductor is required to be insulated, or may just be covered. Rather, 310.3(D) does, as I mentioned.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

There was never a UF cable made with a black and a bare or a Black Red and bare.
If there was maybe.
Old non-grounded UF had just a Black and a White. (Or Black Red White)
As soon as there is a wire identified with white insulation its a neutral.
The cable is listed as 12/2 WG so the bare wire can only be an equipment ground.

Article 399 "Outdoor Overhead Conductors over 1000 Volts" allow's bare conductors. And 225.4 addresses that.

 

[tortuga]

310.3(D)

Cheers, Wayne

Pre 2020 I think that was 310.106(D).

 

[mtnelect]

For underground ... I always put it in schedule 40 or 80. Why would anyone put underground cable in unprotected in the first place ?

 

[junkhound]

More info since this thread appears to have generated some interest with over 20 replies:

House appears to have been insulated and original K&T removed sometime in 2013. Have found no trace of the MC cable as seen in the well pit at the house end, the MC likely cutoff and buried at house end, so no other house to well conductors other than the UF. No idea when the UF installed.

The new panel has a Jan 2014 WA state electrical inspection permit signoff sticker. The 'niceties' (such as no wire clamp on UF going into disconnect metal fuse box) in the well pit were not seen or addressed as no new work done there, so UF cable must have been before 2013. House was built in late 1940's. Well casing is not original, 1990's it appears.

Our own granddaughter and only great-grandkids will be living there, so safety a definite issue but not concerned except for the UF ground not being identified in the main panel as current carrying. -- in case one of the GGKs tries to do some DIY when a young teen . I intend to put white heat shrink over the entire UF ground wire in the panel, which isthe main true safetiy issue anyone has so far identified.



The house has changed ownership 4 or five times since the 1970s, sometime since then a BI apparently did identify the gross problems with the shed - old really bad stuff which I have stripped off --- there was a bunch of old non-B NM nd lamp cord stapled with fence staples to the outside feeding now dead fixtures, including NM stripped of outer jacket and going into dead ungrounded metal boxes -- assume at one of real estate sales the shed was disconnected of electrical and subsequently the 3/4 RMC added (which is in good shape). There is also a non-connected pigtail of TW in old corroded 1/2 EMT in the well pit that I assume previously fed the shed.

I had considered adding a transformer in the well pit to feed the shed, but since a wet location, deem the risk of such worse than present situation and did not want to totally disconnect the shed used for mower and bicycle and garden tool storage.

 

[mtnelect]

Just grab a shovel, you have to dig it anyway ... It's free exercise ! No fitness club fees.

 

[tortuga]

What's in the shed? Just lights? Make them 240v

I think Joe nailed it with this comment. lots of LED's these days are 100-277V, just put in a 2-pole switch and a 240V light in the shed.

 

[Sea Nile]

I think Joe nailed it with this comment. lots of LED's these days are 100-277V, just put in a 2-pole switch and a 240V light in the shed.

Or wire two identical 120v lights in series. I'm just joking guys. .

 

[wwhitney]

As soon as there is a wire identified with white insulation its a neutral.

200.7(C)(1) says otherwise.

The cable is listed as 12/2 WG so the bare wire can only be an equipment ground.

That is an interesting point, but would require further investigation of the UL standards to see if it is so. Since this covered conductor isn't allowed as a circuit conductor in the first place, I'll skip that. : -)

Cheers, Wayne

 

[synchro]

I had considered adding a transformer in the well pit to feed the shed, but since a wet location, deem the risk of such worse than present situation and did not want to totally disconnect the shed ...

Would a transformer in the shed be an acceptable alternative?

 

[hbiss]

Just grab a shovel, you have to dig it anyway ... It's free exercise ! No fitness club fees.

You don't mention what the distance is from the shed to the main panel and what kind of terrain and soil conditions exist. Seems to me that renting a trencher for an hour would take care of your families' problem.

-Hal

 

[hbiss]

Would a transformer in the shed be an acceptable alternative?

I would think that just installing a 100-277v fixture would be the way to go rather than that. Besides, if there are any receptacles it would have to be sized according to the circuit ampacity.

-Hal

 

[Sberry]

Lights over 120V in residential? But,,, we already know its not to code, says unsafe even before we start this reasoning.

 

[Joethemechanic]

Lights over 120V in residential? But,,, we already know its not to code, says unsafe even before we start this reasoning.

Is an outbuilding like a shed residential?