Non fused disconnect with feeder taps

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bentov

New User
For an ag service, is it permissable to install a non-fused service entrance switch under the meter, then run undergound conductors to multiple pump panels, each with its own OCPD? Sort of combining the 6 handle and unlimited length outside feeder tap rules . . .
 
bentov said:
For an ag service, is it permissable to install a non-fused service entrance switch under the meter, then run undergound conductors to multiple pump panels, each with its own OCPD? Sort of combining the 6 handle and unlimited length outside feeder tap rules . . .
Click to expand...
They would not be taps.
It sounds like what was done for years in ag.
Generally a fused disconnect now and feeders tapped from that.
 
For ag facilities I believe it is permissible. See Art 547 especially 547.9
 
Can you provide a picture or further explain why you can't add a 2nd tap ?
 
electrofelon said:
I don't see how you can get around 230.91
Click to expand...
Some of the POCOs in this area used to provide disconnects under their meters. They were never considered the SE for the farm. Each building or grain bin would have its own. Pump Panels can be SUSE.
POCO North of me will provide a manual transfer switch at meter location, but it is not considered SE.

So the answer is 'Depends'
 
bentov said:
For an ag service, is it permissable to install a non-fused service entrance switch under the meter, then run undergound conductors to multiple pump panels, each with its own OCPD? Sort of combining the 6 handle and unlimited length outside feeder tap rules . . .
Click to expand...
So to answer the op, I would say yes that is acceptable but not for the reasons you state. It seems the service disconnect and ocpd still need to be adjacent, but you can choose to either Mount them at the distribution point or at each building. If you have a disconnect only at the distribution point, you can consider it the site isolation device, feeding service conductors, and the service disconnect is at each building (with the OCPD).
 
electrofelon said:
So to answer the op, I would say yes that is acceptable but not for the reasons you state. It seems the service disconnect and ocpd still need to be adjacent, but you can choose to either Mount them at the distribution point or at each building. If you have a disconnect only at the distribution point, you can consider it the site isolation device, feeding service conductors, and the service disconnect is at each building (with the OCPD).
Click to expand...
All the rural POCO's here provide that disconnect at the pole, often is a meter and disconnect combination, some have OCPD's some don't, as mentioned some even have a manual transfer switch incorporated into them - usually with no OCPD's though.

The State AHJ just sees it as a convenience switch provided by the POCO, and also considers that the POCO could possibly change that switch to another type with/without OCPD or with/without a manual transfer switch so they don't consider it to be the service disconnecting means regardless of what options it may have. Been times I have set up a temporary service off one of those maybe even mounted on same pole, I still needed to provide my own service disconnect even though there was a breaker on meter/main the POCO installed. I am fine with it as long as it is consistently enforced that way.

These rural POCO's do that for up to 200 amps pretty much any voltage, some do up to 400 amps 240 volts single phase and some even 240 400 amp three phase. higher capacities are usually done on case by case basis with certain amount of standard approaches, but often the "service point" is the transformer secondary or maybe in a CT cabinet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top