tapped to parking lot light poles

[George Stolz]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by iwire:

230.70 General.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors.

When was the last service you saw that would you not need tools to disconnect the grounded conductor?

As allowed in 230.75.

I really don't see a cut-and-dried answer to the original question. This is an interesting one. Everywhere I look I get shot down by one thing or another. Taps are tricky!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by jbwhite:
Could the breaker in the back of the box store behind the cloths racks and stacks of boxes count as this disconnect?

I don't think so. The problem is with the tap rule of 240.21(B)(5), it requires the fuse that sits at the load side of the tap (where the tap becomes a normal branch circuit conductor again) to be an integral part of a disconnecting means.

The disconnect for each pole "structure" (if there weren't any taps or other headaches) could be located at the originating building, as allowed in 225.32 exception 3.

With the required tap, everything gets cloudy.

 

[iwire]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by georgestolz:
I don't think so. The problem is with the tap rule of 240.21(B)(5), it requires the fuse that sits at the load side of the tap (where the tap becomes a normal branch circuit conductor again) to be an integral part of a disconnecting means.

To access the fuse the circuit must be disconnected.

Does that not meet the actual written requirements of 240.21(B)(5)(3)?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Bob, I'll buy that.

I got to thinking, the original poster could fairly easily conform to the " less than 10' " rule in 240.21(B)(1). Problem solved, no disconnecting means (questionable or otherwise) required.

 

[jbwhite]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

iwire, those where the fuses I was just thinking about.

be carefull, the one tab end can slip up the housing and rail you, if you are not carefull.

They are also dangerous if installed backwards.

 

[jbwhite]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Bob, I'll buy that.

I got to thinking, the original poster could fairly easily conform to the " less than 10' " rule in 240.21(B)(1). Problem solved, no disconnecting means (questionable or otherwise) required.

Then he would have to run the origianl size wire up the pole. some are very tall.

 

[iwire]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Really I do not see how you can open these fuse holders hot and comply with OSHA standards.

That said these are often used at the bottom of light poles.

 

[Homacer]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Just to add to the discussion.

Would having seperate " controls " at the base of each pole change things?

example: Same 4/0 feeders are run, tapped at intervals to pole lights. At base of each pole is fusible disco and contactor/photocell. I have seen that man times on jobs. Can the "tap" be sized just for each pole load as well?

Homacer

 

[Homacer]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by iwire:
Really I do not see how you can open these fuse holders hot and comply with OSHA standards.

That said these are often used at the bottom of light poles.

I'd hate to pull them apart, breaking load, on anything more then an amp or 2.

Homacer

 

[jbwhite]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by Homacer:
Would having seperate " controls " at the base of each pole change things?

I dont like this idea because unsavory people might turn off the light poles and mug old women as they come out of the store.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by jbwhite:

Originally posted by georgestolz:
240.21(B)(1). Problem solved...

Then he would have to run the origianl size wire up the pole. some are very tall.

No, he'd install his fuses in the vault with the 4/0, fuse them at 15 or 20 amps, run 12-2 UF or whatever from the vault to the pole. All the tap conductors would be contained in the vault.

The 12-2 UF would be branch circuit conductors.

[ January 15, 2006, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[Homacer]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

I'll be honest.

I am now MORE confused then I was before.

 

[iwire]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by georgestolz:
The 12-2 UF would be branch circuit conductors.

What is UF?

 

[jbwhite]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

George, now we are back to the disconnecting means being required in the valut. (if that is what you are calling an undergound splice box.)

Since most poles are upwards of 30 feet high the taps would have to be the same as the orginal feeder to get arround this.

 

[jbwhite]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

George, I would also like to see the fuses rated for the underground splice box.

I think fuses and holders rated for wet locations would be very expensive.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by jbwhite:
George, now we are back to the disconnecting means being required in the vault. (if that is what you are calling an undergound splice box.)

No. The disconnecting means that was giving us headaches was required by 240.21(B)(5). (B)(5) essentially says, "Go nuts with it, treat them like service conductors, as long as you comply with my requirements."

In our discussion, "going nuts with it" would be running tap conductors continuously to the pole, or even all the way up to the head of the pole.

If we refrain from that, and keep the tap conductors less than 10' long, we can abide by the rules of 240.21(B)(1) instead.

(B)(1) has less stringent rules, because the conductors are shorter. One of the rules that is not present in (B)(1) is a requirement for a fuse that is integral to a disconnecting means.

Since most poles are upwards of 30 feet high the taps would have to be the same as the orginal feeder to get arround this.

No - the tap conductors are less than 10' long, they're contained in the vault and stop as soon as you come to a fuse that is correctly protecting the conductors on the load side of the fuse, as required by 240.4.

After that fuse, the conductors are branch circuit conductors again, not tap conductors. See the definition of "tap conductor" in Article 100.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by jbwhite:
George, I would also like to see the fuses rated for the underground splice box.

I think fuses and holders rated for wet locations would be very expensive.

That's a valid point, but it's the best bet for this application.

I've never tried to shop for such things, to be honest.

I can almost guarantee that's it'd be easier to get wet fuseholders into the vault than a disconnecting means with fuses in it mounted to the pole, or inside the vault.

What's your ideal solution to the problem?

 

[iwire]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Originally posted by jbwhite:
George, I would also like to see the fuses rated for the underground splice box.

HEY ? Optional breakaway receptacle, water-resistant,
polarized, and accepting Class CC branch circuit fuses (Buss
Type KTK-R, FNQ-R, & LP-CC; 600V or less, 200,000A interrupting
rating.) Particularly applicable in street lighting circuits.

 

[Homacer]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

George,
Are you saying that the tap wires must be fused AT the handhole, for each pole, prior to the run to the pole? Regardless of the fusible disconnect mounted ON each pole?

Like my first post stated, the "tap" would be 50 feet to each pole.

 

[iwire]

Re: tapped to parking lot light poles

Homacer, I am sorry we get side tracked.

You installation as you described it sounds fine to me as you are using the "outside tap of unlimited length rule.

Originally posted by Homacer:
Are you saying that the tap wires must be fused AT the handhole, for each pole, prior to the run to the pole?

Forget that as it does not apply to the installation you described.

The only questionable thing is the disconnecting means but at the same time what you describe is a very common method.