Tapping inside a service switch with polaris connectors

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tainted

Tainted

Senior Member
Location
New York
Occupation
Engineer (PE)
I need 20kW worth of power. The only easiest solution I have found is to grab power from this existing 200A service switch with 200A fuses. I will be doing a 220.87 load study but I think it has the capacity for it. This service switch is feeding a panelboard which will be left alone.

My question is, can we use polaris connectors inside the service switch to do the tap? There is another knockout on the left side for the new conduit, the new conduit will penetrate behind the service switch into a wall. Is that feasible? can the knockout and
penetration be made without taking apart the service switch? see picture

ss.jpg

How long does it usually take to install polaris connectors inside the service switch?
 
Wouldn't swapping in dual lugs be faster, easier, and cheaper?

Tap rules might apply, depending on the added wire size.
 
LarryFine said:
Wouldn't swapping in dual lugs be faster, easier, and cheaper?

Tap rules might apply, depending on the added wire size.
Click to expand...
I have thought of that, but wouldn't that void UL listing since we are modifying the disconnect switch lugs?
 
Tainted said:
I have thought of that, but wouldn't that void UL listing since we are modifying the disconnect switch lugs?
Click to expand...
Oh, who cares?! Maintaining listing is way overrated. :rolleyes: (Kidding, somewhat.)

Do we really know whether those lugs were factory-installed or field-installed?

I would likely do it anyway. It's cleaner and neater as well as what I said above.

Added: And yes, you can add a conduit wherever you like, side or back wall.
 
LarryFine said:
Oh, who cares?! Maintaining listing is way overrated. :rolleyes: (Kidding, somewhat.)

I would likely do it anyway. It's cleaner and neater as well as what I said above.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, it is way more practical to do it that way. But the problem is if someone asks me why I suggested it if it breaks UL listing, I wouldn't know how to answer them lol. Isn't it code to not break UL listing?
 
Tainted said:
I agree with you, it is way more practical to do it that way. But the problem is if someone asks me why I suggested it if it breaks UL listing, I wouldn't know how to answer them lol. Isn't it code to not break UL listing?
Click to expand...
I do: "Oh, who cares?!" :sneaky:
 
jaggedben said:
You are allowed to use Polaris connectors, provided there's enough space.
Click to expand...
Maybe not if you are on the 2020 NEC. This is from the end of 230.46:
Effective January 1, 2023, pressure connectors and devices for splices and taps installed on service conductors shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.
Click to expand...
As far as I know there are no connectors so marked on the market at this time.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Maybe not if you are on the 2020 NEC. This is from the end of 230.46:

As far as I know there are no connectors so marked on the market at this time.
Click to expand...
I am proposing to tap on the load side of service switch, load side of service switch are not service conductors so I think I'm in the clear. I am on NYC electrical code too
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Maybe not if you are on the 2020 NEC. This is from the end of 230.46:

As far as I know there are no connectors so marked on the market at this time.
Click to expand...
Somebody didn’t think that through, it would end building meter groups using a wireway. You could only use factory built meter groups……Wait a minute, now we know who pushed that change through!
 
Tainted said:
Also I have another question. If I use a full sized feeder (200A), do I need to provide a separate disconnect switch near the tap?
Click to expand...
How long would this feeder be? That's why I mentioned tap rules. You may or may not need them.
 
Tainted said:
I agree with you, it is way more practical to do it that way. But the problem is if someone asks me why I suggested it if it breaks UL listing, I wouldn't know how to answer them lol. Isn't it code to not break UL listing?
Click to expand...
You don't violate a UL listing by modifying equipment, if that were true you would not be able put a hole in the disconnect for the conduit.
 
ActionDave said:
You don't violate a UL listing by modifying equipment, if that were true you would not be able put a hole in the disconnect for the conduit.
Click to expand...
Well, there is a knockout in the disconnect switch. It was designed for that specific purpose. I have to disagree with you respectfully
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top