Tips for pigtailing / wirenutting outlets with 12AWG wire

[Member, Takoma Park Volunteer]

Gerry I'm sure your aware that many jurisdictions adopt the NEC by reference. Once the legislative body passes that adoption and the executive signs the bill the NEC is in fact law in that jurisdiction. Inspectors who make up rules as they go along are just acting like petty tin pot gods by abusing their authority. Some states are adopting the NEC state wide and some of those, Virginia for instance, are adopting it as a minimum maximum code. Min Max codes are a reaction of the body politic to regulatory excesses such as requiring techniques that are not in the code. I'm informed that in Virginia a LOCAL AHJ that is repeatedly overturned on appeal to the state board can be uncertified as the AHJ for their respective county. Lets review what the code itself says about it's purpose vis.

90.1 Purpose. (A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. (B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use. (C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons. (Copyright 2002 National Fire Protection Association)

I can agree that requiring the EGCs to be made up using listed connectors before rough in is a reasonable step to assure that the installation of the EGCs is complete as built even though many jurisdictions I have worked in did not. What I cannot accept is forbidding the use of wire nuts, which are in fact listed for that application, or requiring the use of specific connectors when other connectors are listed for that use. It has been my experience, over thirty five years in the craft, that a crimp sleeve, even when installed with the proper crimper, is not as good a connection as a properly applied wire nut.

When I'm building circuits in new construction I try to get them energized as soon as possible. Were it is available I energize the rough in wiring with 277; sans plugs and fixtures of course; and leave it that way for a couple of days. If there is any iffy place in the insulation of that system the 277 will find it. That also has the salutary effect of making the dry wall gang use shorter router bits and carefully avoid cutting up my wires. The dry wall gangs complain and moan when they see the warning signs but so far the General Contractors have agreed I have a right to stress test my installations.

[Member, Takoma Park Volunteer]

I have read it. The phrase "the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules" is often used as a refuge for untrained and incompetent inspectors to claim that they can enforce whatever they please rather than what is written in the code. I have also heard it read to appeals boards during appeals. The administrative law advisers; usually the county solicitor; often speaks up to say that interpretation does not include the application of unwritten provisions. Such unwritten rules are the very definition of arbitrary and capricious acts according to the US supreme court. It is also worth noting that the individual inspectors are not the AHJ! In almost all cases they are agents of the AHJ in carrying out their responsibility under the adoption act.

[Bud--]

(Neither do I.)

In that case you can remove the ground wire from the old outlet and wire nut it to the ground wire from the new outlet.

Tom: 250.4(C) doesn't exist? Different section?

The linked EC&M article (which is also on the UL site) refers to 250.8: "Grounding conductors and bonding jumpers shall be connected by exothermic welding, listed pressure connectors, listed clamps, or other listed means. ...." The article, which is under the umbrella of 250.8, talks about green wire nuts as listed for grounding. It appears that 250.8 is being intrepreted as requiring wire nuts to be listed for grounding (rather than just listed as a connector). Seems more likely to me than

250.148(B). (Which is not intended to criticize your cite of 250.148, damned hard to find the basis for some code calls.)

My understanding of Tom's argument was that a 250.4(C) (which doesn't exist?) repeated requirements of 250.64 including irreversible (your crimps), and that 250.4(C) was missapplied to bond/ground wires.

The bottom line. It is annoying that code language permits this kind of disagreement.

I saw a video from Mike Holt where he used "bonding" and "earthing" instead of "grounding". I like the split, and getting rid of "ground". IMHO one reasons article 250 is confusing is the lack of clarity of whether a section is about bonding or earthing.

bud--

[gerry]

If by reference, correct. Many states also add additional requirements as a addenda or prefix. My point was simply that the law is state or local, not NEC itself. Often such law refers to a specific dated version of the NEC. It must where exception or additional requirements reference NEC.

There is a major difference between individual inspectors acting like god and statewide adoption of convention. In my state, the ground bonding issue discussed here is indeed statewide.

Look at 90.4. It gives ALL interpretation to the AHJ. Of course it doesn't define AHJ, that is often state or local, not an individual. I believe rural Maine actually still delegates it to the power company! My state adopts a specific dated NEC with stricter addenda as basis. Local governments are free to add their addenda if they so choose as long as stricter than the state's.

I think we agree crimps are overrated! Of course, I wonder how many were done without the correct tool. But a few tugs will loosen many crimps.

I had a simple reason for my suggestion:

Repeated (in context of residential NM wiring)

Bond all grounds with a green grounding rated wire nut with a pigtail for fixtures. Dress these neatly to the back of the box with the pigtail available for fixture grounding. Do this prior to rough in inspection.

This has the following advantages:

- is ONE example of good workmanship

- is low cost

- requires no special crimping tools (NEC prohibits using pliers...)

- will pass code just about everyplace. This is important on the internet since one does not need specific knowledge of the location.

I am well aware many localities not so restrictive, but the above method works well without knowing the local regulations applying to a poster. If a simple cheap method is fairly universal, why not pick it as a recommendation on the internet?

gerry

[gerry]

You will get no argument from me on that.

Grounding and earthing are important different concepts worth understanding. Engineering has used different symbols for the two for a LONG time.

Grounding in engineering means bonding to a common reference. That ensures a fault doesn't create a situation where two surfaces have a different potential where an object (such as a human) would be damaged (injured) from contact with both.

Earthing bonds (or attempts to) that protective circuit with the environment (earth). It is really handy when you grab an outside water faucet in bare feet with a faulty neutral from the service drop.

gerry

[David Combs]

This ">[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]" , by its wording ("is likely"),

implies some automatic process taking place.

Please, for all of us, WHAT IS that process, via what software, etc?

How do you make it happen?

What kind of control do you have, eg clip . some . a lot . not at all, for *this* email etc?

Do you clip it different amounts for different emails?

(Sounds like not, again via that "is likely", above).

Thanks!

David

PS: wouldn't it be nice (here!) if *everyoned* had such a feature (and used it!).