Pig Tailing devices

[Working Xpat]

I was talking with some co-workers and they were saying that per 300.13 B of 2008 (Current code that we are using) that you have to pig tail the devices in a 4^2 box and that you cannot jumper from one device to another. Sounded good, but then we got to talking about the GFCI receptalces and that this is exactly what they are designed to do. So, are the GFCI receptacles that have a line and load side in conflict with NEC? How would a GFCI receptacle differ from a regular receptacle as per 300.13 B (2008)?

 

[iwire]

I was talking with some co-workers and they were saying that per 300.13 B of 2008 (Current code that we are using) that you have to pig tail the devices in a 4^2 box and that you cannot jumper from one device to another. Sounded good, but then we got to talking about the GFCI receptalces and that this is exactly what they are designed to do. So, are the GFCI receptacles that have a line and load side in conflict with NEC? How would a GFCI receptacle differ from a regular receptacle as per 300.13 B (2008)?

Other than equipment grounding conductors only the neutrals of a multiwire branch circuits are required to be pigtailed.


2008 NEC

300.13 Mechanical and Electrical Continuity ? Conductors.
(A) General. Conductors in raceways shall be continuous
between outlets, boxes, devices, and so forth. There shall be
no splice or tap within a raceway unless permitted by
300.15; 368.56(A); 376.56; 378.56; 384.56; 386.56;
388.56; or 390.6.

(B) Device Removal. In multiwire branch circuits, the
continuity of a grounded conductor shall not depend on
device connections such as lampholders, receptacles, and
so forth, where the removal of such devices would interrupt
the continuity.

 

[Working Xpat]

---

Other than equipment grounding conductors only the neutrals of a multiwire branch circuits are required to be pigtailed.


2008 NEC

Ok, so you are saying that the GFCI receptacles are in violation of the NEC code because the only way that they can protect multiple receptacles is if they are not pig tailed correct?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

---

Ok, so you are saying that the GFCI receptacles are in violation of the NEC code because the only way that they can protect multiple receptacles is if they are not pig tailed correct?

No, GFCI receptacles are fine and there is no code that prohibits using the device as a connection between the receptacles. Now there are certain situations where a splice is not allowed but in general you can use the device.

 

[jumper]

---

Ok, so you are saying that the GFCI receptacles are in violation of the NEC code because the only way that they can protect multiple receptacles is if they are not pig tailed correct?

No, you just have to wire them correctly.

 

[Working Xpat]

No, GFCI receptacles are fine and there is no code that prohibits using the device as a connection between the receptacles. Now there are certain situations where a splice is not allowed but in general you can use the device.

Ok, so you are saying that it's alright to jumper from one receptacle to another then? So, what exactly is 300.13 B talking about?

 

[ptonsparky]

Ok, so you are saying that it's alright to jumper from one receptacle to another then? So, what exactly is 300.13 B talking about?

This deals with the problem of opening a neutral connection that is part of a MWBC. You may turn off CB 2 to replace a damaged device but if it is part of a MWBC the neutral will be carrying the imbalance of CB 4 & 6. Opening the neutral by removing the device will expose you to 120 volts. Also a minor thing about damage to equipment on that shared neutral, but I believe it is intended more for personal safety than limiting damage to equipment.

 

[jumper]

Here is a graphic.

View attachment 7679

 

[Working Xpat]

Here is a graphic.

View attachment 7679

I gottcha now. Our co-worker was trying to use the code reference for a single branch circuit. Thank you for you help and comments.