Are "Wire Nuts" considered a "permanent connection"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ELA

Senior Member
Occupation
Electrical Test Engineer
I am trying to defend the use of wire nuts as a "permanent Connection" method and I need to be able to site some standard or reputable document to support my case. Can you help ?

We connect our systems to the 120V AC source inside of a metal 4x4 box using wire nuts as the connection. A third party has evaluated this and said it does not meet the definition of "permanently connected".

I feel that if it is good enough for the wiring in homes and industries that it should qualify as permanent. Manufacturers of wire nuts refer to them as a permanent connection.

My problem is I need to present a standard or document to support my case. Can you help with a reference?

Thanks,
Ela
 

Inspectorcliff

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
to connect or not to connect

to connect or not to connect

110.14 (A) AND (B) AND 250.148 AND ARTICLE 100 DEFINITIONS: CONNECTOR PRESSURE. I would say check the listing and labeling on your bucannan, wirenut, or pressure connector.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
This is the only thing UL has to say about these type of conectors:

Splicing wire connectors establish a connection between two or more conductors by means of mechanical pressure and are not intended to be permanently mounted. They are floating, such as a twist-on connector in an outlet box.

I am not certain what is meant by "permanent connection" as that wording is not used in the NEC. Perhaps they meant "irreversible connection" in which wire-nuts would not be suitable.

While one could argue that a wire-nut is not a permanent connection in that it can be removed at any time in the future, there is certainly no evidence wire-nuts cannot be used permanently and never removed.

Who is this 3rd Party, and what/how do they receive their AHJ status?
 

rcarroll

Senior Member
If you have the listing for the wire nuts as you say, then show them articles 110.3 & 110.14 in the current NEC you are under. Also, you might turn it around & ask what their basis is. Good luck.
 

celtic

Senior Member
Location
NJ
Personally, and IMHO, nothing we do is "permanent".

I would ask this 3rd party what there definition of "permanent" is.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
bphgravity said:
Who is this 3rd Party, and what/how do they receive their AHJ status?

I am curious of this answer too.

Roger
 

celtic

Senior Member
Location
NJ
roger said:
And the point is? ;)

Roger

My point...to increase my post count...your point? :D

Seriously though....the 3rd party must be identified as well as their definition of "permanent".

The 3rd party may have mis-spoken and meant "irrversible".
 

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
How is irreversible any different than permanent? I have had to cut pressure connectors off many times to change polarity or rotatation.:-?
 

mark henderson

Senior Member
Location
Leander Texas
I get third party inspections all the time. They drive me crazy. Mind you they do catch something legit now and again. The way I approach it is I tell the homeowner to have there third party inspector to give me the NEC article and year the are calling under, I then check the year we wired the home and codes to see if it is a legit call. If it is I will warranty the correction If not then I tell the home owner to call the AHJ as the home passed all applicable inspections. I will not write a letter or any thing else unless I am being paid to make the repair at there request then they will only get a receipt.

Mark;)
 

ELA

Senior Member
Occupation
Electrical Test Engineer
celtic said:
I think this thread has more questions than answers.

The third party is ETL.

They define Permanently connected as some thing that requires a tool to do or undo. (to which we argued the need to use a screwdriver to open the junction box). Not good enough for them.

I will check your NEC references later when I have access to my book. I had checked those areas in the 2005 version and did not find the justification I was looking for? Mostly talked about mixing al and cu in a nut.

I am trying to get justification from the manufacturers like Ideal Ind.

These UL/ETL standards are rough to work with. Everybody has an interpretation. It is so tough when one standard references another ::mad:


It would be Ideal (no pun) if I could find a UL standard reference saying wire nuts were ok as permanent. Seems you have to "own" the standards just to be able to figure out if they contain what you need?


They have not mentioned specifics of suggested other more permanent methods other than a terminal block (which I can use the same screwdriver to undo as I would to open the 4x4 box with). So I guess they are saying you must have to use a tool to undo the actual connection point.
 
ELA said:
They define Permanently connected as some thing that requires a tool to do or undo. (to which we argued the need to use a screwdriver to open the junction box). Not good enough for them.

Weelll... A terminal block requires a tool, how permanent are they? They're certainly not common in residential work. I've also run into wire nuts that needed two pair of klines to un-do.:D Do they count?
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Try this argument for the tool requirement,... the opposable thumb .. without this no tools and without it,... no ordinary monkey can undo the connection:grin:

The opposable thumb is also thought to have directly led to the development of tools, not just in humans or their evolutionary ancestors, but other primates as well
 

celtic

Senior Member
Location
NJ
ELA said:
They define Permanently connected as some thing that requires a tool to do or undo. (to which we argued the need to use a screwdriver to open the junction box). Not good enough for them.
Keep the pressure on (no pun intended) them ....THEY need to tell you what EXCTLY it is that they want.

A person could use a hydrolic cutter on a hi-dent to cut it....what kind of "tool" are they talking about....
...and this whole mantra needs to be in a written policy of some sort ~ no just the ol' "that's what I want" lingo.


ELA said:
I will check your NEC references later when I have access to my book. I had checked those areas in the 2005 version and did not find the justification I was looking for? Mostly talked about mixing al and cu in a nut.

You won't find it...check the definition(Aricle 100) of "Bonding (Bonded)" ...what does that mean?

Then check 250.30(A)(3)(B) and 250.64(C) (for "definitions" only)...I think that's about as close to "permanent" as is practical.
 

acrwc10

Master Code Professional
Location
CA
Occupation
Building inspector
You might consider using these preinsulated crimp sleeves. By Ideal they may be the thing that will answer the requirement.
crimpsleeve.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top