Back-wired or stab-in connections on devices

[jeff48356]

I would like to propose a change to the next revision of the NEC:

I've seen countless times where a circuit has lost continuity, where the customer reported that part of a circuit suddenly quit working, and I traced the problem to a poor connection at one of the wall receptacles on the circuit. Every single time, it was that the original electrician used the back-wire stab-in terminals instead of taking a few extra seconds to bend loops in the wires and use the screw terminals. These tend to fail over time, even creating a fire hazard due to the loose connection and the wire insulation heating up and crumbling or burning.

I would like to see a change where the Code no longer allows such connections, and that all connections to devices must be made using screw terminals. Back around the late 90's, Leviton stopped making devices that allowed #12 wire to be used, and only made the holes big enough to accept #14 wires. They should have simply eliminated these altogether, rather than just the modification. But with my proposed Code change, they would be required to eliminate them and only provide screw terminals.


Any opinions?

 

[Canton]

I would like to propose a change to the next revision of the NEC:

I've seen countless times where a circuit has lost continuity, where the customer reported that part of a circuit suddenly quit working, and I traced the problem to a poor connection at one of the wall receptacles on the circuit. Every single time, it was that the original electrician used the back-wire stab-in terminals instead of taking a few extra seconds to bend loops in the wires and use the screw terminals. These tend to fail over time, even creating a fire hazard due to the loose connection and the wire insulation heating up and crumbling or burning.

I would like to see a change where the Code no longer allows such connections, and that all connections to devices must be made using screw terminals. Back around the late 90's, Leviton stopped making devices that allowed #12 wire to be used, and only made the holes big enough to accept #14 wires. They should have simply eliminated these altogether, rather than just the modification. But with my proposed Code change, they would be required to eliminate them and only provide screw terminals.


Any opinions?

Could not agree with you more...but getting something approved by the CMP for a change on something....especially a UL listed device is like trying to get our congress to pass something.

 

[infinity]

My 2 cents. I would disagree with assessment that it only takes a few more seconds to use the screw terminal over the back-stab. Regarding the elimination of the back stab hole, you would need to provide some hard facts and failure data before anyone will listen. For the record I never back stab.

 

[petersonra]

There are already too many people with an agenda trying to get the code changed to support their design preferences.

If UL thought this was a dangerous situation they would have changed the requirements a long time ago.

The thing is that there just is no actual evidence to support the idea this style of termination is itself a hazard of some sort.

A point of failure, maybe. But an actual hazard, no.

 

[iwire]

And this makes three times in agreement.

 

[curt swartz]

I still back wire residential devices when using #14 wire but I always pigtail the connections so the downstream devices are not depending on the other devices. I have not had a call back for a failed connection in the 30 years I have been in business.

In my area even most of the track/multi unit shops pigtail. I don't do much service work but when I have I see more screw connections fail over backwire. Most of the failed connections were devices being used a feed through devices. I think UL should stop listing devices for feed through.

 

[jumper]

And this makes three times in agreement.

Four.

 

[electricguy61]

I still back wire residential devices when using #14 wire but I always pigtail the connections so the downstream devices are not depending on the other devices. I have not had a call back for a failed connection in the 30 years I have been in business.

In my area even most of the track/multi unit shops pigtail. I don't do much service work but when I have I see more screw connections fail over backwire. Most of the failed connections were devices being used a feed through devices. I think UL should stop listing devices for feed through.

I'm in the same area as Curt, and all AHJ's I work with require pig tailing on rough in. With pig tailing, I use the back stab for the lone connection to the device, and like Curt, have never had a call back in 34 years.

 

[iwire]

I'm in the same area as Curt, and all AHJ's I work with require pig tailing on rough in.

Using what code section do they require this????

 

[electricguy61]

Using what code section do they require this????

It's a AHJ thing. Has been for years. Actually, I like it. Makes the trim out much faster.

 

[iwire]

It's a AHJ thing. Has been for years. Actually, I like it. Makes the trim out much faster.

What is an 'AHJ thing'?

They can't just make stuff up, there would have to be a local written and properly adopted amendment to require this.

 

[electricguy61]

What is an 'AHJ thing'?

They can't just make stuff up, there would have to be a local written and properly adopted amendment to require this.

I believe it is written into the local codes. I looked just now and the residential code for San Jose is being updated and unavailable.

 

[JDB3]

Back when 12 could be back stabbed, that is what we did. As has been said, never a call back. Went on a service call a few months ago, where power to circuit was lost. :? When a dresser was pulled away from the wall, black up the sheet-rock painted wall. :happysad: Problem, wire that had been wrapped around the screw, in the proper direction, all black & broken away from device. :?

 

[Sierrasparky]

I believe it is written into the local codes. I looked just now and the residential code for San Jose is being updated and unavailable.

What reasons are provided that they require pigtailing. I see no Siesmic, climatic or topographic scenarios off the top of my head. That is the only way the city can make such an amendment in California these days. The free for all make what you want code is over.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Well i just looked on the CA buiding standards commish web site. The San Jose ammendment is published there as required. However There is one notable thing. San Jose did not strike or ammend any "code Standards" However they did a new twist. They deleted from adoption much of the administrative sections of the CA electric code (CEC). This is the place where the rules are about the application of the the CEC. No rules a free for all apparently . I don't think this is lawful however as I know the administrative portions are elsewhere in the CA Law.

Nice try SJ!