Copper clad

[don_resqcapt19]

Not sure what you are calling jumpers? And we use whatever wire nuts are less expensive and/or available. No need for anything special because you terminate just like copper. There is no contact with aluminum.
I understand how it is harder to quantify. And honestly, the fewer contractors that use it the more competitive we are. lol.

The only wirenut that is listed for use with CCA is the one sold by CopperWeld.
It is correct that you can use CCA with wiring devices that are listed for use with copper, but that is not the same for wirenuts or other types of connectors. Per the UL Guide Information for Wire Connectors and Soldering Lugs (ZMVV) wire nuts for use with CCA must be marked "CC" and for connecting CCA to Copper they must be marked "CC-CU".

 

[TBsmd4]

Are you aware that a standard 4500 watt water heater can theoretically use #10 CCA on a 25 amp breaker?

Thanks for all the answers. Having someone who really likes and uses it is helpful.

The company decided to use 30 amp circuits on all water heaters. Probably for various reasons, but maybe because "it's what we have always done". I agree with you that a 25 amp circuit (#10 copper clad on a 25 amp breaker) would be sufficient.

 

[TBsmd4]

I have a few large resi complexes I work on that were built around '74 with Cerro CCA. I hope the new alloy can take more than two bends without stress cracking. I can tell you first hand I have to be very careful with terminations & stripping #10 / #12. I avoid pre-twisting too. If an apprentice were to barely knick the cladding, barely, it will start to crack with only one bend.

I know there were multiple sources for copper clad in the 70's. My house in west Texas was wired with it. I never experienced problems with mine, but I don't doubt there were issues elsewhere. I suspect that technology has changed enough that you won't see that now. I know we haven't seen similar problems in our installs.

 

[TBsmd4]

The only wirenut that is listed for use with CCA is the one sold by CopperWeld.
It is correct that you can use CCA with wiring devices that are listed for use with copper, but that is not the same for wirenuts or other types of connectors. Per the UL Guide Information for Wire Connectors and Soldering Lugs (ZMVV) wire nuts for use with CCA must be marked "CC" and for connecting CCA to Copper they must be marked "CC-CU".

There is no code requirement to list wirenuts in dry locations. But if one believes that UL marking is advisable, then listed splicing wire connectors are a choice that can be made.
I can tell you that most jurisdictions we work in recognize that copper clad is galvanically similar to copper, so it follows that it can be used with wirenuts designed for copper connections. UL, for whatever reason, does indeed remark that wire nuts used with copper clad be marked as such. Devices, breakers, and most equipment I have seen are marked as accepting copper clad. As far as I know, only splicing wire connectors (wire nuts) are singled out this way. Legacy marking something as "copper only" was originally intended to guard against the galvanic action between dissimilar metals, such as copper and aluminum or copper clad and aluminum.

I would be interested to hear about code references dealing with materials that are listed, but not required to be per code. I'm sure there is such a reference, I just don't know where it is.

 

[AC\DC]

May be no NEC requirement
. But if manufacture does not state it’s compatibility then you can’t use that’s the problem

 

[Birken Vogt]

CCA is going to catch on, no doubt in my mind. It has been used in low voltage wire for years now, mainly as a cheap imitation, but the precedent is still there. Also used extensively in radio frequency cable, not a cheap imitation there.

At that time wire nuts will get listed for it or they will get left behind.

Copperweld being the only mfr is probably holding it close to the vest for 2 reasons: 1. To control what hillbillies do to it and 2. To hang on to market share as long as possible until the bigs pick it up and start churning it out cheaply.

Once that happens, it will be CCA for everything.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There is no code requirement to list wirenuts in dry locations. But if one believes that UL marking is advisable, then listed splicing wire connectors are a choice that can be made.
I can tell you that most jurisdictions we work in recognize that copper clad is galvanically similar to copper, so it follows that it can be used with wirenuts designed for copper connections. UL, for whatever reason, does indeed remark that wire nuts used with copper clad be marked as such. Devices, breakers, and most equipment I have seen are marked as accepting copper clad. As far as I know, only splicing wire connectors (wire nuts) are singled out this way. Legacy marking something as "copper only" was originally intended to guard against the galvanic action between dissimilar metals, such as copper and aluminum or copper clad and aluminum.

I would be interested to hear about code references dealing with materials that are listed, but not required to be per code. I'm sure there is such a reference, I just don't know where it is.

Listing requirement or not, the marking on the wirenuts is a 110.3(B) listing and labeling instruction, and that prohibits the use of any wirenut other than the CopperWeld one on CCA.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

CCA is going to catch on, no doubt in my mind. It has been used in low voltage wire for years now, mainly as a cheap imitation, but the precedent is still there. Also used extensively in radio frequency cable, not a cheap imitation there.

At that time wire nuts will get listed for it or they will get left behind.

Copperweld being the only mfr is probably holding it close to the vest for 2 reasons: 1. To control what hillbillies do to it and 2. To hang on to market share as long as possible until the bigs pick it up and start churning it out cheaply.

Once that happens, it will be CCA for everything.

The only reason why CopperWeld has their own wirenut is because they could not get any of the wirenut manufacturers to test and list their wirenuts for use with CCA. The CopperWeld one is really a rebranded wirenut from one of the manufacturers that they paid to have tested. listed and marked for use with CCA.

 

[Birken Vogt]

The only reason why CopperWeld has their own wirenut

I meant there CCA as a general concept. It is going to catch on if copper stays high or as long as thieves steal copper. At that time the wirenut mfrs will list their product for CCA, if not before. Otherwise they are going to lose to Wago.

 

[TBsmd4]

Listing requirement or not, the marking on the wirenuts is a 110.3(B) listing and labeling instruction, and that prohibits the use of any wirenut other than the CopperWeld one on CCA.

Not arguing the point, but I think I disagree. Or I'm confused.

2023 NEC 110.3(B):"Equipment that is listed, labeled, or both, OR IDENTIFIED for a use shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing, labeling, OR IDENTIFICATION.

From Copperweld web site:
"Identified for use with wiring devices, splice connectors and equipment terminals rated for CC, Cu, Cu/Al and CO/ALR. When terminating with twist-on splice connectors, pre-twisting is not recommended."

That was my question earlier - if it's identified by the manufacturer, do I ignore that and obey a UL listing that isn't an NEC requirement? It's a serious question. How does one navigate this situation?

 

[rc/retired]

Not arguing the point, but I think I disagree. Or I'm confused.

2023 NEC 110.3(B):"Equipment that is listed, labeled, or both, OR IDENTIFIED for a use shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing, labeling, OR IDENTIFICATION.

From Copperweld web site:
"Identified for use with wiring devices, splice connectors and equipment terminals rated for CC, Cu, Cu/Al and CO/ALR. When terminating with twist-on splice connectors, pre-twisting is not recommended."

That was my question earlier - if it's identified by the manufacturer, do I ignore that and obey a UL listing that isn't an NEC requirement? It's a serious question. How does one navigate this situation?

Please understand that "is not recommended" is not the same as "shall not". I hope that helps.

Ron

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not arguing the point, but I think I disagree. Or I'm confused.

2023 NEC 110.3(B):"Equipment that is listed, labeled, or both, OR IDENTIFIED for a use shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing, labeling, OR IDENTIFICATION.

From Copperweld web site:
"Identified for use with wiring devices, splice connectors and equipment terminals rated for CC, Cu, Cu/Al and CO/ALR. When terminating with twist-on splice connectors, pre-twisting is not recommended."

That was my question earlier - if it's identified by the manufacturer, do I ignore that and obey a UL listing that isn't an NEC requirement? It's a serious question. How does one navigate this situation?

No, CopperWeld is trying to skirt the rules by saying that their product is identified for use with those other items. If they really believed that, they would not have brought out their wirenut marked that is listed, marked, and identified for use with CCA. For wiring devices, they are correct, the product standard permits wiring devices marked CU or CO/ALR to be used with CCA, but the listing standard for wire connectors requires that wire connectors used with CCA be marked "CC".

One manufacturer can't change the identification of another manufactures product. The wirenuts, other than the ones from CopperWeld, are not listed, marked, or identified for use with CCA.

Once again, 110.3(B) applies to the use of all listed products, even if the NEC does not require the use of a listed product.

I don't see a real world issue as I don't think there is any difference between the CopperWeld wirenuts and other brands of wirenuts, but it is a conversation I would have with your legal team and your insurance company. There is a potential liability issue if there is any type of incident and using a product in violation of a code rule could be a big thing.

 

[TwistLock]

Was reading some of Copperwelds lit today b/c of this thread and remembered that the 'TwistOn Splice Connectors' installation instructions PDF said - "Pretwisting is acceptable but not required."

 

[TBsmd4]

No, CopperWeld is trying to skirt the rules by saying that their product is identified for use with those other items. If they really believed that, they would not have brought out their wirenut marked that is listed, marked, and identified for use with CCA. For wiring devices, they are correct, the product standard permits wiring devices marked CU or CO/ALR to be used with CCA, but the listing standard for wire connectors requires that wire connectors used with CCA be marked "CC".

One manufacturer can't change the identification of another manufactures product. The wirenuts, other than the ones from CopperWeld, are not listed, marked, or identified for use with CCA.

Once again, 110.3(B) applies to the use of all listed products, even if the NEC does not require the use of a listed product.

I don't see a real world issue as I don't think there is any difference between the CopperWeld wirenuts and other brands of wirenuts, but it is a conversation I would have with your legal team and your insurance company. There is a potential liability issue if there is any type of incident and using a product in violation of a code rule could be a big thing

I think all wire connectors say the same thing about pre-twisting conductors - it isn't necessary. I never have looked too closely, honestly. I remember spending time teaching apprenticeship classes how to twist wires before installing a wire nut. I don't think it is wrong to do so, but if you follow manufacturer instructions you will still have a safe installation.

I don't really believe Copperweld is trying to "skirt" any rules. I'm told they acquiesced to AHJ demands in order to keep their customers out of trouble with AHJ's in a very few jurisdictions. I can find no instances of problems with wire connectors causing electrical failures. I queried a source at Copperweld, and they say the same thing. I'd be interested if anyone on this forum has seen such a thing. I have not.

110.3(B) is where my confusion comes in. I guess it boils down to whether a product that is not required to be listed should be compliant with a listing standard, or whether a product that is required to be listed can determine how the product is used.

110 gives that determination ability to AHJ's I believe.

In a related item, Mike Holt just published a short video about the power of AHJ's. It is very interesting, in my opinion, and might apply here.

I deeply appreciate opinions on this forum. While it might seem like those who post here are arguing, I prefer to believe it is a forum for discussions that help all of us learn. I know in the last few discussions here I have had to do some research and soul searching! My thanks to all who participate.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think all wire connectors say the same thing about pre-twisting conductors - it isn't necessary. I never have looked too closely, honestly. I remember spending time teaching apprenticeship classes how to twist wires before installing a wire nut. I don't think it is wrong to do so, but if you follow manufacturer instructions you will still have a safe installation.

I don't really believe Copperweld is trying to "skirt" any rules. I'm told they acquiesced to AHJ demands in order to keep their customers out of trouble with AHJ's in a very few jurisdictions. I can find no instances of problems with wire connectors causing electrical failures. I queried a source at Copperweld, and they say the same thing. I'd be interested if anyone on this forum has seen such a thing. I have not.

110.3(B) is where my confusion comes in. I guess it boils down to whether a product that is not required to be listed should be compliant with a listing standard, or whether a product that is required to be listed can determine how the product is used.

110 gives that determination ability to AHJ's I believe.

In a related item, Mike Holt just published a short video about the power of AHJ's. It is very interesting, in my opinion, and might apply here.

I deeply appreciate opinions on this forum. While it might seem like those who post here are arguing, I prefer to believe it is a forum for discussions that help all of us learn. I know in the last few discussions here I have had to do some research and soul searching! My thanks to all who participate.

It is when they say that their identification of their CCA for use with wirenuts marked Cu, Cu/Al and CO/ALR, makes those wirenuts suitable for use with CCA. The only wirenut suitable for use with CCA are the ones marked "CC". CopperWeld cannot speak to the use of other manufacturer's products and that is what they are trying to do with their statement.

As far as 110.3(B), it is intended to apply to all listed products even where the code does not require the use of listed products. That was the very reason it was expanded to include the instructions provided with "identified" materials. Without that change there was no way to enforce the instruction requirements of products that were not listed.

I don't think there is a real issue with using CU marked wirenuts with CCA, it is just that the industry, in general, does not like CCA and is doing whatever it can to stand in the way of its use.