Is ALUMICONN code compliant for AL/CU?

[sinkholed]

I'm a homeowner in the midst of a bathroom remodel. I've got a Master Plumber whose replumb of my drain stack was signed off by the inspector, and I expect his tub/toilet/sink installs will likewise satisfy code. But before he can finish I need to hire a licensed electrician to replace the existing lights/fans/switches/receptacles, all of which connect to the aluminum wiring that dates back to the original 1973 construction.

I want this done right: hire a pro, and have the added security and protection that's afforded by getting the work inspected. But so far the electricians I've called suggest either a complete rewire or a wire-nut pigtail. A rewire is a budget-breaker, but the pigtail, while likely to meet code, does not appear to me to be the best alternative for a permanent fix.

I prefer the ALUMICONN AL-->CU connectors, a new (June 2006) product that is -- when properly torqued -- UL listed for AL-->CU connections. Preliminary independent testing has it tracked to receive a September 2007 CPSC endorsement as a recommended inexpensive alternative to Tyco's COPALUM.

[see http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/alreduce.pdf for longtime researcher J. Aronstein's May 2007 report "REDUCING THE FIRE HAZARD IN ALUMINUM-WIRED HOMES"]

Two questions, please:

1) Would you expect that the ALUMICONN's UL listing would be sufficient evidence to pass electrical inspection (NJ)? I'm worried that the local inspector, just like the electrcians I've called, may never have encountered this connector before.

2) It's possible that the increased "fill" of the box may suggest/require a larger box in order to safely enclose the Alumiconn connected wires. Is THAT going to be a code problem? Assuming that a larger/less-cramped switchbox is desirable, which specific box would you recommend that will satisfy both the inspector's requirements AND my wife's aesthetic concerns?

Thanks in advance for any and all professional opinions.

-Bob

 

[Dennis Alwon]

You will, no doubt, get lots of opinions on this issue . Personally I have never had trouble with the purple wirenuts that are listed for the purpose but I found this link you may be interested in

http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/i65debat.htm

 

[sinkholed]

You will, no doubt, get lots of opinions on this issue . Personally I have never had trouble with the purple wirenuts that are listed for the purpose but I found this link you may be interested in

http://www.inspect-ny.com/aluminum/i65debat.htm

That link (the whole inspect-ny.com site) is where I learned of, and became convinced I wanted, the ALUMICONN connectors.

Just to restate, I'm not really looking for opinions on Alumiconn vs Ideal 65 vs 3M vs Tyco COPALUM vs rewire. Of course feel free to state them if you feel strongly one way or another, but I've been convinced that this Alumiconn is the most cost-effective/permanent fix short of a rewire. J. Aronstein has been covering Aluminum problems/remedies for 30 years, and I just feel if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

The opinions I seek is whether Alumiconn's UL listing will be sufficient, in and of itself, to satisfy a (NJ) inspector who may never have seen them before?

Thanks

--Bob

 

[infinity]

The opinions I seek is whether Alumiconn's UL listing will be sufficient, in and of itself, to satisfy a (NJ) inspector who may never have seen them before?

Thanks

--Bob

Hopefully an inspector would be familiar with a product that has been around for a while and is available just about everywhere including Home Depot and Lowe's. If not feel free to inform him. Using a listed product to perform this task would be code compliant.


Regarding the fill issue, there really isn't one. Although it may be physically difficult to install a few of these connectors within an existing box the current code does not address the issue. Maybe it will address it in the future. Looking at 3 of these monstrous connectors with three pigtails crammed into an old box already at it's fill limit may be a problem for the guy trying to put the device back in the box.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The opinions I seek is whether Alumiconn's UL listing will be sufficient, in and of itself, to satisfy a (NJ) inspector who may never have seen them before?

Thanks

--Bob

If it is UL listed and approved for the purpose then I cannot see how an inspector can turn it down. The only issue may be the fill of the box.

 

[1electricalgenius]

box fill/Al vs CO

box fill/Al vs CO

Conductors that originate in and do not leave the box are not counted in box fill, that being said you do not then have a code issue, but a practical issue as to "IF" you can get the whole mess back in with out shorts. My problem with any "new" AL to CO fix is just that, its new and has not stood the test of time, WATT happens in 30 year if they say."oops" hey hey well didn't work so good after all??? My gut feeling is, no matter what fix is approved, AL wiring is always gonna leave me wondering and perhaps the best thing is to admit it was an error to begin with and replacing it all could always be the best solution when you count resale value in, as any house wired with Al is most probably in a area with a lot of AL wired houses, and your's being done over in CO could only give you a market advantage. When I do work, I always ask myself,"if this was my house with my kids, what would I do" and have yet to think if so, I wouldn't replace all the AL.

 

[roger]

.

Just to restate, I'm not really looking for opinions on Alumiconn vs Ideal 65 vs 3M vs Tyco COPALUM vs rewire. Of course feel free to state them if you feel strongly one way or another, but I've been convinced that this Alumiconn is the most cost-effective/permanent fix short of a rewire.
Thanks

--Bob

Sounds as though your mind is made up, tell your electrician this is what you want.

Now I'm closing this thread

Roger