Double tap on double pole breakers

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alb

Member
Location
West Chicago, ILL, DuPage County
My panel is maxed out, and I need to install an 240V-50Amp outlet for an electric range. Licensed electrician suggested replacing an existing 30Amp double pole breaker for the garage with the 50Amp breaker, then double tap from the same breaker to feed both the 50amp range, and the garage.
I told him this is a violation; that each conductor must terminate in an individual terminal within the panelboard.( NEC 408.41).

He said it's no big deal, it's common practice, everybody does it. He is a licensed, insured, bonded electrician.

Any thoughts on this? Thank you.
 
My thoughts are to not listen to anyone who gives that type of advice. He's probably right that it will work but it ain't right. Can you add twin breakers in the panel and get some space?
 
Alb said:
My panel is maxed out, and I need to install an 240V-50Amp outlet for an electric range. Licensed electrician suggested replacing an existing 30Amp double pole breaker for the garage with the 50Amp breaker, then double tap from the same breaker to feed both the 50amp range, and the garage.
I told him this is a violation; that each conductor must terminate in an individual terminal within the panelboard.( NEC 408.41).

He said it's no big deal, it's common practice, everybody does it. He is a licensed, insured, bonded electrician.

Any thoughts on this? Thank you.
Click to expand...


First thing is no. Its not compliant. Some people do have a license, but there is no license that you will use a license correctly.


Not only is the breaker lug not rated for it, but load wise it wont work. Also most manufacturers recommend a dedicated circuit to their major appliances too.



See if the panel can take tandems, quads or slim breakers.
 
mbrooke said:
First thing is no. Its not compliant. Some people do have a license, but there is no license that you will use a license correctly.


Not only is the breaker lug not rated for it, but load wise it wont work. Also most manufacturers recommend a dedicated circuit to their major appliances too.



See if

the panel can take tandems, quads or slim breakers.
Click to expand...

No the panel won't take tandem breakers, or any other type.
 
Alb said:
No the panel won't take tandem breakers, or any other type.
Click to expand...


I recommended a sub panel. Put some of the low use 15 amp circuits in it, and feed it with a 60 amp breaker. That will free up some space in the main panel.
 
Nothing says you can't land an individual conductor on the breaker, then use an approved splicing method to split that circuit into two different directions.

Then the only question becomes whether or not the range needs to be on an individual circuit or not. I don't think it does, especially if the range is cord and plug connected.

I guess after reading OP again I missed it the first time around that the garage feed is a 30 amp circuit (and presumably a 30 amp conductor). If it were a 50 amp conductor why not tie them together? Just not under the same lugs designed for only one conductor.

Otherwise either install a panel with more spaces or install a sub panel - moving some of your circuits to the sub to make room for the feeder breaker in the original panel.

I find this alternative a little comical: "use non-conforming twin breakers"

Sorry dude, but if putting both on a 50 amp circuit is of concern, I don't see why use of a non conforming breaker is supposed to be acceptable. (I said that before I realized the garage was fed with a 30 amp circuit, that fact makes this solution a little more valid)
 
I suppose you would need to check the requirements of 240.21 (A and B(1 and 2)) and 210.19 and 210.20. However, it sounds like the garage conductors would be defined as a feeder, as I assume it feeds a sub-panel and would therefore extend to the "final branch circuit overcurrent device" whereas the range conductors derive from the "final branch circuit overcurrent device." The reason I mention this is because there are different tap requirements for branch circuits than there are for feeders. The NEC does not seem to specifically prohibit this type of tap because i suppose that one could make an argument that the tap allowance in 210.19 (A)(3) (Ex 1) could include the conductors that feed the garage, although my personal interpretation is that exception was made to accommodate the wiring of the appliance whips supplied with many ranges and ovens and that other interpretations to include entirely separate circuits/feeders are an abuse of the NEC and do not lend themselves to the proper safeguarding of people and property arising from the hazards of electricity. I mean what is really protecting those #10s between the main panel and the garage? The point is there seems to be more issues at hand than whether or not you can slide multiple wires under one terminal of a breaker. I personally would install tandems or a sub-panel. If money isnt too tight, Id go with the sub-panel in case you need a bit more room in the future. However, you said you cannot use tandems...May I ask why not? Several manufacturers make tandems listed for use in circuit limited panels. They also sell universal breakers listed for use in several different brands of panels. Point is, it seems you have more options and considerations to take into account than what your electrician is telling you that you have.
Good Luck.
 
GoldDigger said:
There is another thread which discusses whether the NEC allows a feeder breaker to also directly feed a load.

Tapatalk!
Click to expand...

Couldnt find it? What was the conclusion? I could only find the feeder vs branch circuit vs supplementary OCPD thread which was somewhat related to this but not the thread I think you're talking about.
 
That may be it. If a conductor cannot be both a branch conductor and a feeder, it is not much of a jump to a breaker not being both a branch and a feeder breaker.
The closest thing to a conclusion reached in the thread I am thinking about is, to paraphrase:
'Since the definitions of feeder and branch circuit are mutually exclusive [I disagree], then it must be against code to build a circuit in which a wire or breaker can be both. "
A pretty weak argument and very circular, but one that half the senior members in the thread seem willing to accept. :)

Tapatalk!
 
Alb said:
My panel is maxed out, and I need to install an 240V-50Amp outlet for an electric range. Licensed electrician suggested replacing an existing 30Amp double pole breaker for the garage with the 50Amp breaker, then double tap from the same breaker to feed both the 50amp range, and the garage.
I told him this is a violation; that each conductor must terminate in an individual terminal within the panelboard.( NEC 408.41).

He said it's no big deal, it's common practice, everybody does it. He is a licensed, insured, bonded electrician.

Any thoughts on this? Thank you.
Click to expand...
Your panel may be maxed out as far as number of spaces, but I have little doubt that there are a some existing circuits that are lightly loaded and can be pigtailed together to make room for the new breaker.
 
h1h2h3 said:
I suppose you would need to check the requirements of 240.21 (A and B(1 and 2)) and 210.19 and 210.20. However, it sounds like the garage conductors would be defined as a feeder, as I assume it feeds a sub-panel and would therefore extend to the "final branch circuit overcurrent device" whereas the range conductors derive from the "final branch circuit overcurrent device." The reason I mention this is because there are different tap requirements for branch circuits than there are for feeders. The NEC does not seem to specifically prohibit this type of tap because i suppose that one could make an argument that the tap allowance in 210.19 (A)(3) (Ex 1) could include the conductors that feed the garage, although my personal interpretation is that exception was made to accommodate the wiring of the appliance whips supplied with many ranges and ovens and that other interpretations to include entirely separate circuits/feeders are an abuse of the NEC and do not lend themselves to the proper safeguarding of people and property arising from the hazards of electricity. I mean what is really protecting those #10s between the main panel and the garage? The point is there seems to be more issues at hand than whether or not you can slide multiple wires under one terminal of a breaker. I personally would install tandems or a sub-panel. If money isnt too tight, Id go with the sub-panel in case you need a bit more room in the future. However, you said you cannot use tandems...May I ask why not? Several manufacturers make tandems listed for use in circuit limited panels. They also sell universal breakers listed for use in several different brands of panels. Point is, it seems you have more options and considerations to take into account than what your electrician is telling you that you have.
Good Luck.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem here is the fact that we have a 50 amp overcurrent device and part of the circuit is only 30 amp conductor. If that part meets all the feeder tap requirements(or if the garage would happen to be supplied with a 50 amp conductor as well) then the only issue left is whether or not the range and this feeder are permitted to be on the same circuit. Yet it would likely be acceptable to have a 50 amp feeder to the garage and then feed the range from the garage panel.

The issue of multiple conductors under the breaker lugs is an issue, but one that can be easily solved no matter what the other problems are, just splice the conductors with approved methods, either in the panel, or if you are convinced this is not allowed then in a separate junction box.



GoldDigger said:
That may be it. If a conductor cannot be both a branch conductor and a feeder, it is not much of a jump to a breaker not being both a branch and a feeder breaker.
The closest thing to a conclusion reached in the thread I am thinking about is, to paraphrase:
'Since the definitions of feeder and branch circuit are mutually exclusive [I disagree], then it must be against code to build a circuit in which a wire or breaker can be both. "
A pretty weak argument and very circular, but one that half the senior members in the thread seem willing to accept. :)

Tapatalk!
Click to expand...
There have been threads in the past on same topic, never any general consensus either way of what is acceptable. Some think you can not have a circuit that is both a branch circuit and a feeder, some think it is ok. NEC is not entirely clear on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top