Double Taps on Breakers

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Double Taps on Breakers

  • Yes your house will burn down.

    Votes: 1 2.2%

  • No your kids will burn your house down first.

    Votes: 15 32.6%

  • Yes they should be addressed (removed, repaired).

    Votes: 28 60.9%

  • What is a double tap?

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Total voters
    46
Status
Not open for further replies.
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
This topic comes up a lot.

Most of us know what breakers allow two wires.

My question is: Is it a 'hazard' to have two wires under a breaker that is not rated for two?

Does this cause an overload?
Does this cause the breaker not to trip?
Does this cause arcing?

Bottom line is it a safety hazard?

I call this out but will the house burn down if it is not changed?
 
jxofaltrds said:
My question is: Is it a 'hazard' to have two wires under a breaker that is not rated for two?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it depends on how it clamps the conductors.

Does this cause an overload?
Click to expand...
Not directly, as loads on a single receptacle could overload a circuit, but it increases the likelihood if we're talking about two entire circuits' worth of loads.

Does this cause the breaker not to trip?
Does this cause arcing?

Bottom line is it a safety hazard?

I call this out but will the house burn down if it is not changed?
Click to expand...
No the the above questions, but, it's code.
 
Larry

Thank you.

The reason that I ask is because I am asked, after a home inspection, is this a 'big' deal?

I say not a big deal but yes it should be addressed.
 
I am still amazed how many times I've seen HI reports of double-tapped breakers, which at worst (excluding poor connections) may lead to nuisance tripping, yet important stuff, like 200a services that were obviously never permitted and/or inspected, as evidenced by the old, undersized line-side-of-the-meter cable, and no grounding, no cable clamps, etc., seem to pass scrutiny with rave reviews.

Then we get called in because of fires and burned-off line-side meter lugs, and find stuff like the above complaints, as well as things like central-AC compressors being supplied from a baseboard heater, even after the illegal service upgrade being done as a necessary part of the central-AC installation, which also wasn't permitted or inspected. In these cases, the work ended up being paid for twice.
 
If anything - the code that addreses this is a neurotic adherance to the termination specifications - from a load stand-point - it is no different than a wire nut a few inches away in the panel - but that too is frowned upon - and yet that is no different than a wire nut splice 30' away in a box...

That said - I can see the need for having one neutral per hole and this does tie in with that only slightly. But no connection should be compromised - but I would not look at two #12's in a breaker terminal built to take #6 in the same way I would look at two #8's stuffed in a hole built to take one #6 max. But how do you qualify that in the code without a flood gate being opened for all kinds of hack magic.
 
LarryFine said:
In my opinion, it depends on how it clamps the conductors.

No the the above questions, but, it's code.
Click to expand...

I agree. This CB is not listed for two conductors but will operate for a hundred years as installed. Still a code violation however. :roll:

IMG_2082.JPG
 
infinity said:
I agree. This CB is not listed for two conductors but will operate for a hundred years as installed. Still a code violation however. :roll:
Click to expand...
I wonder if the only reason that breaker is not listed for two conductors is because GE was too cheap to pay for the additional testing? When looking at the lug, without the conductors in it, it is very obvious that the termination was designed for two conductors.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I wonder if the only reason that breaker is not listed for two conductors is because GE was too cheap to pay for the additional testing? When looking at the lug, without the conductors in it, it is very obvious that the termination was designed for two conductors.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking...but on second glance, I'm not so sure. I don't think that it would work well if it was a #10 on one side and #14 on the other. That plate doesn't look like it will seat at an angle because of those little downward side things. I think that the Square D QO has a flat plate that could seat at an angle with adequete pressure for both sides.
 
most HI I have come across take a course and thats about the extent of their knowledge of electricity, or anything else. Thats why they miss the important things and report the ac t stat is crooked.
 
this question comes up quite often, and like this one, its whats the harm?
CBs undergo a rigorous test involving thermal cycling. If a wire is added that was not tested, it may overheat under load.
And to quote Mike Holt"
Code is Code
We don't like the rules we don't agree with
They are OK for someone else, but not if they cost us time and money.

Use one short wire and wire nut it to two. Or three.
 
I agree that it is a code violation.

I just wanted to see if those who have been in the field for years consider it a 'safety' hazard.

My reason for asking this is if an inspector (electrical) sees this ,at least in Ohio, he cannot make you repair this violation unless it is a safety hazard. That means that something will happen in the next five minutes.

If it is not changed, corrected, would you feel safe if it was your home.

This is just an opinion poll. I am not saying that we should ignore it.

Electrical contractors should fix this. Electrical inspectors (Ohio) can only recommend the fix.
 
lakee911 said:
That's exactly what I was thinking...but on second glance, I'm not so sure. I don't think that it would work well if it was a #10 on one side and #14 on the other. That plate doesn't look like it will seat at an angle because of those little downward side things. I think that the Square D QO has a flat plate that could seat at an angle with adequete pressure for both sides.
Click to expand...

So with two wires of different sizes, it seats worse than if there's just one wire under the one side? That doesn't sound logical.
 
PetrosA said:
So with two wires of different sizes, it seats worse than if there's just one wire under the one side? That doesn't sound logical.
Click to expand...

Why not? If the terminal screw has a flat bottom to its head, and you put two differently sized wires on two sides of that screw and you tighten the screw, the screw head will only hold the larger wire. You would be able to slide the smaller screw out without any problem. Adding a couple of flat square washers doesn't change the physics of that. You need something in the assembly that allows one of the washers to rock to an angle while tightened. Lots of simple ways you can do that, but it does require more precision and more cost (albeit not by much).
 
jxofaltrds said:
My reason for asking this is if an inspector (electrical) sees this ,at least in Ohio, he cannot make you repair this violation unless it is a safety hazard.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about home inspectors? They can not make you do anything. They can recommend that it be changed.

Now, electrical code inspectors (such as from the building dept.) can certainly make you repair this or not pass you.
 
lakee911 said:
Are you talking about home inspectors? They can not make you do anything. They can recommend that it be changed.

Now, electrical code inspectors (such as from the building dept.) can certainly make you repair this or not pass you.
Click to expand...

I think that what jxofaltrds is referring to is a State rule that only allows AHJ inspectors to require repairs to existing istallations if they pose an "imminent"
hazard. Maybe he will post the text.

Not saying that you wouldn't need to debate that strongly on occasion. :roll:;)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I wonder if the only reason that breaker is not listed for two conductors is because GE was too cheap to pay for the additional testing? When looking at the lug, without the conductors in it, it is very obvious that the termination was designed for two conductors.
Click to expand...

Yes Don, this particular one. However it maybe suitable for two conductors of the same size, but not necessarily two different OD or one stranded, one solid.

What surprised me though is that more than 1/3 of the polled did NOT see this as a problem.
 
weressl said:
What surprised me though is that more than 1/3 of the polled did NOT see this as a problem.
Click to expand...

Because many of us see it daily in thousands of installations without them showing any problems. It was not always a code violation.

This does not mean I do not follow the code myself or suggest that others do not. It just means I do not make a huge deal over every violation I come across. It would be a waste of time.
 
Volta said:
I think that what jxofaltrds is referring to is a State rule that only allows AHJ inspectors to require repairs to existing istallations if they pose an "imminent"
hazard. Maybe he will post the text.

Not saying that you wouldn't need to debate that strongly on occasion. :roll:;)
Click to expand...

Correct. But I do not have any text to post.

This how it (grandfathered(ing) in Ohio) has been explained to me and others at 'code' classes. The opinion of the BBS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top