Double tap and different size and copper/aluminum

**Dan Hagman** · 03-16-2011, 09:02 AM

OK men what do you think of this double tap. #10 & #14 on a 30 amp, #12 copper and #14 aluminim on a 20 amp breaker. Getting some resistance from the seller and the realtor wants stronger wording about safety.

Similar Threads:

**John Arnold** · 03-16-2011, 09:22 AM

Isn't that tin coated copper, not aluminum?
Anywho, you got double tapping and over-fusing. What's not to like? Fire hazard and shock hazard.

**Dan Hagman** · 03-16-2011, 09:27 AM

Hey John, I think it is tin coated copper. Thanks

**Jim Luttrall** · 03-16-2011, 09:33 AM

#14 is only good for 15 amp protection. In other words, the insulation will burn off about the time the wire melts before the breaker will trip on a 30 am circuit. "This is a fire hazard" How's that for strongly worded enough? Or you could say something like this:
"Some one without a clue has been working inside the electric panel and is lucky he did not kill someone. Get a real electrician to fix it."

**John Kogel** · 03-16-2011, 10:21 AM

Stronger wording - "The authorities have been notified and will be coming out to inspect the amateur and hazardous installations which have been carried out, without required permits, in this 50 year old antique breaker panel".

**Dan Hagman** · 03-16-2011, 11:30 AM

You guys are craking me up!

Good thoughts! I agree, it is a fire hazard and they are lucky up to now.

I told them, they just wanted something more so here is what my licensed electrician said to the Realtor.

Dan
You are correct in your statements. To clarify your question, within the city of Des Moines, breakers are not allowed to be dual tapped with the exception of the doorbell transformer when it is mounted at the panel. All other breakers are allowed only one wire connection. This is a requirement that every inspector I know in the city will enforce any time they are reviewing a panel for any job.

As for the #12 copper wire connected to the 30A breaker – this is a safety issue which can potentially cause a fire and it is in direct violation of the NEC (National Electric Code). The code specifically states that a #12 copper conductor can not be protected by a breaker of overcurrent device greater than 20A. This issue needs to be corrected.

**Jim Port** · 03-17-2011, 11:16 AM

Depending on what the 30 amp breaker is feeding it is quite possible that the #12 and possibly #14 is fine. Motor loads OCPD and wiring are sized using different rules.

dana1028 · 03-19-2011, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Dan Hagman

OK men what do you think of this double tap. #10 & #14 on a 30 amp, #12 copper and #14 aluminim on a 20 amp breaker. Getting some resistance from the seller and the realtor wants stronger wording about safety.

OK Jerry here is a crusade you can get on - this is NOT a double tap.

Taps are covered under section 240.21 of the NEC. This is a double termination - which is covered under section 110.14(A) of the NEC; this is a single tap [per NEC definition].

The correct response is: Per NEC 110.14(A) -"Terminals for more than one conductor...shall be so identified." This particular breaker is not listed for more than one conductor

FYI Sq. D does make breakers listed for 2 terminations.

So - this IS an NEC violation for terminations per 110.14(A) - it may or may not be a tap violation per 240.21. It probably is a violation but you would need to read the many rules and determine just how this particular tap is used.

**Jerry Peck** · 03-19-2011, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by dana1028

OK Jerry here is a crusade you can get on - this is NOT a double tap.

Taps are covered under section 240.21 of the NEC. This is a double termination - which is covered under section 110.14(A) of the NEC; this is a single tap [per NEC definition].

The correct response is: Per NEC 110.14(A) -"Terminals for more than one conductor...shall be so identified." This particular breaker is not listed for more than one conductor

FYI Sq. D does make breakers listed for 2 terminations.

So - this IS an NEC violation for terminations per 110.14(A) - it may or may not be a tap violation per 240.21. It probably is a violation but you would need to read the many rules and determine just how this particular tap is used.

Dana,

Obviously you do not grasp the difference (see my other post) ... please explain the confusion that this causes.

Oh, while you are at it, maybe you should take on calling "grounded conductors" "neutrals" when they are not, or calling ... the list would be mind boggling ... so read my other post and, hopefully, you will understand it.