Main breaker outside and inside at service panel and meter?

It is when two conductors are connected to a breaker in which it was only designed for one conductor…
You must be very new at this…
A multi tap is different than a multi lugged termination.

No. Only been state certified since 2002. A code violation is not a safety violation.

Glad that you showed that two are allowed when ran in parallel. So two is not the problem.

“NEC Article 90 draws boundaries around the National Electrical Code—boundaries many people fail to understand. For example, Article 90 has long made it clear the NEC is not intended as design specification or instruction manual. The National Electrical Code has one purpose only.” - Mark Lamendola

“if”, “might”, “could”, “unintentionally” - if that is what your inspection covers knock yourself out. I deal with facts.

An improper installation is a defect, whether one perceives it as a safety hazard or not.

Parallel conductors require terminals rated for more than one conductor.

You claim it might be a safety hazard in commercial but never in residential.

Prove your claim. You won’t because your claim is baseless.

Often code and safety go hand in hand, the purpose of the NEC is safety. If there is no GFCI protection where it is required by the NEC it’s a code violation AND a safety hazard.

I do agree that there are instances when they do not go hand in hand like stapling NM cable 15" from the box instead of the required 12" or less.

1 Like

This is what many cannot or don’t want to grasp. They cannot differentiate between what would be a safety or merely a design concern. So they then take the entire code and toss it out the window, dismissing it as neither safety nor deficiency.


WOW! You think that calling me a fool strengthens your ignorance of the subject?
The terminal is rated for two wires, we are talking about residential applications using #14 & #12 AWG grounded conductors – AKA the white wires.
I can put two grounded conductors under a terminal, and nothing will ever happen to them other than normal operation.
The only possible issue is loss of the grounded conductor of a circuit that is energized. You should never remove the grounded conductor of a circuit that is energized.
So, it is only a hazard to someone who does not know what they are doing.
It is a code violation and if you want to call it out then do so. Don’t say that it is a hazard when it is not.

1 Like

Michael I tend to agree with you especially when the two conductors are the same size and correctly tightened, but it’s still a code violation because the neutral bar has not been listed for two grounded conductors. That lack of listing precedes section {408.41} in the NEC by a few decades and was only added to the 2002 NEC because most of us had no idea you couldn’t double up on the neutrals.

I used the term “improper”.

Glad you discovered one hazard, after claiming there were none. You refuted your own claim. The other was the one depicted in my thermal image.

Please explain why is it not OK to place two or more conductors under the single lug of a breaker that rated for only one? On a properly functioning 120V circuit just how much difference is there in the current carried by the ungrounded conductor compared to the corresponding grounded conductor?

Two grounded conductors under the same terminal is a code violation for a reason. From a home inspector’s perspective, it’s deficient or defective. Under some state-mandated SOPs the inspector would be considered guilty of performing an inspection in a “negligent or incompetent manner” and subject to sanction if he were to fail to report the condition as deficient.

The quote is applicable in this case. It’s a risk you run when you make such absolute statements as you have when you don’t know everyone’s circumstance.

It is rated for two conductors. It just isn’t ‘listed’ for two grounded conductors (agreed), mainly because of the NEC.

I’m not saying that it is allowed, I’m saying that it is a code violation.

Don’t call it a safety hazard so that you can say that you aren’t citing code.

They started making us change here (applied the code) in 1999 because as you stated most of us had no idea.

That’s my point call it what it is. A (this) code violation not a safety hazard. I just want the new guy who follows these forums to be careful with what they repeat. Try to stick to facts that you can defend in court.

I just don’t want to see them have to defend themselves against Iwire or many of the other experts out there in court. Bob’s name was just the first that came to mind.

Never said not to report it. Just said that it isn’t a safety hazard!

Nobody in this thread even mentioned the terms safety or hazard until you jumped in flailing about like Don Quixote. Certainly, nobody suggested reporting it as a safety hazard anywhere in this thread. You asked, “what’s the problem”. We have addressed that question and have also addressed the propriety of inspectors reporting the condition as deficient and the fact that some are actually required to report it as such by their state licensing boards.

Maybe stick to telling home inspectors what they can’t do in the Ohio section.

A home inspection is a visual inspection. There is no visible defect present! The installation is SAFE. It is just not code compliant.

You want your cake and eat it too. HI claim that they are not code inspectors but this is clearly a code issue.

Do you call out the lack of receptacles in a kitchen in an old home as a defect? It is a design issue.

I tell my clients that it is a code violation but it is not a big deal. You are an alarmist, I am not.

Again, I am trying to help the new guy not go off half cocked when doing an inspection. Facts first - opinions second.

Why do you think that when the lug or breaker is only designed for one conductor?
IMHO codes are to prevent a hazard, be it a human safety hazard or a functional hazard… That’s why wayback they instituted codes in the first place…

I’m impressed, YEP!

I would never want you to inspect my dogs house…
In addition, Why are you a NON MEMBER ?
Can’t make enough money doing the cheezy inspections you do?
Man O’ man!

Fact is …You don’t have a single clue as to what you are doing…Nope!


Not allowed in Ohio by whom?

Way back at the beginning of this thread Drew the guy who posted his concerns had mentioned he had already reported the missing knock out. Yes if I catch it I would report that myself, but is that an issue that should necessarily be commented on? It just makes me wonder when calling out incorrect things would ever end. Am I wrong for thinking it is a possibility to not report something like a missing knock out? I would think the only reason I would call out a missing knock out would be to keep someone from sticking there fingers or a screwdriver in there just playing around, Maybe I just answered my own question because that sounds pretty dangerous to me.

1 Like

That is it!
A child with a screwdriver and a open knockout is a dangerous thing.