Service Panel Location

[Dylan Whitehead]

This service panel is in a commercial building, I have not seen one located in a bathroom like this before. Any thoughts, direct violations, recommendations, etc.

[Roland Miller]

IT is NEC compliant

[Dylan Whitehead]

I guess its a good way to signal someone that you are stranded.

[Roland Miller]

Yup--In this day it is probably not a very good choice to locate it in a bathroom, especially is there is general public access. But there is no code citation to prevent it..:mad:

[Dylan Whitehead]

Thanks for the info. They are wanting to use this building as a church and this would be one of their public restrooms.

[Jim Port]

Is this service equipment or a subpanel?

Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms, 230.70(2), 2008.

[Fred Warner]

This service panel is in a commercial building, I have not seen one located in a bathroom like this before. Any thoughts, direct violations, recommendations, etc.

Looks like a remote panel. If so, 230.70(A)(2) won't apply. :)

[Jerry Peck]

IT is NEC compliant.

I'm not so sure that the location in a bathroom, which is locked and inaccessible to others when in use meets the requirements underlined in the code section below.

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
- 240.24 Location in or on Premises.
- - (B) Occupancy. Each occupant shall have ready access to all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying that occupancy, unless otherwise permitted in 240.24(B)(1) and (B)(2).
- - - (1) Service and Feeder Overcurrent Devices. Where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision, the service overcurrent devices and feeder overcurrent devices supplying more than one occupancy shall be permitted to be accessible only to authorized management personnel in the following:
- - - - (1) Multiple-occupancy buildings
- - - - (2) Guest rooms or guest suites
- - - (2) Branch-Circuit Overcurrent Devices. Where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision, the branch-circuit overcurrent devices supplying any guest rooms or guest suites without permanent provisions for cooking shall be permitted to be accessible only to authorized management personnel.

The term "ready access" is not defined in the definitions, however, ...
- ARTICLE 100 Definitions
- - Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential to the proper application of this Code. It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes and standards. In general, only those terms that are used in two or more articles are defined in Article 100. Other definitions are included in the article in which they are used but may be referenced in Article 100.
- - Part I of this article contains definitions intended to apply wherever the terms are used throughout this Code. Part II contains definitions applicable only to the parts of articles specifically covering installations and equipment operating at over 600 volts, nominal.

(bold is mine)
Main Entry: 1ready
Pronunciation: \ˈre-dē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): read·i·er; read·i·est
Etymology: Middle English redy; akin to Old English gerǣde ready, Gothic garaiths arranged
Date: 13th century
1 a: prepared mentally or physically for some experience or action b: prepared for immediate use <dinner is ready>
2 a: willingly disposed : inclined (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclined) <ready to agree to his proposal> b: likely to do something indicated <a house that looks ready to collapse>
3: displayed readily and spontaneously <a ready wit>
4: immediately available <had ready cash>

A very good and sustainable argument could be made that the overcurrent protection devices in that panel DO NOT HAVE "ready access".

[Fred Warner]

Jerry: The term "accessible, readily" is located in the definitions. It states:" capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspections........."
I think what is shown is really a "bathroom" as per the definition in the NEC because it has a basin and a toilet. But without the inclusion of a bathtub, it seems unlikely that the bathroom would be occupied for periods of time that would mean the duration was not "quickly". :)

Maintenance people could knock on the door and gain entrance quickly.

[Jim Port]

.

I'm not so sure that the location in a bathroom, which is locked and inaccessible to others when in use meets the requirements underlined in the code section below.

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
- 240.24 Location in or on Premises.
- - (B) Occupancy. Each occupant shall have ready access to all overcurrent devices protecting the conductors supplying that occupancy, unless otherwise permitted in 240.24(B)(1) and (B)(2).
- - - (1) Service and Feeder Overcurrent Devices. Where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision, the service overcurrent devices and feeder overcurrent devices supplying more than one occupancy shall be permitted to be accessible only to authorized management personnel in the following:
- - - - (1) Multiple-occupancy buildings
- - - - (2) Guest rooms or guest suites
- - - (2) Branch-Circuit Overcurrent Devices. Where electric service and electrical maintenance are provided by the building management and where these are under continuous building management supervision, the branch-circuit overcurrent devices supplying any guest rooms or guest suites without permanent provisions for cooking shall be permitted to be accessible only to authorized management personnel.

The term "ready access" is not defined in the definitions, however, ...
- ARTICLE 100 Definitions
- - Scope. This article contains only those definitions essential to the proper application of this Code. It is not intended to include commonly defined general terms or commonly defined technical terms from related codes and standards. In general, only those terms that are used in two or more articles are defined in Article 100. Other definitions are included in the article in which they are used but may be referenced in Article 100.
- - Part I of this article contains definitions intended to apply wherever the terms are used throughout this Code. Part II contains definitions applicable only to the parts of articles specifically covering installations and equipment operating at over 600 volts, nominal.

(bold is mine)
Main Entry: 1ready
Pronunciation: \ˈre-dē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): read·i·er; read·i·est
Etymology: Middle English redy; akin to Old English gerǣde ready, Gothic garaiths arranged
Date: 13th century
1 a: prepared mentally or physically for some experience or action b: prepared for immediate use <dinner is ready>
2 a: willingly disposed : inclined (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclined) <ready to agree to his proposal> b: likely to do something indicated <a house that looks ready to collapse>
3: displayed readily and spontaneously <a ready wit>
4: immediately available <had ready cash>

A very good and sustainable argument could be made that the overcurrent protection devices in that panel DO NOT HAVE "ready access".

The lease holder would have access to their overcurrent devices. They would not have to go through another occupant space or have it behind a locked door.

Readily accesible IS defined in Article 100. "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

I certainly think that opening a bathroom door would meet those qualifications.

[Ted Menelly]

Isn't there something about running water. Not just pipes going thru a room but a confined space with running water.

Thought I wrote something up once or twice or thrice for that. I will look it up again. Faucet going bad. Toilet fill line popping a leak, something. I also did a tremendous amount of commercial work and it was never allowed. Hmm, written some where.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry: The term "accessible, readily" is located in the definitions. It states:" capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal or inspections........."

Yes but ... that is not the term which is used in that code section, "ready access" was the term and the term not defined, however, I understand what you are saying about the 'potential' for a relationship between the two 'similar' terms.

Be that as it may ...


I think what is shown is really a "bathroom" as per the definition in the NEC because it has a basin and a toilet. But without the inclusion of a bathtub, it seems unlikely that the bathroom would be occupied for periods of time that would mean the duration was not "quickly". :)

Maintenance people could knock on the door and gain entrance quickly.

Not if it was "in use".

Which is precisely why it is a bad idea and does not, in any reasonable meaning of "ready access" met the need for "ready" "access".

Now, *if* that were a multiple stall bathroom, and yes it is a "bathroom" by NEC definition, then what I am addressing would not be a problem, provided it were not located in a stall (especially considering that the only stall which would be large enough for the panel and its required working space would be a handicap accessible stall, in which case you get back to there not being "ready" "access" to it.

That bathroom is a handicap accessible bathroom, at least at first appearances, and expecting fully functional person to person to be able to GET THE HECK OUT NOW! IT'S AN EMERGENCY! is totally unreasonable, let alone a person who is handicapped and is not able to maneuver as readily and quickly as a fully functional person - I can just see a handicapped person in that stall, with their wheelchair trying to simply maneuver around to and from the toilet and wheelchair, and than someone starts banging on the door demanding they GET THE HECK OUT NOW! IT'S AN EMERGENCY! - it just IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

"Ready access" ... not a chance when it is "in use". And that condition of when "in use" simply makes it not "ready access" and that panelboard should not be in there.

[Jerry Peck]

The lease holder would have access to their overcurrent devices. They would not have to go through another occupant space or have it behind a locked door.

Ahh ... see the difference?

You just said "lease holder would have access" and the code requires "READY access", not just "access".


Readily accesible IS defined in Article 100. "Capable of being reached quickly for operation, renewal, or inspections without requiring those to whom ready access is requisite to climb over or remove obstacles or to resort to portable ladders, and so forth.

As I pointed out to Fred, that *is not* the term in the code nor under discussion. The term used in the code is *READY ACCESS*, not "readily accessible". And "ready access" is being discussed, and it is an undefined term.

[Roland Miller]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/your_teacher/133262843/

[Jim Port]

Ahh ... see the difference?

You just said "lease holder would have access" and the code requires "READY access", not just "access".


And you think that opening a door is too much to ask? This would be no different if it were in an electrical closet.

Readily accessible uses ready access in its definition. I think most people would say that that panel had ready access.

Maybe that panel shouldn't be there at all. After all someone could store their reading material on the floor.

[Jerry Peck]

And you think that opening a door is too much to ask? This would be no different if it were in an electrical closet.

Except that someone is not in there "using" the electrical closet to take a leak or crap in ... okay, I take that back, maybe that goes on in your buildings, but not mine ...


Readily accessible uses ready access in its definition. I think most people would say that that panel had ready access.

Agreed, I know it does, so ... what does that make "ready access" mean?

See the problem? The term "ready access" is used in the code, in fact it is used to help define another term, and it is undefined.

That's like defining "too fast" as "not slow enough" - what does that mean?

Many, many, many ... too many many to consider here, let's just state that I was a teenager then ... I was flying low down a road when a car ran a stop sign in front of me, her car was totaled, the car I was driving suffered very little damage from hitting her car, however, after bouncing off her I wrapped the back end around a telephone pole.

She was charged with "failure to stop", I was charged with "exceeding a safe speed". The judge quizzed the cop trying to get a definition of "exceeding a safe speed". The judge asked the cop if, perchance, he was driving down the road at 5 mph and someone stepped out in front of him, was that "exceeding a safe speed", the answer was "yes", to which the judge replied, "but I was well within the posted speed limit, correct?", the answer, of course, was "correct". You can see the outcome now, how could the cop charge me for the same thing, with no evidence that I was exceeding the posted speed limit - case dismissed. :)


Maybe that panel shouldn't be there at all. After all someone could store their reading material on the floor.

Maybe the building should not be there at all, heck, someday it just might burn down.

[Jim Port]

How many times have you ever seen a need to shut off the power and the restroom was occupied? You have what iffed this thing way more than necessary, but I would expect no less.

Heck it could still be shut off from the main if it was that important.

[Fred Warner]

Jerry Peck says: "As I pointed out to Fred, that *is not* the term in the code nor under discussion. The term used in the code is *READY ACCESS*, not "readily accessible". And "ready access" is being discussed, and it is an undefined term."
__________________

Ready Access = nobody peeing
Readily Accessible = "I'll be done peeing in a few seconds."

:confused:

[Jerry Peck]

How many times have you ever seen a need to shut off the power and the restroom was occupied?

Haven't ... but that is because you simply don't put the panels in there. Well, okay, THAT electrician did.

Your question is fundamentally flawed, though. Your question should be "How many times have you ever seen a need to ... "" ... shut off the power and work on things right away?"

Enough that the NEC recognizes the need for "ready access".

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry Peck says: "As I pointed out to Fred, that *is not* the term in the code nor under discussion. The term used in the code is *READY ACCESS*, not "readily accessible". And "ready access" is being discussed, and it is an undefined term."
__________________

Ready Access = nobody peeing
Readily Accessible = "I'll be done peeing in a few seconds."

:confused:

Ready Access = nobody peeing, because the panel is not in the bathroom

Readily Accessible = Holy $hit you people, I start got on this thing to take a crap, and now you want me to move back to my wheel chair and GET TO HECK out of here? You guys are out of your friggin' minds. When I do get out of here, I am going straight to my ADA specialist attorney to wipe your arses with your crap. We will see just how long it takes you to yank that friggin' panel out and stick it up your arse while you carry it to some new location! Cha-Ching! $$$$$

[Ted Menelly]

Ready Access = nobody peeing, because the panel is not in the bathroom

Readily Accessible = Holy $hit you people, I start got on this thing to take a crap, and now you want me to move back to my wheel chair and GET TO F**K out of here? You guys are out of your friggin' minds. When I do get out of here, I am going straight to my ADA specialist attorney to wipe your arses with your crap. We will see just how long it takes you to yank that friggin' panel out and stick it up your arse while you carry it to some new location! Cha-Ching! $$$$$


Jerry

Meds

Meds

Meds

We must maintain control

We must maintain control

We must control the maintain

We contain the control at the main

[Jerry Peck]

We contain the control at the main


Ted,

Ted,

Ted,

Ted, shutting down the entire facility is not an option. Those patients on dialysis ... and those on ... and that person running the machine which ...

Shutting down the entire facility is not an option.

[Ted Menelly]

Ted,

Ted,

Ted,

Ted, shutting down the entire facility is not an option. Those patients on dialysis ... and those on ... and that person running the machine which ...

Shutting down the entire facility is not an option.

Jery

Jerry

Jury

I am the one that said it should not be in there anyway

[Jerry Peck]

I am the one that said it should not be in there anyway


Then why do you keep arguing about it? :)

Just because ... ?

[Fred Warner]

The verb transient of "Access" is to gain or have access to. As a noun, it's a way or means of approaching. "Accessible" is an adjective defining "that which can be approached or entered"."Readily" is an adverb meaning "without delay, quickly". "Ready" is formed from modern english derived from olden english and "readily" is modern english formed from adding "ly" an old english suffix to add specificity. Adding "ly" to ready i.e., "readily" is like adding mere"ly" to mere, akin to adding "happily" to "happy".

The NEC has three variables derived from the word "accessible". The word "accessible" as applied to equipment has to do with admitting close approach and not being guarded by locked doors, etc.This can be effectively seen as a swimming pool disconnect being visible, but behind a locked chain-link fence which would be a dangerous violation. The 2nd "accessible" is as applied to wiring methods, and means capable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building structure.This evokes images of buried J-boxes to me. The 3rd meaning is capable of being reached quickly....and "quickly" goes back to "readily" meaning "without delay, quickly". Quickly, connotes "promptness of action".

If a maintenance person can promptly gain access to the overcurrent protective devices in a bathroom in a church, I think that's fine. The NEC prohibits OCPD's from being located in bathrooms in dwellings and guest rooms and suites of hotels and motels to minimize the hazards associated with nude people (bare-footed on conductive tile floors) tampering with electrical panels. It can be inferred that the NEC also recognizes the improbability of nude people or even bare-footed people in church bathrooms since it does not prohibit non-service related equipment to be located within bathrooms.

[John Arnold]

..."Readily" is an adverb meaning "without delay, quickly". ...


I think of readily as " In a manner indicating or connoting ease; easily". which I lifted from an online dictionary. Admittedly, it wasn't the first definition.

Here's how I use it: The main roof was not readily accessible, on account of the fact that I don't have a frickin' helicopter to get to the four story flat roof!

[Fred Warner]

I think of readily as " In a manner indicating or connoting ease; easily". which I lifted from an online dictionary. Admittedly, it wasn't the first definition.

Here's how I use it: The main roof was not readily accessible, on account of the fact that I don't have a frickin' helicopter to get to the four story flat roof!

As I headed for the helicopter to assist me in gaining ready access to the 4th story flat roof (which was not readily accessible), I was hampered by a lock on the fence surrounding the heli-pad. After obtaining a key, which incidentally, felt like an eternity, I then had to find a key to the helicopter door. After I got that key, the pilot's seat was full of paperwork, flight maps, etc., so that was not even readily accessible. It took a few moments to clear the seat....to make it accessible.....then I was on my way. Phew!!!
:)

[John Steinke]

Let's not confuse 'design' with 'desire.'

I have absolutely no problem with the panel being inside an occupied locked stall, a locked room, with a chain and padlock keeping a fused disconnect in the 'on' position, or even within a bank vault.

Commercial and industrial locations ... anyone doubting the 'commercial' aspect of churches truly is a believer .... can have such things secured, and accessible only to qualified individuals.

More to the point ... lock it up all you want, and the overcurrent devices will still work.

The NEC definition of readily accessible refers to having to dismantle things, or to fetch a ladder. Simply turning a knob and opening a door does not make it any less readily accessible.

Indeed, there is one thing I like about this particular arrangement: no one is likely to pile boxes, park the mop & bucket, or otherwise obstruct access.

[Jerry Peck]

Let's not confuse 'design' with 'desire.'

I have absolutely no problem with the panel being inside an occupied locked stall, a locked room, with a chain and padlock keeping a fused disconnect in the 'on' position, or even within a bank vault.

Commercial and industrial locations ... anyone doubting the 'commercial' aspect of churches truly is a believer .... can have such things secured, and accessible only to qualified individuals.

More to the point ... lock it up all you want, and the overcurrent devices will still work.

I do not have a problem with the above either, and, in fact, if under continuous qualified supervision, that is allowed, even recommended, however ...

... in the above cases, the qualified supervision has the keys and ready access (as differentiated from being readily accessible, which, for some reason, keeps getting mixed up between the two), whereas ...

... whereas even the qualified supervision personnel does not have ready access to that panel in that bathroom when it is occupied and in use.

As I said above, in a more-than-one-stall bathroom and it not in a stall, no problem, the bathroom door does not get locked and there would be ready access to a panel located in such a location.

[Jim Port]

The qualified maintenance person may be at the other end of the facility. Does this make them ready access?

[Jerry Peck]

The qualified maintenance person may be at the other end of the facility. Does this make them ready access?


It does when they get there with their key for the locked electrical room.

Not when they get there with their key and the bathroom is locked and in use.

[Jim Port]

You did not address the time delay in travelling from the far end of the facility or the issue that they might be engaged in another task.

[Jerry Peck]

You did not address the time delay in travelling from the far end of the facility or the issue that they might be engaged in another task.

Actually, I did. I've underlined the key to you response above.


It does when they get there with their key for the locked electrical room.

Not when they get there with their key and the bathroom is locked and in use.


What matter is that, when they get their with their key (for that locked door), that there is "ready access".

Now, the bold part above addresses the rest of the answer. See, the locked electrical room is locked to keep others out, to only allow access by qualified personnel, whereas the locked bathroom keeps THEM out.

The qualified personnel have "ready access" to the locked electrical room.

The personnel, qualified or otherwise, DO NOT have "ready access to the locked bathroom when it is in use.

Which gets back to what I've said before, make it a multi-stall bathroom where the panel is not located in a stall and there is no problem. It is allowed in "bathrooms" in non-dwelling units, the problem is not "the bathroom", the problem is the "locked single person use" bathroom (okay, single person or married person, that does not matter).

"The time to get there" is not the issue, the fact that "once the qualified personnel get there" and they do not have "ready access" is the issue.

I've worked in large manufacturing plants before, there were "maintenance workers", i.e., not as in "janitorial workers", but plumbers, electricians, etc., all over the plant. There were emergency shut-offs at all locations for the major manufacturing equipment, and centrally located panels at centrally located locations (if you can follow through what may seem like double speak but is not, not in a large plant). If there was immediate problem, there was always a very large red button labeled "Emergency Shut Off" at all equipment, shutting off the equipment shuts down the current flow which *may* have been causing a problem. Whenever an Emergency Shut Off was pushed, it set off alarms throughout the plant and everyone converged on that location to see why it was shut down. I worked in Standards Lab calibrating oscilloscopes and other things, regardless, all Maintenance personnel and all Standards Lab personnel responded, after the problem was sorted out, those persons not needed went back to what they were doing before the alarm. It was rare that I was needed. :cool:

This was 40 years ago, I am sure that things have improved over that time.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Originally titled service panel location. Not allowed in bathroom.

Accessible defined as is isolated. Should be secured from public access and unqualified as long as during all periods of attended occupancy a keyholder is present Cabinet and panel does not belong in bathroom unprotected face not separated by wall from toilet and sink locations in photo.

Location isn't dry location (defined), toilets spray when flushed. Cabinet, panel and contents not damp or wet location equipment.

No label warning to unqualified persons on exterior and no lock or bolts preventing general public and unqualified persons from gaining entry.

30 inches width minimum work space dead front panel not panel width violated obviously by toilet paper holder and hand rail, likely fixture space as well. Plumbing Code violation proximity to toilet footprint and panel board/cabinet.

Power panel has serious article 110 issues of unammended NEC.
Other Building Codes and Occupancy Codes also prohibit this location. Public area access and protections different access restrictions than RESIDENTIAL not the same building codes.

Toilet plus sink qualifies as a bathroom.

Could be more specific with better resolution and closeup so it could be read and identified.

Location, location. Confirm Codes and ammendments in force with the local zoning department and local AHJ.

Call out location document express concern and defer to AHJ and C of O for special use zoning approvals (churches require them in most jurisdictions, esp. those that rely on property tax funding since churches don't pay them, and in special development districts that rely on sales/use taxes generated by commercial spaces to repay development expenses)

[Jerry Peck]

Location isn't dry toilets spray when flushed.

Agreed. Research has shown that toilet 'spray' when flushed to about 3 feet out from their center (about a 6 foot diameter circle).


30 inches minimum work space dead front panel not panel width violated obviously by toilet paper holder likely toilet front as well.

Nope, toilet paper holder is just off to the right side, at least it looks that way to me.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Agreed. Research has shown that toilet 'spray' when flushed to about 3 feet out from their center (about a 6 foot diameter circle).



Nope, toilet paper holder is just off to the right side, at least it looks that way to me.

Nope, panel is less than 30" wide 30" is the minimum rule panel width or 30" whichever is greater, see article 110 of the NEC. Cabinet door swings open to L, nothing allowed to encroach work zone 30" to R of that along that wall from floor up.

Also wood wall cabinet with 45 face overhangs headroom over toilet bowl - violation plumbing and building codes. lav and lav cabinet too close to toilet encroaching on space requirements for toilet under building and plumbing codes and ADA rules for toilet access. lav cabinet also encroaches on use space rules to the bowl/seat itself esp. with toilet so close to wall - another ADA access violation.

[Jerry Peck]

Nope, panel is less than 30" wide 30" is the minimum rule panel width or 30" whichever is greater, see article 110 of the NEC. Cabinet door swings open to L, nothing allowed to encroach work zone 30" to R of that along that wall from floor up.

That's what I thought you were getting at, and that is incorrect.

The minimum required working space is 30" wide, and that 30" wide space is movable side-to-side. It can be centered, it can be starting from the left edge of the panel, it can be starting from the right edge of the panel, opening the door is only required to open 90 degrees and has nothing to do with the 30" working space because the dead front cover will be removed before any work is performed with live part exposed.

[Jim Port]

The 30 inch width does not have to be centered on the panel centerline. It can be all the way to the left or the right of the panel edge, regardless of door swing, as long as the door opens 90 degrees.

[Jerry Peck]

Also wood wall cabinet with 45 face overhangs headroom over toilet bowl - violation plumbing and building codes.

First, that does not look like a 45 degree facing cabinet. If not, then it would not violate the headroom above the plumbing fixture.

It it is a 45 degree cabinet, then it likely would encroach into the required headroom and you would be correct.


lav and lav cabinet too close to toilet encroaching on space requirements for toilet under building and plumbing codes and ADA rules for toilet access. lav cabinet also encroaches on use space rules to the bowl/seat itself esp. with toilet so close to wall - another ADA access violation.


Those, without having better photos, I will give you :) and add that the vanity cabinet would not be an approved accessible cabinet. :)

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

That's what I thought you were getting at, and that is incorrect.

The minimum required working space is 30" wide, and that 30" wide space is movable side-to-side. It can be centered, it can be starting from the left edge of the panel, it can be starting from the right edge of the panel, opening the door is only required to open 90 degrees and has nothing to do with the 30" working space because the dead front cover will be removed before any work is performed with live part exposed.


The 30 inch width does not have to be centered on the panel centerline. It can be all the way to the left or the right of the panel edge, regardless of door swing, as long as the door opens 90 degrees.

Sorry gentlemen, you are incorrect. That 30" work zone must be available at all times, including during the time the action of opening or closing the cabinet door takes place, and if that bathroom or stall door is opened or closed. In this instance with a fixed hinge door the installation must meet clearance. That work zone/clearance cannot be encroached by the entry door being opened or closed, I believe you have both MISSED the presence of a door being present in the third of the original photos provided. The three photos clearly show this is not a lift off cabinet door. A moot point since it is an in-the-wall cabinet which is not permitted in a damp location, and we have already established a toilet & sink room is a damp location as defined under locations, damp.


First, that does not look like a 45 degree facing cabinet. If not, then it would not violate the headroom above the plumbing fixture.

It it is a 45 degree cabinet, then it likely would encroach into the required headroom and you would be correct.




Those, without having better photos, I will give you :) and add that the vanity cabinet would not be an approved accessible cabinet. :)

Huh? Its a standard kitchen upper corner cabinet with 45 face, quite obvious in the photos if you follow the intersecting wall corner lines.

It isn't the vanity cabinet itself that is of issue that I addressed - unknown if there is an accessible sink elsewhere in the bathroom - it is its LOCATION encroaching on the accessible and usable footprint of the commode itself - esp. considering its location too close to the sidewall. Violation of building, plumbing codes as well as the ADA access rules.


NEC references
240.24 overcurrent protection Location in or on Premises.
I have serious doubts that the feeder supplying this cabinet/panelboard
is GFCI protected.
240.24(C)
see 110.11 Deterorating Agents.
240.32 Damp or Wet Locations.
Enclosures for overcurrent devices in damp or wet locations shall comply with 312.2(A).
240.40. Obvious 240 v CBs in there.
312.2(A).
Protection against corrosion see 300.6
300.6(A)(1).

Picture also, if you will, Little Mister hopping up there onto that taller toilet seat with a full bladder feet dangling and letting go with the fountain of pee before he's mastered his balance on the seat and directed/tucked into the bowl, while that cabinet door is open as pictured (and low enough he could have opened it to explore before hopping on the throne). Similar multitude of consequences should an ostomy bag or catheter be serviced by the occupant of the private toilet area (while sitting on the toilet itself, or sitting on a wheel chair or standing near the toilet so as to empty it).

Ignoring your further contributions Jerry.

Bottom line, violations call them out, electrical, occupancy, plumbing, building codes and ADA violations. Refer to AHJ, Zoning, C of O, and verification following detailed Level 2 inspection and Permit/prior approval searches.

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry gentlemen, you are incorrect. That 30" work zone must be available at all times, including during the time the action of opening or closing the cabinet door takes place, and if that bathroom or stall door is opened or closed.

You can ignore anyone and everyone you want, and you can ignore the code if you want, that does not, however, make you correct.

Yes, the 30" must be available at all times, no one here has said differently.

YOU implied in your post that the 30" had to accommodate the way the door swings so it must therefore provide for such - the working space has nothing to do with the way the door swings, only that it permit opening the door 90 degrees. The working space is there for ... heck, you won't believe me anyway, so here is the code:

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining and bold are mine)
- 110.26 Spaces About Electrical Equipment.
- - Sufficient access and working space shall be provided and maintained about all electrical equipment to permit ready and safe operation and maintenance of such equipment.
- - - (A) Working Space. Working space for equipment operating at 600 volts, nominal, or less to ground and likely to require examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance while energized shall comply with the dimensions of 110.26(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) or as required or permitted elsewhere in this Code.
- - - - (1) Depth of Working Space. The depth of the working space in the direction of live parts shall not be less than that specified in Table 110.26(A)(1) unless the requirements of 110.26(A)(1)(a), (A)(1)(b), or (A)(1)(c) are met. Distances shall be measured from the exposed live parts or from the enclosure or opening if the live parts are enclosed.
- - - - - (a) Dead-Front Assemblies. Working space shall not be required in the back or sides of assemblies, such as dead-front switchboards or motor control centers, where all connections and all renewable or adjustable parts, such as fuses or switches, are accessible from locations other than the back or sides. Where rear access is required to work on nonelectrical parts on the back of enclosed equipment, a minimum horizontal working space of 762 mm (30 in.) shall be provided.
- - - - - (b) Low Voltage. By special permission, smaller working spaces shall be permitted where all exposed live parts operate at not greater than 30 volts rms, 42 volts peak, or 60 volts dc.
- - - - - (c) Existing Buildings. In existing buildings where electrical equipment is being replaced, Condition 2 working clearance shall be permitted between dead-front switchboards, panelboards, or motor control centers located across the aisle from each other where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that written procedures have been adopted to prohibit equipment on both sides of the aisle from being open at the same time and qualified persons who are authorized will service the installation.
- - - - (2) Width of Working Space. The width of the working space in front of the electrical equipment shall be the width of the equipment or 762 mm (30 in.), whichever is greater. In all cases, the work space shall permit at least a 90 degree opening of equipment doors or hinged panels.

You will not find anything in there which requires that the working space be offset to the side the door opens from - you will only find that the working space "shall be the width or the equipment" if greater than 30" or " 762 mm (30 in.)" if the equipment is less than 30".


In this instance with a fixed hinge door the installation must meet clearance. That work zone/clearance cannot be encroached by the entry door being opened or closed, I believe you have both MISSED the presence of a door being present in the third of the original photos provided.

Huh?

The fixed door is JUST AS REQUIRED, it is WITHIN the require working space.


The three photos clearly show this is not a lift off cabinet door.

It would not matter if it were, the 30" width of the working space, starting at the right edge of the panel and measuring to the left allows for opening the door and MEETS THE CODE REQUIREMENTS for the width, and location, of the working space.


Huh? Its a standard kitchen upper corner cabinet with 45 face, quite obvious in the photos if you follow the intersecting wall corner lines.

Not obvious at all, look at the door, the door is not fully closed, that could be creating the optical illusion that you, or I, are seeing, which is why I stated incorrect if not, and correct if yes.


Ignoring your further contributions Jerry.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to ignore your future comments as they contain incorrect and inaccurate information WHICH WILL NEED TO BE, and will be, CORRECTED. :rolleyes:

I have this real nice effect on people who are wrong ... when I correct them they get mad. Which just shows what kind of people they are to start with. :eek:

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Stubborn and foolish you ignore THE SWINGING DOOR to the TOILET AREA ITSELF.

DUH. THIS lIMITS THE ZONE AREA. THE CODE PROHIBITS ENCROACHMENT One must not have to play "DANCING WITH THE DOORS" to maintain the 30" W minimum x 36" DEEP ZONE.

Although it is obvious common sense, proportion, etc. are beyond you, it is OBVIOUS that the ZONE of 30" is LIMITED as to the Left of panel due to the SWINGING DOOR (not shown in zone in pics 1 & 2, as left corner is exposed - shown open at about 135 degrees and blocking view of L corner in photo #3.

DUH DUH DUH. Rail and TP holder are ADJACENT to panel R edge just below and hang OVER the zone.

The zone MAY NOT be extended into the TOILET ROOM'S DOOR SWING ZONE.

Now, if we take the subsequent posts by the original poster as correct, that this is NOT a SE Disconnect panel, and that it is supplied by a FEEDER, then the panel ahead should be able to be LOCKED OUT.

One should not be subject to dancing doors with the cabinet AND the toilet room DOOR and subject to being thrown to the TOILET WATER while attempting to DISCONNECT a circuit or re-set a breaker at the panel. Neither activity exposes the party to what is behind the dead front.

The cabinet is in-the wall - not allowed. Damp location.

Your rant about the wood cabinet in relation to the electrical cabinet is stupendously DUH. Plumbing code clearance building code clearance head room over comode, as they do comode footprint. ADA footprint also. Wood wall cabinet has NOTHING to do with the electrical cabinet.

DANG should have canceled subscription to the thread.

[Jerry Peck]

Need I repeat it again?

He sure got mad, and quick too. :rolleyes:

(underlining is new this time)

I have this real nice effect on people who are wrong ... when I correct them they get mad. Which just shows what kind of people they are to start with. :eek:

[Dom D'Agostino]

when I correct them they get mad



And why do feel compelled to control this BB by "correcting" everyone? :confused:

Certainly you're not suggesting that you are the only person capable of interpreting a code cite? (and not just this example, but, well... quite literally every other post...)

Not to get too bitchy, and hey, you do what you want. You will anyway.

But it gets old seeing the constant pissing matches between JP and the entire rest of the Inspection News members. (Read some of them someday, as there are many examples from many different posters.)

Have fun, Cut & Paste away...

[Jerry Peck]

Dom,

When I saw you had post to this thread, I already knew what your post would be like before I even bothered to read it.
You are a creature if habit making posts like that.

So be it.

Go for it man, if it makes you feel like more of a man. :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

But it gets old seeing the constant pissing matches between JP and the entire rest of the Inspection News members. (Read some of them someday, as there are many examples from many different posters.)

Not "the entire rest of the Inspection News members", and maybe you should take your own advice and read them someday.

[Dom D'Agostino]

...I already knew what your post would be like before I even bothered to read it.




I was being civil, and I raised a valid point.

Sorry you couldn't keep an open mind and read it prior to condemning my viewpoint.

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry you couldn't keep an open mind and read it prior to condemning my viewpoint.

Read my post above yours.

[Dom D'Agostino]

Read my post above yours.


I did.

There are countless posts around here with you arguing with dozens of folks, and not just me.

Just an observation, but I'm sure you'll always believe you are correct, no matter what.

Sometimes you are right, but for Christ's sakes, no one is 100% correct 100% of the time. Yes? No? ???

[Jerry Peck]

Sometimes you are right, but for Christ's sakes, no one is 100% correct 100% of the time. Yes? No? ???


Dom,

Your problem seems to be one of lack of reading, such as reading those posts where I am incorrect, and state I am incorrect, etc.

And, yes, I chose specifically to use the words "lack of reading" because, if you had read them, you would not have posted that statement above.

Or were you just exaggerating again? Silly me if you were and I did not "read" that into your post.

[Jim Port]

The wall in which that panel is installed does not meet the definition of a damp area.

[John Steinke]

"Dancing with doors." Not an issue. For example, there is no prohibition against the door to the room, or stall, completely covering the panel when the door is in anyparticular position.

Not that I'd recommend it ... I know one nursing home that spent years - literally - looking for a panel. They found it when someone passed away - a lady whose door had always been propped open!

[John Steinke]

Area within 3 ft of the toilet a 'wet' area?

If it's so wet ... how come I see so much dry toilet paper!

I disagree with whatever led someone to conclude that!

[Jerry Peck]

Location isn't dry location (defined), toilets spray when flushed.


Agreed. Research has shown that toilet 'spray' when flushed to about 3 feet out from their center (about a 6 foot diameter circle).

John,

My agreement with H. G. Watson, Sr. was that when toilets flush they put out a plume of water mist about 6 feet in diameter (from the only research I've seen on the issue, and that was many years back and was basically referring to the hygiene issue of having toilets and sinks, with toothbrushes, soap, etc., within 3 feet of each other) as "not dry" because of that mist.


Area within 3 ft of the toilet a 'wet' area?

If it's so wet ... how come I see so much dry toilet paper!

I disagree with whatever led someone to conclude that!

I suspect (but do not know, he may well have been) that he *was not* classifying that as a "wet location", because it is not, nor was he classifying that as a "damp location", because it is not, but his point (I surmise) is that it is not "dry either" - to which I am agreeing.

However, if it is not a "wet location" and it is not a "damp location", it is a "dry location" as considered by the NEC, and the only way to tell is by reading the definitions.

To put this issue to rest, these are the definitions from the 2008 NEC.

- Location, Damp. Locations protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. Examples of such locations include partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold-storage warehouses.

- Location, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness or wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction.

- Location, Wet. Installations underground or in concrete slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such as vehicle washing areas; and in unprotected locations exposed to weather.

By definition, that is not a wet or damp location, but a dry location.

On your statement regarding the entry door into the bathroom, I fully agree with you, there is no prohibition to that door swinging open into that working space - contrary to what him saying there is.

Dom,

Just in case you missed the above, and being as John and I disagree so often, we are both in agreement on those two issues. :cool:

I figure you must be keeping track on your chalk board by your desk and computer - just wanting to point that out. :D

[Ted Menelly]

I am not siding with anyone here I am just stating what everyone wants to ignore or just say it is not a wet area or it is allowed in a bathroom, etc.

Possible flooded floor and having to get to the panel with possible slip and fall. Possible spay from a line break from the sink or toilet, closing a bathroom down when work is required etc. etc. etc. etc.

Not a good idea of putting an electric panel in a bathroom at all. To many what ifs. I know everyone wants a code. How about the code that there are many more places in any building where putting a panel is so much better suited code and not have to mess with all the what ifs. Not to mention. Doesn't anyone think it is just a really dumb idea. How about the dumb code or the lack of sense code.

No reason what so ever for putting a panel in a bathroom, period.

How about the AHJ just looking at someone and saying, are you for real? Whats up with this. Don't you think it is a slap in the side of the head as to, HUH.

How about someone looking at a drawing and saying

"Ah, whats up with this. I am not passing it because it is just dumb. Find somewhere else to put it. Just to many what ifs involved here. To many questions to answer about code and dance around for passing it. Put it somewhere else"

That is like the polite embarrassing I do with builders when I say to them.

" Let me see. We have an 800 square foot master suite with how many supply vents and how many ton pumping into this master suite and you want all the return air to suck out under the bedroom door thru that 1/2 " slot. Are you serious or did the HVAC guy just misfigure this one?"

[Roland Miller]

Being at risk of being declared one of Jerry's cronies, I here by agree with him on the definition of dry location and that the swinging door is not an encroachment on the working space..:)

[Fred Warner]

...........................................10445

This slide might help in the 110.26 discussions.

[A.D. Miller]

This service panel is in a commercial building, I have not seen one located in a bathroom like this before. Any thoughts, direct violations, recommendations, etc.

Dylan: What is that on the wall above the panelboard in the first photo?

As for the accessibility issue, JP is correct and the rest of you who disagree simply do not have an adequate command of the English language. You are practicing "selective defining" of terms that are universally understood in the common vernacular.

Please stop.:mad:

[Fred Warner]

The panelboard being located in a commercial bathroom is not a violation of the NEC. Also, 110.26 is not violated by the toilet paper holder. The bathroom is a dry location.
There is just not an NEC issue here. (There may be violations in the wiring methods that are not observable from the pictures and with the panel cover on it's just a guess, anyway).

[A.D. Miller]

The panelboard being located in a commercial bathroom is not a violation of the NEC. Also, 110.26 is not violated by the toilet paper holder. The bathroom is a dry location.
There is just not an NEC issue here. (There may be violations in the wiring methods that are not observable from the pictures and with the panel cover on it's just a guess, anyway).

Fred: Maybe, assuming that there is really nothing above the panel. But, there appears to be.

[Fred Warner]

Fred: Maybe, assuming that there is really nothing above the panel. But, there appears to be.

I can see something that resembles perhaps a time clock. If it's part of the electrical system installation, it's permitted to occupy that space provided it does not project out away from the finished wall surface more than 6 inches as per 110.26(A)(3). If it's not of an electrical nature, it's a violation. :)

[A.D. Miller]

I can see something that resembles perhaps a time clock. If it's part of the electrical system installation, it's permitted to occupy that space provided it does not project out away from the finished wall surface more than 6 inches as per 110.26(A)(3). If it's not of an electrical nature, it's a violation. :)

Fred: Agreed, but with the "quality" of the photo, it might be a portal to the Twilight Zone, for all I can tell.

[Fred Warner]

Fred: Agreed, but with the "quality" of the photo, it might be a portal to the Twilight Zone, for all I can tell.

I'm not sure about twilight zone portals, but it seems like if they're electrical in nature, they would be permitted.:D

[Dylan Whitehead]

A.D. Miller- If I remember correctly it was a clock. I'm pretty sure that it was not part of the electrical system. As far as the rest of the bathroom meeting ADA standards there were many violations, ranging from proper water closet height, spacing, toilet seat cover. The lavatory cabinet had a false cover built to conceal the plumbing. They were requested to remove the cover and install one that complies to ADA standard. Sorry about the poor quality of photos it was taken on a phone.

[A.D. Miller]

A.D. Miller- If I remember correctly it was a clock. I'm pretty sure that it was not part of the electrical system. As far as the rest of the bathroom meeting ADA standards there were many violations, ranging from proper water closet height, spacing, toilet seat cover. The lavatory cabinet had a false cover built to conceal the plumbing. They were requested to remove the cover and install one that complies to ADA standard. Sorry about the poor quality of photos it was taken on a phone.

Dylan: It wasn't a big honkin' cuckoo clock, was it?:eek:

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Lets try to make this simple because apparently it got lost when I was referring to the MAN DOOR (egress door of this bathroom area pictured in 3rd photo) in relation to the panel front and panel door - regarding "Dancing With Doors" for egress, safety, and work zone/approach zone infringement.

The MAN DOOR (personnel door) encroaches into the potential safe work zone at the left of the panel its presence, location, swing type (swings in not out) and swing direction limits the most left potential start-point for the workzone footprint which begins with a horizontal line 30" wide at the wall face of the panel. That point (the extension of this MAN DOOR and its handles, etc. encroachment into the area) is the left limit of where the 30" horizontal measurement can begin at its most "left-ness" possible for the MAN DOOR or stall door is foreign to the electrical system/equipment in question.

The metal TP holder and hand rail projecting from the wall limit us to where the work zone can be at its most "right-ness" for they are foreign to the electrical system. (and likely ferrous).

Extrapolating to its potential most "right-ness" is limited to the most left edge of the TP holder and handrail just below and to the R of the panel's Right egdge. From the proportions shown in the three photos I extrapolate and doubt that there exists 30" along the panel wall between the open MAN DOOR/stall door and any handles - and the most right-ness limit of the left edge of the TP holder and/or handrail. Presuming 16" panel even - we are short of the minimum 30" wide for the BOX that must be 36" deep and 6.5' high zone.

THIS is the concern. If you could tape out a zone on the floor with none of these items encroaching it then it would be okay - but from the looks of things it doesn't appear possible - this was the concern and the zone encroachment to which I referred to previously. It is this position/swing/encorachment of this MAN DOOR/stall door that I referred to regarding "dancing with doors" in order to open the panel door and/or to work on this panel safely.

THIS MAN DOOR (or stall door?) MUST be fully OPENED to address, maintain, or work on or with the panel. (why? because it is the solitary egress, and the MAN door swings INTO the room TOWARDS the panel - therefore it MUST BE OPENED FULLY to allow for emergent egress and so as to GUARD that the electrician or other qualified person AT THE PANEL does not get knocked INTO the panel while addressing it). Even if this panel is supplied by a feeder and can be locked out from there - it still cannot be worked on legally since it would have to be treated as live until verified (meter) and that cannot be done with the encroachment to the work safety zone. Frankly this MAN DOOR is subject to self-closure should there be a blast. The egress should be SWING OUT or hinged at the OPPOSITE JAMB to be legal/safe in proximity to the panel. The MAN DOOR is not subject to the 90-degree situation as the panel door is.

The work zone must be 3 feet deep for its entire 30" minimum horizontal width, and this zone must not be encroached for a minimum 6.5" height.

Look at the photos originally provided, note the third in the series demonstrates the MAN DOOR FULLY OPENED and resting, restricted to the panel containing wall and covering the corner intersection of the panel wall and the MAN DOOR wall which you can see in photos 1 & 2.

Now look at the notations I made on two of those photos in my prior post.

The footprint of 30" W and 36" deep from the face of the panel are not possible without encroachment of the TP holder and hand rail, and may be encroached by the front of the toilet bowl itself.

Use your sense of proportion gents and your common sense.

Condition 1 describes a situation in which the electrical equipment is installed in or on a wall that faces an insulated wall, constructed of wood or metal studs, and sheetrock or wood panels. If you make contact with the insulated wall while touching live parts of the equipment, you're isolated from the grounded slab or earth. Therefore, Condition 1 allows for a reduced working space. Before the 1965 NEC, Condition 1 only required a 2-ft workspace in front of electrical equipment. Not sure exactly when the 2-ft rule was changed to 3-feet for Condition 1 150vto ground changed but believe it was with or before the 1978 NEC. The 30-in.-wide rule has been used since the 1971 NEC. Headroom clearance has been required since the 1965 NEC.

Too much trouble to look up oldie moldies but somewhere the egress MAN DOOR used to be required 24"w, 6'+ high and egress path from a live panel and used to be clear in NEC - and in the building codes and 158xish IEEE..

Since this is not a dwelling, this space shall contain no equipment from any other building system (other than required fire suppression systems), and shall have at least 6'-6" of headroom. If the top of the equipment (the panel) is greater than 6-6", the headroom shall be at least the height of the equipment. The maximum height to the center of the main breaker or disconnecting means is 6'-7". Nothing, including the MAN DOOR while opened as required (NEC, NFPA 70E, OSHA, IEEE can occupy this required space (30"w x 3'd x 6.5'h).

In order to meet OSHA NFPA 70E and NFPA 70 requirements this panel could never be serviced, maintained or operated live. It cannot be verified to not be live (for example if locked out elsewhere) for the required safe zone does not exist in the photographed installation (see photo 3 showing MAN DOOR OPEN in conjunction with panel door OPEN in comparison with photos 1 & 2).

While some electrical inspectors may accept lesser distances in existing installations that are "grandfathered," under OSHA, electricians cannot work on such installations when they are energized.

Egress as applied in this situation means means an egress path that allows a worker to travel to the exit from any other area in the room containing the equipment without having to pass through that equipment's required working space.

A person may not have use of their hands when needing to quickly egress the room. The person may need to kick the door open, or use another part of their body to force the door open. The panic hardware should not require any special action, such as torque to open. Those devices require torque.


If steel man door, steel studs, concrete, block, or brick walls present this is why could be of issue. A conductive (grounded) wall (made of concrete, brick, or tile) or object (such as toilet paper holder, metal plumbing, etc.) can connect the body to ground if touched. If you make contact with this type of wall or object while touching a live part or conductor, you will create a circuit path to ground, which could lead to electrocution

Now to the other prior posts, this has been identified as a service panel by Dyllan, and I don't see where he has stated it is anything but.
Based on that alone, it is not allowed in bathroom as previously stated, in any occupancy type. period. Bathrooms are defined in the NEC, we have a basin (sink, lavitory) AND a toilet, that defines bathroom area.

This is a commercial public area.

The area photographed containing the "Service Panel" IS a BATHROOM AREA as defined in the NEC. Dillian has confirmed the presence of a basin (sink/lavitory) we can plainly see the toilet in the photos - this meets the definition of a bathroom area in article 100 and is not limited to dwelling occupancies.

Service Disconnecting means are NOT ALLOWED in BATHROOMS, even in commercial or industrial facilites. SEE NEC 230.70(A)(2). He said this is a SERVICE panel.


Back to the other issues, there is NO REASON this panel cannot be locked to prevent unauthorized unqualified persons from gaining entry, in fact it likely should be. NEC 110.26(G) Locked Electrical Equipment Rooms or Enclosures. Electrical equipment rooms or enclosures housing electrical apparatus that are controlled by a lock(s) shall be considered accessible to qualified persons.
Circuit breakers and fuses must be readily accessible [240.24]. "Readily accessible" means located so a person can reach it quickly without having to climb over (or remove) obstacles or use a portable ladder. This rule does not prohibit the locking of panel doors or the placing of a padlock on a circuit breaker to restrict access [110.26].

Because this is not a dwelling occupancy the missing required field label is absent. NEC 110.16 since 2002 requires Switchboards, panelboards, industrial control panels, and motor control centers that are in OTHER THAN DWELLING OCCUPANCIES AND ARE LIKELY TO REQUIRE EXAMINATION, ADJUSTMENT, SERVICING OR MAINTENANCE while ENERGIZED shall be field marked to warn qualified persons of potential arc flash hazards.

The marking shall be located so as to be clearly visible to qualified persons before examination, adjustment, servicing or maintenance of the equipment" This label, designed only to warn of potential hazards, is a field marking and IS NOT provided by equipment manufacturers. The photo of the panel cabinet closed or open does not have this required label.

While trying to adhere to these requirements, it's easy to lose sight of what you're going to all this trouble for: You install electrical equipment with adequate workspace for the safety of those servicing it. This workspace is required and must be maintained around all electrical equipment where parts of an energized system may be serviced. Before designing workspaces with clearances less than those described in this article, consult with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and ask for a variance in writing - but as previously mentioned, an electrician may never be allowed to work on it Live, or allowed to test that it is indeed NOT LIVE, to be able to work on it.

Also note that these enclosures are designed for left-hand operation, under the assumption that the operator is right-handed. The intended result is that the operator is standing to one side of the enclosure, rather than in front of it (and in the blast path) when operating it. Allow space for this when figuring the work zone for the installed enclosure.


Your application may fall under one of these other Articles:
Air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment [440.22]
Appliances [Art. 422]
Audio circuits [640.9]
Branch circuits [210.20]
Class 1, 2, and 3 circuits [Art. 725]
Feeder conductors [215.3]
Flexible cords [240.5(B)(1)]
Fire alarms [Art. 760]
Fire pumps [Art. 695]
Fixed electric space-heating equipment [424.3(B)]
Fixture wire [240.5(B)(2)]
Panelboards [408.36(A)]

I hate having made such a lengthy post, Dillan, but it is applicable as you have presented, despite what others have surmised.

You referred to this as a service panel - if it is it is prohibited in this area no matter the occupancy type.

The foreign MAN DOOR (or stall door)'s proximity limits the work zone - its hinge side and swing restricts egress, encoraches on the safe work zone - the TP holder and hand rail's proximity limits the work zone as a foreign object encroaching and could be a hazard (need exact dimmensions of entire area to know for SURE to life, fire, building codes) which prevents egress especially if a flash or blast blows this MAN DOOR (personnel door) closed (or a burned, injured, shocked MAN himself stumbles into the MAN DOOR/stall door and forces it closed while trying to exit the hazard.

[Jerry Peck]

Lets try to make this simple because apparently it got lost when I was referring to the MAN DOOR (egress door of this bathroom area pictured in 3rd photo) in relation to the panel front and panel door - regarding "Dancing With Doors" for egress, safety, and work zone/approach zone infringement.

It was simple, we all understood it was that door.

THAT DOOR is still not in the way regarding working space or access to the working space.

And the working space STILL is allowed to start at the right side of the panel and go 30" to the left. STILL no intrusion by the paper holder.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

It was simple, we all understood it was that door.

THAT DOOR is still not in the way regarding working space or access to the working space.

And the working space STILL is allowed to start at the right side of the panel and go 30" to the left. STILL no intrusion by the paper holder.

That would be for Dillan and his measuring tape to determine. If that cabinet door is about 8" wide and that cabinet face frame is 16+" it doesn't appear so, looks more like 24-25" total. Omniscient delusions aside.

Either way, Dillan described as a SERVICE panel therefore it is still not allowed to be in a bathroom.

Service or Feeder supplied panel without the required warning/danger label for non-dwelling occupancy should be called out as a potential a hazard to persons and property. No lockout can also be called out as potential liability to unqualified persons/public.

[Jerry Peck]

That would be for Dillan and his measuring tape to determine. If that cabinet door is about 8" wide and that cabinet face frame is 16+" it doesn't appear so, looks more like 24-25" total.

The entry door to the bathroom, or MAN DOOR as you referred to it, does not in anyway affect the working space in front of the electrical panel.


Omniscient delusions aside.

Which, it seems, you are full of.


Either way, Dillan described as a SERVICE panel therefore it is still not allowed to be in a bathroom.

If it is indeed the "SERVICE EQUIPMENT", which contains the service disconnecting means, then, yes, I will give you that and agree with that.

Dylan did refer to it as "service panel", which may not mean that is it "service equipment", only Dylan can clarify if that is indeed the "SERVICE EQUIPMENT" which includes the main disconnecting means.

If it is not the service equipment and is simply an electrical panel, which I believe that is what we will find out from Dylan should he responds as it certainly does not look like a "service panel" with the "service disconnecting means" (look at that close-up photo with the cover open and you will see what I am referring to), then you will need agree with to us (the rest of us) and give us that. All depends on what Dylan's reply is.

[Ted Menelly]

Water, bathroom, tile floor, electricity. folks goin poop. It needs to be somewhere else. I sated above and will state again. There is to much ring around the rosey with the code and the what ifs or what nots and accessibility, and, and, and, and it needs to be somewhere else and should have never been allowed to be installed in the bathroom.

[Jerry Peck]

it needs to be somewhere else and should have never been allowed to be installed in the bathroom.

I stated that in the very beginning, then we started debating code and what, specifically, disallows it or allows it. This is because some of us here are AHJ, some are electricians, some are inspectors, and for those reasons there are limitations on what is allowed and disallowed.

With home inspectors, or private inspectors as I call us because we inspect more than just homes, we - asking as private inspectors - do not have the same constraints placed on as we - asking as code inspectors - have. Home inspectors are allowed to apply logic and common sense and call it out even if it 'meets code but is just plain dumb', whereas code inspectors are bound by the code, no more, no less.

As you said ... ring around the rosy has been occurring since.

[Fred Warner]

Water, bathroom, tile floor, electricity. folks goin poop. It needs to be somewhere else. I sated above and will state again. There is to much ring around the rosey with the code and the what ifs or what nots and accessibility, and, and, and, and it needs to be somewhere else and should have never been allowed to be installed in the bathroom.

First of all, it is not a service disconnecting means, therefore the provisions regarding disconnecting means do not apply.
I am quite surprised at the level of disregard for code on this thread.
I live in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's a land where we elect officials to enable legislation that we go by. The legislation in this instance is an adopted form of a State/National Building Code (probably some form of the ICC codes) and in the back part there is a chapter on reference standards that are made a part of the legislation by reference. One such code is the _____(fill in the proper year for your state) edition of the National Electrical Code. In the NEC, unless something is specifically prohibited, it is allowed. In commercial establishments, panelboards that are not service equipment disconnecting means are PERMITTED. If you take it upon yourself to decide that YOU don't like them there and you decide to disallow them, you are taking the law out of the elected officials hands. This is DENYING DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Who charged you with these powers.....? Not me. Not your customer. Not your local elected officials. No one did. You are usurping powers you are not charged with to begin with. The elected officials are the AHJ. They then appoint someone to represent the interest of LAW.
If you came into my church or bowling alley or other place of commerce and started telling me I could not have a remote panelboard in my bathroom, you'd end up in a court of law where you would eventually learn the importance of leaving rule making up to legally elected rule-making bodies.
Incidentally, by "You", I mean anyone, not you specifically. :)

[Jerry Peck]

First of all, it is not a service disconnecting means, therefore the provisions regarding disconnecting means do not apply.

Fred,

That we do not know for sure ... well, okay, most of us know for sure that it is not, but, as Dr. Watson pointed out, Dylan *did* refer to it as the "service panel", even though looking at the photo with the door open it is easy to see that it is *not at all likely to be* the "service panel" but rather just a distribution panel.

For Dr. Watson's sake, we need Dylan to verify that it is, or is not, "service equipment" to put that issue to rest.


I am quite surprised at the level of disregard for code on this thread.

There is not a lot of disregard for code on this thread, a home inspector, hopefully, knows enough code to get by on, but a home inspector is not bound by code either. A home inspector can write stuff up which is "common sense", even though it is compliant. After all, "code" is simple the "minimum" requirements, nothing more.

Contrary to home inspectors, code inspectors are bound by the code, they are limited in their calls to what the code allows, or what it disallows.

Here is a 'for instance':

The code inspectors here debate whether that is, or is not, allowed in that bathroom. That debate has not yet been settled.

The home inspectors here say 'That's a dumb place to put an electrical panel."

Know what? The home inspectors are correct. Is it allowed? Different question, and not yet answered.

[Ted Menelly]

Thanks Fred

Thanks Jerry

I must admit. Interesting about living in the United States and all that stuff.

Living in the United States makes me able to have an opinion and state it. Fred, I understand where you are coming from. I must state this though. Code is not the end all to all. Code is the starting point. Code is to be concidered with *other thought* as to what to be and not to be allowed. Kinda like following every word in the bible. Some of those words or actions or innactions cannot be followed completely with out other deciding factors. To just open up a code book and following it to the letter (or your depiction of the letter) without any other concideration or reasonable thought would and sometimes is foolish. Concider being in the military and following orders to the T with no other concideration to anything or anyone no matter what. Most of the time it can and will be done. But not all the time is it expected to be done if there is an over riding situation at hand like evaporating a bunch of innocent people. Well, I think you would and anyone would put a little thought behind it before the action was taken.

My opinion is that putting an electric panel (of any kind) in a bathroom is dumb.

Water, tile floor, spray from popping toilet line while someone is working on the panel, the door swinging into them while working on the panel, handicap accessibility etc. etc. etc. etc.

Just to many what ifs when you have an entire building or unit in that building where there is a far more appealing, safe and logical place to put it.

Why it would even be drawn into a bathroom and put forward to be passed just foggs my mind before we even get into the other wht ifs.

In my opinion is that there should have never been a concideration to begin with.

As far as a bathroom in a church with an electric panel.........why.......you are already in a church to be enlighted (pun) why use the electric panel to do so.

[Dylan Whitehead]

Ok gentlemen sorry for not being clear. It is not per se the service panel for that suite. The main disconnects are elsewhere. I should of been more precise with what I refered to it as. I just found it odd to have that in the restroom, and woundered how anyone would approve any plans that showed that. Even if it somehow got overlooked on plan review, when it was time to inspect it it should have not been allowed. I agree with Ted. There are way too many what ifs. It truly is a foolish place to install one, but if I read what many of you have said, it does meet minimum codes.

[Roland Miller]

There is no code reference to prohibit this installation. I do know of one AHJ and Fire Marshal that convinced the owner and designer it was not in their best interests to have the panel for the store in a public access restroom. All it would take is someone locking themselves in and messing with the breakers. They chose to move it into a newly designed locked closet. The other option is to provide a lock on the panel cover. In this day it is not practical to have the panel where someone can create havoc..

[ken horak]

How many of you have a copy of the National Electrical Code Handbook?
I do and guess what?
Readily and ready access are being referred to as the SAME.
The Handbook has commentary that the regular code book does not.

I have read 240.24 (A) it references Accessibility to overcurrent devices mainly the height of them. Overcurrent devices shall be "readily" accessible......
Commentary - "for the purpose of this requirement, "ready" access to the operating handle......

Article 100 Definitions - Accessible, readily ( readily accessible) capable of being reached quickly for operation,renewal,or inspections ............
Comantary - The definition of readily accessible does not preclude the use of a locked door for service equipment or rooms containing service equipment, provided those for whom " ready access" is necessary......

My point is that the NEC is using ready access to refer to readily accessible - one and the same.

Panel in bathroom is perfectly permitted with out a doubt. Wet or damp location because of toilet spray? Come on -reaching aint we?
How wet do you get when you stand in front of the toilet and flush?

[Jerry Peck]

Article 100 Definitions - Accessible, readily ( readily accessible) capable of being reached quickly for operation,renewal,or inspections ............
Comantary - The definition of readily accessible does not preclude the use of a locked door for service equipment or rooms containing service equipment, provided those for whom " ready access" is necessary......

Which is where I disagree on your interpretation: That locked BATHROOM door does not permit "ready access" when it is locked by an occupant of the bathroom.

It is fully understood that, yes, LOCKED ROOMS can be used, and in many instances are PREFERRED, but, the locked room here is one over which the qualified person does not have "ready access to" at all times. They may well arrive at that "locked room", not that they locked it, they may not even have a key for it, how many people would want the qualified person to enter at will? There is a difference in apply the use of a "locked room" with which the qualified person as "ready access" to and was a room they locked to keep others out, band a "locked BATHROOM" which was locked to keep them out as well as others.


Panel in bathroom is perfectly permitted with out a doubt.

Not "without a doubt", that is for sure.

Being as you have the Handbook, you undoubtedly read the entire section "A commonly used, permitted practice it to locate the disconnecting means in the electrical equipment room or an office building or large apartment building and to keep the door to that room locked to prevent access by unauthorized persons." You shouldn't try to just pull out what you want when the entire Handbook description is saying everything but "do not put it in a bathroom and consider that ready access" in describing what it means by "locked rooms" under the control of the qualified person.

No way does what is actually written sound like it is intended to include a "bathroom" to which THEY do not have access and for which THEY do not "keep the door to that room locked to prevent access by unauthorized persons", if that was the case, then the "bathroom" would no longer be a "bathroom", it would a "locked room" where a toilet and sink were stored.

Do any of us have Handbooks? With the exception of the 1970s, I have Handbooks from current going back to the 1930s for all of my codes (which are basically complete from current back to the 1920s with some editions missing back to the 1897 code which started the NEC), previous to the 1930s I do not have Handbooks.

[ken horak]

Fred,
There is not a lot of disregard for code on this thread, a home inspector, hopefully, knows enough code to get by on, but a home inspector is not bound by code either. A home inspector can write stuff up which is "common sense", even though it is compliant. After all, "code" is simple the "minimum" requirements, nothing more.

Contrary to home inspectors, code inspectors are bound by the code, they are limited in their calls to what the code allows, or what it disallows.

Here is a 'for instance':

The code inspectors here debate whether that is, or is not, allowed in that bathroom. That debate has not yet been settled.

The home inspectors here say 'That's a dumb place to put an electrical panel."

Know what? The home inspectors are correct. Is it allowed? Different question, and not yet answered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct - A Home Inspector is not bound by the code and can write items they THINK are common sense. This can be an entirely different thread - Common Sense . What one person says might not make one bit of sense to another. By "writing up stuff which is common sense" could very well be writing up what is YOUR opinion.

Inspectors are bound by the code - correct again. This is the proper way.
A GOOD inspector enforces the code and only the code not his/her OPINION or as you may say " common sense" An inspector is another step in keeping the structures and it's occupants safe.

Another thing to remember is when I write up a violation based on the code it MUST be addressed, When you write up an issue based on "common sense" it can very well be dismissed as another person's opinion or just plain crap. Yes the code is the minimum requirement But it must be followed to the letter. In other words we Code Inspectors can not just "read" more into a section then is there. We can not add "what if's" into a situation to try and create an issue out of a non-issue. Sound familiar?
You sir are doing just that ,adding your thoughts and opinions into a non-issue. What if the stall is being used, what if someone is in there, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Do you not think the code panels haven't thought about that?

The debate has not been settled? Sure it has The code says you can put the panel in there, as long as it's not the main service disconnecting means. It is not, that was stated by the original poster.
Good idea or not ? Nobody can honestly say without being in the building and seeing why it ended up there to begin with.

[Ted Menelly]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct - A Home Inspector is not bound by the code and can write items they THINK are common sense. This can be an entirely different thread - Common Sense . What one person says might not make one bit of sense to another. By "writing up stuff which is common sense" could very well be writing up what is YOUR opinion.

Inspectors are bound by the code - correct again. This is the proper way.
A GOOD inspector enforces the code and only the code not his/her OPINION or as you may say " common sense" An inspector is another step in keeping the structures and it's occupants safe.

Another thing to remember is when I write up a violation based on the code it MUST be addressed, When you write up an issue based on "common sense" it can very well be dismissed as another person's opinion or just plain crap. Yes the code is the minimum requirement But it must be followed to the letter. In other words we Code Inspectors can not just "read" more into a section then is there. We can not add "what ifs" into a situation to try and create an issue out of a non-issue. Sound familiar?
You sir are doing just that ,adding your thoughts and opinions into a non-issue. What if the stall is being used, what if someone is in there, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Do you not think the code panels haven't thought about that?

The debate has not been settled? Sure it has The code says you can put the panel in there, as long as it's not the main service disconnecting means. It is not, that was stated by the original poster.
Good idea or not ? Nobody can honestly say without being in the building and seeing why it ended up there to begin with.

We can all say a lot of things

Think of the yellow highlight. It is not blah, blah, blah. To blindly follow code and dismiss all other convo or ideas JUST because one can find reason in the code book is blind ignorance. The entire argument about this entire matter that it is alright simply because CODE says it is is ludicrous. How can any one or group of individuals turn their key on in the morning and stumble thru life following what a code book says and not think of anything else is so far beyond me I am having a more difficult time everyday understanding that reasoning.

THE CODE BOOK SAYS IT IS ALRIGHT. Yeah, and.

So what. Absolutely so what. Your comment that inspectors are bound by code. Yes, to a point. That also depends on which type of inspector you are talking about? The blind inspector? The mentally blocked inspector? The inspector with no other thought in life but a code book inspector? The inspector with no thought or ideas of his own inspector?

Look it is about as simple as it can be. You have an entire unit. I don't care if it is a 1000 square feet or 6000 sf. The plans are presented for approval.

"and the reason for putting this panel in a bathroom that is there for a particular use, could have overflows and wet floors, could have the toilet line spring a leak while someone is working on the panel, the door could be pushes open and into someone working on the panel, the door could be locked and a breaker did not pop and an electric short is going on and a fire is starting and, and,and,and, oh yeah and there could be a handicap person that nees to use that bathroom and someone is in there working on the panel."

Well sir. The code says its alright so I am going to put it in there.

Well sir. If that is the only reason then put it somewhere else.

But sir i would have to build a closet to put it in .

And this corner over here on the plans that is useless can't be used?

Well gee. Ah, I guess so but then we have to draw a closet in the plans over there and the code book says its alright.

Sorry. To many real factors in the reasoning for not being a good idea putting it in there.

As far as a "good code inspector". A good code inspector is one that can think and actually have opinions and thoughts of his own.

As far as stretching the fact that this is a wet area. Really. Stretching the fact. Running water, overflows, line breaks. What exactly do you think a wet area is.

Why do you think that it is mandatory for putting GFCIs in wet areas ?

A non thinking, non common sense code inspector scares the hell out of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah :) :) :) :) :)

Just MY opinion

[Jerry Peck]

The debate has not been settled? Sure it has The code says you can put the panel in there, as long as it's not the main service disconnecting means.

The code DOES NOT say "you can put that panel in there", that panel in a bathroom is not addressed for other-than-dwelling units,guest rooms or guest suites.

"(E) Not Located in Bathrooms. In dwelling units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels, overcurrent devices, other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms."

Furthermore, the Handbook commentary describes the rooms which are locked as being under the control of the qualified person, there is no indication that "a bathroom" is considered as such.


Good idea or not ? Nobody can honestly say without being in the building and seeing why it ended up there to begin with.

Everyone with common sense can say it is NOT a good idea.

As for the code ... nothing says yes it can be in there, and the commentary suggest otherwise, i.e., no, that is not what we are talking about when we say ready access and rooms with locked doors.

Your turn - SHOW US SPECIFICALLY where in the NEC it says in can be in any bathroom, much less that bathroom.

As you stated on other thread, it is up to you to prove to us that it is specifically allowed.

[Fred Warner]

Contumelious opposition, stubborn disagreement, and inalterable position aside, an inclination toward making up rules not in the code leaves one in the distinct camp of wanting domineering control over something that is not within their assign.

There is a procedure in place for addressing concerns and having them deliberated and eventually brought into legislation while adhering to our rights as citizens. Making up nonsensical "field regulations" out of a misunderstood and/or misdirected concern, however valiant it may seem to the ignorant, is not well tolerated in legal circles.

Playing "what-ifs" doesn't usually go well in a court of law. "Just stick to the facts" is often heard in such hallowed halls. :)

[ken horak]

Hey Jerry-
"Article 240.24 (B) ( E ) - Not located in bathrooms. In DWELLING units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels,overcurrent devices ,other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms."

The panel in question is in a commercial building. This is plainly stated in the opening post. It is NOT a dwelling unit, It is NOT a guest room, it is NOT a guest suite. We also know it is NOT the main service disconnecting means.
Seems like the NEC DOES allow this install.

The only commentary in the handbook for Article 240.24 is for 240.24 (A)
which is dealing with the maximum height of overcurrent devices,and commentary for 240.24 ( D) Not in the Vicinity of combustible materials.
Commentary for the definition of accessible - is dealing with service equipment and makes reference to 240.24 ( A).
We are NOT dealing with Service Equipment or 240.24 ( A) (which is the height issue.)

I never stated if it was a good idea or not. I simply stated that a person would need to be on site to properly determine if it is a good idea or not.

I NEVER stated that a panel can be in ANY bathroom , I stated that this panel , in this commercial building, can be installed in the bathroom.

YOU TELL ME WHY this panel can not be located in this bathroom WITHOUT adding your opinon of locked doors into it. STATE the FACTS ONLY basing them on the national electrical code. NO personnal common sense opinions allowed - just the straight code based facts.

TED -
Don't give me that wet area BS either. Water spray - not an issue here.
Water leaks? sure that can happen. That can happen anywhere. Using that logic we would not be allowed to install electrical equipment in any building with sprinklers.
Bound by the code - Thats a phrase thrown at me by your buddy JP. The
fact of the matter is the AHJ must adbide by the code and use his/her training and professionalism,not to mention knowledge of that code to enforce it. We must trust that the hundreds of professionals who make up the code understand the same. When an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) gives a contractor a notice of violation / disapproval he/she had better be ready to show what the violation is and prove it in the code book. Trust me I have received phone calls asking where it can be found in the book. I have been asked ,by an electrician, to show him in the code book. A opinion is not in the book and can not be enforced- hence bound by the code.
Even you must admit that anything written up by a home inspector is NOT enforceable. Not saying that they are not correct, just not enforceable.
I did not mean to step on your toes or cause you to get all hot under the collar.

[Jerry Peck]

Hey Jerry-
"Article 240.24 (B) ( E ) - Not located in bathrooms. In DWELLING units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels,overcurrent devices ,other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms."

Ken,

You still did not answer the question.

Where does it state specifically that the panel is allowed in that bathroom in that commercial building - I already identified that the code says NOT in a dwelling unit bathroom, now show me where it say YES in a commercial bathroom, given that the bathroom could be "in use" with the door locked and qualified personnel NOT have ready access to that panel.

Also, the commentary in the Handbook, which I had already read, and which you pointed out, addresses locked rooms under the control of the qualified personnel and locked to keep unqualified person out, a bathroom simply does not fit that stated reasoning.


YOU TELL ME WHY this panel can not be located in this bathroom WITHOUT adding your opinion of locked doors into it. STATE the FACTS ONLY basing them on the national electrical code. NO personnel common sense opinions allowed - just the straight code based facts.

YOUR TURN FIRST - remember, YOU are saying it is allowed, and I am asking SHOW ME, given all the above which has been repeated again, for your benefit.


Even you must admit that anything written up by a home inspector is NOT enforceable. Not saying that they are not correct, just not enforceable.

Hey Ken, if you had been around for a while (and you have not) you have ALREADY KNOW that HIs know the do not, cannot not, enforce the code.

In case you do not know, and because you are new here you do not know, several of us here are also code inspectors, plans examiners, building officials, etc.

When doing code inspections I and the other are bound by the code, when doing home inspections we are paid to give our professional opinions.

You, nor anyone else who thinks they know it all, can come in here and try berating home inspectors for not enforcing the code - IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE HOME INSPECTOR TO ENFORCE THE CODE, and in fact, IF YOU AS THE AHJ WOULD ENFORCE THE CODE, the home inspectors would have much less to find.

DO YOUR OWN JOB FIRST, then tell us what we already know ... home inspectors have no teeth regarding enforcing the code, all home inspectors can do is gum them to death.

There have been MANY AHJ who have started enforcing things they were not enforcing BECAUSE home inspector kept bringing it to their attention and asking about it.

One recent example is in Texas where the AHJ (some of them, and it is spreading) have only recently started enforcing sediment traps at gas appliances such as water heaters, furnaces, etc., and ONLY BECAUSE home inspector kept asking about why sediment traps were not being installed.

[ken horak]

show where in the code ? How many times do I have to show you?
240.24 ( B) ( E )!!!!!
It specifically prohibits Dwelling units, guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels. That leaves bathrooms OHER then those listed as an ok place to install a panel as long as it is not the main service disconnecting means. Should it not be allowed straight accross the board the nEC would just state " not in bathrooms" with out bothering to itemize a list.

I did not come here and start berateing home inspectors. I was defending myself.

You have no clue how long I have been around here. I have just never posted before!

Keep trying to convince me or just twist some more things around to fit your opinions.

Your the one who started on the AHJ only being bound by the code, and all that other BS about using common sense.

[Rollie Meyers]

Ken,

You still did not answer the question.

Where does it state specifically that the panel is allowed in that bathroom in that commercial building - I already identified that the code says NOT in a dwelling unit bathroom, now show me where it say YES in a commercial bathroom, given that the bathroom could be "in use" with the door locked and qualified personnel NOT have ready access to that panel.

Also, the commentary in the Handbook, which I had already read, and which you pointed out, addresses locked rooms under the control of the qualified personnel and locked to keep unqualified person out, a bathroom simply does not fit that stated reasoning.



YOUR TURN FIRST - remember, YOU are saying it is allowed, and I am asking SHOW ME, given all the above which has been repeated again, for your benefit.



The NEC is a permissive code, if it does not state that it shall not be done or otherwise not allowed it is permissible, I personally do not care for where it was installed but it is allowed and opinions are like anal orifices, everyone has one & they all stink.

[John Steinke]

I have to agree with Rollie ... since the code is quite specific in banning panels from residential bathrooms, we can infer that they are permitted in every other sort of bathroom.

[Marc France]

There one thing about commercal bathroom they are allowed to have load centre in there and in fact I do live in France { for while } and yeah we do have load center in commercal bathroom in France!!

Merci,Marc

P.S. Both Rollie and John and Jim P. are right on the target with the situation.

[Jerry Peck]

show where in the code ? How many times do I have to show you?
240.24 ( B) ( E )!!!!!
It specifically prohibits Dwelling units, guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels. That leaves bathrooms OHER then those listed as an ok place to install a panel as long as it is not the main service disconnecting means. Should it not be allowed straight accross the board the nEC would just state " not in bathrooms" with out bothering to itemize a list.

Ken,

You are still missing it.

WHERE does it state that THAT bathroom is allowed? It does not.

Maybe this will help you, I thought of explaining it this way after my post last night, but had already turned my computer off, so, what to heck, I waited until this morning, here it is.

Take THAT bathroom, lock the door, remove the sign which states "Bathroom" (or whatever it states) and replace it with a sign which states "Electrical equipment room, authorized personnel only" or something to that effect.

IS IT still a "bathroom"? Yep.

IS IT now going to be locked where the authorized persons cannot get to it for "ready access"? Nope.

Do you see the difference now? I doubt it.

And, *I* am not the only person who thinks that way:

There is no code reference to prohibit this installation. I do know of one AHJ and Fire Marshal that convinced the owner and designer it was not in their best interests to have the panel for the store in a public access restroom. All it would take is someone locking themselves in and messing with the breakers. They chose to move it into a newly designed locked closet. The other option is to provide a lock on the panel cover. In this day it is not practical to have the panel where someone can create havoc..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF YOU WOULD READ the posts above, you will see that I am not saying the NEC does not allow panels in "bathrooms of any type" - but, you must first lose your attitude, your holier than thou thinking, and actually start READING the posts above.

To wit (from post #12 above):

Now, *if* that were a multiple stall bathroom, and yes it is a "bathroom" by NEC definition, then what I am addressing would not be a problem, provided it were not located in a stall (especially considering that the only stall which would be large enough for the panel and its required working space would be a handicap accessible stall, in which case you get back to there not being "ready" "access" to it.


NOW do you understand what I have been saying? All you have to do is READ what is written.

The above is also for:

Rollie - (I know that the NEC is a permissive code, and what it is permitting is not ALL other bathrooms, other parts of the code affect it as well, read the above).

John - (see above for Rollie)

Marc - in *single stall bathrooms which can be locked* or in multiple stall bathrooms which are not locked? Makes a difference.

The above is based on code, code inspectors and AHJ are bound by the code, no less and no more (they can allow more, but cannot enforce more).

Home inspectors are, to an extent, bound by the code in that "the code" is "the minimum on should expect to find", above and beyond that it depends on their professional opinion as to "Dang, that's just plain dumb to install a panel in a bathroom.", and I agree with that - it is just plain dumb.

Allowed by code? That's another question and part of the answer lies in the fact that the bathroom in the photo IS A SINGLE STALL BATHROOM WHERE THE DOOR GETS LOCKED BY THE USER. In a multiple stall bathroom where the door does not get locked by the users, eh, code says that is okay and code inspectors and AHJ are not allowed to enforce more.

Guys, go back and read through the posts, actually READ them, then read the code, you will see two things in the above posts:

1) The home inspector view is "It's dumb to install a panel in a bathroom, ANY bathroom."

2) The code is not saying you can install a panel in ANY BATHROOM EXCEPT (dwelling units, guest rooms, etc.), the code is saying you can install a panel in SOME bathrooms, provided you also maintain read access.

Read, think, read again, think again, you will get it. Rolland posted about an AHJ who gets it. See if you do too.

[Jerry Peck]

Ken,

Before you get all hot and puffy, maybe even have a heart attack or something, I will try to explain, again but differently for you, the difference between code inspectors/AHJ and home inspectors.

Code inspectors/AHJ: They are the ones who enforce the code (supposed to anyway) and establish the conditions which are there "as built".

Home inspectors: They are the ones who come in afterward and find all the crap the builders sneak by the code inspectors/AHJ, and all the crap that some DIY homeowner or nincompoop unlicensed/unqualified/not-competent "contractor" did that the code inspectors/AHJ has not even seen.

Code inspectors/AHJ: They enforce the "minimum standard", i.e., "the code". That is the least a contractor is legally required to do (at least in states like Florida where all contractors must be licensed and must follow the code, and where homeowners who qualify to do their own work must all follow the code.

Home inspectors: They come in to the supposedly "minimum standard" and go "OH MY GAWD ... LOOK AT THAT!" If you have been lurking for a while, as you suggest, you would - SHOULD - already have a good idea of what home inspectors find. They are also not limited by the "minimum standard", if something is deemed "meets minimum code" but is, for whatever reasons, "unsafe", the home inspector writes it up. There are no "maximums", only "minimums".

[Markus Keller]

Dylan, consider not telling your client whether the location is OK or not solely based on the Code prior to doing further research.
I don't know how you guys run it down there but here ...
Different occupancy classifications have additional requirements. Churches, daycares, etc all have more stringent requirements here.
When I look things up, say for a church, I can't just look up Code for a component because it may not apply solely. I have to first look up requirements for that particular occupancy classification, which then reference other Code requirements, which in turn may reference others, etc.
Based on Occ. Class. the location/component may not be allowed AT ALL regardless of what the NEC says.
I would call the muni and see if they have Occupancy Classifications and separate requirements.
Hope this helps, good luck
Markus