Thread: Subpanel in bathroom

I inspected a townhouse the other day and located a SQD subpanel behind the door in the hall bathroom. The townhome was built in 1995. I understand NEC does not permit service panels in bathrooms. Was this particular code written after 1995? Building is located in Pacifica, California.

Similar Threads:

• Lights on GFCI for bathroom
• AFCI in attached bathroom
• GFCI ahead of bathroom fixture
• BATHROOM OPENS TO KITCHEN?
• Gas Dryer in Bathroom

Let the Electrical Contractor determine its new location when he replaces it since it is contaminated with paint overspray.

rick

overcurrent protection is not allowed in a bathroom that being said no panel or service eqipment is allowed in a bathroom.

The 1996 NEC is the oldest I have on my computer (and was too lazy to look back at my books) and ... the 1996 NEC did not allow overcurrent devices to be installed in bathrooms, and it was not marked or indicated that it was a new limitation.

- 240-24. Location in or on Premises.
- - (e) Not Located in Bathrooms. In dwelling units and guest rooms of hotels and motels, overcurrent devices, other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms as defined in Article 100.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Let the Electrical Contractor determine its new location when he replaces it since it is contaminated with paint overspray.

rick

That panel is a obsolete SQ D Trillaint loadcenter & the box is all plastic, I fail to see the "paint overspray".

The code section 240-24(e) 1st appeared in the 1993 NEC & since CA has been slow to adopt newer editions it prob. complied with the code in effect at the time of the permit being issued.

Looks like paint to me also.

Originally Posted by Rollie Meyers

... I fail to see the "paint overspray".

If you zoom in a few times (Ctrl, +,+,+) you can clearly see the over spray on all of the conductors.

Rollie,

How many "white" Square D breakers have you ever come across?

rick

ditto - the 'no panels in bathrooms' appeared in the 1993 NEC and did not get adopted in CA till 1996 - so the panel in the bathroom would have been approved at that time.

As Rick has pointed out, the panel appears to be damaged from over spray.

This situation is a toss up - some jurisdictions will make you move the panel now that it has to be replaced, others will let you replace it where it is - rational being a replaced panel does not make the situation any less safe than it was before.

That said, South San Francisco [location of original poster] will let you replace the panel at the same location.

Rick-
Rollie stated that it is an OBSOLETE Square D Trillaint loadcenter.
Those breakers were white and that's what is pictured in the original post.
Google Square D Trillaint breakers. There are some available on Ebay

I did see overspray on the Conductors. Not so much on the loadcenter.
If it's the conductors, changing the loadcenter will do absolutely zero as the overspray will still be there.

The one & only reason to replace the panel is it's obsolete & the breakers are hard to get, which means expensive. The panel complies w/ the code in effect in the time of installation so it's fine.

"...a SQD subpanel behind the door in the hall bathroom"

BEHIND THE DOOR!!?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"...a SQD subpanel behind the door in the hall bathroom"

BEHIND THE DOOR!!?

I t-o-l-d y-o-u g-u-y-s we'd have problems if we kept insisting that a door was an obstacle to a light switch ... ... here we go again with those stupid doors ...

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"...a SQD subpanel behind the door in the hall bathroom"

BEHIND THE DOOR!!?

And your point is?

"And your point is?"

No point, just subtle humor, in referance to the thread.

http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_i...ht-switch.html

I had a similar referance to the same thread when I asked, "Where's the door?".

Does that help?

JP, I can't believe you let the magic phrase go by without a comment about underwater boats. You must be mellowing.

As this home was built in 1995, the 1993 NEC would apply, unless it hadn't yet been adopted by the locality. NEC 1993, Section 230-70(a) concludes, "Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms".
As you have stated, and the photograph clearly shows, this is a sub-panel. The service disconnecting means are clearly somewhere else.
Therefore, while placing a subpanel in a bathroom just doesn't sound "right", there is actually nothing wrong with the location of the installation. The contamination of the panel and its contents is another matter, though.
(This question, or something quite similar frequently shows up on the New Jersey license exam.)

Originally Posted by Kevin Strauss

As this home was built in 1995, the 1993 NEC would apply, unless it hadn't yet been adopted by the locality. NEC 1993, Section 230-70(a) concludes, "Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms".
As you have stated, and the photograph clearly shows, this is a sub-panel. The service disconnecting means are clearly somewhere else.
Therefore, while placing a subpanel in a bathroom just doesn't sound "right", there is actually nothing wrong with the location of the installation. The contamination of the panel and its contents is another matter, though.
(This question, or something quite similar frequently shows up on the New Jersey license exam.)

The 1993 NEC is irrelevent, it was not adopted in 1995 in California what is relevent is the NEC adopted at the time of the permit being issued, and that would be 1990 or earlier and the panel is compliant with the code in effect at the time. The NEC or other codes are not retroactive otherwise we would be demoing all structures every 3 years, if the panel is replaced then the issue of it being in a residential bathroom is going to be a major problem, it is wee weeing about nothing.

Then it appears that we agree. While abhorrent, the presence of this sub panel in a bathroom in and of itself does not constitute a violation of whatever code was in effect at the time. Now, about all that paint!!

The NEC code (as taken from the IRC) states in E3304.6 Integrity of electrical equipment.
Internal parts of electrical equipment, including bus bars, wiring terminals, insulators and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners or abrasives, and corrosive residues. There shall not be any damaged parts that might adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating. Foreign debris shall be removed from equipment.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

The NEC code (as taken from the IRC) states in E3304.6 Integrity of electrical equipment.
Internal parts of electrical equipment, including bus bars, wiring terminals, insulators and other surfaces, shall not be damaged or contaminated by foreign materials such as paint, plaster, cleaners or abrasives, and corrosive residues. There shall not be any damaged parts that might adversely affect safe operation or mechanical strength of the equipment such as parts that are broken; bent; cut; deteriorated by corrosion, chemical action, or overheating. Foreign debris shall be removed from equipment.

There is some overspray on the conductors, big deal & no reason to whine about it, if it was all over the bus would have a different opinion but it's a white PLASTIC box & interior.

Heres a trilliant panel to compare.



These were really pretty nice panels and had some very good features but square d wanted a fortune for them and they just were to darn costly. My understanding was the breaker internals were QO (you can see the trip windows in the picture). Anyway in Europe their load centers called 'consumer units' have been non metallic plastic for many years. and are similar to the trilliant in some respects. I also think it is possible that the bus stabs in the unoccupied spaces may be contaminated with paint spray.

That being said I have never had an inspector make me replace a load center for paint spray like we see in this panel posted by Steven.

I will say that the painter and I would have had some serious words if he did that to a panel of mine ...he can either cover it or have me cover it. They know not to spray the interior of a panel yet it happens all the time.....

Thanks everyone...your input was definitely helpful. I did note the overspray and I recommended to have the panel evaluated by an electrician.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

JP, I can't believe you let the magic phrase go by without a comment about underwater boats. You must be mellowing.

Bruce,

I let if go by as I figured he was playing with it in the bathtub and did not pick it up after the bath, so his mother hid it behind the door.

You did notice that I changed to title in my posts, right?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Bruce,

I let if go by as I figured he was playing with it in the bathtub and did not pick it up after the bath, so his mother hid it behind the door.

You did notice that I changed to title in my posts, right?

Generally speaking this is what a feeder to a sub-panel looks like ...

Jerry's refernce to a panel in a submarine as a sub panel is also INCORRECT. There is a correct and proper term for that type of panel.

How bout it Jerr ?