Thread: When does a repair/remodel require an electrical panel to be brought up to code?

I have a bathroom that needs to be gutted and replaced with similar due to water damage from a window installed without proper flashing. My house was built in 1961 and has a 100A electrical panel in a closet, which was acceptable at the time of construction, but is now non-compliant. My bathroom contractor says that the panel will have to be reversed to face the bedroom on the other side of the wall to meet the work space requirements of current code. I'm wondering whether this is really required if they are not doing anything that touches that panel. Assume there is an existing 20A circuit that serves that room and no other (I have to check to confirm that it serves no other room, but I'm 95% sure). The bathroom circuit has GFCI protection at the receptacle, not the panel.

Under these circumstances, would the AHJ be likely to let the work pass inspection if the contractor connected new lights and fan to this existing dedicated bathroom circuit without correcting the current code violation of the panel in a closet at the other end of that cable? How about if the contractor does not replace any electrical component in the bathroom and just does the tub, drywall, tub enclosure, flooring and vanity? I'm not actually sure if that would be possible as the current luminaire has standard base bulbs. They're CFL bulbs, but because an incandescent could be screwed in there, I think I have a violation of California's Title 24 requirements unless I get fluorescent or LED lighting that cannot be replaced with an incandescent bulb.

This is for a bathroom in Contra Costa County, California in a town that delegates code inspections to the county.

For those wondering why I don't want to bring the panel up to code, I do plan to eventually replace this panel with one up to present code, but in an entirely different location and don't want to do that now because we actually have to live in this house and between the stucco contractor replacing 50" of wall, four windows and the framing of the exterior wall of this bath and the bathroom contractor gutting the bathroom, the time does not seem right to rewire half the house. So, I'd rather not pay a few thousand ($5000? I don't have my estimate with me) to bring a panel into compliance that I'll want to replace fairly soon anyway because I don't enjoy flushing money down the toilet.

Similar Threads:

• CA Electrical Code source?
• Hello-Water Meter mystery brought me to this site
• electrical code
• Kitchen update electrical code
• When did code require vents in bathrooms

Every Town, City or County Building Inspector or Building Official can interpret and enforce the building codes in slightly different ways.

Only your local AHJ can answer that question; they may allow it, or they may require a system upgrade to current standards.

Maybe your current contractor has encountered this scenario previously, and has been told to correct the deficiency.

The installation in the closet was not compliant when the original construction was done.

According to the 1947 NEC 3853 and 1959 NEC 384.6 "Switchboards shall be placed so as to reduce to a minimum the probability of communicating fire to adjacent easily ignitable material."

And no, a closet is not specifically listed in this article as a prohibited location, nor are the 20-30 other locations in a home where the panel would be "adjacent to easily ignitable material". The NFPA tried for years to get through to installers on this but finally had to spell it out so there could be no argument, and still there are arguments.
On a new construction this year one local contractor when questioned on the installation of a panel in a bedroom closet had a reply of " there is no easily ignitible material here, I don't know what the buyer will put here when they move in, and it is not my problem." The AHJ agreed and allowed the installation to stand...

I am curious as to why you would even want to leave the electrical panel facing into the closest - given that it is a well known and recognized fire hazard?

When you go to sell the house, the home inspector will (should) write it up, your buyer will then want a credit to cover the cost to flip it around (if you don't do it for them).

Alton,

The wording of those old codes did not, as you pointed out, prohibit installing panels in a closet ... that may well have been the intent ... and it was later specifically stated to include clothes closets ... there were enough people who said closets were not prohibited and it was therefore okay that the wording was added - some people just refuse to grasp the obvious until they get clobbered with it ... 'Oh, you mean clothes closest contain easily ignitable material? Who would have thought that was implied?'

Domenico'
The first question is do you need a permit for the non electrical work, wall an tile?
Second question is do you a permit for the plumbing?
If you do not alter the wiring you may not need an elect permit and what you have can stay to be redone another day when you rewire the house.

Most of the time you can change out light fixtures and outlets without a permit.

Now since you are on the Left Coast in the Nany state you may need a permit to replace the toilet paper. Check with county permits to find out exactly what triggers the need for each permit for electrical, plumbing or structural before you begin any work.

You may be able to break up the project into segments and forgo permits completely. Then again you are on the left coast that needs every tax and fee that they can generate.

Originally Posted by Alton Darty

The installation in the closet was not compliant when the original construction was done.

According to the 1947 NEC 3853 and 1959 NEC 384.6 "Switchboards shall be placed so as to reduce to a minimum the probability of communicating fire to adjacent easily ignitable material."

And no, a closet is not specifically listed in this article as a prohibited location, nor are the 20-30 other locations in a home where the panel would be "adjacent to easily ignitable material". The NFPA tried for years to get through to installers on this but finally had to spell it out so there could be no argument, and still there are arguments.
On a new construction this year one local contractor when questioned on the installation of a panel in a bedroom closet had a reply of " there is no easily ignitible material here, I don't know what the buyer will put here when they move in, and it is not my problem." The AHJ agreed and allowed the installation to stand...

Alton,
Thanks very much for your response. I don't know what the intent of the 1947 code was and most clothes are certainly flammable, but the consensus among AHJs in California seems to have been that installation in closets was permissible. (Perhaps they thought the "materials" referred to were building materials, not things placed there by occupants?) Such installations are not just common around here, they seem to have been the norm in houses built around the time mine was. So, I am pretty sure the AHJ would view it as an in installation that was permissible at the time of construction, but that no longer is.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

Every Town, City or County Building Inspector or Building Official can interpret and enforce the building codes in slightly different ways.

Only your local AHJ can answer that question; they may allow it, or they may require a system upgrade to current standards.

Maybe your current contractor has encountered this scenario previously, and has been told to correct the deficiency.

Dom,

Thanks for taking the time to offer your advice. At the end of the day, this is almost certainly the most practical answer. If I want to know what the AHJ will say, the person to ask is the AHJ.

As for the contractor's experience, it's hard to say. This estimate comes from a company that uses one person to view the site and determine what work the customer wants done with a heavy focus on materials and another person with actual construction knowledge to prepare the estimate. I only spoke to the former and she didn't know.

Why did I get an estimate from a likely over-priced "design and build" outfit that doesn't let me talk to the people who will supervise the work? Business is apparently very good. It's hard to get a contractor to come out and look at your house, let alone deign to write up an estimate.

Originally Posted by Domenico Perrella

My bathroom contractor says that the panel will have to be reversed to face the bedroom on the other side of the wall to meet the work space requirements of current code. I'm wondering whether this is really required if they are not doing anything that touches that panel.



This is for a bathroom in Contra Costa County, California in a town that delegates code inspections to the county.

Depending on who is pulling the permit will be the controlling liability factor. You personally can be the main 'contractor' and pull the permit as the insured/bonded legal party without the subcontracted trades being responsible. The 'bathroom contractor' might not have a licensed electrician nor be liable for the electrical upgrades done under the main contract. As a hired contractor pulling the project permit, the liabilities are solely on the legal license to provide the building AHJ with trade compliant installations to local rules.

Sounds like the bathroom contractor is liable for the permits and is notifying you of what may be delegated under the local AHJ codes and if electrical work requires a permit also. Generally project permit(s) will require a plan set covering the trade work to be done in compliance to the local codes under the AHJ plan check approval. The true safety concern is accessibility to the circuit disconnects on site without causing damage to property during access for the removal and installation of work being done.

The panel will get touched. Check to see what brand of panel exists to make sure it has a reliable safety history. Panel brands such as Zinsco and Federal Pacific do have models with associated aging failure problems that may be a major functional safety concern.

Originally Posted by Domenico Perrella

Alton,
Thanks very much for your response. I don't know what the intent of the 1947 code was and most clothes are certainly flammable, but the consensus among AHJs in California seems to have been that installation in closets was permissible. (Perhaps they thought the "materials" referred to were building materials, not things placed there by occupants?) Such installations are not just common around here, they seem to have been the norm in houses built around the time mine was. So, I am pretty sure the AHJ would view it as an in installation that was permissible at the time of construction, but that no longer is.

Permissible? No. Ignored? Yes.

It happens in many areas, ignorance, cost, added time to complete are all "excuses" for noncompliance, and sometimes these "excuses" end up costing someone their life.

Like so many other safety issues many will go to great lengths and expense to avoid doing the job properly. Panels have issues from time to time which can result in high heat or arcing conditions, why would you leave the panel in a closet full of ignitable material when there is opportunity to remove that hazard? I believe that in your original post you mention that your contractor recommended moving the panel? Why would you not take his advice? Money? How much is peace of mind worth? What value do you place on your life or the lives of others in your household?

And with that now comes the fact that you sought advice on the issue, or that you were seeking justification to not proceed in an effort to make safe an acknowledged hazard. This is a forum which is freely searchable, where you were given information, and now that query and all the replies are archived here for others (read plaintiffs and attorneys) to read at their leisure.

Many safety issues are pooh-poohed by people, anti-tip brackets freestanding ranges, multiple neutrals under one terminal, double tapping breakers. The list could go on and on. That panel does not care that it is in a clothes closet, if and when a problem arises that will cause a high heat condition or an arc it will occur. Safety does not know the year of construction, or what codes were in place at the time. Codes change because we find problems with the way things have been performed in the past. We now know that panels in clothes closets start fires, that is an acknowledged fact, we now know that panels should not be installed in clothes closets.

Sorry for the rant, 28 years of service in my local Fire Department gave me a new outlook on code compliance and safety. I will now take my soapbox and go back to writing reports...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I am curious as to why you would even want to leave the electrical panel facing into the closest - given that it is a well known and recognized fire hazard?

When you go to sell the house, the home inspector will (should) write it up, your buyer will then want a credit to cover the cost to flip it around (if you don't do it for them).

Jerry,

Thanks for your input. I'm a long-time lurker here and I really appreciate all the code cites and detailed information you provide here.

The short-ish answer two your question has two parts. First, a huge proportion of the older houses in Northern California have panels installed in closets and I've never heard of one catching fire for that reason. I'm willing to be enlightened on this.

Second, I'm planning to correct the defect within the next few years anyway and have little interest in a several thousand-dollar fix that won't reduce the cost of the later work even a little bit.

The even longer answer is that I left out some additional facts and there's a third factor. When I bought the house, my inspector called out the Federal Pacific Stab-Loc panel as a fire risk, but I don't think he mentioned the closet issue. I asked the seller to fix or or pay for me to do it and they told me to pound sand and that it wasn't a real risk (they did pay to removed the deteriorating asbestos-insulated ducts though). I hired an electrician recommended by my realtor and he told me that the closet location wasn't up to code and that code would require him to reverse it. He then offered that he could leave it in the closet if he did it as an "emergency" repair. The idea that a 50-year-old panel would be an emergency justifying ignoring code struck me as laughable, but I lacked the wisdom to hang up the phone and find another electrician. I told him I wasn't interested in doing that, but he apparently misunderstood me and thought I said "yes, please do it in a way that violates code, don't pull a permit and let's skip having an inspection of your sketchy work."

My wonderful painter called me and told me the electrician was not doing the work correctly and the electrician told me he thought I'd asked for the cheapy non-code repair. I lacked the wisdom to tell him to leave my house or to start over, do the work right, and that I'd pay the whatever the additional cost was.

So, I have a certain resentment about this panel and about hiring an electrician to do work that I already hired one to do, although I didn't pay the full price of the work I requested, only the price of doing it wrong (about $1000).

Domenico,

I am not terribly far from you and have not know any building inspector in my area to require a contractor or owner to move an older/existing panel out of a closet, unless the panel was being replaced at the time. If this is a bathroom repair/remodel, the inspector will, most likely, keep his inspection specifically to the bathroom related repairs. If the inspector sees the panel, he might well say something like "You really should take care of that panel" in a voice that sounds like a requirement, but is actually an opinion.

As has been said, best bet is to call the building department, let them know what you are doing and ask if any existing systems are required to be updated/corrected. Unless Contra Costa has some hard-core inspectors, I doubt they will ask about the panel at all. And, yes. The safest thing would be to move the panel.

Originally Posted by Gunnar Alquist

Domenico,

I am not terribly far from you and have not know any building inspector in my area to require a contractor or owner to move an older/existing panel out of a closet, unless the panel was being replaced at the time. If this is a bathroom repair/remodel, the inspector will, most likely, keep his inspection specifically to the bathroom related repairs. If the inspector sees the panel, he might well say something like "You really should take care of that panel" in a voice that sounds like a requirement, but is actually an opinion.

As has been said, best bet is to call the building department, let them know what you are doing and ask if any existing systems are required to be updated/corrected. Unless Contra Costa has some hard-core inspectors, I doubt they will ask about the panel at all. And, yes. The safest thing would be to move the panel.

Gunnar,

Thanks very much for sharing your local experience.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised by how many here think the inspector is likely to look at other parts of the house. I don't have construction experience, but from talking to people who do I've heard of inspectors calling out defects in the work done and uncorrected preexisting defects in the same area, but I've never heard of one touring the house to call out defects in other parts of the house, even if somehow connected to the area where the work is being done. For example, this bathroom will also connect to my sewer line and I'm pretty sure my lateral would violate current code (some places require an upgrade to current code when a home is sold, so there must be some code change to meet) or my cleanout is inadequate for only going in one direction, or something, but I wouldn't expect the inspector to look at that as no work would be done there.

I also don't see why the bathroom guys would need to touch the panel, other than to switch the circuit off when disconnecting the old luminaire and switch it back on after connecting the new one.

For that matter, I don't care if they never touch a single electrical component. It's not necessary for the work they're being hired to do and I can replace a luminaire myself and have no intention of being the first homeowner in the last 20 years in my county to apply for a permit before doing that.

I do appreciate all the advice here about the dangers of skipping the safety requirements you don't feel like complying with. In fact, in my own job I see the fatal consequences that can happen when people decide to skip a different set of safety rules. But, I'm planning to replace this box soon anyway and if I don't have to, I'm probably going to decide that I'm not interested in paying several thousand bucks to fix this one code violation that has been there for 50 years a few years before paying for a more substantial rewiring.

My home was built 50 years ago. It probably fails to comply with current code in literally hundreds of areas, some related to fire safety, some related to energy efficiency and some related to avoiding damage to the structure. The most cost-effective way to fix them all would start with demolition, proceed through regrading the lot and would leave me with no place to live for more than a year. That's not going to happen.

So, in the real world of imperfect older homes, I fix things when convenient, like adding insulation and sheathing to a wall with neither when replacing the stucco on that wall, or when I perceive a significant hazard, like removing the damaged asbestos-insulated ducts before I moved in or adding GFCI protection very shortly after moving in.

I will now return the soapbox to Alton.

Thanks again to all. You've given me much to think about.

Alton,

I respect the concern for safety that you express in your latest comment.

I wrote a lengthy reply, but it didn't get posted properly before I left the page, so I'm not going to rewrite all of it, but I did want to comment on one thing you said. My bathroom contractor did not recommend reversing the panel. In fact, until I posted here, literally nobody told me that they thought it was advisable for safety reasons.

My inspector called out the Federal Pacific panel as a fire hazard, but I'm 99% sure he said nothing about the location. My electrician said it would have to be reversed to comply with current codes, but that he could replace the Federal Pacific panel as an "emergency" repair and skip reversing the panel. I asked him to do it the right way, but he somehow misunderstood me and replaced the panel without reversing it. The decorator who delivered the bathroom estimate told me that the contractor employed by that company thought that reversing the panel would be required by the AHJ because they would be tying back into that panel. Nobody said it was dangerous to keep the panel just like it is in probably 2/3 of the houses over 40 years old in this town (most of them). I'm not saying it's not dangerous because I don't know that, but I am saying that it was permitted by the AHJ in 1961 and doesn't exactly make the home inspectors, electricians, and contractors I've dealt with jump out of their skin in fear.

Again, I truly appreciate the time all of you have volunteered to answer my question and I will give thought to what all of you have said.

Domenico,

I suspect some of your confusion regarding "inspectors" may be because you are asking questions about AHJ (code) inspectors to a forum designed for home inspectors.

AHJ inspectors typically only look at what they are there for, and many AHJ inspectors are trade/discipline specific (building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing) and only look at those parts of the project being done ... looking at even less than 'the project being done'.

Home inspectors, on the other hand, 'look at everything they can see' (should anyway) when they do an inspection.

In that respect, home inspectors are multi-discipline inspectors tying the various disciplines together.

Originally Posted by Domenico Perrella

Alton,

I respect the concern for safety that you express in your latest comment.

I wrote a lengthy reply, but it didn't get posted properly before I left the page, so I'm not going to rewrite all of it, but I did want to comment on one thing you said. My bathroom contractor did not recommend reversing the panel. In fact, until I posted here, literally nobody told me that they thought it was advisable for safety reasons.

My inspector called out the Federal Pacific panel as a fire hazard, but I'm 99% sure he said nothing about the location. My electrician said it would have to be reversed to comply with current codes, but that he could replace the Federal Pacific panel as an "emergency" repair and skip reversing the panel. I asked him to do it the right way, but he somehow misunderstood me and replaced the panel without reversing it. The decorator who delivered the bathroom estimate told me that the contractor employed by that company thought that reversing the panel would be required by the AHJ because they would be tying back into that panel. Nobody said it was dangerous to keep the panel just like it is in probably 2/3 of the houses over 40 years old in this town (most of them). I'm not saying it's not dangerous because I don't know that, but I am saying that it was permitted by the AHJ in 1961 and doesn't exactly make the home inspectors, electricians, and contractors I've dealt with jump out of their skin in fear.

Again, I truly appreciate the time all of you have volunteered to answer my question and I will give thought to what all of you have said.

I do realize that the home was built in 1961, and I do realize that many municipal inspectors turned a blind eye to the practice of installing panels in clothes closets. Again, it was a condition that was IGNORED, not permitted and not permissable.

I have the same issue in my region and I see this condition nearly every day, even in new construction. Normally the required space for access and service is also ignored, along with a thousand other details throughout a structure. However, if every structure was built to code there would be much less need for home inspectors...

Having done extensive building & remodeling in the past I have to say that this is not an expensive fix. The wiring is labeled and disconnected, the box is removed and a hole is cut on the opposite side of the wall, box is remounted and wiring reconnected, the material cut out for remounting the panel is brought into the bathroom and the hole repaired. Usually a 1-2 hour job.

Does the box HAVE to be moved? No, it is your home, you can do as you wish.

I understand the economics of the repairs. I also understand why codes have changed over the years, and I understand how many sections of code have simply been ignored. I can't speak to the intent of the Code Making Panels (CMP) in the 40's or 60's but I have been involved in lengthy discussions with engineers and others (employed by Southwire) who sat on CMPs in the 70's, 80's and 90's while I was employed by the Southwire Corporation as a Master Electrician, Electronics Technician, and Millwright. The intent of the code section I quoted in earlier posts was to stop the installation of panels in clothes closets and other areas where combustible material might be stored in close proximity.

The NEC was never intended as an instructional manual or an installation guide, it laid out standards to follow and some common sense was required to perform safe and economical installations, sadly common sense is often lacking...

Originally Posted by Domenico Perrella

Alton,

I respect the concern for safety that you express in your latest comment.

In fact, until I posted here, literally nobody told me that they thought it was advisable for safety reasons.

My inspector called out the Federal Pacific panel as a fire hazard, but I'm 99% sure he said nothing about the location. My electrician said it would have to be reversed to comply with current codes, but that he could replace the Federal Pacific panel as an "emergency" repair and skip reversing the panel. I asked him to do it the right way, but he somehow misunderstood me and replaced the panel without reversing it.
Again, I truly appreciate the time all of you have volunteered to answer my question and I will give thought to what all of you have said.

Dear OP,
Your original posting and following replies essentially have confused the thread comment respondents, including my post#9 concerning advisable safety reasons.
In answer to your original question, "Title: When does a repair/remodel require an electrical panel be brought up to code? ", the answer is 'when the electrical panel has been changed out or moved....even if the FPE panel was gutted to the mounting pan.

All the answers you received were fairly good but do not comply with NEC requirements of codes including those of Contra Costa or Alameda Counties in the Bay Area. The prior non compliance upgrade disqualifies the work you mention unless authorized by the previous AHJ carrying the approved permit liability.

I am surprised that there was no mention in the original post given data. The original licensed electrician can be legally held liable...if you can still track him down. I would contact the AHJ and present a resolution to a hypothetical condition before anyone submits a permit request that might open a previous can of worms. rbj2

Originally Posted by Ben Jacks

Dear OP,
Your original posting and following replies essentially have confused the thread comment respondents, including my post#9 concerning advisable safety reasons.
In answer to your original question, "Title: When does a repair/remodel require an electrical panel be brought up to code? ", the answer is 'when the electrical panel has been changed out or moved....even if the FPE panel was gutted to the mounting pan.

All the answers you received were fairly good but do not comply with NEC requirements of codes including those of Contra Costa or Alameda Counties in the Bay Area. The prior non compliance upgrade disqualifies the work you mention unless authorized by the previous AHJ carrying the approved permit liability.

I am surprised that there was no mention in the original post given data. The original licensed electrician can be legally held liable...if you can still track him down. I would contact the AHJ and present a resolution to a hypothetical condition before anyone submits a permit request that might open a previous can of worms. rbj2

Ben,

It took a few readings of your post to figure out what (I think) you are referring to:

a) The noncompliant panel is (based on my reading of the information provided) a "new panel" (not a gutted FPE panel with a new interior - that would be noncompliant for additional reasons) and that new panel was installed under the pretense of it being an "emergency" and no permit was pulled for the panel replacement. In most areas, "emergency work" is allowed to be performed prior to obtaining a permit (for the OP: which is not the same as 'without a permit') and that a permit is required to be applied for within 24-48 hours (that is the typical time frame most AHJ I know use, with most being 48 hours).

b) The first noncompliant issue is that a permit was not pulled. This is not an NEC issue, it precedes the NEC noncompliance issues.

c) The next noncompliant issue (provided the AHJ would not approve a direct replacement without flipping the panel around) is that the new panel installation does not meet the requirements of the applicable code (the NEC and/or other local requirements).

d) There are likely other noncompliant issues in that panel too, but we do not have the information needed to determine what or how many items there may be.

e) Was that first electrician even licensed? Were they a licensed contractor, or an 'electrician' who normally works for a licensed electricians.

f) Additional issues and concerns continue to rear their ugly head the more one considers the possibilities ... none of the other posts were not going that far with the question and information.

z) Suffice it to say that a noncompliant (no permit) job could actually be compliant with the codes ... unlikely, but possible ... but that is not the case here.