# Circuit panel in "bathroom"



## Inspector 102 (Mar 3, 2014)

Home built in 1983. New owner is renovating with cosmetic items, no structural changes. He uncovered a stool flange in the "laundry room" and wants to add an additional water closet. The circuit panel for the house is located in the same room which contains laundry equipment. Since the restriction of circuit panels being located in the bathroom did not appear until the 1993 NEC, do I allow him to install the water closet as an existing condition. If the water closet is installed can he add a lavatory also since there is plumbing rough-in for it already. If only a water closet is provided, it does not meet the definition of a bathroom however the plumbing was installed under the 1981 NEC which did not restrict it. What are thoughts on this situation from the forum?


----------



## steveray (Mar 3, 2014)

I would not allow it....it is a laundry room now and they lost whatever grandfathering they had at that time.....Are you talking about the actual service? Or a sub-panel?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 3, 2014)

Inspector 102 said:
			
		

> Home built in 1983. New owner is renovating with cosmetic items, no structural changes. He uncovered a stool flange in the "laundry room" and wants to add an additional water closet. The circuit panel for the house is located in the same room which contains laundry equipment. Since the restriction of circuit panels being located in the bathroom did not appear until the 1993 NEC, do I allow him to install the water closet as an existing condition. If the water closet is installed can he add a lavatory also since there is plumbing rough-in for it already. If only a water closet is provided, it does not meet the definition of a bathroom however the plumbing was installed under the 1981 NEC which did not restrict it. What are thoughts on this situation from the forum?


Sounds like the model home in a housing tract.

I agree with Steve, I would not allow it


----------



## Inspector 102 (Mar 3, 2014)

This is the actual service, however the plumbing was provided at the same time as the house was built. Do I address this as an existing installation that was not prohibited by the NEC at the time it was built or push the issue that since they are finally adding the fixtures, this needs to comply with NEC (We are under the 2008 edition here)


----------



## steveray (Mar 3, 2014)

230.70A2 does not allow the service disconnecting means in the "bathroom".....If it were roughed for a bathroom they lost it when they did laundry instead, it is not a bathroom until there are those fixtures in place....If there is some kind of permit still open where you could allow the work under that old code maybe......Now if they want to move the service disco......


----------



## Inspector 102 (Mar 3, 2014)

Just to clarify one more time, the laundry room has always been there along with the plumbing roughed in. The new owner has changed nothing other than uncover the unused floor flange. He saw a bonus by now being able to advertise as 1 1/2 bathroom instead of 1. With that, I am struggling with him losing any rights to a complying installation, at the time it was installed. If the project converted this room to a laundry room, then I would agree. I am not stuck on either direction yet, but really appreciate the comments.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 3, 2014)

Inspector 102 said:
			
		

> Just to clarify one more time, the laundry room has always been there along with the plumbing roughed in. The new owner has changed nothing other than uncover the unused floor flange. He saw a bonus by now being able to advertise as 1 1/2 bathroom instead of 1. With that, I am struggling with him losing any rights to a complying installation, at the time it was installed. If the project converted this room to a laundry room, then I would agree. I am not stuck on either direction yet, but really appreciate the comments.


 Was the toilet on the original Permit?

IMHO, just for conversation

Does not matter.....


----------



## mjesse (Mar 3, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Was the toilet on the original Permit?


Yeah, I'm curious too.

Have you witnessed the "existing" flange?

Was it plugged all these years, or was sewer gas entering the home?

I'm leaning toward not allowing it similar to most of the posters above.


----------



## Inspector 102 (Mar 3, 2014)

The original plans have been purged by the city many years ago. I am lucky to have the original permit form. The flange was taped over, underneath the carpet when the guy bought it. I fully understand not allowing the improvements, just need to convince myself of a reasonable arguement of why he cannot use the already installed plumbing by simply adding fixtures. Kind of like supplying a laundry room, but not the washer and dryer. At what point is it not considered a laundry room.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 3, 2014)

Sounds like a plumbing mistake. Instead of removing the assembly they just went over it.

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 3, 2014)

E3405.4 Location of working spaces and equipment.

Required working space shall not be designated for storage. Panelboards and overcurrent protection devices shall not be located in clothes closets, in bathrooms, or over the steps of a stairway.

BATHROOM. An area, including a basin, with one or more of the following: a toilet, a urinal, a tub, a shower, a bidet, or similar plumbing fixture.

I don't see where the IRC prohibits it in a "laundry room"

Now if there is a sink I agree the toilet can not be installed because the room would meet the definition of a bathroom.

Can the toilet be walled off from the panel board location?


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 3, 2014)

I would allow it. The prohibition was put in place to prevent condensation build up in the panel from bathing/ showering activities.

It is now a laundry room with a convenience outlet.


----------



## steveray (Mar 4, 2014)

Gregg Harris said:
			
		

> I would allow it. The prohibition was put in place to prevent condensation build up in the panel from bathing/ showering activities.It is now a laundry room with a convenience outlet.


That is why it is prohibited in the IRC but allowed in NEC (except for services)...Correct?


----------



## ICE (Mar 4, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> That is why it is prohibited in the IRC but allowed in NEC (except for services)...Correct?


240.24(E) adds over current devices to the prohibition unless it is supplementary overcurrent protection, whatever that is.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Mar 4, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> 240.24(E) adds over current devices to the prohibition unless it is supplementary overcurrent protection, whatever that is.


An inline fuse in a light fixture or appliance that is factory installed. Circuit breakers in air handlers that supply auxiliary heat  in excess of 48 amps are required to be factory installed.


----------



## gfretwell (Mar 4, 2014)

I assume the supplemental O/C device would be a fuse for a "shaver receptacle" in a luminaire.

To you younger guys, there used to be receptacles in bathroom lights.

If you are really young, Shavers used to plug in.  ;-)

I agree with the idea of trying to partition this problem away by making the panel area a separate room.

I didn't hear anything about a shower, just a toilet and a sink so I doubt moisture would be worse than a laundry room.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 4, 2014)

Inspector 102 said:
			
		

> The original plans have been purged by the city many years ago. I am lucky to have the original permit form. The flange was taped over, underneath the carpet when the guy bought it. I fully understand not allowing the improvements, just need to convince myself of a reasonable arguement of why he cannot use the already installed plumbing by simply adding fixtures. Kind of like supplying a laundry room, but not the washer and dryer. At what point is it not considered a laundry room.


Even if it had been a bathroom before and wanted to convert back from a laundry room look at the administrative section in reference to the existing building sections that addresses alterations and partial change of occupancy or use; shall comply with the current code.

Had a similar experience; a simple solution was to reverse the panel to face opposite side of the wall.


----------



## steveray (Mar 4, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> 240.24(E) adds over current devices to the prohibition unless it is supplementary overcurrent protection, whatever that is.


What I meant to say was NEC seems to differentiate between "bath"room and toilet room.....Moisture from showering or bathing seems to be the intent of 240.24E....


----------



## Min&Max (Mar 4, 2014)

I think this is a case where a code change is warranted. If the room does not have a tub or shower it is not a room used for bathing. I can put everything else including a tub and/or shower in the room and the panal can be there, as long as there is no basin/sink. Bathroom= a room with a tub or shower


----------



## Hesterd (Mar 18, 2014)

I am not a code official so take my advice as you wish. But I know this code provision. Having a service panel in a bathroom is not allowed.

NEC

240.24 Location in or on Premises

(E) Not Located in Bathrooms.

In dwelling units, dormitories, and guest rooms or guest suites, overcurrent devices, other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms.

FYI-

This is for OCPD for specific devices-

240.10 Supplementary Overcurrent Protection

Where supplementary overcurrent protection is used for luminaires, appliances, and other equipment or for internal circuits and components of equipment, it shall not be used as a substitute for required branch-circuit overcurrent devices or in place of the required branch-circuit protection. Supplementary overcurrent devices shall not be required to be readily accessible.


----------



## David Henderson (Mar 19, 2014)

I would'nt allowed it besides the permit expired many years ago.


----------



## rnapier (Mar 20, 2014)

Here it wouldn't be allowed. What you have is an existing code conforming situation that they want to change into a nonconforming situation. We have an saying here "I may not be able to make you make it better but I won't let you make it worse"


----------

