NEC wet location.

Very interesting discussion to be sure. The plan checker did not quote any amendment to the NEC, note this is in California so we need to also follow the CEC but that tracks the NEC closely. For now, I have responded with the definition of the (3) areas within the code - Dry, Damp and Wet, and stated that our scenario only fit within the Dry definition of the code. I believe this plan checker might be a newbie, but we shall see what he says. This is the first time I've encountered this in the years.
 
jim dungar said:
No.

A closed panel door on a Type 1 enclosure provides the same protection, from splashing, as a closed cover on a Type 3R. The bottom of a 3R enclosure is similar to that of a 1 including knockouts. The 3R simply provides more protection from falling and windblown rain.

As others have said, if splashing water requires 3R enclosures, then receptacles near sinks should have in use covers also.
Click to expand...
Our panels are flush mounted to the wall, thus what are the chances of water ingress? Worse come to worse, I suppose we could provide caulking around the face cover, and provide gasket for the doors, but that seems hokey.
 
infinity said:
Doubtful, there is nothing in that definition that refers to a room with a sink.
Click to expand...
Who was arguing that?
Plan checker sees a wet room and an electrical panel in proximity to a sink and water heater as shown on the plans.

I also suspect, a "plan checker" has lower skillset than an "inspector" when it comes to the details.

What did the AHJ say on this matter?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
In your opinion, what is an AHJ?
Click to expand...
It's the NEC's opinion, but it is fairly accurate. ;)

NEC Article 100(I)
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.


FPN: The phrase “authority having jurisdiction,” or its acronym AHJ, is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since jurisdictions and approval agencies vary, as do their responsibilities. Where public safety is primary, the authority having jurisdiction may be a federal, state, local, or other regional department or individual such as a fire chief; fire marshal; chief of a fire prevention bureau, labor department, or health department; building official; electrical inspector; or others having statutory authority. For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction; at government installations, the commanding officer or departmental official may be the authority having jurisdiction.
 
FionaZuppa said:
Plan checker sees a wet room and an electrical panel in proximity to a sink and water heater as shown on the plans.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the OP that mentions a wet room. Bottom line is the plan reviewer is incorrect.

rcfoolinca said:
I've received a plan check comment today regarding the mounting of an electrical panel 3 feet away from a mop sink and about a foot away from a water heater. All working clearances are met, but according to the plan checker, this is considered a wet location and he wants the panel to be NEMA 3R. I don't believe his interpretation is correct per the definition of a wet location but wanted to check in with the group.
Click to expand...
 
FionaZuppa said:
It's the NEC's opinion, but it is fairly accurate. ;)

NEC Article 100(I)
Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). An organization, office, or individual responsible for enforcing the requirements of a code or standard, or for approving equipment, materials, an installation, or a procedure.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in there that says anything about the AHJ writing new rules, or changing the rules as found in the NEC. They can only inspect to the legally adopted code, including any amendments that were legally adopted and published by the unit of government that has the authority to adopt codes.
 
rcfoolinca said:
Our panels are flush mounted to the wall, thus what are the chances of water ingress? Worse come to worse, I suppose we could provide caulking around the face cover, and provide gasket for the doors, but that seems hokey.
Click to expand...
So what do you plan to do with the receptacles and light switches in that room? The location is either wet or it isn't, the plan reviewer doesn't appear to be applying rules consistently.

As soon as they ask for inuse device covers you should run screaming to the highest AHJ for your project.
 
jim dungar said:
So what do you plan to do with the receptacles and light switches in that room? The location is either wet or it isn't, the plan reviewer doesn't appear to be applying rules consistently.

As soon as they ask for inuse device covers you should run screaming to the highest AHJ for your project.
Click to expand...
I would agree. As of now, I am making an argument that his interpretation is incorrect per the definition of the NEC and the CEC.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is nothing in there that says anything about the AHJ writing new rules, or changing the rules as found in the NEC. They can only inspect to the legally adopted code, including any amendments that were legally adopted and published by the unit of government that has the authority to adopt codes.
Click to expand...
It's not about the adoption of, has more to do with interpretation of. A lot of NEC has different meanings depending on who's doing the interpretation. Just like the court system. LOL ;)

I know it was mentioned the panel is flush finished to the wall. Here I assume drywall. I don't think drywall is an acceptable material from stopping water, just as its not for creating a barrier for a water pipe that runs over the top of a panel (as discussed in the other thread). Is the wall finished using plywood?

My hypothesis is, plan review person has little knowledge reviewing plans as it relates to NEC code. Simply ask the AHJ for a more senior person to look it over.


As for the wet definition? It's a bit vague when it comes to just outdoor like weather. I mean how do you know when the weather is gonna bring water? Seattle is a bit different than say Amarillo TX when it comes to rain. One is almost always wet, the other rarely wet and non-predictable, yet both are still wet per NEC. Water heaters always do fail, just not predictable as to when or how bad, but they always do fail. Why do receptacles need the anti-paperclip crap? It's pretty rare to see kids sticking stuff in receptacle holes, but it happens on occasion.

MH forum history is great https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/panel-in-maintenance-mop-room.136124/
 
Last edited:
FionaZuppa said:
I never said plan checker made up a rule. It could just be something the AHJ does on a regular basis. The AHJ might do risk profiling, perhaps it's an insurance thing, where insurance companies perhaps offer homeowners discount for homes that use better risk profiling in their decision making, which carries into home inspections, commercial building construction, and roadway maintenance. Who knows.

Would you agree, the 3R would be a more protected panel than NEMA-1 ?

Lets see what the AHJ has to say.
Click to expand...
If a water heater triggers the extremes of a wet location in anyone’s eyes I don’t care who they are. Than there is a violation in every single home in the USA as romex supplying power to the unit is not rated for wet location.
 
Dsg319 said:
If a water heater triggers the extremes of a wet location in anyone’s eyes I don’t care who they are. Than there is a violation in every single home in the USA as romex supplying power to the unit is not rated for wet location.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is one example and there are probably a dozen other examples (a few mentioned in this thread) as to why this plan checker is incorrect. The devil's advocate arguments in this thread are exceptionally weak when we have a solid definition of a wet location in Article 100.
 
jim dungar said:
No.

A closed panel door on a Type 1 enclosure provides the same protection, from splashing, as a closed cover on a Type 3R. The bottom of a 3R enclosure is similar to that of a 1 including knockouts. The 3R simply provides more protection from falling and windblown rain.

As others have said, if splashing water requires 3R enclosures, then receptacles near sinks should have in use covers also.
Click to expand...
I not sure you are correct (and I am open for correction). Drywall is not an acceptable protection material. So if it's drywall then it should be evaluated as if there is no drywall,
 
Dsg319 said:
If a water heater triggers the extremes of a wet location in anyone’s eyes I don’t care who they are. Than there is a violation in every single home in the USA as romex supplying power to the unit is not rated for wet location.
Click to expand...
My heater is a gas unit, no electric. But you make a good point.

No mention of what type of heater it is.
 
Flip the script a bit...

The NEC defines a DRY location as 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."

By definition of the word "normal", an accidental spill is not something that needs consideration. If it was, I could be carrying a mop bucket or a drinking water jug ANYWHERE in a facility near an electrical panels and spill it. So does that mean anywhere that has a floor that needs occasional mopping or is near a bottled water dispenser now potentially a "wet location" that needs special electrical equipment?

Nope.
 
Jraef said:
A location classified as dry may be temporarily subject to dampness or wetness, as in the case of a building under construction
Click to expand...
Is that like the building sheathing and roof is not on yet, and it rains for 10min? That's like most of SW desert in US. So everything outside in SW US should be "dry" ??

What is meant by "temporary"? 10min wet, 2hrs damp? Please explain it.

Maybe NEC could just define it in technical terms, like "exposed to natural weather rain directly, automobile washing stations, car washes, etc", and for damp, "50%+RH for for than 24hrs", and for dry "covered location or indoor that has controlled RH below 50%".

Showers in bathrooms get or often stay at 50+RH, should that room be a "damp" location? What if in the shower there's an outlet up high, it can't really get wet from splashing, and the shower is only used for 3min(max) every other day? Still a wet location?
 
FionaZuppa said:
Is that like the building sheathing and roof is not on yet, and it rains for 10min? That's like most of SW desert in US. So everything outside in SW US should be "dry" ??

What is meant by "temporary"? 10min wet, 2hrs damp? Please explain it.

Maybe NEC could just define it in technical terms, like "exposed to natural weather rain directly, automobile washing stations, car washes, etc", and for damp, 50%+RH for for than 24hrs, and for dry "covered location or indoor that has controlled RH below 50%".
Click to expand...
So it seems as though your the only one in this thread having a hard time with NEC wording, might be a good reason to submit a PI.
 
roger said:
So it seems as though your the only one in this thread having a hard time with NEC wording, might be a good reason to submit a PI.
Click to expand...
I wanted to see if we get 3-6 different answers for what "temporary" means. It's in the ink, but what exactly does it mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top