Breaker panel in clthes closet

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Riograndeelectric

Senior Member
Location
Lakewood Colorado
SO I have to install a new circuit to a new furnace in a 50 year old house.
at some point in the 1950 or 1960 they put an addtion on the house which then put the panel in a bedroom clothes closet. I am pulling a permit for the new furnace circuit since the HVAC Guys are permittng the new Furnce.

what are your thoughts on this?

the home owner said that if the inspector might have issues with the panel location and they mighjt have to move the panel then not to pull a permit for the work.
I would like to hear from some of the Inspectors that we have here as to there thoughts on this.
I belive also that there is not 3 foot clearance in front of the panel.
FYI this is in Colorado.
 
Riograndeelectric said:
I am pulling a permit for the new furnace circuit since the HVAC Guys are permittng the new Furnce.

what are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
I'd pull a permit if it was required (it is here in NJ) whether or not the HVAC guys pull a permit for their work.



Riograndeelectric said:
the home owner said that if the inspector might have issues with the panel location and they mighjt have to move the panel then not to pull a permit for the work.
Click to expand...
ahhhh...no.
The customer never tells the EC when to/when not pull a permit.
YOUR livelyhood may be on the line for "saving" them a few bucks.


Riograndeelectric said:
I belive also that there is not 3 foot clearance in front of the panel.
Click to expand...
How about 240.24(D)?


On the otherhand, the AHJ may allow the panel to remain if it was installed legally under a different code cycle.
 
Pull the Permit, its your legal obligation, i will bet on inspection the local authority will understand the panel fell under old codes. Worse case you or someone else moves the panel. Dont let the homeowner call your shots
 
I found nothing about clearance


only found about clothes closet
make the closet serve some other {purpose} such as hiding ET
 
Here in Mass we have rules that allow such "issues" to remain in cases like this. Where do you draw the line when it comes to correcting violations? The panel is not legal so you change that, now what about the grounding system? How about the meter, is that up to code? And the service drop? On and on it goes, before you know it your rewiring the house.

This is why people routinely try to avoid permits and inspections, as you have heard from the homeowner.

There has to be common sense and good judgement used, unfortunately some only see black and white and either don't want to use any judgement or lack the ability to do so.
 
If there are renovation codes that permit using existing installations that are no longer code, that is fine. But, if those codes do not exist, what the homeowner is asking you to do is put your neck in the noose for them.
Call the inspector and ask him what he will be looking for. BTW, that is what communication is all about.
 
If the panel is in a closet in a mobile home, it was (and still is) permitted thru CFR 24 Part 3480 which would take precedence over the NEC (more stringent).

If that's not the case, as it seems to this reader, than it's possible the panel was installed prior to the electrical code requiring panels not to be installed in clothes closets. This would have been in the early 70's editions.

So, it's possible that it all may have been code compliant at the time of installation. In any event, you are not installing a panel, you're installing one circuit in an existing panel.

There is no rule in the code that specifically states "a legal, code-compliant branch circuit may not be installed in a panel that is suspected of existing at variance with the code in effect at the time of it's installation"....There are millions of pre-existing, non-conforming installations out there. As long as the panel is capable of the extension, I see no code violation. :smile:
 
My thoughts are that there is a fine line between reusing an existing component and installing a new one. The code rule of interest prohibits overcurrent devices from being installed near flammable materials. It cites clothes closets as an example of such a location.

If there is an existing spare breaker, then the presence of that spare breaker is an existing violation. Connecting a wire to that breaker does not alter the violation. The OCPD was there before you started your project; it was there when you left. No change. I would allow that, under the alleged ?grandfather rule,? if I were the AHJ, which thankfully I am not.

However, if you have to add a new breaker to serve the new load, then you have created a new violation. As the AHJ in this situation, I would not allow the installation.

Strange, isn?t it? A subtle difference, with no real difference in the level of safety, yet one is OK and the other is not? Still, that is how I see it.
 
How is the hazard increased ?


That is the basic element of NJ's Rehab Code.

I swapped out some panels on a job...the panels were installed sideways(horizontially?)...and less than 2' clearance infront to a boiler (commercial job). I replaced the panels and installed them top-bottom (vertically?)
The EI allowed this swap as I had actually removed 1 hazard, but left another existing violation.
 
It is not up to the HO to determine if a permit is required.

Normally for such a small amount of work, you would not be required to bring the whole house up to current code, or even to code. Just that the new work is up to code.

I would point out to the HO that there is some risk that the EI might object to the old work, and the HO might end up having an issue. IMO, it is not your problem to determine what the EI is going to do about existing issues. It is your responsibility to point it out to the HO, so he knows there is some risk of a problem from the EI.

Potentially, you could avoid the whole issue altogether by using an existing circuit to power the furnace.
 
petersonra said:
It is not up to the HO to determine if a permit is required.

Normally for such a small amount of work, you would not be required to bring the whole house up to current code, or even to code. Just that the new work is up to code.

I would point out to the HO that there is some risk that the EI might object to the old work, and the HO might end up having an issue. IMO, it is not your problem to determine what the EI is going to do about existing issues. It is your responsibility to point it out to the HO, so he knows there is some risk of a problem from the EI.

Potentially, you could avoid the whole issue altogether by using an existing circuit to power the furnace.
Click to expand...

I am with Bob on this one, I would not ask to have the existing panel removed unless there was more extensive work taking place.
Just advise the HO of what they have and it and they might want to think about changes in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top