NEC wet location.

R

rcfoolinca

Member
Location
California
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
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.
 
The plan checker is incorrect per the definition. I doubt the location would ever be "saturated" with liquid.

Location, Wet. Installations underground or in concrete
slabs or masonry in direct contact with the earth; in locations
subject to saturation with water or other liquids, such
as vehicle washing areas; and in unprotected locations exposed
to weather.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Roger the plan checker is wrong. This is not a wet location by NEC definition. Kitchens have receptacles and switches right next to the sink and they are not using wet locations covers. Same with bathroom receptacles. The panel can be right next to the sink.
 
They are misunderstanding the Type 3R rating also. 3R is protection against  falling and windblown rain. If they are concerned with splasing from below they would need a Type 4 and watertight conduit entries.
 
infinity said:
I agree with Roger the plan checker is wrong. This is not a wet location by NEC definition. Kitchens have receptacles and switches right next to the sink and they are not using wet locations covers. Same with bathroom receptacles. The panel can be right next to the sink.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but gfi is required. Will the panel feed be on gfi? LOL.
 
If the sink is half full of water and you dropped in a heavy mop bucket, could that water splash out onto the panel?
If so then I think AHJ (or plan checker) is correct.

If it's subject to splashing water (which in of itself is subjective), then it's a "wet location".
So as it goes for outlets near the kitchen sink or in bathrooms, those items are mitigated with gfi requirement.
I guess you mitigate a panel by using a wet rated panel, 3R in this case.

The argument that will be subjective is if the panel is subject to splashing water, and my guess is, plan checker is using risk of nearby water heater which almost always fail via water leak mode. Does the AHJ have any addendums for "wet location" ?

Did plan checker say "per NEC", or "per AHJ" ? The two are very different, yet related.
 
FionaZuppa said:
If the sink is half full of water and you dropped in a heavy mop bucket, could that water splash out onto the panel?
Click to expand...
That would be more under the definition of Dry Location

Location, Dry. A location not normally subject to dampness
or wetness. A location classified as dry may be temporarily
subject to dampness or wetness,
Click to expand...
 
jim dungar said:
Splashing is not part of the definition of Wet Location.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe plan checker meant "damp location"? 3R would be an allowed mitigation. AHJ has the "A" part on their side, as long as they make the right argument.

Location, Damp. Locations protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. Examples of such locations include partially protected locations under canopies, marquees, roofed open porches, and like locations, and interior locations subject to moderate degrees of moisture, such as some basements, some barns, and some cold storage warehouses.

Again, AHJ (or the "plan checker") might be accounting for the additional risk?
 
roger said:
That would be more under the definition of Dry Location
Click to expand...

Toss out the what-if's. However, busting water tanks are not what-iffs, they always fail, always. There is no water thank that never fails. This is well documented. 99%+ water heaters fail from internal piping corroding through, often times causing a local flood because there is no auto-off valve. A kid sticking paperclip in wall outlet is not a "always" thing, that's a what-if thing.

If the AHJ says the area is a wet location, then it's a wet location. If the AHJ said it's a wet location per the NEC, then argue it. AHJ has final word, which is lawfully valid when it's above the code minimum requirements. If AHJ is citing NEC directly, then argue it.

We won't know until OP asks the AHJ for explanation.
 
Last edited:
FionaZuppa said:
If the AHJ says the area is a wet location, then it's a wet location. If the AHJ said it's a wet location per the NEC, then argue it.
Click to expand...
As I said, unless the AHJ has made this a formal rule (as in local code amendment) then the plan checker is out to lunch. A plan checker or inspector can not just make their own rules and in some states it's illegal for them to ask for more than the adopted code(s)
 
roger said:
As I said, unless the AHJ has made this a formal rule (as in local code amendment) then the plan checker is out to lunch. A plan checker or inspector can not just make their own rules and in some states it's illegal for them to ask for more than the adopted code(s)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
Unless the AHJ is quoting a formal in writing adopted code it's a made up rule no matter how long they've been wanting it.
 
FionaZuppa said:
Would you agree, the 3R would be a more protected panel than NEMA-1 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top