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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top