New electrical panel location next to mop sink

[iwire]

You not called me on anything, just called names.

I have not called you any name at all, I said you where free to continue whining which indicates I felt you had been whining. That is my opinion and I am free to have one.

On all forums I participate on, some of them are pretty high level, the moderators adhere to the strict impartiality rule and don't let emotions and personal dislikes affect their conversations.

Well I do have opinions and I will let them be known.

What I can not do and will not do, is use my position to stop you from stating your opinions regardless my personally feelings.

 

[weressl]

I have not called you any name at all, I said you where free to continue whining which indicates I felt you had been whining. That is my opinion and I am free to have one.



Well I do have opinions and I will let them be known.

What I can not do and will not do, is use my position to stop you from stating your opinions regardless my personally feelings.

Characterizing my view as whining is derogatory, it is ad hominem and considered as a personal attack in civil discourse. It is akin to name-calling.

But hey, I should have followed the sage's advice: 'never get in a fight with a pig, he will love it and you just muck yourself up.'

 

[electricmanscott]

OK, lets talk about politics 101.

Except the NEC panels are not part of a democratic process, not a single member was elected by the constituents they serve. They each - with some exceptions - serve their own interest or the interest they represent. They are more representative of a bunch of lobbyist who agree on what the 'public' needs.

The panles may not be part of a democratic process, I'll agree with you there. But....Who adopts the code that the panels produce?

 

[weressl]

The panles may not be part of a democratic process, I'll agree with you there. But....Who adopts the code that the panels produce?

Appointed officials.

But you're switching the argument.

 

[electricmanscott]

Appointed officials.

But you're switching the argument.

I am not arguing anything just killing time.

Appointed or not they are part of the democratic process.

So to summarize, there is no code prohibiting a panel from being located a foot away from a mop sink. :grin:

 

[peter d]

It's funny, every time I call you on something I get PMs telling me thanks.

Listen up everybody! Bob gets supportive "atta boy" PM's. Back off!

 

[iwire]

Listen up everybody! Bob gets supportive "atta boy" PM's. Back off!

Hey, it's a nice change from the normal hate mail.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Boy, every body sure seems touchy lately.:smile:

And then I try to start a touchy feely thread and it get's closed. Sigh

 

[peter d]

Hey, it's a nice change from the normal hate mail.

Be on the lookout for one from me soon.

 

[pfalcon]

... It may be obvious to you, but not others... The NEC calls for subjective judgement that leaves room for disagreement and opens up the proverbial can of nightcrawlers....... and bad feelings between Owner installer and AHJ.

Try to define when it is legal to Jaywalk and I'll force you to write a set of books the size of Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes the code leaves some things subjective. IT MUST. Having verbiage to cover every situation without subjectivity sounds great but fails.

The code I cited does not say anything about a mop sink; It says look at the thing and tell me if it's gonna get wet. If so then 312.2 weatherproofing. Is it subjective? You bet. I'm thinking an environmental bidet will soak all the walls butt I don't see them cited in the NEC either :grin:

So to summarize, there is no code prohibiting a panel from being located a foot away from a mop sink. :grin:

Nothing to prohibit that but if the AHJ determines a mop sink would saturate the panel with water then it better be weatherproof.

 

[weressl]

Try to define when it is legal to Jaywalk and I'll force you to write a set of books the size of Encyclopedia Britannica. Yes the code leaves some things subjective. IT MUST. Having verbiage to cover every situation without subjectivity sounds great but fails.

The code I cited does not say anything about a mop sink; It says look at the thing and tell me if it's gonna get wet. If so then 312.2 weatherproofing. Is it subjective? You bet. I'm thinking an environmental bidet will soak all the walls butt I don't see them cited in the NEC either :grin:

Agreed. Yet it DOES give examples and the examples direct you to a certain type of source of dampness and wetness that does not resemble or seems akin to a map-sink area.

The problem with subjective rules is, that well, they are subjective. Two reasonable people CAN arrive at a different conclusion in many cases. Even where two reasonable people would arrive at the same or closely identical result a third party with authority could overrule it without appeal. It leaves a lot of room for corruption on the part of the AHJ and hardship for honest electricians. There is inconsistency in how wide or narrow the subjectivity is thoughout the NEC. Items that could be defined are left vague and vice versa. Of course all this is great business for Mike H:grin:.

It is interesting to me that electricians - whose interest I have in mind when pointing out the difficulties that the NEC creates for them, IMO unnecesarily - are the ones who call this reasoning 'whining'.

 

[wasasparky]

Bob, thanks for the invite, I am not going to be a party of a process that I consider fundamentally faulty.

Can you tell us what code entity has perfected their "process" so we might model the NEC after it?

 

[wasasparky]

OK, lets talk about politics 101.

Except the NEC panels are not part of a democratic process, not a single member was elected by the constituents they serve. They each - with some exceptions - serve their own interest or the interest they represent. They are more representative of a bunch of lobbyist who agree on what the 'public' needs.

Many times I have heard of codes being delayed or even not adopted due to some issues the authority has with it. It is also common to have local ammendments override the code. The NEC is not hardly a dictatorship.

I do agree that the code panels are a bit to heavy in the manufacturer and union influence. (But that might be a thread of its own...)

 

[cowboyjwc]

It just becomes a matter of, when do you stop? So let's say it shouldn't be by a mop sink, how far should it be from a mop sink? Is a hose bib the same thing as a mop sink? How about a sprinkler valve? Doesn't spray water, but it could. Water heater? Has a T & P valve. I mean water is water.

Then do you have to write it so that it doesn't read like the GFCI requirement for bar sinks and say that it can't be within 3' of a mop sink unless seperated by a permenant wall or barrier.

Or maybe we let you put it by a mop sink and then write in 70E that you shall not work on an energized panel, if you are standing in a mop sink.

Like we keep saying, just when you think you've made it idiot proof, along comes a better idiot or nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.:smile:

 

[jim dungar]

When asked who adopts the code you responded.

Appointed officials.

In the State of Wisconsin the NEC is adopted by the state assembly, which is our elected representatives, just like an other law. But it is administered by appointed officials, again just like any law.

The OP asked a general question, and provided no specifics.
Your 'common sense's says to never put a panel near a mop sink and mine says that if applied correctly there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so. The real answer usually depends on a whole lot of different variables that are site or application specific. Electricity and water can co-exist safely, otherwise we would not have water heaters or electrically operated pumps.

 

[weressl]

When asked who adopts the code you responded.


In the State of Wisconsin the NEC is adopted by the state assembly, which is our elected representatives, just like an other law. But it is administered by appointed officials, again just like any law.

The OP asked a general question, and provided no specifics.
Your 'common sense's says to never put a panel near a mop sink and mine says that if applied correctly there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so. The real answer usually depends on a whole lot of different variables that are site or application specific. Electricity and water can co-exist safely, otherwise we would not have water heaters or electrically operated pumps.

Are you saying that the assembly, which is clearly not qualified as a voting body over technical matters, make their judgement without their technical staff advice? Do they solicit the advice of the public? Is the NEC open for public debate, amendments?

Except in your examples water is only "exposed" in the case of catastrophic failure, it is contained and confined under normal circumstances. In the case of mop sink, it is free flowing and splashing under normal operating conditions.

 

[weressl]

Can you tell us what code entity has perfected their "process" so we might model the NEC after it?

I think one model could be the IEC, although the process should be modified specifically to the USA Constitutional provisions and US law. It should be an independent, primarily scientific body, whose provisions should be backed by data and technical research. An UL type Federal organization should do the trick. In that case OSHA would/could not have an objection of adapting only portions of it and would not require to develop a separate document. There should be no separate 70E, NESC, etc.

 

[dcspector]

It just becomes a matter of, when do you stop? So let's say it shouldn't be by a mop sink, how far should it be from a mop sink? Is a hose bib the same thing as a mop sink? How about a sprinkler valve? Doesn't spray water, but it could. Water heater? Has a T & P valve. I mean water is water.

Then do you have to write it so that it doesn't read like the GFCI requirement for bar sinks and say that it can't be within 3' of a mop sink unless seperated by a permenant wall or barrier.

Or maybe we let you put it by a mop sink and then write in 70E that you shall not work on an energized panel, if you are standing in a mop sink.

Like we keep saying, just when you think you've made it idiot proof, along comes a better idiot or nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.:smile:

Good post John.....nuff said for me.

 

[jim dungar]

Are you saying that the assembly, which is clearly not qualified as a voting body over technical matters, make their judgement without their technical staff advice? Do they solicit the advice of the public? Is the NEC open for public debate, amendments?

Yes, they solicit the advice of the public. Just this year, their technical staff suggested an amendment in the area of selective coordination, after the public comment period that particular amendment was voted down.

Except in your examples water is only "exposed" in the case of catastrophic failure, it is contained and confined under normal circumstances. In the case of mop sink, it is free flowing and splashing under normal operating conditions.

I can take you into any number of paper mills and dairies where the water is always "free flowing and splashing".

I said, it depends on the exact application, a general prohibition is not indicated.

 

[wasasparky]

I think one model could be the IEC, although the process should be modified specifically to the USA Constitutional provisions and US law. It should be an independent, primarily scientific body, whose provisions should be backed by data and technical research. An UL type Federal organization should do the trick. In that case OSHA would/could not have an objection of adapting only portions of it and would not require to develop a separate document. There should be no separate 70E, NESC, etc.

From the IEC website:
"The great majority of them come from industry, while others from commerce, government, test laboratories, research laboratories, academia and consumer groups also contribute to the work."

I'm not sure what "industry" means above - manufacturers and unions like the U.S.? Overall a similar model anyway, maybe more of a tchnical representation - but I'm sure still prone to outside influence...

I would not wan't a model that excluded public comment.

I'm not convinced we need one all-inclusive electrical standard. In fact, probably very good to separate transmission & distribution from premise wiring...