Overcurrent Protection and Panels Article 240 vs. Article 408

[BackInTheHabit]

I have been having a conversation with someone. We both agree that panels are not allowed in bathrooms. What we disagree on is the following:

He states that while 240.24(E) is for OCP (breakers) and not panels (ART. 408), he believes panels are not included.

I agree that 240.24(E) is for OCP (breakers) and not panels. I believe, however, that the breakers are part of a system which includes the panel. ART. 100 defines Device as:

DEVICE - A unit of an electrical system that carries or controls electric energy as its principal function. (NEC 2008)

NEC 240.24(E) Not Located In Bathrooms
In dwellings units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels and motels, overcurrent devices, other than supplementary overcurrent protection, shall not be located in bathrooms.

My questions are:

1) Can you have OCP (breakers) without a panel?

2) Do you believe that OCP (breakers) are part of the overall system?

3) Do you believe 240.24(E) infers a panel even though panels are in a different Article?


All posts welcome.

 

[charlie]

My questions are:

1) Can you have OCP (breakers) without a panel?

2) Do you believe that OCP (breakers) are part of the overall system?

3) Do you believe 240.24(E) infers a panel even though panels are in a different Article?

I must say that this is well put together. CMP 10 (Code Making Panel 10 which is actually a Technical Committee) covers only Article 240 but it effects other Articles with its requirements. An example is with 240.21(B)(5) Outside Feeder Taps of Unlimited Length. 240.21(B)(5)(2) indicates, "The conductors terminate at a single circuit breaker . . ." CMP 4 has no problem with using the standard six disconnecting means as reflected in 225.33. CMP 10 has used the reason that they are charged with the responsibility of protecting the outside feeder tap conductors and CMP 4 is responsible for the outside feeder and to feed power to the building. This same argument applies to 240.21(C)(4).

Carrying the argument to another level, CMP 10 is responsible for the overcurrent protective devices as well as the protection of conductors. Therefore, CMP 10 may indicate where overcurrent devices are placed but cannot control the location of panelboards.

The bottom line to all this is that you have to look at the parts that the individual Articles cover plus how the Articles work with each other. Now to address your questions:

1. Yes but they would be enclosed as part of a control of some sort such as a motor control center.

2. Yes.

3. It was not intentional but I know of no other way of looking at it. :wink:

 

[BackInTheHabit]

Thanks for the response CHARLIE.

That sheds some new light on the subject.

I'm not sure of the occupation of the gentleman that I conversed with. He might be a Home Inspector. It was on another forum.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

A "panel" as you call it is not covered in the code per se as a "panel". Panel is really a slang term.

Circuit breakers (Art 240) are installed on panelboards (Art 408) and panelboards are installed inside of enclosures. Most of those enclosures are covered in Art 312.

Since Art 312 covers enclosures that are permitted in bathrooms, such as circuit breaker enclosures permitted in bathrooms in "other than dwellings", we will not see the restriction of "panels" (Art 408) as a general restriction.
The restriction is fairly straight forward regarding circuit breakers in 240.24(E).

 

[charlie]

A "panel" as you call it is not covered in the code per se as a "panel". Panel is really a slang term.

I don't know if anyone has noticed but I seldom use slang terms. It is too easy for misunderstandings to develop so I try to remember to always use correct code terminology. One of the items of discussion is, "What is ???" or "What do you mean by ???" and using the correct terminology corrects that confusion.

 

[charlie b]

My answers:
1. Yes, but see the first comment by “the other Charlie.”

2. Yes, but being part of a system changes nothing. Everything can be described as being part of a larger system. I read once that the Apollo Program’s Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) had over six million distinctly identifiable systems. More to the point, the article you are citing does not talk about systems explicitly. Its use of the word “devices,” even though that word can be defined in terms of its role within a system, does not change anything about its requirement.

3. No. But you did not ask your question #1 in the opposite sense. You didn’t ask if there could be a panel without overcurrent devices. There can. One example is a “Fire Alarm Control Panel." Many types of control panels exist without having overcurrent devices installed within their enclosures. Perhaps such a panel might not be addressed in article 408, but it still remains a “panel.”