Panel located in, walk in closet

[Tulsa Electrician]

Been reading on 240.24.(d).
Found this article and was trying to find the NFPA paper on it.
Any help would be appreciated.

https://www.ecmag.com/magazine/articles/article-detail/codes-standards-safely-installing-electrical-and-service-panels-residential-closets

 

[solarken]

Not sure what NFPA paper you are referring to, but this is the first time I have read 240.24(d) and it sure seems like a weird somewhat random requirement to single out clothes closets. First of all, what differentiates a clothes closet from a utility closet that has a clothing rack in it? If 110 work and equipment spacing is maintained, it seems silly to forbid modern breaker boxes from being installed at all in walk-in closets because of presence of ignitable material in the room. You could install it in a 30-inch wide space at the end wall of a walk-in closet that has clothing racks on either side, and you would have nothing in front of the load center and 30 inches wide working space. seems like the perfect place. There is clothing in laundry rooms too, but I guess load centers are ok there?

 

[infinity]

This is a poorly worded code section. What are easily ignitable materials? We put panels in garages and then we store gasoline, paint thinner, chemicals and sorts of other flammable or combustible stuff in them but then we rule out clothes closets?

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

Here is what I was reading in the article.

Looks like an exception was ask for and rejected.

I can not find any other references allowing it do be installed.

Hoping to find newer material one way or another.

 

[electrofelon]

it sure seems like a weird somewhat random requirement to single out clothes closets.

This is a poorly worded code section. What are easily ignitable materials? We put panels in garages and then we store gasoline, paint thinner, chemicals and sorts of other flammable or combustible stuff in them but then we rule out clothes closets?

I always thought this was a ridiculous and arbitrary restriction. I suspect its another one of these things thats been in the code forever, no one can remember why its in there, and they are too scared to change it.

 

[infinity]

I always thought this was a ridiculous and arbitrary restriction. I suspect its another one of these things thats been in the code forever, no one can remember why its in there, and they are too scared to change it.

Yes this definitely needs to be revisited and rewritten. I'm not sure when this nonsense entered the code but I have seen old houses around here where the panel is in the master bedroom walk in closet when the house was built. I've even done service upgrades where we put the new panel right back in the same place in the closet as permitted by the NJ Rehab Code.

 

[augie47]

Solution here is normally a "word game"..... "walk-in closet" morphs into "dressing room"... problem solved.

 

[infinity]

Solution here is normally a "word game"..... "walk-in closet" morphs into "dressing room"... problem solved.

I would start with recommending that to anyone who's drawing up a set of plans but regardless of what you call it don't both still have a panel near easily ignitable materials?

 

[electrofelon]

Solution here is normally a "word game"..... "walk-in closet" morphs into "dressing room"... problem solved.

exactly. Cant tell you how may times doing a walk thru and have said "ok we will be calling this 'meda' closet' m'kay?"

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I always thought this was a ridiculous and arbitrary restriction. I suspect its another one of these things thats been in the code forever, no one can remember why its in there, and they are too scared to change it.

"Such as clothes closets" was added in the 1981 code. The "easily ignitable materials" has been there a very long time.
The substantiation for Proposal 19 for the 1981 code said:

SUBSTANTIATION: The practice of panels (overcurrent protection) in clothes closets in my opinion create a hazard as much, if not
more, than a fixture not properly installed per Code. In dwelling type occupancies, closets are filled with clothes covering panels, and they are also behind closed doors. With the use of many panels (overcurrent protection) being installed in the apartment's closets, tenants are unable to
reset their G-FI for bathrooms (if a breaker is used) quickly. Locating overcurrent protection in closets violates 110-16, 422, and 440-14.

There was a negative comment for this change with the following substantiation.

SUBSTANTIATION: The only appropriate action to be taken on Section 240-24(d) is to delete it on the grounds that it has been in the Code since the days when it was common practice to install fuses in porcelain fuseholders mounted over a backing of sheet asbestos in a wooden cabinet. The rule "overcurrent devices shall not be located in the vicinity of easily ignitable material" made sense then. It does not make sense now, for all overcurrent devices are enclosed in metal cabinets or cutout boxes (240-30, 373-10) with a few controlled exceptions.
The clothes closet is not particularly favored as a panelboard location, but there are few other locations in a dwelling unit which are aesthetically acceptable to either architects or occupants. The clothes in a closet are easily and quickly removed. In any other location what assurance is there that a heavy piece of furniture will not block access to the panelboard?
The working space requirements of Sec. 110-16 (with the exception of (b)) stand a much better chance of being observed over the long
run for a closet-mounted panelboard than for one mounted elsewhere. Building designers and electrical installers must be left some
f l e x i b i l i t y , subject to the approval of the local authority. Safety will not be enhanced by the Panel recommendation. The
Panel is requested to reject both Proposal 19 and the Panel recommendation, and to consider deletion of 240-24(d).
PANEL ACTION: Reject.
PANEL COMMENT: CMP 4 believes safety will be enhanced by the acceptance of Proposal No. 19.

 

[electrofelon]

"Such as clothes closets" was added in the 1981 code. The "easily ignitable materials" has been there a very long time.
The substantiation for Proposal 19 for the 1981 code said:

There was a negative comment for this change with the following substantiation.

Thanks for looking that up.

Love it, classic CMP incompetency accepting such garbage:

The practice of panels (overcurrent protection) in clothes closets in my opinion create a hazard [/COLOR]

 

[infinity]

Thanks for looking that up.

Love it, classic CMP incompetency accepting such garbage:

It is amazing that some of this ancient wording continues to remain in the codebook when it is so poorly written. As I've stated in the past CMP's should have term limits. Two code cycles and then you're out to get some new blood in there.

 

[Tulsa Electrician]

Thank you for looking that up.

Would be nice to see a change in the language.
Maybe something in Line with the luminary clearance.

This way if the working space starts 12" from the front edge of shelf or 18" from the center of the rod location. It would have clear working space. Maybe add closet have to be an minum X square feet and meet the above clearences.

Or just delete it.

Again thanks

 

[jim dungar]

Does the wording actually prohibit panels in walk-in closets if there is no clothing (i.e easily ignitable material) in the vicinity? Does the NEC define vicinity?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Does the wording actually prohibit panels in walk-in closets if there is no clothing (i.e easily ignitable material) in the vicinity? Does the NEC define vicinity?

In the vicinity is a subjective term like may others in the code and only your AHJ knows what that means.